New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#1551 Re: Not So Free Chat » Heading North? » 2005-01-17 13:28:41
The problem is when some goofball "invests" in Enron and instead of earning 10.5% loses everything and then in 25 years when his crying widow cannot buy groceries we either say "too bad, soo sad" and let her starve or we appropriate more tax money to feed her.
No current proposal involves letting people invest in whatever they want. Any plan will involve the voluntary investment of a small part of an individual's SocSec taxes in a conservative indexed fund of some sort with government oversight. There won't be anyone investing their entire take in some corporation that folds.
The concept is entirely sound, it's the details that need scrutiny.
Heh!
Lets see, if you are a Texas Pioneer (donate $1,000,000 plus to Re-elect Bush) then your mutual fund gets included on the list.
Or, to be bi-partisan. Do you want Hillary Clinton's administration deciding which indexed mutual funds are suitable for social security investment?
= = =
Maybe QQQ would work, or a fund that invests pro rata in every public company - - but which brokerage houses get the commissions?
IF it were a felony with MANDATORY lengthy prison to make political contributions IF you are an owner, director shareholder, associate or employee of a company earning revenue from social security investment then maybe we can avoid a huge source of potential corruption.
Edited By BWhite on 1105990286
#1552 Re: Not So Free Chat » Heading North? » 2005-01-17 13:23:59
But in the meantime they'll continue to piratize our paychecks.
A solid social framework and legal infrastructure is a prerequisite for that paycheck even existing in the first place.
See Hernando de Soto - - The Mystery of Capital.
A social safety net purchases the peace and tranquility that allows commerce to flourish.
#1553 Re: Not So Free Chat » Heading North? » 2005-01-17 13:02:50
The Bush proposal involves letting individuals invest a small percentage of their contribution. The benefit of doing so is that the value of the stock market increases faster than the rate of inflation. Generating wealth, another concept you throw about except when it's inconvenient. Sure some brokers will collect fees, so the hell what? Right now all sorts of paper-shuffling peons make a living off the money you put in for retirement, what's the difference?
The problem is when some goofball "invests" in Enron and instead of earning 10.5% loses everything and then in 25 years when his crying widow cannot buy groceries we either say "too bad, soo sad" and let her starve or we appropriate more tax money to feed her.
In the meanwhile the stockbroker who sold this goofball his Enron stock is eating cavier on the federal dime. :;):
Edited By BWhite on 1105988596
#1554 Re: Not So Free Chat » Piss Poor Hygens Camrea Shots - I am tired of the BS! » 2005-01-15 22:04:47
Here is an idea for future Titan cameras, quoted from the space.com message board:
The cameras the TV networks use in race cars have a clear, rotating disc and wiper arrangement in front of the optics. Cheap solution to a problem as these race cars seem to be constantly spewing all kinds of nasty chemicals on the electronics, probably not too unlike Titan's atmosphere. Also, suspect most of aerosolized goo in Titan's atmosphere, would not collect on a surface that was even slightly warm. This technique was (I think) employed on the Pioneer Venus multiprobes to keep sulfur/sulfuric acid off of diamond windows for IR scanner.
#1555 Re: Not So Free Chat » U.S. Culture - ...where's it going? » 2005-01-15 21:40:32
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displ … nteresting article about US Culture.
Props due to the space.com message board where I found it.
http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Ca … part=]Link to thread
= = = = =
THE United States likes to think of itself as the very embodiment of meritocracy: a country where people are judged on their individual abilities rather than their family connections. The original colonies were settled by refugees from a Europe in which the restrictions on social mobility were woven into the fabric of the state, and the American revolution was partly a revolt against feudalism. From the outset, Americans believed that equality of opportunity gave them an edge over the Old World, freeing them from debilitating snobberies and at the same time enabling everyone to benefit from the abilities of the entire population. They still do.
and this:
But are they right? A growing body of evidence suggests that the meritocratic ideal is in trouble in America. Income inequality is growing to levels not seen since the Gilded Age, around the 1880s. But social mobility is not increasing at anything like the same pace: would-be Horatio Algers are finding it no easier to climb from rags to riches, while the children of the privileged have a greater chance of staying at the top of the social heap. The United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society.
= = = = =
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right. . .
The Republicans, by getting rid of inheritance tax, seem hell-bent on ignoring Teddy Roosevelt's warnings about the dangers of a hereditary aristocracy. The Democrats are more interested in preferment for minorities than building ladders of opportunity for all.
