Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!

" wrote:

:On Jun 7, 2:58 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: " wrote:
:
: :On Jun 5, 11:54 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: :
: : And we're responsible for over 25% of the global product. When we're
: : producing a bigger share of CO2 than we are global output, THEN we're
: : the problem. Until then folks like India and China are the problem.
: :
: :Why should that be the metric?
: :
:
: Because other ways of measuring impact are simply silly unless your
: goal is for us all to move back into caves.
:
:My goal is to be fair and have a sustainable economy. That doesn't imply
:going back into caves at all.
:

Of course it does. The fact that your intellectual myopia is causing
you to fail to look at the consequences of your opinions doesn't
change those consequences.

:
:
: :
: :Why not CO2 production per capita?
: where
: :the West lags way behind China and India.) Shouldn't everyone be
: :treated
: :equally?
: :
:
: Yes, they should, and that treatment should be based on how much
: output they get for how much carbon they emit to get it. It's the
: same rule for everyone, not biased to encourage everyone being dragged
: down to the lowest common denominator.
:
:That looks quite a lot like "the rich should be allowed to pollute
:more than the poor" to me. And I don't think that is fair.
:

See what I mean about that intellectual myopia? How things look to
you doesn't have much to do with reality.

Production is what makes people rich. The more efficiently you
produce the richer EVERYBODY is.

:
:Historically when contraints on usage of a resource had to be
:allocated, it wasn't done on the basis of those who output more own
:more. At least not in places with semi-sane governments. Take radio
:frequencies for example. Typically, they are auctionned off.
:

Which *IS* a case of "the rich get the resource".

:
:The
roceeds going to governments, in other words to the people.
:

Those are other words, but they don't mean anything like the same
thing.

:
:That is
:because radio frequencies belonged to everyone equally until the were
:sold or rented.
:

So where's my share of the radio frequencies? I didn't sell anything
or get anything. Who got it? Who got the money?

:
:I think the atmosphere should be the same. Every human
:being has an equal right to using the atmophere, not based on ones
utput but based on one being a person.
:

So the worst sort of pollution (overpopulation) becomes a virtue in
your mind...

:
:
: :If some use their share of CO2 production inefficiently and
: :don't
: :make much with that is their problem,
:
: No, it's EVERYONE'S problem, since if you measure on a per capita
: basis and believe the disaster scenarios for global warming that
: essentially says that one of two things happens:
:
: 1) The planet gets an economic death spiral, as total output must fall
: in a system biased to favour the less economically efficient
: contributors to the problem, or
:
on't be so pessimistic. We can dramatically reduce CO2 emissions and
:have the economy grow. Reducing CO2 emissions does not mean reducing
:economic output.
:

Of course it does, in overall terms. Think about it. Make up some
numbers and see the difference in economic output (which is what makes
EVERYONE rich) between what I propose and what you propose under
pretty much whatever 'rules' you care to devise.

You'll find that economic output of the planet (which is what makes
EVERYONE rich) goes up more under my scheme than under yours.


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

On Jun 10, 9:29 am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:35:48 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 19:18:37 GMT, (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

More like mobilizing existing capabilities in pursuit of a single goal
that the average American can understand and get behind. Not
necessarily a massive increase in expenditures, although there would
probably be that, too (on several fronts, including greatly increased
wind energy production, etc.)

If those things made economic sense, we'd be doing them, without
subsidization.

I'm not convinced of that. It makes more economic sense to use EELV to
launch Orion. We're not doing that.

I'm not referring to what NASA does.

It makes more economic sense to
drill the ANWR, we're not doing that.

That, again, is because the government is in charge of whether or not
that can occur...

Or not. The oil industry tells this administration what it will do.


snip other things that may or may not make economic sense--national
health care certainly doesn't

It works in other countries. Too bad too many here in the US feel the
same as you do. And public transportation is another thing that other
countries do much better than we do and for similar reasons.

Politics is a funny thing.

Yes, but largely, the largest industry in the world can't ultimately
afford to be driven by politics.

No, it drives the politics. You seem to not know the difference
between the dog and the dogs tail.

