Driver to drive?

In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 8, 10:42?pm, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:
On 9/8/08 8:16 PM, in article
I doubt that many pilots would scoff at anything. ?Not wanting a particular
plane doesn't mean there aren't aspects of it to like. ?I like planes that
are stressed for at least some acrobatics. ?Some pilots do not want to
intentionally stall and spin. ?To each his own.

There are already many groups of preferences for aircraft and their
appointments. ?At the top end, you can load up a plane with electronics that
can double the price of the package. ?To each his own.

Get your private, fly a while, and get in some hanger talk before you think
you know what pilots want

From what I seen, pilots do not want what I am offering. But as I have
stated repeatedly, I am not offering it to pilots. I am offering to
all the other people who think it would be a good idea.

That would be you and who exactly?

It's the pilots who hear this and claimm that it is a bad idea, even
though the people who might want it are not present to say otherwise.

Bad is the wrong word; naive and childish is more like it.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Lee D]

"Paul" <Quiller123@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:075286df-2be4-413d-b26d-9ce4bb3fb86e@a18g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

Here's how tolerant the book-burning beauty queen is:



http://news.aol.com/elections/article/palins-church-promotes-gay-conversion/165471


In this day and age, still this level of intolerance.
Shall we bring back segregation too? Why not Nazi
level book burnings too?

This woman is dangerous.....

I think you just lost... Godwin's law or something like that.

 

In sci.physics Bill Taylor <w.taylor@math.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:

Especially since Columbus had been dead a couple hundred years
when Victoria was born.

WHAT!!?

Have you got a reference for that!?

-- astounded

Yeah, 3rd grade history.

Obiviously not smarter than a 5th grader.

For the non-US readers, there is a TV game show called Are You Smarter
Than a 5th Grader? wherein the contestants have to answer 1st through
5th grade questions.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[hank alrich]

Lee D <leedremove@access4less.net> wrote:

"Paul" <Quiller123@gmail.com> wrote...

In this day and age, still this level of intolerance.
Shall we bring back segregation too? Why not Nazi
level book burnings too?

This woman is dangerous.....

I think you just lost... Godwin's law or something like that.

You know why Hitler didn't drink?

It made him mean.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

 

[Jon Slaughter]

"Paul" <Quiller123@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:075286df-2be4-413d-b26d-9ce4bb3fb86e@a18g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

Here's how tolerant the book-burning beauty queen is:



http://news.aol.com/elections/article/palins-church-promotes-gay-conversion/165471


In this day and age, still this level of intolerance.
Shall we bring back segregation too? Why not Nazi
level book burnings too?

This woman is dangerous.....

Obama's church supports "pray away the white" but thats ok... oh, and just
because obama attends that church doesn't mean he supports those views! Yet,
of course, because of the double standard, palin must.

 

[Jenn]

In article <Xpnxk.563$Z64.26@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com>,
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote:

"Paul" <Quiller123@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:075286df-2be4-413d-b26d-9ce4bb3fb86e@a18g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Here's how tolerant the book-burning beauty queen is:



http://news.aol.com/elections/article/palins-church-promotes-gay-conversion/
165471


In this day and age, still this level of intolerance.
Shall we bring back segregation too? Why not Nazi
level book burnings too?

This woman is dangerous.....

Obama's church supports "pray away the white" but thats ok... oh, and just
because obama attends that church doesn't mean he supports those views! Yet,
of course, because of the double standard, palin must.

If Palin's church doesn't get eight straight nights of being the top of
the news, I'd say that the double standard is the other way.

 

[hank alrich]

Jon Slaughter <Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote:

Obama's church supports "pray away the white" but thats ok...

Right. In fact, isn't that why white people patronize tanning salons?
<g>

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

 

[Jenn]

In article
<2b2b3afa-2a31-4982-ae69-666bfacb7867@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Nauvoo Expositor <johnil_33@lycos.com> wrote:

On Sep 8, 8:40?pm, Paul <Quiller...@gmail.com> wrote:
Here's how tolerant the book-burning beauty queen is:

? ?http://news.aol.com/elections/article/palins-church-promotes-gay-conv...