Edited By BWhite on 1105847260
#1556 Re: Not So Free Chat » More on Global Warming - This is interesting... » 2005-01-14 10:18:58
Fair enough, but just walking away from the process and promising vague voluntary measures for the indefinite future doesn't work well, either. As usual, Cobra, we find agreement between the extremists on either side. What are those song lyrics,
Clowns to the left of us, jokers to the right. . . ?
Stuck in the middle... with you This seems to happen quite frequently.
However, unless we arrange a global response and coerce or leverage the Chinese and Indians to participate, we will face this issue fighting amongst ourselves which can only make finding solutions or acceptable adaptations that much harder.
Again, I'm generally in agreement though for reasons other than enviromental concerns. I'm far more inclined to agree with arranging a global response as opposed to submitting to a global dictate as well. Everyone needs to cede some ground here.
Agreed!
= = =
A good hegemon would arrange things without leaving fingerprints. Our current hegemonic leadership has the diplomatic touch of a brickmason.
If you can't be a good Machiavellian, don't even try.
Edited By BWhite on 1105719646
#1557 Re: Not So Free Chat » More on Global Warming - This is interesting... » 2005-01-14 09:54:24
So let's try to renegogiate the treaty, we'll sign if our obligations are altered to X, then we can sign and make manageable changes for long-term economic reasons, not pseudo-science "the sky is falling" doomsday prophecies.
Unfortunately as Kyoto now stands, it is classic old-Left "hit the rich" strategy, only now applied to entire nations.
Fair enough, but just walking away from the process and promising vague voluntary measures for the indefinite future doesn't work well, either. As usual, Cobra, we find agreement between the extremists on either side. What are those song lyrics,
Clowns to the left of us, jokers to the right. . . ?
I would rather use intellectual jujitsu on the extreme greenie-wackos by applying the principle that a good diplomat can tell someone to "go to hell" and they end up being grateful for the suggestion.
If our leaders spoke as you just did - - we don't know for sure what is happening, maybe we can stop it, maybe not - - but we need to adapt either way and here's how we can start, I believe most of the middle would go along.
The geologic record does suggest that the last 10,000 years have been astonishingly stable, compared to geologic time as a whole. Maybe climate disruption is someting we did not cause with SUVs.
However, unless we arrange a global response and coerce or leverage the Chinese and Indians to participate, we will face this issue fighting amongst ourselves which can only make finding solutions or acceptable adaptations that much harder.
= = =
On a related political point, if our current GOP leaders would say:
"Listen, folks. Radical Islam is a big problem and we need to be united to deal with it. Therefore, we propose a truce on the contentious social issues that divide us. Once we finish dealing with the terrorists, then we can return to squabbling. We propose that neither side take advantage until job #1 is finished."
I would be far more willing to support genuine bi-partisanship.
Relevant to global warming / climate change, how?
If the US said:
"Kyoto is flawed. But we do face serious issues. Let us figure out a way to solve them. We will not permit solutions that are intended to bring us down but we also agree not to propose solutions that advance or solidify American global hegemony."
Then, people might listen.
Edited By BWhite on 1105719337
#1558 Re: Not So Free Chat » More on Global Warming - This is interesting... » 2005-01-14 06:18:00
If we really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions, the most cost-effective way would be to start with China. Since China does not have as much fossil fuel dependent infrastructure, it would be much easier for the Chinese to start building renewable energy infrastructure. Of coarse the Chinese would not agree to limit their emissions without getting anything in return, but if the rich countries agreed to subsidize the development and construction of renewable infrastructure, I think that the Chinese would go along with the deal.
China's present and future coal burning is the largest threat, I agree. But it's a "do as I say, not as I do" sort of prescription that would be buried under a mountain of cynicism. And the direct wealth transfer needed to accomplish this would be staggering.
As for the hydrogen to feed fuel cells, I would consider cracking H2O using fission.
#1559 Re: Not So Free Chat » More on Global Warming - This is interesting... » 2005-01-13 22:47:52
The least desirable outcome is blind acceptance of the unproven assertion that industrialized Western man is directly responsible for any climate change recorded and the instituting of policies whose effect has no bearing whatsoever on climate but economically destroys Western nations in general and the United States specifically.
