| Friday,
September 18, 2009
Carbon dioxide
Dr. Pournelle,
You asked:
“One hesitates to accuse the President of falsehood,
but does he really believe that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant?”
This is one case where the President is on firm legal
ground. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that Carbon Dioxide
is in a pollutant and subject regulation by the EPA in April of 2007.
A NYT summary:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/
washington/03scotus.html
The actual court ruling:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
Apart from the ruling itself, there was considerable
debate about whether there was a legitimate plaintiff.
However the law may view carbon dioxide,
scientifically and philosophically the idea that it is a “pollutant” is
Nonsense on Stilts. While CO2 is a waste product for animals, it is
essential for photosynthesis in plants. Has anyone explained to the learned
Justices that plants must be “polluted” in order to grow?
Like tax rates, reasonable people can rationally
debate the proper level of atmospheric CO2. Declaring it a pollutant
irrationally sets the proper level to zero.
You also asked:
“Does he not know that he emits CO2 with every
breath?”
Global warming alarmism is an aspect of modern Nature
Worship. Exhaling Carbon Dioxide is the moral equivalent of Original Sin.
Steve Chu
If the law supposes that, the law is a ass -- a
idiot...
===========
Apple sends iPhones into 'Coma
Mode'
Jerry
You are not alone in your iPhone troubles:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/
2009/09/17/iphone_update_problems/
"The problems being reported are legion. They include
iPhones becoming totally unresponsive, dropped calls, poor battery life,
difficulties with Wi-Fi connections, failed Microsoft Exchange syncing, dead
GPS service, loss of signal after syncing, tethering no longer working in
"legally" unlocked phones outside the US, and more.
"It should, of course, be noted that on some message
boards there's an "everything's fine with mine" post for every complaint -
and we've experienced no problems with OS 3.1 on our iPhone 3GS - but the
sheer volume of problems being reported can't be ignored."
My iPod is functional (we are not supposed to bring
cell phones into the buildings where I work). Thank goodness.
Ed
Actually now that I have fixed the DNS of its
network connections my iPhone is working quite well as a pocket computer.
It's also a good phone except when I am home. When my cell phone was a
Cingular it worked just fine here at Chaos Manor. Then AT&T bought
Cingular, and I went into a nearly dead zone. Not quite dead. I get two or
even three bars in some parts of the house; but they're not consistent and
it's not reliable. There seems to be no way to make AT&T restore the
service. I think they must have "consolidated" cell towers and shut down
the one that served my house.
I have no evidence that AT&T cares about anyone
except its executives. When it was a Regulated Public Service AT&T took
pride in providing reliable dial tone everywhere in the nation. I see no
evidence that it takes pride in anything except bonuses to its executives
now. The breakup of The Phone Company with the resulting destruction of
Bell Labs was supposed to show how deregulation would work to make
everyone better off. Perhaps so, but then AT&T was allowed to buy up all
the competition and become a near monopoly again -- now it is an
Unregulated Public Utility, Bell Labs is gone, and the service doesn't
seem to be improving.
The iPhone works, but the worst part of the
iPhone is the AT&T monopoly.
=============
universal health care and
childhood's end.
I hear little about the effect of the many billions of
health care dollars spent on illegals who default. I also hear little about
the high cost of maintaining AIDS patients, or those with other sexually
transmitted diseases. On the other hand, we are hearing quite a bit about
the burden of smokers, drinkers, the sedentary, and the obese on health care
costs. Though I rarely hear anyone suggest that we send illegals back, as a
cost saving measure, or restrict the activities of gay men and drug users, I
hear quite a bit about how unhealthy substances and unhealthy lifestyles
should be restricted, taxed, or banned in order to help contain medical
costs. We even hear rumors, vigorously denied, that perhaps older people
should just do the right thing and lay down and die, saving us all the great
expense of keeping them alive. The reason I bring the comparison up, is that
it indicates that the real agenda is not about cost containment at all –
this could be accomplished without the sort of heavy handed measures being
proposed. It is about something else.