? ? ?In this day and age, still this level of intolerance.
Shall we bring back segregation too? ?Why not Nazi
level book burnings too?

? ? ?This woman is dangerous.....

If one gay man is converted it would lessen the spread of STD's like
AIDS.

Only if he is HIV+, loon.

 

[hank alrich]

Magus <johnnaishwerner@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sep 8, 8:40?pm, Paul <Quiller...@gmail.com> wrote:
Here's how tolerant the book-burning beauty queen is:

? ?http://news.aol.com/elections/article/palins-church-promotes-gay-conv...

? ? ?In this day and age, still this level of intolerance.
Shall we bring back segregation too? ?Why not Nazi
level book burnings too?

? ? ?This woman is dangerous.....

The church is praying for the conversion of gays. That's dangerous?
A man with AIDS is more dangerous.

To you? "Straight" men also get AIDs. Sacred of them, too?

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

 

[Jon Slaughter]

"Jenn" <jennconducts@mac.com> wrote in message
news:jennconducts-615A45.22165908092008@news.la.sbcglobal.net...

In article <Xpnxk.563$Z64.26@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com>,
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote:

"Paul" <Quiller123@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:075286df-2be4-413d-b26d-9ce4bb3fb86e@a18g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Here's how tolerant the book-burning beauty queen is:



http://news.aol.com/elections/article/palins-church-promotes-gay-conversion/
165471


In this day and age, still this level of intolerance.
Shall we bring back segregation too? Why not Nazi
level book burnings too?

This woman is dangerous.....

Obama's church supports "pray away the white" but thats ok... oh, and
just
because obama attends that church doesn't mean he supports those views!
Yet,
of course, because of the double standard, palin must.

If Palin's church doesn't get eight straight nights of being the top of
the news, I'd say that the double standard is the other way.

Well, is "praying for conversion" equivalent to "praying for
destruction"?!?! I guess in your mind it is? I guess you also think that the
VP is equivalent to the president(although I don't agree that either one
should have radical views... if I had to choose I'd rather chooset he lesser
of two evils)

 

[Steve Hawkins]

Paul <Quiller123@gmail.com> wrote in
news:075286df-2be4-413d-b26d-9ce4bb3fb86e@a18g2000pra.googlegroups.com:

Here's how tolerant the book-burning beauty queen is:


http://news.aol.com/elections/article/palins-church-promotes-gay-co
nversion/165471


In this day and age, still this level of intolerance.
Shall we bring back segregation too? Why not Nazi
level book burnings too?

This woman is dangerous.....

The only thing dangerous is you, quit crossposting!

Steve Hawkins

 

In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

Fact is, in 100 years from now, people will not be flying around in
things that are essentially 2008 Cessna's with new paint and the
latest Garmins. All those who think that it is naive and childish
will most likely be dead. But there will be a new group of pilots,
comfortable with what might be considered beyond bleeding edge today,
saying the same thing that you are now, about the not-yet-hear
futuristic technology.

Childish, fantasy nonsense.

To make that happen would require the technology of Star Trek impulse
engines and anti-gravity to be invented.

There is a slim chance for electric power, but that won't change how
airplanes look or fly.

Technology will not stand still for anyone, no matter how hard they
wish it would.

More childish nonsense.

No one in aviation wishes techonology to stand still.

You, however, are wishing for cartoon and TV show technology to
magically appear.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Kris Krieger]

mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in news:027ba79a-67f2-4a00-8d44-
204fe41f11db@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

This is a delayed response because I figured you were asking honest
questions, and I was trying to fin some info (for myself as well).

You'd asked about interviews - I'd heard a brief mention on CNN this past
Sunday evening taht she supposedly granted a "walk'n'talk" type interview to
Dana Bash that was supposed to take place this Thursday and Friday. But I
haven't heard anything since, and haven't checked today yet as to whether
this is still in the works.