Here is a http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … l]National Geographic link.
Let's forget about blame. Let's suppose its an entirely natural phenomenon. So what?
Suppose your apartment building is on fire. Do you say, "not my problem, I didn't start it?"
Seems to me that even if industrialism does not cause global warming, the western world would be well advised to investigate how to stabilize our climate.
When you own the biggest, best home in town, common sense says to pay for the best fire department possible.
Despite the Pentagon's sanguine assessment that the US will weather climate change and retain a position of global dominance, a cavalier, "up yours" attitude to the rest of the world will only invite retaliation - - whether deserved or not.
#1560 Re: Not So Free Chat » More on Global Warming - This is interesting... » 2005-01-13 22:36:57
The least desirable outcome is blind acceptance of the unproven assertion that industrialized Western man is directly responsible for any climate change recorded and the instituting of policies whose effect has no bearing whatsoever on climate but economically destroys Western nations in general and the United States specifically.
Once again, I will repeat my double wall tank story.
Here in Illinois, about 15-20 years ago, legislators wanted to require that all gas stations store their gas in double walled underground tanks. If one wall burst the 2nd would prevent soil contamination.
For years, the big companies (Shell, Texaco, Amoco etc. . .) fought tooth and nail. Then, they all magically said okay and the law passed in a heartbeat.
Then, it was discovered that only the big companies had the resources to comply. Small gas stations went out of business overnight. Sad, in a way. But the small stations really were not able to comply and many stations were discovered to have contaminated soil that had to be remediated at taxpayer expense because the owners were bankrupt.
= = =
Apply the example to Kyoto. China is exempt, today. But if we were to comply with Kyoto by going to effiicent technologies and hydrogen (which we can do with our superior technology) then in future years - - maybe ten years out or fifteen years - - we ally with the European greenies and bash the heck out of China for carbon dioxide emissions.
Like the big gas stations we can comply and we can use that as a hammer, after we comply.
Now, all we do is piss off the Europeans and lose our moral leverage for allies to compel others to do anything.
= = =
After reading Dennis Wingo's book, a move to a hydrogen fuel cell economy will create substantial new demand for platinum for making fuel cells. It's only a piece of the puzzle for the hydrogen economy but it's a very real incentive for lunar resource exploitation.
But, if the US government has it's interests attached to business as usual - - military dominance of the Persian Gulf and higher miles per gallon is a purely private virtue that government has no business being involved with, where will the money come from to mine lunar platinum?
= = =
As for the science, we are dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. That cannot be argued. The consequences may be unproven.
But, a runaway greenhouse will end up destroying billions of lives, many of them in nations that possess nuclear weapons.
Regardless of the science, diplomacy requires at least a decent respect for the appearance of taking it seriously.
#1561 Re: Not So Free Chat » U.S. Culture - ...where's it going? » 2005-01-13 22:21:39
In stereotypical fascist form I will say it, Americans need more hardship in their lives.
I don't mean economic despair, hanging on the verge of starvation hardship, nothing too severe, just something mildly unpleasant that serves a greater purpose. Military veterans probably have some idea what I'm getting at, martial artists as well. A little bit of "you're gonna do this, you're gonna do it this way, and you're gonna keep doing until you do it right" in the company of comrades can have a profound effect on one's outlook.
I'm not suggesting we introduce universal conscription or anything of that sort, but what is needed is almost some sort of "rite of passage" that is difficult, humbling, and ultimately satisfying to get our people of a right mind.
Or perhaps my lack of sleep has begun to have an effect on my cognitive processes... :hm:
On one hand I agree.
On the other, I believe the upper 1% in wealth and power will intepret this to mean society should give them more so there is less to give the other 99%.
After all, it really is in everyone's best interest for there to be a little hardship, no? Give me your money and then you can struggle and be a better person for it.
Aren't I the perfect altruist? 
= = =
PS - - I have faith this will start happening soon enough.
In stereotypical fascist form I will say it, Americans need more hardship in their lives.
The hardship, I mean.
Edited By BWhite on 1105676629
#1562 Re: Not So Free Chat » U.S. Culture - ...where's it going? » 2005-01-13 17:28:07
Maybe I'm oversimplifying a complex situation but I think many of society's problems come from a lack of self-discipline, a failure to see clearly the probable consequences of one's own actions, and a lack of plain common courtesy.
Being in need of shedding about 25 to 30 pounds, I can agree with this. But why do the fast food chains and the beer companies spend so darn much money trying to persuade us to over consume?
I love Coca Cola. I gave it up a few years ago since 200 calories for a bottle of sugared water does not fit my calorie budget.
I also believe that corporate America does not want your average American to be self-disciplined in this manner. My wife orders "water" at Subway and the counter clerk tries to push the Mountain Spring at $1.00 per 16 ounces rather than 8 ounces from Lake Michigan, for free.
Edited By BWhite on 1105658971
#1563 Re: Not So Free Chat » More on Global Warming - This is interesting... » 2005-01-13 16:44:33
If the "scientists" from Greenpeace and the "scientists" from Exxon shout each other into a draw, then the "do nothing" agenda wins by default.
Which is why articles like the one linked to by Cobra are a particularly noxious form of propaganda.
The article basically says that global warming could be a more serious and more complex problem than previously thought, and that it needs to be investigated. How does that support a do nothing agenda?
Euler, you are correct.
I had a "Click, Whrrr" automatic reaction to the suggestion that "new" science was saying driving SUVs was actually good for the environment.
I guess I am guilty of reading too fast.
= = =
On the other hand, Cobra has essentially conceded that the goal is to so muddy up the public discussion space that meaningful public discourse on global warming becomes essentially impossible. Something that entirely benefits the "do nothing" agenda.
#1564 Re: Not So Free Chat » More on Global Warming - This is interesting... » 2005-01-13 14:41:50
No, really. There is a scientific consensus on global warming and it is simply this: It's probably happening and we may have some affect on it. Perhaps. Anything beyond that is moving beyond raw science and firmly into the realm of agenda-pushing.
This is largely accurate. I would leave the first probably and change the second "may have" to "probably have" - - this is why we need to establish a credible scientific procedure to investigate.
If the "scientists" from Greenpeace and the "scientists" from Exxon shout each other into a draw, then the "do nothing" agenda wins by default.
Which is why articles like the one linked to by Cobra are a particularly noxious form of propaganda. :;):
#1565 Re: Not So Free Chat » More on Global Warming - This is interesting... » 2005-01-13 13:59:30
Stop driving those SUV's and we're doomed! :laugh:
There are days...
Others say elevated CO2 has delayed a geologically predicted ice age.
The problem is that we have scientists with academic and perhaps political biases arguing with folks having hundreds of billions of dollars in annual market share at risk.
So, we do the American thing and simply assume that what is good for General Motors MUST be good for the United States.
= = =
The real crime - IMHO - - is that the Right has decided to undermine any and every effort to reach a genuine scientific consensus.
Dana Rohrbacher, for example wants to slash funding for climate satellite studies, because, he says, all that does it create false data for the green-wackos to criticize America.
Their solution to climate issues? Ignore them.
Edited By BWhite on 1105647738
#1566 Re: Not So Free Chat » Apropos of Nothing -3- » 2005-01-13 13:52:19
Bill:-
If the morning after an ice storm is clear (and it often is with cloudless blue skies) its almost impossible to go outside because the sunlight reflects off everything.
Ice storms will down trees fairly easily, too.
Hmmm, yeah Bill - I hadn't thought of that. The glare coming off, or even focusing through, all that ice must be unbearable. No doubt polarising sunglasses would be the order of the day but, even so, it would be pretty intense light I guess.
I assume the destruction of trees is caused by the sheer weight of accumulated ice on the limbs (?).
Very unpleasant conditions.
Chicago gets at least one ice storm per year, but the really big ones are more sporadic.
Not that big a deal, really.
But chipping 1/2 inch of ice away from your car lock so you can start the de-frosters is annoying.
Heh! Chicago might get a mild ice storm tonight. After 50 F melted all the snow and flooded streets.
I assume the destruction of trees is caused by the sheer weight of accumulated ice on the limbs (?).
Exactly! Every exposed surface gets coated in ice, just like its painted on with a giant sprayer - - which is true enough, I guess.
And if it's windy at the same time, one side of atree can have a 1/4 inch later of ice runing up the entire trunk while the other side is bare bark. Cool!
But weaker trees and branches do fall down, occasionally onto (and into) houses.
Edited By BWhite on 1105646124
#1567 Re: Not So Free Chat » U.S. Culture - ...where's it going? » 2005-01-13 13:47:44
We Americans cannot eat responsibly. Its would be traitorous.
