| Thursday,
May 26, 2005 Origin of Species
Afternoon Jerry,
I've been following the Darwinism / Design messages
here recently, and wanted to drop a couple of thoughts into the water.
Disclaimer: I've been a believer in Darwinism (defined as the origin of
species from evolution through natural selection) by entire life and have a
degree in Anthropology, including primate and human paleontology, so I
understand the mechanism and implications thoroughly.
About a month ago I ran across two interesting books
(both of which are available from Amazon by clicking on the link on the left
border of your page):
Darwin's Black Box, by Michael Behe Icons of
Evolution, by Jonathon Wells
After reading them, and validating the research
presented, I must conclude the following:
1) Evolution, as a theory, has serious (and perhaps
critical) problems explaining the origin and development of molecular
systems, and may have similar difficultly explaining macro-morphological
traits as well. 2) Much of the classic evidence (which still appears in the
textbooks!) for Darwinism is either misleading, disproved, or outright
fraudulent. This has been known for decades. 3) Because Darwinists can point
a finger at critics and cry 'young earth creationist', legitimate discourse
on the theory has been completely stifled. 4) Micro-evolution does explain
phenomena such as antibiotic resistance.
I find myself now in the curious position of
revisiting my long held beliefs in the area with, for apparently the first
time in my life, an open mind. I would highly encourage your readers to
consider both sides (meaning pro-Darwin and anti-Darwin - which is not
necessarily a creationist or similar position) rather than blindly accepting
what they are being fed by the media. Those two books are a great start. I'm
not necessarily prepared to make the leap from 'Darwinism fails' to 'Must be
designed' as are some of the authors, yet the critique is no less valid
because one may not agree with the presented alternative.
Much as you've mentioned in other areas, research that
doesn't support the status quo isn't funded, reported, or considered
legitimate.
Best Regards,
Doug
--
doug[@]douglhotka[.]com
===========
Subject: 11 steps to a better brain,
Jerry
Eleven steps to a better brain. Courtesy of the New
Scientist. Who could ask for more?
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18625011.900
Ed
Indeed!
==========
Hollowing out the US Defense
Forces
You've probably seen this report, Dr. Pournalle:
http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2000_2003/reports/analysis.htm
To quote: Conclusion
While industrial and military self-sufficiency
was U.S. policy for more than two centuries, that policy no longer exists.
Instead, the U.S. Government has elected, through many uncoordinated
decisions made over a number of years, to globalize the U.S. economy and its
defense industrial base.
Consequently, the U.S. manufacturing sector is
rapidly hollowing out. Basic and high technology industries are shifting
their production, research and development, and now back office functions to
other nations. A host of U.S. policies are encouraging these shifts.
One consequence of this policy shift and the
economic hollowing out is that a large and growing portion of the
manufactured goods used in both the U.S. economy and the U.S. defense
sectors are coming from factories based in other nations. More significant,
more than half of all merchandise imported into the United States, other
than from Canada and Mexico, now comes from factories located in China and
the nations that immediately surround it.
Another result is that as the U.S. military
increases its reliance on readily available commercial technologies, it is
also relying on suppliers located in other nations. Moreover, many of these
components, particularly electronics are coming from China and the nations
clustered around it. The two key policy questions this raises are: Would
that long supply line across the Pacific be secure in time of war and are
reliable alternatives available?
Today, the United States Government does not
know the source of many key components used in its weapons systems. Without
that knowledge, the Department of Defense cannot assure the reliability of
supply during a time of prolonged warfare.
Nor can the United States be assured of the
integrity of many items it is using in its vast system of electronic
networks that underpin both the domestic and military economies.
Increasingly, these networks rely on imported components that are vulnerable
to sabotage or being modified to carry "Trojan horse" programs and viruses
that could be used against the United States in an information war.
Moreover, a number of sources claim that China's military doctrine is to
make a first strike at an adversary's information system. This is the U.S.
"Achilles heel."
Ultimately, the key concern identified in this
study is less that of the transfer of high technology capacities to China,
which is inevitable, but the hollowing of the US defense industrial base,
which is not.