Much of the argument about lifestyles, and healthcare
reminds me a bit of the old parental admonition “As long as you live in my
house, you will live by my rules.” This is generally directed at teen aged
offspring, when they seek more independence than a parent feels comfortable
granting. It is thus, a parental attempt to regain a hold over a situation
in which they are losing control. Such an argument only has strength, if the
son or daughter in question has no choice in the matter, due to age or
income.
So, when did we become dependent lodgers in someone
else’s house, and when did we become children again? Well, it happens a
little bit every decade; but passage of universal health care will be a big
step. We see a considerable amount of this in government regulation already,
with medicines being heavily regulated, and many recreational substances,
being outlawed or greatly restricted. So there is already a precedent of
sorts; but universal health care will be different. It will help assure that
we are truly not living in our own house, and will have no place else to go.
Generally, when defending drug laws, the case is made
that drug use is a great catalyst towards crime. When restricting firearms,
a similar argument is usually made, as well as an argument that we are all
too stupid and cowardly to effectively defend ourselves, and guard against
accidental shootings – thus endangering our neighbors. Cigarettes, we are
told, unfairly put the health of others at risk with second hand smoke.
Interestingly, almost all of these arguments have been pretty much
discredited. The exception is the link between drugs and crime, though even
here, there is evidence that much of this is due to the effect of the drug
laws, and the culture that they spawn. Interestingly, in each case, these
laws are defended on the grounds that they prevent us from interfering with
the rights and freedoms of others, and are justified as a defense against
these infringements.
Universal healthcare is different, because it does not
presume to protect others from our actions. Rather, it presumes to control
our actions as a natural function of government. We thus become chattel.
There is nothing new about this. Slaves, serfs, and indentured people have
been around for millennia. Such states are entered into through lack of
wealth and lack of choice – two things that all of the health plans on the
table seem to promise.
People on both sides of the argument kind of half know
what it is really about. I think this is why things get so shrill at times.
It is an adult saying “I am all grown up and can make my own decisions.”
Versus a domineering parent demanding “As long as you are in my house, you
live by my rules.” Anyone who has ever been a teen-ager, or had teen aged
children knows how shrill such arguments can get.
Of course, some people prefer an extended childhood.
Why not just stay at home with mom and dad? Don’t worry about the bills,
doing the laundry, cooking, or advancing in a career. Most of us know
someone in their mid thirties or so, who still lives with mom and dad, has
no life – and probably never will. Certain types of parents permit or
encourage this, because they like to feel needed, or perhaps because they
need to be in charge, and never really allowed their children to grow up.
There is collusion here, of course.
The stunted maturity, passivity, and lack of freedom
of such a grown child is the price for a life of little responsibility or
accountability. There is a similar collusion between the failed, who expect
much in exchange for little, and their presumptive rulers, who are only too
happy to promise anything, as long as they are permitted to rule without
interference. We already have a huge dysfunctional population, thanks to
such governmental “help”. Each side sees itself as the master; but it is not
too difficult to figure out who is really in charge - the Eloi and the
Morlocks come to mind. For myself, I would rather remain a human, an adult,
and make my own decisions.
Neal Pritchett
Of course that is the essence of the debate: are
we citizens or subjects? Citizens may use the government to create
institutions for their convenience, and in doing that create legal rights;
but citizens have an acute understanding of the differences between rights
and Entitlements.
Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal.
Equal men are not free. But a Republic takes work. Fascism, with a
competent Leader, is very attractive to some, particularly if the Leader's
title is correct and many of the forms of a Republic remain. After all,
Mussolini was Prime Minister as well as Il Duce (and of course Leader of
the Fascist Party). Huey Long was Governor of Louisiana. Both had their
advocates and supporters, quite possibly a majority for much of
their careers. Peron was highly popular, particularly while Evita lived.
Franco had his supporters. Franco accepted most of the premises of Italian
Fascism including the Marxist analysis of the inevitability of class
warfare and the Fascist solution of requiring the classes to cooperate by
putting the state above them all. Everything for the state. Nothing
against the state. Nothing outside the state.