Meanwhile, I saw mention that interviews have bnot been granted to otehr
journalists because teh Campaign said that "she will give interviews when
it's beenficial to the campaign". So much ofr the concept of open debate -
and it's not exacyl a harbinger of *any* sort of increased transparency if
the Republicans get 4 more years in the Oval Office...

Meanwhile, the only interviews have been with Palin's former aid, and Alaskan
news reporter, Meghan Stapleton. It's almost as tho' *she* is the veep
candidate...

On Sep 8, 1:11pm, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:


Hmmm, I can't answer for partisans - I'm an Independent, no party
affiliations. �But I also wonder whether *all* Republicans are merely
accepting the hoopla without asking any questions. Neither party has a
monopoly on partisanship


McCain's got a definite bump in the polls post-convention.
Not sure what's driving that, but a good bet is Palin.

Hard to say. Conventions in general cause "bumps". Also, right now she
seems to be emotionally appealing to women who are similar to herself. Only
time will tell what info will (or won't) come out. Right now, all the hoopla
is emotional (i.e. "warmfuzzy-touchyfeelie" stuff). I'm not alone in
noticing that her campaign-trail speeches are, with very few additions or
adjustments, repetitions of the convention speech. I watched the convention
speech twice (ugh…) and also read it, so I know the phrases. So from what I
can tell, she's so far a one-trick pony.

There are also a few pre-Veep interviews with her on YouTube - check the one
with Glenn Beck and the one with Charlie Rose. Basically, she's been saying
the same three things throughout:
- she stopped teh bridge project
- she sold the state jet
- she thinks there is "plenty" of oil (as tho' she doesn't understand that
it's a finite resource) and, although she at least mentions natural gas, she
never mentions anything about renewable energy ...
....except fopr the following, which is quite interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO6dmBm1SFw&NR=1

Meanwhile, this (apx a 10 min video) expresses many of my concerns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHK77l07FPI&feature=related

I get the feeling McCain really wanted Lieberman, but a sobering analysis
of that pick (as I'm sure the party elders told him) would probably doom the

ticket. Actually, now that I think about it, McCain

"is" the party elder. Ha!!!!

The common notion is that McCain picked Palin to "lure Hillary supporters".

Although a few people will vote for pretty much anyone just because they're
female, what I'm seeing is that this was a cynical and coldly-rational plan
intended to keep reporters, analysts, and people in general so dang busy
trying to find out who the heck Palin is that they don't have teh time to
take a good hard look at McCain's record, policies, and potential effect of
those policies. The only people who seem to be paying attention are the
Financial publications/programs.

I did see a website where the Repub. campaign si quoted as having denies
reporters interviews with Palin because "she will give interviews when it is
beneficial for teh campaign for her to do so".

That pretty much says it all - it is to their advantage to keep people as
distracted as possible, for as lo0ng as possible, while they build "emotional
excitement" - since we all know that most people vote emotionally rather than
rationally. It's all pretty much in keeping with Rove and Machiavelli -
whatever one might opine about their "morality", the fact, like it or not, is
that they both know the politics of the masses.

But you get my point. Sarah Palin gives the republicans something > to
get truly excited about -- especially since it appears they weren't
even really all that excited about McCain. Too much of a Maverick
for the base, and probably a bit too centrist too.

They were very clever there as well. IN addition to picking an unknown, they
(1) built tension and excitement by delaying the announcement, and (2)
brought out someone who is fairly young, and cute.

After all, look at how much air time was been frittered away blathering about
her "style". A lot of people gobble that shit up like it was the world's
best chocolate - and again, it distracts them from looking for real
information and asking real questions. It's mass psychology.

Still, it's a long way to Election Day. Palin's pick put them back in
the race.
November will be very interesting.....

That's one word for it...personally, I find the mob psychology of
electioneering a bit scary.

I did speak with a friend yesterday (in rural Tennessee), and
he says the country's basically closed-up. No jobs
anywhere.... Very depressing!