*****
Resembles in some ways the Roman Empire trying to hold
itself together with mercenaries....
Charles Brumbelow
Indeed. I've been saying this for a long time.
================
Subject: re: garbage conversion
Matthew Joseph Harrington suggests that it might be
worthwhile to process garbage into oil. This is being tried now. The pilot
plant was famous for using turkey guts as its input, but really the process
could use other inputs (sewage, and the contents of garbage dumps, both are
obvious candidates).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization
-- Steve R. Hastings "Vita est" steve@hastings.org
http://www.blarg.net/~steveha
====
Subject: Turkey guts and geology of oil
Dr. Pournelle:
There is the conversion of "turkey guts" (slaughter
house waste) into oil through a process involving pressure and perhaps
certain catalysts, and there has been some debate on whether this can be
cost effective.
There is also the abiotic oil theory, championed by
Thomas Gold but originating in the former Soviet Union. I have found an
interesting argument from J. F. Kenney and colleagues supporting the abiotic
theory, or at least an unconventional deep-origins theory at http://www.gasresources.net/AlkaneGenesis.htm.
It has a connection to turkey guts.
The conventional theory of oil is that you get anoxic
sedimentation in a shallow sea or lake forming a carbon-rich sediment, this
sediment gets buried to a depth a few miles down in what is called the "oil
window" to form a source rock, the oil percolates into a porous reservoir
rock such as a sandstone, which is in turn overlayed by an impermeable cap
rock, and you have recoverable oil. The oil window is the range of depths
where the temperature is such that the biological carbon compounds get
turned into oil.
There is the question of how exactly do carbohydrates,
i.e. plant or algae remains, get converted into hydrocarbons. It is assumed
that high temperatures along with geologic time does the trick. Kenney
argues that at atmospheric pressure, carbohydrates convert into methane plus
elemental carbon or methane plus carbon dioxide (he calls this the "bean
eater's reaction), and there isn't a way to convert methane into the higher
hydrocarbons -- it is related to why you don't see diamonds in charcoal
piles. But like the conditions that form diamonds, if you subject carbon or
even carbonates to high enough pressure, you can get the constituents of
crude oil. The pressure are huge as in 100 miles down kind of huge.
Even if the source of the oil is biological, which it
could be with plate tectonics pushing crustal rock into the mantle, that oil
forms at great depths throws the "oil window" out the window and would
require some rethinking of how to look for oil. That the only way to convert
carbohydrates, carbonates, or methane into gasoline is to subject them to
the same pressures that form diamonds seems like a radical theory, but one
that should be testable.
I am assuming that the "turkey guts" process involves
pressure but nowhere near the pressures required for the people doing
synthetic diamonds. Does this process involve a catalyst? Do they add
hydrogen? Kenney argues that cracking carbohydrates produces methane and CO2
but there is not free hydrogen available. Does the "turkey guts" process
produce a crude oil, or does it produce different compounds that are usable
for fuel in the manner of biodiesel? If it produces a crude oil, do similar
conditions and similar catalysts exist in the geologic oil window? If the
"turkey guts" process works at the depths and temperatures of the "oil
window", the provides strong support for the biological origins of
petroleum, but if it doesn't, that suggests that Kenney is on to something.
Paul Milenkovic Madison, Wisconsin
====
Subject: Re: Garbage Conversion
Dear Jerry,
There is a company applying thermal decomposition
/cracking technologies to waste streams now.
http://www.changingworldtech.com/
While they do not explicitly give their $/bbl
equivalent threshold for profitability, they do state the following:* *
*How much energy does the plant use to run?* For every
100 BTUs available in our feedstock, approximately 15-20 BTUs are needed to
provide energy for the plant. The remaining BTUs will be available for sale
in a converted state,
and
*Is CWT’s process cost-competitive with other means of
producing oil?* Yes. Other “alternative” sources of energy produce fuels
that are significantly more expensive than our oil and traditional crude.
CWT’s bio-derived oil can be competitive with small exploration and
production companies.
Most small E&P companies that I know are profitable at
$20/bbl or less. CWT's input at their current operating site is by-product
(offal) from a turkey processing plant; their output is light oil, methane,
and solids. They claim that they can modify this technology to process
garbage, old tires, sewage, etc.
Regards, Jerry Drake
=============
I do not often get
pre-written articles:
Subject: Four Big Lies About Offshoring
Jerry,
A lot is being said about offshoring these days, but
is the truth being told? Some common misperceptions and opinions are
dividing America.
But regardless of individual opinions, offshoring will
play an increasingly crucial part in America’s, as well as in many other
nations’ domestic and global economic strength. Below is “Four Big Lies
About Offshoring,” an article in which Mark Wesker, who previously founded,
took public and sold portal software company Sequoia Software to Citrix
Systems and is founder and CEO of Artifact, an outsourcing project
management solutions start-up, sets the record straight.
You are free to run this article in its entirety, in
part or as a serialized column over a number of weeks. Please let me know if
you are interested in more information or if you would like to speak with
Mark.
Best,
Michelle
____________________
Michelle Sabolich
Atomic Public Relations
michelle.sabolich@atomicpr.com
Featurewire article below
--------------------------------------------------------------
Four Big Lies About Offshoring
Word Count: 943
Offshoring – it’s a hot issue – and everyone, from our
late night talk show hosts to politicians in Washington, has something to
say. But what do we really know about offshoring? Are American jobs at
stake? Is the shift in economic power tilting towards China and India? How
will it actually affect the American economy in the long run?
“There’s a global supply chain emerging beneath our
feet, and there are a set of widely-held 'misconceptions' about offshoring
that will hurt American business over the long run,” said Mark Wesker, who
founded portal technology company Sequoia Software, now a part of Citrix
Systems, and is now Chief Executive Officer of Artifact, which provides
software outsourcing project management solutions.
“Once we better understand the offshoring opportunity
and ways to bring visibility and control to projects taking place thousands
of miles away, we’ll all benefit,” suggests Wesker. Here’s his take on four
big lies about offshoring:
Lie Number One: Offshoring is a Threat to American
Economic Prosperity
China, Russia and India may be gaining jobs, but is
America losing out? The fact is that companies that have outsourced work
abroad have created efficiencies that led them to hire twice as many workers
here in America as their non-outsourcing counterparts. According to a recent
Dartmouth study, outsourcers are job creators here in America. Since 1992,
the U.S. lost 361 million jobs, but gained 380 million jobs back, for a net
increase of 19 million jobs.
Offshoring is becoming an increasingly important part
of competing in today’s global economy, and if start-up companies don’t have
an offshoring strategy in their two year plan, there’s less chance that
they’ll secure venture funding. Even if companies aren’t doing it now, META
Group, now a part of market research firm Gartner, says that 88% of firms
are moving to establish an enterprise-wide offshore strategy.
“There are strategic advantages to offshoring, perhaps
the most important being the ability to offload less strategic tasks, and
help American companies to focus where they shine – innovation,” notes
Artifact CEO Wesker. “This makes us more competitive within the global
economy.”
Lie Number Two: Offshoring is a Recent Phenomenon
Opportunistic politicians and naysayers have tried to
make the American public believe that offshoring is a new practice. History
tells us otherwise. The United Kingdom once outsourced it’s basket-weaving
to India, when it was still a British colony. American companies have
outsourced manufacturing for decades. And today, as many of the business
processes of America’s companies are commoditized and easily delivered
through technology, India and many other nations are again playing a
supporting role, from customer service, to back-office support and even
news-headline writing.
“As lower level functions in manufacturing, from cars
to software, are commoditized, American companies must move from assembly to
architecture, design, and general contracting of the global supply chain,”
says Wesker.
Offshoring helps developing countries to build
stronger economies, while consumption of less expensive products and
services in more established markets continue to fuel global economic
growth.
Lie Number Three: Offshoring is Only About
Cost-Cutting and Compromises Quality
Some Americans are convinced that companies engaged in
offshoring are just trying to save a few bucks instead of paying an American
worker what he or she is worth. While there are industries where the primary
driver is cost, and where working conditions should be thoroughly
investigated for mistreatment of workers, this isn’t the case across the
board.
In fact, some of the software supply chain’s greatest
producers now reside in India and Russia, where the workforce is as highly
educated, talented and motivated as American developers. In some cases,
they’re better.
But today’s accelerated rate of offshoring has created
a new business model that’s more complex in every way and at all levels. Big
providers of offshore services, such as Bangalore’s Infosys Technologies
Ltd., have the resources to create project management tools that bridge the
gap created by this new reality. But for smaller customers and providers,
the options for delivering world class projects and services haven’t kept
up. This can translate into major cost, quality and time overruns that can
kill a business.
However, “a new breed of solutions have been designed
to help companies flourish,” according to Wesker, whose company offers a
service that addresses these challenges. “What companies need is a greater
level of visibility and control over their projects and service partners.
Today, we can deliver services on-demand over the Internet that give
customers a minute-by-minute view of where the projects stands, how its
progressing on its stated goals and the ability to change course in
real-time.”
Lie Number Four: Offshoring is Optional
Many people view offshoring as optional. Again,
another myth. It’s a matter of survival. American firms need to outsource
processes where they can’t compete, and to focus where they can – on
innovation. Those businesses that do not – will face certain and aggressive
price competition from domestic or foreign firms who can perform the
commoditized tasks more cheaply.
Global sourcing creates greater opportunity for all
parties and countries involved by allowing more developed economies to
innovate, while allowing developing countries to get into the game and begin
growing themselves. In essence, offshoring is essential for global business
growth. And the U.S. steel industry is a good example of the fate awaiting
U.S. companies that turn a blind eye.
“Outsourcing and offshoring aren’t optional, and they
pose as many opportunities as they do risks,” says Wesker. “Innovative
companies need to get over the fear factor and implement new processes to
manage offshoring’s risks in order to stay competitive and prosper.”
# # #
____________________
Michelle Sabolich
Atomic Public Relations
michelle.sabolich@atomicpr.com
It's a bit difficult to begin here, since
there are a number of assumptions built into both the "lies" refuted here
and the refutations themselves.
One assumption is that all industries are
equally important: it makes no difference whether you keep a key defense
industry or allow it to be exported. This is at least open to question.
A second is that jobs are
equal. It is one thing to offshore basket weaving, another to offshore the
ability to manufacture television screens and computer chips. It is one
thing to send away the mind-stultifying jobs that ought to be automated
anyway; it is quite another to send off the skilled manufacturing jobs and
leave those who used to be factory workers to find some other position,
quite possibly one of the menial jobs that can't be exported (how do you
export gardening, or burger flipping?). This is not to say this is what is
happening; but the "four big lies" approach doesn't give us any data,
either.
The third point here is murky: why else
would one export jobs except to save money? Moreover, one reason for export
is to save money on health insurance costs: if you can buy your parts from
workers in a country that doesn't require health insurance, or provides it
as a government benefit, then you won't have to pay that for your workers,
whom you can dismiss to find their own means of paying for health care. You
can dismiss your handicapped workers hired under threat of lawsuit if the
job is eliminated. You can dismiss the deaf programmer and the signer who
sits in meetings to interpret for him, provided that the job has been
eliminated and won't be filled by someone who can hear what's going on. You
can dismiss the alcoholic tech support worker who hasn't been doing you much
good but who can't be fired because he has a disability and allow someone in
Bangalore to fill his place. Indeed, if you didn't have to live with OSHA
and ADA and compulsory health care you might not be exporting the job at
all.
Finally, the last point simply isn't true.
If the rest of the world vanished tomorrow morning the US would still have a
working economy; we could be self-sufficient. We would
clearly not be as wealthy or as "efficient", and we'd have to hire for
higher wages a bunch of people we've laid off to live off the safety net or
who find the welfare programs more attractive than work; but we'd clearly
manage. Offshoring is certainly optional if by optional you mean we would be
unable to feed, clothe, and employ our people without it.