Eric

On Jun 15, 2:09 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:

:On Jun 7, 2:58 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:: " wrote:

:
: :On Jun 5, 11:54 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: :
: : And we're responsible for over 25% of the global product. When we're
: : producing a bigger share of CO2 than we are global output, THEN we're
: : the problem. Until then folks like India and China are the problem.
: :
: :Why should that be the metric?
: :
:
: Because other ways of measuring impact are simply silly unless your
: goal is for us all to move back into caves.
:
:My goal is to be fair and have a sustainable economy. That doesn't imply
:going back into caves at all.
:

Of course it does. The fact that your intellectual myopia is causing
you to fail to look at the consequences of your opinions doesn't
change those consequences.

The proper way to reduce greenhouse gas is by increasing efficiency
that does not send people back into caves. Also if the cave is
properly fit out and I can go there in a Tesla car, then going back to
caves isn't so bad :-)

: :Why not CO2 production per capita?
: where
: :the West lags way behind China and India.) Shouldn't everyone be
: :treated
: :equally?
:
: Yes, they should, and that treatment should be based on how much
: output they get for how much carbon they emit to get it. It's the
: same rule for everyone, not biased to encourage everyone being dragged
: down to the lowest common denominator.
:
:That looks quite a lot like "the rich should be allowed to pollute
:more than the poor" to me. And I don't think that is fair.
:

See what I mean about that intellectual myopia? How things look to
you doesn't have much to do with reality.

Production is what makes people rich. The more efficiently you
produce the richer EVERYBODY is.

Right. If you produce more efficiently you will decrease your
greenhouse gas emissions and become richer.

:Historically when contraints on usage of a resource had to be
:allocated, it wasn't done on the basis of those who output more own
:more. At least not in places with semi-sane governments. Take radio
:frequencies for example. Typically, they are auctionned off.
:

Which *IS* a case of "the rich get the resource".

Well if you think that it is OK for the rich to get more resources in
this sense, I'm glad to see that this was all a misunderstanding. Of
course the rich can get more resources if they buy the resources. What
I don't want is for the rich to get the resources just for being rich
not by buying the resource. Like in the Kyoto protocol where you can
buy greenhouse gas emision rights from one another. Capitalism working
to reduce greenhouse gases.

If you put no cost to emitting greenhouse gases then greenhouse gases
will be emited for no useful purpose as is the case currently. If you
put a cost on it, then people will think a little more before emitting
greenhouse gases for nothing.

:The
roceeds going to governments, in other words to the people.
:

Those are other words, but they don't mean anything like the same
thing.

Well in this part of the world the government represents the people. I
know in some other parts it isn't that way.

:That is
:because radio frequencies belonged to everyone equally until the were
:sold or rented.

So where's my share of the radio frequencies? I didn't sell anything
or get anything. Who got it? Who got the money?

The government, therefore you pay less taxes for the services you get
from the government.

:I think the atmosphere should be the same. Every human
:being has an equal right to using the atmophere, not based on ones
utput but based on one being a person.
:

So the worst sort of pollution (overpopulation) becomes a virtue in
your mind...

Not at all. If you increase your population you don't get more rights
per capita. And if you keep the total cap on greenhouse gases constant
it just decreases your greenhouse gas rights per capita so increasing
population is by no means a virtue.

: :If some use their share of CO2 production inefficiently and
: :don't
: :make much with that is their problem,
:
: No, it's EVERYONE'S problem, since if you measure on a per capita
: basis and believe the disaster scenarios for global warming that
: essentially says that one of two things happens:
:
: 1) The planet gets an economic death spiral, as total output must fall
: in a system biased to favour the less economically efficient
: contributors to the problem, or
:
on't be so pessimistic. We can dramatically reduce CO2 emissions and
:have the economy grow. Reducing CO2 emissions does not mean reducing
:economic output.
:

Of course it does, in overall terms. Think about it. Make up some
numbers and see the difference in economic output (which is what makes
EVERYONE rich) between what I propose and what you propose under
pretty much whatever 'rules' you care to devise.

