| Tuesday,
May 19, 2009 w
f
===========
Fear of the Muslim Mother « Umar Lee
He spells it out.
http://umarlee.com/2009/05/19/fear-of-the-muslim-mother/
Julie
One can learn a lot from simple demographics, but
few policy wonks have any idea that this is so. The Israelis do, of
course.
============
GPS system 'close to breakdown'
Jerry,
First joy-riding nukes, now this.
"It is uncertain whether the Air Force will be able to
acquire new satellites in time to maintain current GPS service without
interruption,"
"...that delays and overspending are putting the
entire system in jeopardy."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/19/gps-close-to-breakdown
Regards, George
Now there's change you can believe in. Some
predictions are easy. And Pournelle's
Iron Law of Bureaucracy prevails.
==============
Sony CEO fantasies
Why was I not surprised that this came from the CEO of Sony? A few years
ago they covertly inserted invasive software in their music CDs that had a
really bad after effects when played on a computer. Their way of trying to
control everything. Since that time I have gone out of my way to never buy
anything made by Sony. It is s shame because they used to make some great
products.
Cheers,
Peter
Sooo-Prize!!
==========
Inevitable NATO restructuring via defaulting on
obligations?
Jerry,
I just read in Aviation Week that the latest military
budget cuts include eliminating the future reliable warhead program,
effectively placing an end of life date for a large number of aging nuclear
warheads without any way to replace them. Since those warheads represent a
significant portion of our obligation to NATO, I wonder if the proposal to
end the development of the next generation nuclear warheads represents a
sneaky way to get out of those same pesky NATO obligations. In a decade or
so, without a new generation of nuke warheads we will find ourselves faced
with the necessity to re-negotiate our obligations to NATO, put up an
enormous amount of money for a short-notice emergency procurement program
for nukes, or spend an enormous amount of money refurbishing obsolete
warheads and re-starting production lines for parts that are decades out of
production.
My bet is on us attempting to reduce or eliminate our
nuke obligations to NATO, based on President Obama’s stated goal of
eliminating our nuke forces. The next President won’t have much of a choice,
once we open up a gap between retiring and replacing nukes that are no
longer serviceable. Our NATO allies are going to have a fit (to put it
mildly) if/when we open that gap…
Soo-Prize!
============
In Praise of the Grid
I cannot believe that grid electricity losses are
anything close to 50%. Figures from Scotland (figure 20) show them as 2.52
twh out of 44.47 twh ie 5.5%.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/19092748/8
Figures may be slightly higher in the USA because
distances are longer but not that much higher. National grids are one of the
great success stories of technology. .
Personally I think we should be building a worldwide
grid using High Voltage Direct Current- since we live on a planet with
varying time zones a world grid would be even more useful at evening out
peaks than a national one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC
Neil Craig
Well energy storage losses are about 50%, so
transmission losses clearly can't be that high. It depends on how you look
at things. I'm no expert on the grid, although at one time I knew a lot
more about it: that is, I used to follow the Annual Review of Energy very
closely. For some reason they stopped publishing that Annual Review, which
I think is unfortunate.
I used to have a good link to a reliable site
that showed just where US energy comes from and where it goes. If I do
another book I'll have to get that link back and study it closely; things
have changed a bit since I last wrote seriously about the subject.
I agree that national grids are a technological
triumph.
===========
Armed Ships
Jerry: Just what makes an armed ship? A merchant ships
crew with side arms is hardly and armed ship. Side arms can be locked up
when in port if the local country requires such measures. Arm the crew by
all means.Pistol, shotgun and rifles are just basic common sense. Now a five
inch gun or a pair of 40mm Bofors would make a merchant ship an Armed Ship.
Someone could start a new business, a standard container with built in 40mm
gun tubs placed on either side of the ship whenever ships transit pirate
waters
bruce edwards
============
On several items
Dr Pournelle,
If I may, there's been a couple of items on the site
as of late that I would like to comment on:
One is a comment by Mr Pritchett that seems to imply
an erroneous assumption (actually it's not, it's just that the apples to
oranges comparison needed to be clarified)....the article in question that
assessed 525 new reactors was stating those numbers to reach 1/3 of actual
"desired" usage, including all fossil fuel usage from cars etc, if I'm
reading it correctly. ie the article was assuming 1/3 of demand from each of
wind, solar, and nuclear....and that based on a number that is already
halved from current demand. The articles assumptions were that the current
US usage is 250kwh per person and that 525 reactors would produce 42kwh. If
the article authors numbers are correct, then 1575 reactors would be needed
to provide 1/2 of current demand, or 3150 for full demand....assuming we
converted all cars, trucks, trains etc to electric-only tomorrow. Unstated,
of course, is how many would be needed to provide "back-up" for the solar
and wind downtime.