Fascism under a competent Leader works pretty
well. Dictatorship under a competent dictator works pretty well. Claudius,
himself a Republican, built the mechanisms of Empire for Rome, and ruled
quite competently. But after Claudius came Nero. Argentine got Peron who
took Argentina from near Great Power status down to near banana republic
status. Napoleon reformed France, gave it codified laws and a legal
system that exist to this day, and left a legacy so popular that despite
the destruction of the Empire his nephew was able to win the Presidency of
the Second Republic and convert it to the Second Empire without a civil
war.
But the only attraction of Fascism is the
capability of the Leader. Hitler recovered the Rhineland, ended the
restrictions of the Versailles Treaty, brought in Austria to the Third
Reich (the First being the Holy Roman Empire, the Second Bismark's Germany
under the Kaiser). Hitler claimed to have ended the tyranny of the Treaty
of Westphalia of 1648. Germans understood what that mean. Mussolini seemed
competent.
The alternative to Fascism is the Philadelphia
Constitution. The Constitution of 1789 left most of these matters to the
states. If a state wanted to establish a religion it could do so. If it
wanted to end primogeniture, it could do so. If it wanted to institute
100% inheritance taxes it could do so. If it wanted to institute an income
tax it could do so. Those were not permitted to the Federal Government,
but the states were free to experiment so long as they kept "a republican
form of government" which mostly mean no kings or hereditary government
posts.
That, we know, works; it did so for two
hundred years. I would not call most of that time a period of childhood.
We do seem determined to end that form of government.
Fascist states have thrived but not for anywhere
near that long. We now seek to establish a centralized national state with
socialist principles, but not formal nationalization of industries and the
means of production. The social classes will be required to work together.
We will not call it a Fascist state, but Huey Long would have.
=============
too big to fail
Dr Pournelle,
"I think we could develop guidelines for implementing
the general principle: companies too big to fail must be broken into
companies whose failure won't ruin the lot of us; nor should such companies
be allowed to form through acquisition of other companies. "
What really allows them to form in the first place?
Could it be because we regulate everything to the point where only the large
companies who can hire herds of lawyers are able to make it? Maybe we should
start by going to a fair marketplace that allows companies to compete by the
merits of their product and not so much by their lobbying power.
Also, who should decide what constitutes too big?
Should we form some new cabinet position or agency? Wouldn't the Iron Law
soon take hold?
Matt Kirchner
And of course the huge companies understand this
all very well, and do not oppose onerous regulations. It is part of the
principle Adam Smith warned us of: whenever two capitalists get together,
the inevitably conspire to use government to restrict the entry of new
competitors into their business.
Why is anyone surprised?
===========
Subject: Appreciation
Hi Jerry:
I've written you in the past and mentioned that I'm
closer to a liberal than you. I read your column and mail for its many
interesting ideas. I do often disagree politically with your observations,
but the rational approach to discussion you use really helps provide me with
balance.
In particular, I liked " *Fascism,
Socialism, and Freedom* " because it was clear, factual, and provided
the balance I seek.
I recommend your column to others. The only way we
might ever return to a rational debate/discussion of politics in this
country is to listen to each other. Factual discussion of views, with
backing links and information such as you provide is perhaps the best
example I have to show others what the discussion can look like.
Also, you have caused me to change my views on several
things, and to question others. This is as I feel it should be.
Thank you. Mike Riddle
Thank you. That of course is the purpose here.
===========
Pathos In A Greek Tragi-Comedy
http://utotherescue.blogspot.com/
Nothing profound. The denizens at the UC Berkely
franchise of the Jurassic Park School of Higher Education have been in perma-rage
over California state funding cuts for a year now. And Quelle Surprise!
their tired old 60s antics are drawing almost no attention. Except from
local law enforcement. The children and grandchildren of 1960s era police
are still arresting rowdy protesters occupying administrative offices. But
without creating media martyrs.
Their latest twitter is over the wisdom of a 9-24-09
professors' strike, or a teach-in.
Personally I wish it were in my power to give them the
massive media exposure they crave. I can't think of a better way to
accelerate political and educational change than broadcasting their spoiled
juvenile brat attitudes that providing unlimited money without strings
should become Flyover Country's responsibility. (they largely accept that
the local CA middle class is squeezed dry).
Mark
============
I know despair is a sin, but
Jerry,
Yesterday, you said "I think that any company too big
to fail ought to be broken up before it can fail." I could not agree more.
We were told that Obama was the most liberal Senator
in the Congress. In an earlier life, I was a liberal (mea culpa). The
sixties liberal sentiment was "power to the people;" we were opposed to
"giant corporations" and monopolies.
Thus, it was disconcerting when the companies that
were "too big to fail" did indeed fail. The Obama administration did not
simply let them fail, which is what old-fashioned liberals would have done.
Rather, Obama kept them in place, propped them up with taxpayer money, and
put the White House in charge of them. That is not Liberalism as we once
knew it, I think it is Fascism.
In any event, it seems like the Democrats are the
party of big government and the Republicans are the party of big industry.
And the freedoms and opportunities of the ordinary little people are being
extinguished by those giants.
Russ Armstrong
Americans get the government they want, and they
get it good and hard. We could take back our government, but it appears to
be more work than my generation was willing to put out. Perhaps the next.
At least we can keep the debate alive. See above.
=========
Re: Lorentz Thrusters
Actually, Lorentz thrusters have been in use for a
long time now. The Russians use them on just about everything they build,
but the USA is starting to do it too (Hughes designs often use it, and
Lockheed is using it on their AEHF.)
As emailer Jim points out, it’s high-efficiency but
low-thrust, and thrust scales directly with power used. This is the kind of
thruster that you turn on and leave running for a long time—or you use a
nuclear reactor to power it. (Which explains why the Russians liked it so
much, but we didn’t use it. It’s amazing how much easier it is to power a
space vehicle when you can get away with not telling anyone that you’re
launching nuclear reactors!)
Mike
Yes; actually I saw Lorentz thrusters at Bob
Forward's Hughes Laboratory a very long time ago; I had forgotten that was
what they were called. It was the invocation of Mach principle that
confused me. As I said above. both Feynman and Forward thought there was
something to learn from the Mach principle but neither had any useful
ideas on how it might have a practical application; and as our
correspondents have made clear, most invocations of Mach principle in
rocketry are usually snake oil. Alas.
==========
'Mechanics of Materials'
Textbook Published Online, Available for Free
There are at least two good reasons to check out
Madhukar Vable's undergraduate textbook 'Mechanics of Materials.'
1. You can find out lots of interesting stuff: e.g.,
how good engineering actually saved thousands of lives in the World Trade
Center attacks, why it only took three hours for the unsinkable Titanic to
sink.
2. It's free.
http://www.physorg.com/news172324557.html
Bill Shields
===========
Stories about privacy in the Guardian
The Tories have decided to bell the cat: <http://tinyurl.com/n5xu7e>
Jenni Russell's comments <http://tinyurl.com/onkvgt>
Simon Davies's comments <http://tinyurl.com/paq459>
Dominic Grieve's comment <http://tinyurl.com/rbp4pj>
The Met's new approach to policing protest is
described as 'surreal' <http://tinyurl.com/p37orp
> . We will see just how surreal early next week.
-- Harry Erwin
==
Getting your priorities straight
UK Trades Union Congress takes a stand against
high-heeled shoes: <http://tinyurl.com/m9fumd
> <http://tinyurl.com/lhh6a8>
<http://tinyurl.com/qeo3d7>
And then listened to the Prime Minister admit cuts in
expenditure will be needed: <http://tinyurl.com/qlv6ed>
<http://tinyurl.com/ks5ezq>.
(Quiet cuts have already been made--the approval rate for research grant
proposals has dropped to about 10%.)
Trapped mail: <http://tinyurl.com/m5y469>
-- Harry Erwin
===========
On the ACORN videos:
Finally, but not enough:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/
2009/sep/16/acorn-suspends-plans-audit-wake-videos/ It's
astonishing to me how ACORN has dealt with this, and I think it needs an
explanation. Within a day of the first video, the leaders of ACORN must have
done Discovery: "Listen, everyone in ACORN. Tell us if you met O'Keefe and
Giles. Tell us exactly what you said to them. _There is no point in trying
to cover it up_; every word you said is going to be on the web within the
next week or two." That means that ACORN knew within the first day exactly
how many offices were visited, and exactly what number of them said
egregious things. I don't know those numbers, but ACORN did. Obviously the
second number is at least 4 (at latest count), and obviously that's enough
to cripple or destroy ACORN's government connections.