You'll find that economic output of the planet (which is what makes
EVERYONE rich) goes up more under my scheme than under yours.

So you say, but you don't say why. In Quebec we make just about all
our electricity with methods that produce only trace amounts of
greenhouse gases (hydro, for the most part but also windmills and
nuclear). Does that make us less rich than people south of the border
who burn coal? No, we sell lots of electricity to them at large
profits because our electricity is much cheaper than theirs. Note that
we didn't decide to make electricity by hydro and nuclear to reduce
greenhouse gases, we chose those methods because they produced more
dollars. Windmills, yes they were chosen mostly because they produce
less greenhouse gases but they still let us sell electricity at a
profit to the coal burners. We aren't alone in this way, France makes
most ot its electricity by nuclear power it makes economic sense even
if you put a zero cost on greenhouse gas emissions.


Alain Fournier

Eric Chomko wrote:

:On Jun 10, 9:29 am, (Rand Simberg)
:wrote:
: On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:35:48 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
: Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:
:
: On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 19:18:37 GMT, (Rand
: Simberg) wrote:
:
: More like mobilizing existing capabilities in pursuit of a single goal
: that the average American can understand and get behind. Not
: necessarily a massive increase in expenditures, although there would
: probably be that, too (on several fronts, including greatly increased
: wind energy production, etc.)
:
: If those things made economic sense, we'd be doing them, without
: subsidization.
:
: I'm not convinced of that. It makes more economic sense to use EELV to
: launch Orion. We're not doing that.
:
: I'm not referring to what NASA does.
:
: It makes more economic sense to
: drill the ANWR, we're not doing that.
:
: That, again, is because the government is in charge of whether or not
: that can occur...
:
:Or not. The oil industry tells this administration what it will do.
:

Oh dear. He's delusional again.

:
:
: snip other things that may or may not make economic sense--national
: health care certainly doesn't
:
:It works in other countries. Too bad too many here in the US feel the
:same as you do. And public transportation is another thing that other
:countries do much better than we do and for similar reasons.
:

You mean because they're small and homogeneous?

:
: Politics is a funny thing.
:
: Yes, but largely, the largest industry in the world can't ultimately
: afford to be driven by politics.
:
:No, it drives the politics. You seem to not know the difference
:between the dog and the dogs tail.
:

And you seem to not know the difference between the dog and the dog's
********...


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

On Jun 17, 1:21 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Eric Chomko wrote:

:On Jun 10, 9:29 am, (Rand Simberg)
:wrote:
: On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:35:48 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
: Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:
:
: On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 19:18:37 GMT, (Rand: Simberg) wrote:

:
: More like mobilizing existing capabilities in pursuit of a single goal
: that the average American can understand and get behind. Not
: necessarily a massive increase in expenditures, although there would
: probably be that, too (on several fronts, including greatly increased
: wind energy production, etc.)
:
: If those things made economic sense, we'd be doing them, without
: subsidization.
:
: I'm not convinced of that. It makes more economic sense to use EELV to
: launch Orion. We're not doing that.
:
: I'm not referring to what NASA does.
:
: It makes more economic sense to
: drill the ANWR, we're not doing that.
:
: That, again, is because the government is in charge of whether or not
: that can occur...
:
:Or not. The oil industry tells this administration what it will do.
:

Oh dear. He's delusional again.

That is why Cheney has never revealed who his energy task force is.
Nor will heney share with the SECRET SERVICE who visits him in his
home. This is a man of the people? Yes, the Oil people.


:
:
: snip other things that may or may not make economic sense--national
: health care certainly doesn't
:
:It works in other countries. Too bad too many here in the US feel the
:same as you do. And public transportation is another thing that other
:countries do much better than we do and for similar reasons.
:

You mean because they're small and homogeneous?

So being small and homogeneous makes you better at public
transportation? Huh, I guess NYC and Chicago are small and
homogeneous.

Your claim is a cop-out. It is weak like you.

:
: Politics is a funny thing.
:
: Yes, but largely, the largest industry in the world can't ultimately
: afford to be driven by politics.
:
:No, it drives the politics. You seem to not know the difference
:between the dog and the dogs tail.
:

And you seem to not know the difference between the dog and the dog's
********...