If we did, McDonalds, Burger King, Kentucky Fried Chicken and the 128 oz SevenEleven BigGulp concession (Coca-Cola) would go bankrupt, the Dow Jones would fall and the terrorists would win.
Eat junk food. Your mutual fund balance depends on it.
= = =
By the way, has anyone here every actually purchased a 128 oz BigGulp?
Edited By BWhite on 1105645699
#1568 Re: Not So Free Chat » Apropos of Nothing -3- » 2005-01-12 21:51:47
If the morning after an ice storm is clear (and it often is with cloudless blue skies) its almost impossible to go outside because the sunlight reflects off everything.
Ice storms will down trees fairly easily, too.
#1569 Re: Not So Free Chat » A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion » 2005-01-11 12:03:55
Update on Jimo and http://www.space.com/spacenews/business … html]other things:
But Project Prometheus, the nuclear power and propulsion program long a favorite of O'Keefe's would remain fully funded at around $430 million even though its flagship mission, the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, is being eyed for cancellation. NASA recently renamed the mission Prometheus 1 and announced that a search for less daunting initial demonstrations of the nuclear power and propulsion systems NASA needs is underway. NASA spokesman Michael Braukus said the analysis of alternatives won't be completed until April 15.
clark, what does your one-eyed hobo eye concerning JIMO cancellation?
#1570 Re: Not So Free Chat » Hey Guys, I'm going to be taking a break... - Taking a break from the internet. » 2005-01-10 12:22:04
Cobra and I have this "balance of terror" thing going on. . .
Two wing-nuts, one leftie, one right.
#1571 Re: Not So Free Chat » (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ? » 2005-01-10 12:20:47
Never ask me either / or questions since you should know I always answer: Both!
#1572 Re: Not So Free Chat » (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ? » 2005-01-10 11:58:06
Social stability gives you electronic bliss. "Doom", anyone?
Careful when you invoke the Imp, Bill.
Boo - rah! Caught ya ' lurking. . .
#1573 Re: Not So Free Chat » (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ? » 2005-01-10 11:43:31
Cobra, I will dispense with making any moral argument for having a social safety net, such as social security or unemployment benefits or food stamps and rather repeat a blunt argument clark once made in these forums. (For the record, the moral argument is important to me, however self interest will be easier to argue with Cobra <wink>)
A social safety net merely is a less expensive option - - overall - - than the costs associated with increased security and prisons. A form of bribery to leverage the poorest elements of society to act within reasonable bounds of behavior.
Denzel Washington already made a movie about an angry father holding a hospital hostage because insurance wouldn't pay for his son's heart transplant. If we privatize social security, I daresay some future son or daughter may take similiar actions if their parents lack money to eat or are being evicted from the family home and a son or daughter cannot attend college because Granny blew her retirement money investing in Enron.
You and I can debate the ethics of someone being poor because they freely choose to invest their social security money in Enron, but sooner or later some angry person will seek "revenge" - - whether justified or not.
In my opinion, we all benefit by having an assured retirement safety net, even if it is less than perfectly fair.
#1574 Re: Human missions » Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct » 2005-01-08 17:16:31
The only reason to go back to the Moon is to go back to the Moon.
Well said. 
= = =
Just bought Dennis Wingo's book, Moonrush. He has two great slogans on Moon vs Mars. I will paraphrase now and correct later when I have time to google, copy & paste.
We go to Mars to spread our civilization there.
We go to the Moon to save our civilization here.
It would appear that Wingo's desire to "Return to the Moon" is directly related to his belief we can profitably mine platinum group metals.
Fair enough.
Even as a confirmed Mars-guy - -IF - - we can mine lunar PGM for a profit then by all means, return to Luna as soon as possible. But if it is profitable, we don't really need government funding, now do we?
Edited By BWhite on 1105226500
#1575 Re: Not So Free Chat » (US) Empire of the Solar System - The real vision is a military one ? » 2005-01-08 17:13:54
Gentlepeople, I enjoy a rousing political argument as much as anyone, however this thread may well belong in Free Chat.
Once I figure out how to move it, I think I will.
No suppression of free speech (or chat) - - just maintaining some decorum. Fair enough?
= = =
Edit: Sorry for the "gentlemen" I used earlier. . .
Edited By BWhite on 1105226115