Now: the alternatives to offshoring:
tariff, reducing regulations and taxes, and providing more incentive to work
by reducing the benefits of not working. The Welfare Reform Act under
Clinton milked much of the good out of that last item; the other two have
not been tried. We know that big protective tariffs produce inefficient
industries and really big ones produce grossly inefficient industries;
that's one reason we opted in the free trade direction and allowed steel and
automobile imports. Alas, we may have gone
a bit far in that direction. The answer isn't 30% tariffs though; it's
across the board tariffs calculated to compensate for some of the
regulations (Americans with Disabilities Act, Worker's Compensation,
Compulsory Health Care, Wage Hours Laws, OSHA, etc., etc.) that we want to
keep. By my reckoning, a 15% across the board tariff would do a lot to
compensate for those; and I think we ought to at least try 10%.
But I have been saying that a long time.
What I do know is that when PR firms begin
sending this sort of thing to journalists it's interesting.
And see below
===============
Subject: Untappable messages,
Jerry
This is about messages where eavesdropping/tapping
will not occur - perfectly secure messaging.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7420
Ed
Holy Photons, Batman!
=================
Jogging Separated Humans from Apes
Jerry
I first saw this hypothesis forty years ago, in
Analog. Since then David Brin and Larry Niven have made references to it.
Ed
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/041117_running_humans.html
Run! Run for your life!
=============
Feeling safer already:
Dr. Pournelle,
I imagine you've seen this but just in case, since I
couldn't find it in mail:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/
news/epaper/2005/04/21/m1a_wx_0421.html
(re: removing weather data from the internet)
I especially enjoyed the following:
"But Barry Myers, AccuWeather's executive vice
president, said the bill would improve public safety by making the weather
service devote its efforts to hurricanes, tsunamis and other dangers, rather
than duplicating products already available from the private sector."
Because when I'm trying to find the NOAA Terminal
Advisory Forecast down here in Pensacola, so I can leave the apartment
knowing what the flight's going to be like...don't they know that what I
really want is the Lawn and Garden/Aches and Pains info from weather.com.
"Careful, that ragweed up at 14000' might get you!"
Don't get me wrong, this is nothing to get "outraged"
about but it's up there on the "silly items of the day" list. Topping this
list, however, is the "procedure" by which an unnamed airline transported my
pistol...which was, per TSA regs, locked in a box and accompanying me to the
ticket counter should I need to prove its unloaded nature.
Instead, i'm standing there in Logan Airport, being
asked to remove the weapon and show the chamber to the ticket
attendant...who may or may not have known what six empty holes meant, but
the reaction from the 100+ international bystanders in line was Priceless,
as I walked away with a giant UNLOADED FIREARM ticket in day-glo orange.
With the stipulation that the box would have to remain unlocked with the key
in it, since the TSA screeners might want to see inside...I volunteered to
have it searched, but was refused a screening!!
So there I am, asking the ticket lady how I'll know
the box was locked up and not available to baggage handlers or whoever...and
her answer was "no, sir, there's no way to ensure that." Makes me wonder if
anyone on the flight line collects guns, or passes them up to the cabin.
Sure enough, it took four managers to come up with an answer to "what do we
do with this passenger, we've never seen a gun since 9/11"...they must have
assumed I was a sky marshal. Air marshal. Whichever isn't the title of the
supreme commander in Starship Troopers. And just for kicks, TSA never
checked inside the box, but they did lock my bag with a lock I had no key
for...
Feel free to edit for length, you get the
picture...anyway, I subscribed, MOTE is a favorite (could we get Hollywood
to design starships the right way?), and I wish A STEP FARTHER OUT were
mandatory reading for newly elected members of well, any elected body. First
things first though, my hometown has to protest the local wind farm project
on the grounds that it might be visible from Hyannisport...
Ian McC. [military, please leave out last name]
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Thursday |