******** is most of your posts...

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

Eric Chomko wrote:

:On Jun 17, 1:21 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
:
: :On Jun 10, 9:29 am, (Rand Simberg)
: :wrote:
: : On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:35:48 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
: : Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: : such a way as to indicate that:
: :
: : On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 19:18:37 GMT, (Rand: Simberg) wrote:
:
: :
: : More like mobilizing existing capabilities in pursuit of a single goal
: : that the average American can understand and get behind. Not
: : necessarily a massive increase in expenditures, although there would
: : probably be that, too (on several fronts, including greatly increased
: : wind energy production, etc.)
: :
: : If those things made economic sense, we'd be doing them, without
: : subsidization.
: :
: : I'm not convinced of that. It makes more economic sense to use EELV to
: : launch Orion. We're not doing that.
: :
: : I'm not referring to what NASA does.
: :
: : It makes more economic sense to
: : drill the ANWR, we're not doing that.
: :
: : That, again, is because the government is in charge of whether or not
: : that can occur...
: :
: :Or not. The oil industry tells this administration what it will do.
: :
:
: Oh dear. He's delusional again.
:
:That is why Cheney has never revealed who his energy task force is.
:Nor will heney share with the SECRET SERVICE who visits him in his
:home. This is a man of the people? Yes, the Oil people.
:

Eric gibbers on...

:
:
: :
: :
: : snip other things that may or may not make economic sense--national
: : health care certainly doesn't
: :
: :It works in other countries. Too bad too many here in the US feel the
: :same as you do. And public transportation is another thing that other
: :countries do much better than we do and for similar reasons.
: :
:
: You mean because they're small and homogeneous?
:
:So being small and homogeneous makes you better at public
:transportation? Huh, I guess NYC and Chicago are small and
:homogeneous.
:

Yes, El Chimpko, being small (and densely populated) DOES make you
better at public transportation because it makes it somewhat more
economically viable. But in modern times, only somewhat. Can you
name a public transportation system that is not subsidized?

:
:Your claim is a cop-out. It is weak like you.
:

Poor El Chimpko. Too stupid to actually make a case, so all he can do
is emit silly things like the preceding.

:
:
: :
: : Politics is a funny thing.
: :
: : Yes, but largely, the largest industry in the world can't ultimately
: : afford to be driven by politics.
: :
: :No, it drives the politics. You seem to not know the difference
: :between the dog and the dogs tail.
: :
:
: And you seem to not know the difference between the dog and the dog's
: ********...
:
:******** is most of your posts...
:

******** is what you have in front of your Adams apple, asshat...


--
"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

On Jun 5, 9:20 pm, (Henry Spencer) wrote:
In article .net,
robert casey wrote:

...a pilot plant has to *be* an operational system in all but size.
If it can't deliver hundreds of megawatts 24x7 to the power grid, it's not
a pilot plant.

Something capable of that would likely need to be built in place...

Almost. You couldn't build it on the ground; you'd have to assemble in
orbit, at the very least. But you can consider building it in an orbit
different from its final operation orbit.

Thin film solar cells are manufactured using roll-to-roll
manufacturing methods nowadays. You could conceivably pull a flat
tether mesh out in space, held under tension from corners by solar-
electric propulsion, and unroll the film on top of that. Theres more
to it, with making interconnects and so on, but nothing that current
robotics would not be capable of. I'd say getting antennaes in place
would be more challenging task than to deploy the solar array, with
thin film anyway.

Does anyone know if any thin-film cells have been ever used or tested
in space environment yet ?