And quite agreed on the assessment of solar being a
space issue now that a sizable percentage of the population is not living in
single family buildings...in fact the problem is only likely to get much
worse, since one of the big pushes to reduce carbon footprint is drastically
higher population density. Density is now the one of the criteria for new
construction here in Vancouver, to the point that we've actually seen
building applications turned down for detached and semi-detached homes in
some cases.
The other is a little clarification and addition to
the Canadian health care comment from last week. The "Canadian" system,
indeed, doesn't exist as such....it's completely provincial jurisdiction.
However, what needs to be clarified are the
implications of that. Method of delivery, delivered services, how it's paid
for are so drastically different from province to province that they are
essentially radically different systems. The federal guidelines are *very*
loose and only state that medically necessary services are available free of
charge to all citizens. ie If I have a heart attack on the street tomorrow,
I can be assured of immediate, free hospital care. Although, of course,
there is a separate federal bureaucracy that determines what is and isn't
after a province does something questionable and gets called on the carpet
for it.
The transfer payments from the federal government are
tiny (think less than 1%) compared to the actual amounts, but still used as
a club to ensure compliance with the primary rule: no private, for-profit
clinics receive public money. In turn, the province uses health care as a
club to ensure public compliance with paying taxes, paying health insurance
premiums (yes, there are still monthly premiums to be paid...$54 per month
for an individual in BC....and non-payment equals out of pocket service as
does not filing taxes), etc...and that's ignoring it being used as
justification of intrusion into personal behaviors such as smoking,
trans-fats, exercise, overweight, etc The full costs are staggering. British
Columbia just had an election and the winning party, as part of it's
campaign, promised to increase annual spending to $17.5 billion. For 4.1
million people, of which only 3 million are workers. That means spending on
health care will be just shy of $4000 per person annually. At a rough guess,
that's probably in the ballpark of the drain on general revenue as
well....$4000 per taxpayer, with the young and old covered by lottery money
and monthly premiums from all insured.
"Medically necessary" is a constantly shifting region
as the various provinces try to come to terms with their individual budget
problems. It's been many years since I dealt with the issue in other
provinces, so I can only comment on the British Columbia experience, but
this has meant rationing and curtailing services....and costs keep spiraling
even then. To give an example, I used to be able to go to any eyeglass store
and have my eyes tested by an opthomotrist free of charge (covered by the
province, that is) and purchase my glasses. Now I get charged $50 -$60 for
the testing....because the province has decided it's not "medically
necessary" and the federal government agrees. Of course, on a personal
level, I can go to a physician and be referred to a specialist, who can then
test my eyes free of charge....but only because I have a history of glaucoma
in the family, making it "medically necessary" again. For a second example,
when I have that heart attack on the street, the hospital visit is "free",
but the ambulance call that takes me there is another matter entirely....I
will receive a bill in the mail for that part. Ambulances not being
"medically necessary" apparently.
As well, "medically necessary" means bare
essentials...anything above and beyond is covered out of pocket or by
private insurance through your employer. Private or semi-private hospital
room - private, dental* - private, glasses* - private, prescriptions* -
private....the list of things not covered (or covered partially, or for some
people) goes on and on. A small correction to myself, dental and glasses are
covered by the public system sometimes....but only if you're on welfare. The
same goes for prescriptions, on welfare - fully covered, retired - copay
covered, working with no private insurance - out of pocket unless it keeps
you from dying immediately. As example, I had a friend that was Hep C
positive...unfortunately one of the better treatments for that happened to
be Interferon at $1200 per month, which the public system does not cover,
even though that price was not affordable for her. The result was her being
declared "temporarily unemployable" by a doctor so that it would be covered
by welfare. Several other friends are HIV positive and have been put in the
same situation to obtain the various drug cocktails they're given.
Wait times for most procedures, in most provinces, are
atrocious. 6 months here, 1 year there....and often artificial. By that, I
mean that aren't generally produced by a shortage of doctors or equipment,
but by how much funding is available. There was series of reports in the
paper not too long ago about surgeries being postponed not because of
overuse (the surgical theaters were, in fact, sitting idle), but because
there simply was no money to do them until the next financial quarter.
And, of course, we needn't even get into the various
groups that are considered so essential they get to jump the various queues
for services: police, firemen, doctors, politicians...or, for that matter,
how often patients get sent to other provinces (or the US) for treatment
that can't be had in a timely fashion here.
Thanks for your time (and apologies for the
long-windedness),
Mike Walsh
==
health care in Switzerland
Hi Jerry,
Another anecdote from abroad, perhaps of interest.
Here in Switzerland, they introduced a new health-insurance system several
years ago. The idea is: there is a core of basic services, which everyone is
entitled to. Everyone must have health insurance, and every plan must
include this core. You can purchase additional coverage if you wish, for
service not included in the core package. The plan was well-intended: ensure
basic coverage for everyone, and let people decide what else they want to
purchase for themselves.
Just this past weekend, the voters have just
overwhelmingly passed a resolution declaring that the core of services must
also include "alternative medicine" such as homeopathy or acupuncture. Mind
you, every insurance company already offered additional coverage for this,
so those people who wanted it could get it. The resolution pushes
"alternative medicine" into the basic services that must be covered.
This was an interesting process to watch, in the sense
of observing an ongoing train wreck. Every year, something else is forced
into the set of core services that everyone has a "right" to. Despite
exploding costs, people apparently think that stuffing yet more services
into this core will allow them to get something for free.
To prevent people from noticing that the emperor has
no clothes, we are no longer allowed to have health insurance from outside
the country. Getting local insurance doubled my insurance premiums when the
system started, and they have increased massively every year since.
Meanwhile, cost pressure on health providers is extreme; while specialists
and hospitals are doing ok, many GPs have trouble making a living.
Cheers,
Brad
===========
Jaime Escalante
Thanks for the link that updates the story of Jaime
Escalante's work. I have been fascinated with this story since seeing the
movie. I took introductory calculus in 8th grade as part of an experimental
"gifted" program involving SRI in Culver City. When I moved to Arizona, the
schools here refused to credit it, and placed me in basic math. The
resulting boredom led me down a path that degraded my entire high school
education. It was not until the respect I found in college that I
rediscovered a love of learning. High school was essentially baby setting
and "learn to bend the knee" to authority. I was often punished for asking
"why" too persistently - I wanted my education back...
It is truly sad that education is so much more
political than effective. It is as if mediocrity is the goal.
Growing up during the "space race" when there was
strong support for education, I especially felt the difference when I looked
for good but affordable education for my kids. I wound up placing them in a
charter school, and adding an hour a day of home teaching (critical thinking
and history) for several years.
Mike Riddle
BTW: I took your suggestion and have read "The
Forgotten Man". We are always the ones most able to help ourselves, if we
can keep our faith.
=============
Empire of Carbon,
Jerry
Paul Krugman of the New York Times seems to be
channeling Jerry Pournelle, up to a point:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1
"I have seen the future, and it won't work. . . .
China cannot continue along its current path because the planet can't handle
the strain.
The scientific consensus on prospects for global
warming has become much more pessimistic over the last few years. Indeed,
the latest projections from reputable climate scientists border on the
apocalyptic. Why? Because the rate at which greenhouse gas emissions are
rising is matching or exceeding the worst-case scenarios.
And the growth of emissions from China - already the
world's largest producer of carbon dioxide - is one main reason for this new
pessimism.
China's emissions, which come largely from its
coal-burning electricity plants, doubled between 1996 and 2006. That was a
much faster pace of growth than in the previous decade. And the trend seems
set to continue: In January, China announced that it plans to continue its
reliance on coal as its main energy source and that to feed its economic
growth it will increase coal production 30 percent by 2015. That's a
decision that, all by itself, will swamp any emission reductions elsewhere.
So what is to be done about the China problem?
Nothing, say the Chinese. Each time I raised the issue
during my visit, I was met with outraged declarations that it was unfair to
expect China to limit its use of fossil fuels.<snip>"
"And they're right. It is unfair to expect China to
live within constraints that we didn't have to face when our own economy was
on its way up. But that unfairness doesn't change the fact that letting
China match the West's past profligacy would doom the Earth as we know it."
<snip>
He figures, since "China now emits more carbon dioxide
than the United States, even though its G.D.P. is only about half as large
(and the United States, in turn, is an emissions hog compared with Europe or
Japan)" that improving the efficiency of China's energy industry would fix
the problem. R-i-i-i-g-h-t.
Ed
We are not doomed. We can do nothing about China
(and India) and their CO2 emissions, but the Earth is not doomed. I guess
it's time to start saying that again. Of course we can doom our own
economy.
===========================g
For a PDF copy of A Step Farther Out:
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Tuesday |
