Prev: Besides the Revolution, what influence do the French hve in USculture?
Next: Ridiculous Speed Limits
From: Day Brown on 18 Jul 2010 01:19
On 07/12/2010 07:17 AM, Larry G wrote:
> On Jul 12, 5:11 am, Day Brown<dayhbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> what to do? continue to point out what is wrong with the GW hoax
> argument and hope enough others at the least, see some problems with
> the current ring wing logic.
Tests on group think say logic will not work.
http://www.daybrown.org/village/village.htm is a stab at what mite be a
more viable lifestyle whether the system keeps on muddling thru or not.
It may be difficult to find enuf rational people to staff a village, but
to find a city with a rational population is impossible.
From: Brent on 18 Jul 2010 02:51
On 2010-07-18, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 01:02:21 +0000 (UTC), Brent
>>Most environmental groups want to prevent people from using their own
>>land in unapproved ways. I do not. There is no approval required. Simply
>>there is no fouling, no destruction of other people's property
>>permitted. Someone could have their giant chemical plant but if they
>>contain, treat, and/or store their waste such that zero goes next door,
>>zero gets into the water, zero gets into the air, fine and dandy. A
>>typical environmentalist view would be to control through approvals,
>>regulations, etc. Control is the goal. essentially fascism or worse. I
>>don't want to control anyone, simply protect people's property rights.
> What if "zero" is impossible, as it usually is? What if "zero" is
> unreasonably expensive, as it usually is? What then? Is it important
> that people in this country have prosperous work? If you require
> "unreasonably expensive" here, the work will just go somewhere else
> beyond your influence, and the people who would otherwise have
> prospered from the endeavor that is to be required to provide
> unreasonably expernsive pollution controls will be forced to take jobs
> that are not porsperous, jobs involving "Do you want fries with that?"
> and similar things.
You have no right to pollute your neighbor's property. Expect to pay
damages if you go ahead and do it anyway. Note, I am discussing CO2 or
any other typical component of the atmosphere. However, as I stated
earlier, if it is just combustion it better be practically zero. Most of
the pollution that the EPA allows is simply willful and there's no
reason for it.
>>The only way to deal with this fairly is property rights and private
>>property. The limit for everything is zero or as close to it as
> "As close to it as practicible?" Now your waffling. What if that is
> still deadly over a few years?
Maybe you should read below before replying.
>> The later, the practicible, should only apply to the result
>>of combustion where trapping cannot be accomplished. There is no excuse
>>for what BP does, which is to dump their sludge in the lake for
> Why don't you sue 'em? Don't you have a couple-3 people around
> Chicago that would join a class action suit?
Being below EPA limits absolves them of blame. THat's part of the point
of the EPA's existing.
>>As it sits with the EPA, if say those of us in r.a.d wanted to make our
>>own refinery out in the middle of the desert and purchase thousands of
>>acres of land around it, make sure nothing left our property but the
>>final product and other properly treated substances we would never get
>>approval. We could never meet the regulations, never make it through the
>>political process in any kind of market viable time frame. We
>>wouldn't pass something about contamination retained on our own
>>property or some other issue. Big oil retains its stranglehold.
>>Meanwhile, BP's NW indiana refinery just spews toxins into the region's
>>drinking water supply with the approval of the EPA.
> Wonder what the oil boys are going to do when someone invents the
> magic battery?
A) buy it and bury it.
B) Have the government make it illegal for safety and/or environmental
C) have environmentalist groups they fund (yes, they do fund some)
attack it to achieve B or cause people to reject it.
It is my belief that if someone figured out a zero point energy device
that was very cheap and safer than gasoline it would be opposed by
environmentalists (with big oil support). Why? it's about power over
people's lives. Wind power was fine until it started to work. Now it's
evil and chops birds and the shadows drive people crazy.
From: Larry G on 18 Jul 2010 06:03
On Jul 17, 9:00 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 17:46:01 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >or 15 different civilian agencies fighting over who is going to do the
> >next generation UAV and each one of them spending money out the wazoo
> >to put together their pitch?
> Yeah, those are "contractors", not the civilian DoD employees that we
> were talking about.
> >or the different services all what their own uniquely-developed and
> >maintained version of common technology?
> Carrier aircraft have different requirements than USAF land-based
> aircraft. Make landing gears strong enough to withstand a carrier
> landing, and you're wasting weight on a land-based aircraft. That's
> weight that could be carrying something more important, such as
> electronics for self-protection or electronics for better targeting.
> Combining versions is always a compromise of sorts, and if the enemy
> has made his aircraft in a no-compromise fashion, we will lose more
> aircraft and young men. Its like building a race car - its a
> competition, and 2nd place is simply "not winning." In war, that is
> not acceptable.
ha ha ha... we spend 10 times more on "defense" than the next 10
There _are_ examples of genuine unique requirements but not as many as
You can also start with a common platform then mod it for mission.
the point here is that the military wastes money hand over first in a
burgeoning bureaucracy as bad or worse than any other agency including
> >or the various DOD agencies fighting to build and maintain their own
> >networks - sans industry-standard security while they all maintain
> >unique computer configurations that cannot be maintained except by
> The Navy is using a contracted-out solution called Navy Marine Corps
> Intranet, or NMCI. It is wicked. It works poorly, has a lot of
> restrictions that limit its use, and recently lost huge amounts of
> data for about 6 weeks when an e-mail and data center in Millington,
> Tn was flooded out. It is fairly secure, we don't ever seem to have
> successful virus attack of any sort, but it would be nice if it worked
> better and more friendly.
every major corporate - in the world - specifying it's corporate
requirements for computing, networking and security - not without
issues - but they would not tolerate every field office doing their
own thing to the point where incompatible systems are procured and
deployed ... and lack acceptable security and cost-effectiveness yet
the military has fought efforts like NMCI from the get go... trying to
put sand in it's gears and in general trying to figure out how to
continue to do business as usual.
I'm very familiar with NMCI and how difficult it has been to rein in
the rogue agencies, some of whom were connecting classified networks
to unclassified internet-accessible networks.. and worse...
whenever anyone claims that the military is the only US agency that
does govt "right" I have to laugh ... at what fools we are as a
country - simply believing what we wish to believe .whatever best
suits our ideology without regard to the realities.
The reality is that virtually all govt agencies suffer from the same
problems that are endemic to tax-funded enterprises.
The EPA is no better or worse in that regard. They do their job - and
if that agency was one away with - you'd have superfund sites
everywhere you look because that what's folks do without a govt agency
riding herd over those who would pollute at will if allowed. We'd be
back to the days where businesses would just dump barrels of deadly
poisons in landfills, roadsides and rivers...
the EPA is no more an agency of wild-eyed envrio-wackos no more than
the military is an agency of wild-eyed gun-toting criminals - though
you can find them in other 3rd world countries shooting up whoever
they don't like.
From: Beam Me Up Scotty on 18 Jul 2010 12:50
On 7/17/2010 9:02 PM, Brent wrote:
> On 2010-07-18, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 17, 4:32 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 2010-07-17, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>>> The Paradox is that the freedom we have has made us more
>>>> environmentally aware than the USSR with all their regulation ever was....
>>> Way I see it is that pollution is a violation of property rights. In the
>>> USSR people had no property rights, thus pollution was much more wide
>>> spread and far more harmful.
>>> The USA uses a model where the victims have to prove harm. Initially
>>> this left most people SOL and companies with political power would
>>> pollute at will.
>>> Eventually people were able to prove harm so the system shifted
>>> gears. Now the government decides what amounts pose a danger.
>>> This allows for a fascist (economic sense) system where those companies
>>> close to the government can continue to pollute under limits set for
>>> them by the government. (new companies or small unconnected competition
>>> is left with all sorts of compliance difficulties) Regular people are
>>> still SOL, their property rights are still largely ignored, but the
>>> situation is somewhat better provided someone isn't trying to start a
>>> business that has a connected and polluting competition.
>>> Private property brings about the long term interest of owners to
>>> protect the value of that property and the respect/protection of it
>>> prevents others from polluting it.
>>> Sure, some people will want to destroy their own property, pollute their
>>> own property. But when they are held responsible for what leaves their
>>> property they will find the containment/clean up costs to be too great
>>> to be so irresponsible with their own property.
>> your view is not that different from many of the environmental
>> groups.... they believe that people are entitled to not have to endure
>> pollution generated by others.
> Most environmental groups want to prevent people from using their own
> land in unapproved ways. I do not. There is no approval required. Simply
> there is no fouling, no destruction of other people's property
> permitted. Someone could have their giant chemical plant but if they
> contain, treat, and/or store their waste such that zero goes next door,
> zero gets into the water, zero gets into the air, fine and dandy. A
> typical environmentalist view would be to control through approvals,
> regulations, etc. Control is the goal. essentially fascism or worse. I
> don't want to control anyone, simply protect people's property rights.
In America you have to break a law before you are found guilty and have
your rights taken away..... Fascists simply take away the rights and
regulate so as to prevent any chance of breaking a law..... Fascists
and Socialists micromanage people and unconstitutionally take our rights
to force their ideology onto "We The People"
From: Beam Me Up Scotty on 18 Jul 2010 14:47
On 7/17/2010 3:35 PM, Larry G wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2:44 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-
> Everyth...(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>> On 7/17/2010 7:14 AM, Larry G wrote:
>>> On Jul 16, 8:01 pm, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:35:33 -0700 (PDT), Larry G
>>>> <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> so there are no environmental groups you support?
>>>> I've never considered supporting one, so no, not currently. If I find
>>>> one that is attempting to repeal expensive and unnecessary
>>>> environmental rules, I might even join it.
>>> but you'd think that a group that wants to "undo" environment laws is
>>> a group that "supports" the environment?
>> The Paradox is that the freedom we have has made us more
>> environmentally aware than the USSR with all their regulation ever was....
>> Freedom creates Environmental awareness so you Eco-Nazis are harming the
>> environment while believing you are saving it.
>> Freedom is always the best way.....
> Watching a recent report in Afghanistan - there were houses that cost
> a million dollars - and outside of each one is an enormous pile of
> stinking garbage,
Shopping Malls for the poor that you are so worried about......
> no electricity and they run generators
I guess Wind/Solar power like you are forcing on me, is just as useless
over there... where the choice is ZERO power.
> and no paved
> roads, just dirt - with Land Rovers and BMWs parked in the
really rich people can afford dirt roads and land rovers....
With enough money you can afford to live at the end of a goat trail.
> and this country is going to "nation-build" them in our likeness using
> our military.
We can't "Nation Build" our own Cities of Chicago and Detroit. Liberal
Bastions of Socialism and destitution.
> No EPA over there for sure.
Maybe they do have a chance then....