PowerFilm for instance would weigh "only" about 300 tons for square
kilometer, and would output 40MW. which is not that far out.
There are new types of cells coming to market at rapid pace, IIRC
SpectroLab already announced over 40% efficiency in laboratory.
The equations for payoff time on SPS are changing accordingly, when
was the last US study done on this ?
Nasa did "Fresh look" in 1997. not so fresh anymore
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/index.htm

At least Japanese are continuously working with the concept
http://energy.coe21.kyoto-u.ac.jp/eng/task-solar/

-kert

On Jun 19, 6:21 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Eric Chomko wrote:

:On Jun 17, 1:21 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
:
: :On Jun 10, 9:29 am, (Rand Simberg)
: :wrote:
: : On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:35:48 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
: : Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: : such a way as to indicate that:
: :
: : On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 19:18:37 GMT, (Rand: Simberg) wrote:
:
: :
: : More like mobilizing existing capabilities in pursuit of a single goal
: : that the average American can understand and get behind. Not
: : necessarily a massive increase in expenditures, although there would
: : probably be that, too (on several fronts, including greatly increased
: : wind energy production, etc.)
: :
: : If those things made economic sense, we'd be doing them, without
: : subsidization.
: :
: : I'm not convinced of that. It makes more economic sense to use EELV to
: : launch Orion. We're not doing that.
: :
: : I'm not referring to what NASA does.
: :
: : It makes more economic sense to
: : drill the ANWR, we're not doing that.
: :
: : That, again, is because the government is in charge of whether or not
: : that can occur...
: :
: :Or not. The oil industry tells this administration what it will do.
: :
:
: Oh dear. He's delusional again.
:
:That is why Cheney has never revealed who his energy task force is.
:Nor will heney share with the SECRET SERVICE who visits him in his
:home. This is a man of the people? Yes, the Oil people.
:

Eric gibbers on...

Yeah, that's telling me and a real refute to whether Cheney is a civil
servant or a self servant while acting as VP.


:
:
: :
: :
: : snip other things that may or may not make economic sense--national
: : health care certainly doesn't
: :
: :It works in other countries. Too bad too many here in the US feel the
: :same as you do. And public transportation is another thing that other
: :countries do much better than we do and for similar reasons.
: :
:
: You mean because they're small and homogeneous?
:
:So being small and homogeneous makes you better at public
:transportation? Huh, I guess NYC and Chicago are small and
:homogeneous.
:

Yes, El Chimpko, being small (and densely populated) DOES make you
better at public transportation because it makes it somewhat more
economically viable. But in modern times, only somewhat. Can you
name a public transportation system that is not subsidized?

A better question is: Can you name a public transportation system that
is better than the ones in the US?

So what if they are subsized as long as they work and work well? We
subsidize lousy public transportation systems minimally. Oh boy!

Ever seen the PTS in Frankfurt, Berlin or Tokyo? Yes, yes, you
rationalize their superiority by making stupid claims like 'small' and
'homogeneous'.

:
:Your claim is a cop-out. It is weak like you.
:

Poor El Chimpko. Too stupid to actually make a case, so all he can do
is emit silly things like the preceding.

So stating "Eric gibbers on..." in response to why Cheney hides his
home visitation records from those sworn to protect his life is making
a case? In case you missed it I am comparing your comment in this
thread to your claim of actually making a case as you state above.

Do you honestly NOT see the hypocrisy within your being from moment to
moment? Do you think people are really too stupid and/or that you're
really that slick that others don't see you do things that you
ridicule in others?

Freddy, you should hold yourself to your own standards if you want any
credibility.

:
:
: :
: : Politics is a funny thing.
: :
: : Yes, but largely, the largest industry in the world can't ultimately
: : afford to be driven by politics.
: :
: :No, it drives the politics. You seem to not know the difference
: :between the dog and the dogs tail.
: :
:
: And you seem to not know the difference between the dog and the dog's
: ********...
:
:******** is most of your posts...
:

******** is what you have in front of your Adams apple, asshat...

Nonsense! Look it up numb-nuts...

--
"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

More jokes

http://illuminati-jokes.blogspot.com...rash-1979.html

In article . com,
kert wrote:
Does anyone know if any thin-film cells have been ever used or tested
in space environment yet ?

There have been some tests, although I don't believe I've seen results
(not that I've really gone looking). There's been no operational use that
I know of, yet.

People have long been interested in them for space applications, because
although their efficiency is lower than crystalline cells, they (and their
supporting substrate) can be made much thinner and lighter, which promises
more power per kilogram. Hence the interest in testing them.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |