$ jlc (10,317)

What do you do?

Jan

Crucial point.

Jan

I like your phrase, but I would have left the explanation at "...applying them to get the most result." If you are making ends meet and enjoying life, it does not matter if you are an origami artist or an engineer. (Yes, I know of some of the recent contributions to aerospace that origami artists have made.)

To me, the important thing is that you use your xmen super powers to (a) be self-sustaining, and (b) have fun.

Jan

This discussion is combining two separate issues, and introducing a theory as a fact:
1. Putting the hat on Frosty's head is what made him transition to an inorganic sentience. There is no indication that the had must remain on his head in order for him to continue in his aware state - that is a theory, not a fact.
2. The possible transition from Frosty to Melty is a separate issue. It is not hat/lack of hat that is responsible for the phase transition of Frosty to Melty. Melty is produced by the possible senticide of Frosty by the Sun.

There are some additional issues. I agree that the Magician's hat has passed through several hands/twigs and thus changed ownership. If the hat is capable of point-of-contact introduction of sentience into an inorganic creature, then a whole race of Frostys or Granitys or perhaps even Meltys could be possible. The Hat of Abiogenesis might be responsible for entire new races of various non-nucleic acid based life-forms.

This is very exciting.

Jan

Hey Bravo! CO2 is our friend.

Jan

Not in Las Vegas or Los Angeles. Even without a battery: In the summer, I would expect to be able to power my house all day from my solar cells.

When I looked into getting a powered generator, the amount of fuel I would be able to keep on hand would power the generator for about 3 days, unless I got a big tank (which is also expensive).

I have read articles that indicate that solar is pretty worthless in non-desert areas...Britain was specifically mentioned.

Jan, scant biomass but lots o'sun

If you get the 'usual' installation of solar, it is worse than that: ALL of the power you generate always goes out into the grid - if the grid goes down, you are SOL. You power usage is calculated arithmetically by the power company, and your input of power taken into consideration. Now, it is possible to have an installation that powers your house first, then sends the remainder of the power out to the grid, but no one does that. The only way you can have your house powered first and then the grid powered second is to get the battery. The battery will not power the grid if the grid goes down.

Jan

In LA: I am interested in solar because it makes me at least guardedly independence of the grid in emergencies (windstorms, earthquakes). If it can keep my fridge powered, and the modem up, I can use my notebook PC (and other lights for general reading/ seeing). So it is worthwhile for me (and for you in LV) as a marginal gain.

Jan

I agree with you, but on a longer range than you indicate. Solar and wind do not provide any discernible amount of power yet.

Wind, per Matt Ridley:
"To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world's energy that comes from wind turbines today is: zero. Despite the regressive subsidy (pushing pensioners into fuel poverty while improving the wine cellars of grand estates), despite tearing rural communities apart, killing jobs, despoiling views, erecting pylons, felling forests, killing bats and eagles, causing industrial accidents, clogging motorways, polluting lakes in Inner Mongolia with the toxic and radioactive tailings from refining neodymium, a ton of which is in the average turbine - despite all this, the total energy generated each day by wind has yet to reach half a per cent worldwide."

"Solar provides about a third of one per cent of world energy."

Eventually, nuclear, solar power, and innovative power sources will surpass fossil fuel, but we have enough of the last-mentioned for the next couple hundred years - plenty of time to innovate.

Jan

The Sahara is reported to be greening as well.

Jan

Do you observe that these measures are, practically speaking, not reversed or do you say that they are not reversible? If we were to have a president who was determined to reverse them, would he be able to do so?

Jan

I have no intention of trying for a CPA degree.

You have interesting figures, well presented, but you miss my point. In medicine, in order for a doctor to know 'what to do about your back pain' he first has to know 'what a normal back looks like'. We cannot know 'what the world would look like if Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf wars had not existed. Superficially, it would appear that 100,000 lives would not have been lost by the US, but if that resulted in a world where the US homeland had been bombed by aggressive enemies, then more lives than that might have been lost.

This discussion began, not with war, but with my countering your assertion that no-vote was the best choice 'because the US is currently a mess'. My counter is that we do not know if the US would be in better or worse shape if people had chosen to not vote instead of choosing to vote for the best candidate available. There can be no baseline on this (unless...string theory) because the world of no-vote does not exist for comparison.