Question 1: Given all that: Why didn't ACORN institute
damage control immediately? Why didn't they say, immediately: "As near as we
can tell, seven (or whatever) of our offices were visited, and videotaped
aiding and abetting criminal activity. This is incredible and horrific! Four
locations where employees were willing to aid and abet criminals and
slavery!? We are humiliated and devastated. We _clearly_ have a systemic
problem that must be dealt with immediately. We are going to start right
now. We are not just going to fire the individuals involved, we are going to
work over the whole organization from top to bottom so that this will never
happen again. And we want independent auditing to keep this honest. We have
always been a wonderful organization, and we want to be one again..." Didn't
they know how bad things were going to get? How could they not know it? What
_sense_ does it make to issue idiotic statements like, The films were
doctored, or These people tried this in a lot of places and were thrown out
- statements which inevitably are proving to be false. Or, This is a
right-wing smear job, so please don't pay attention to the content of the
video. Pathetic.
Question 2: Is there any way to understand this which
doesn't show ACORN to be too _incompetent_ to receive any government money
at all? Why did they do this?
Humble Suggestion: ACORN must have a culture which
rendered this kind of response almost impossible. They know well that very
many of their employees don't consider these kinds of twilight activities to
be wrong. They work in the ghetto, and this is how they work. The government
and its laws are essentially considered the Other, and their goal is to get
their people some of the Other's money. That (to their minds) is their
service; _not_ changing behaviors. The ACORN leaders know that it would be
incredibly demoralizing to their entire organization to denounce, and try to
root out, something which is part and parcel of what the organization is.
mkr
Your analysis of the ACORN culture may well be
correct. I don't know any of them.
==============
Space program or jobs program?
Your correspondent Rod Montgomery on the Augustine
committee's last public meeting. Their summary report has been published,
and I would recommend reading it (it's only 12 pages). It's available here:
<http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/home/index.html>
Direct link: <http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/384767main_
SUMMARY%20REPORT%20-%20FINAL.pdf>
As politicians pointed out at recent hearing, the
summary report says little about workforce issues. This is the closest it
comes:
"The right mission and the right size: NASA’s budget
should match its mission and goals. Further, NASA should be given the
ability to shape its organization and infrastructure accordingly, while
maintaining facilities deemed to be of national importance." (page 11)
The full report will address more fully the jobs
impacts of the various options. Some of the politicians at the U.S. House
Committee
on Science and Technology briefing yesterday certainly
seemed to put jobs in their districts as #1 priority.
In more encouraging news:
Armadillo Aerospace Makes Record-Breaking Rocket
Flights to Qualify for $1 Million NASA PRIZE Presented by X PRIZE
Foundation.
<http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=29158>
This is very much the spiritual successor to DC-X -
the videos there must prompt some memories for you.
John Carmack of AA has provided a more technical
update here: <http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/
n.x/Armadillo/Home/News?news_id=367>
Most encouraging bit is the last line: "Coming Up:
higher altitude boosted hops, scientific payloads, more rocket racer
flights, and multi-module configurations."
Note AA's concept for sub-orbital and orbital work is
to strap multiple identical modules together. The "Scorpius" was one of
these modules.
Yours,
Alex
==============
More on CO2 Offset Kiosks
Dr. Pournelle --
"Watts Up with That" has an interesting item on the
kiosks at SFO:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
2009/09/18/carbon-offset-kiosk
-at-sfo-sells-carbon-credits-
at-60-times-the-market-rate/
"According to the San Francisco Chronicle <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/17/MNO719OQN8.DTL>
, the SFO airport has now installed carbon offset purchase kiosks so that
you can remove the guilt from your flight. Only one problem. The carbon
offsets sold by kiosk sell at a rate that is about 60 times what carbon
credits are actually selling for on the market now."
People profiting from global warming? Who would have
thought it? Oh, yeah ..., you. Dead on, Sir, as usual.
Pieter
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Friday
|