Jan

My point is that many of the people in their 30's and 40's do not want the 'gravy jobs' if these jobs mean working overtime. They do not want to work...they want to spend their time doing other things.

Jan

Since I stated "imagine" you may take it as such.

There is no baseline. There is no other world in which people behaved differently that allows us to isolate the variables.

Jan

I am trying to differentiate between 'people cannot start companies' and 'people do not want to start companies'. (See my reply downstream, under Wm's post.) It would be interesting to know if the problem with current startups is now or if it is 40 years ago (probably 'both').

Jan

We have dealt with generational differences before. It is possible that what we are seeing is a trickle-down effect of the social climate 40 years ago. If people are raised in an atmosphere of affluence, and have little contact with reality, then the explanation might be that the people who were in their 30's in 2000 would rather work 8-5 at a big company for good money than to (work their butts off to) innovate on their own. (We are seeing this in recent MD's - most of them want to work for hospitals, do not start their own practices, and do little overtime.)

Jan

The timing of this makes me think that it is a sop to the Paris GW conference. Since that is ending with a no-teeth resolution, this is what is in Obama's power to attempt to do by fiat to support Green agendas.

It sounds good, and he will be able to use this as a card to play for liberal audiences. The Gulch has made me aware (thank you, Gulch) that this probably won't happen - and that it does not matter to Obama if it does not. This edict is something that can easily be tied up in court (States-vs-Feds/ Landowners-vs-Feds) for long enough time to elect a different president...one who would rescind it.

This does not matter: Obama is not trying for anything productive, he just wants to be able to wave this about in support of Greens, post COP21. He does not really care if his edict will founder later on.

Jan

A handful of point, DrZ.

Jan

Looking at the graphs, what is striking to me is that our 'current ho-hum economy' stats are below those of the past that marked times we now label as economically catastrophic. So what we now consider normal, we consider abysmal in the past.

The information given is a bit downstream of the startpoint, I note: I would also be interested in knowing what the rate of <1yr startups is. Are we dealing with a comparable rate of initial startups and an increased failure rate? Or are people not even sticking their toe in the water any more?

Jan

System designed by Kafka? Did your wife transform into a large bug over the next few days?

Jan

Michael A -

My answer is 'to vote for the best person who I think has a chance of winning'. You have asked me before, "how's that workin' out, last 50 years or so?" The answer to that is "There is no way to knowing. There is no baseline to which we can compare."

We cannot know what things would look like if people had taken your advice and 'not voted' instead of voting for people who were marginally better. I think that we would be in worse shape; you think that we would be in better shape.

We are going to have to differ here. I am still able to imagine making a positive difference by voting a better person into office.

Jan

YES!

Jan

I was not clear: If it did not reduce fuel consumption but did improve structure and hence safety, it would still be worth doing. The concern about fuel consumption is due to thinking that we have only a small amount of fossil fuels left or that the petrol is expensive. If fuel is abundant and inexpensive, then you could keep the weight the same and improve the structural integrity.

No, this is not what is going to 'work' in the real world - you are spot on there. But it is still a good improvement.

Jan

If they do this, then Hillary will win. They may be arrogant enough to think they can swing enough voters to win if they go Independent, but I do not believe that is true. Their best chance for victory lies in painting their individual political platforms on the canvas of 'Republican'.

Jan

The article does an excellent job of establishing that at least some of the founders did not believe in unregulated access to their new country. But that is all it does: the conditions that the founders observed are 200 years out of date. They do not pertain to us today, other than as wise words taken in context. We do not now have 3000 miles of territory to fill; they did.

On the topic of religion-based screening of immigration, it is not necessary. All you need to do is apply the general immigration rules, taking the usual amount of time and voila! you have no immigration problem. The Problem is in trying to stuff thousands of people (Mexican or Syrian) through the immigration process in a hurry. Don't do that!

There is a subsequent problem of whether or not the newcomers integrate into the American culture. What is the answer to that: Law. They have to abide by the same laws as everyone else (no sharia) and since English is the Common Tongue of the US, and they have to speak it to become citizens...that is the way it is. Insofar as keeping their own culture distinct is concerned: I Like Oktoberfest.

Jan, xenophile