Well, the US lost, what, well over 600,000 jobs just in this past quarter.

McCain sez that Obama would cut overseas markets for US goods, but never
mentions the US jobs lost becasue of trade policies that aer discouraging teh
production of goods in the US - what does he think has been happenign to
jobs? Sure, some are lost due to attrition, but most are lost to trade
practices taht go beyond equitabel trade, and give *preference* to both
imported cheap goods (with substandard safety requirements) and to companies
that relocate jobs overseas.

What nobody is asking is, given that the US is losing not only jobs, but
their related skill-sets, and given that oil is finite and, despite current
price reductions, has always, and will, continue to trend upwards, what is
goign to happen to the US economy when the cost of transport those cheap
goods to the US becomes more than US consumers can pay...?

If indeed most "voters" (the ones who actually register
AND cast a vote!) are similarly situated, republicans could be
in big trouble.

One would think so at first glance - but remember that, in uncertain times,
when people are already fearful, they look for security, comfort,
reassurance. I'm personally thinking that most voters will be fearful about
"change" and will find McCain "comforting", and Palin his "spunky cute
sidekick".

You also have to rememebr that a great many people prefer "geniality" over
intelligence. That's one of the reason's Bush was elected - twice. He comes
across as a very genial fellow, someone who you'd like to invite to a BBQ.
ANd that's how people who've interviewed him personally see him.

THe problem is that there is a vast difference between thinking about who one
would like to invite to a BBQ, and thinking about who has the brains and will
to be Commander in Chief. But most people don't see that. Msot poeple look
at "Who seems to be the most like me? Who would I want to invite to my kid's
birthday party?"

But a "pal/buddy" is *not* a "leader" - the two things are pretty much
opposite.

I live in a major metro area, so I don't see it as much. But
there
are still signs of a "soft landing" everywhere you look.

Well, not so soft, really.

As if the
real underlying economic "recovery" is actually built on a pretty
fragile house of cards.(?) And now we're bailing out Freddie /
Fannie...
Where was the Republican oversight?

OK, what happened with F&F was that (1) the stage was set for disaster, and
then (2) the coup de gras was delivered.

So First, the stage is set:
Well, F&F have been around for many decades. But what happened is that,
during the last bank failure (around 1990 IIRC), when over 1000 banks went
down the tubes, all of their mortgages were schlepped over into F&F. In the
very last years of the 90's, the mortgage application and approval
procuresses were changed so as to allow things like ARMs. Then, in 2000 or
2001, Bush started going on about "putting every American in their own home"
(as tho' renting was some sort of plague upon the earth …). At the same
time, Alan Greenspan started blithering on as to how everybody should be
jumping not only into ARMs, but inot interest-only mortgages and various
other cockamamie goofienss.


Now, the coup de gras:
The Republican administration's love of laissez faire economics meant that
any regulation, and even, esp. in the case of what the stock market calls
'naked shorts', enforcement of existing financial laws, were seen as a plague
upon the earth. ((Look into 'naked shorts' - you'll be appalled - huge hedge
funds use the technique to drive the price of stock down into the crapper so
that they can make mega-profits, and to hell with the people whose IRAs,
401Ks, and oterh savings aer destroyed. BTW, note that this has also
destroyed companies - which shows the Big Lie that "republicans are good for
business" for the travesty that it is - this administration has been good
only for a very few people who are already stratospherically rich, and we
have only to look at what's going on to see just how "great" => they've
been for business.))

At any rate:

The results of all that have been
First: there was no longer any connection whatsoever between the issuance of
a mortgage, and the consequences thereof - IOW, instead of having to go to a
bank and applying for a loan (mortgage), people merely went to "brokers" who
were nothing more than salespeople working off a commission - all of the
loans were instantly sold (i.e. palmed off) onto someone else. When brokers
gave mortgages to people who obviously would never be able to pay it off,
there were ZERO consequences for the brokers; they made their commissions and
then went merrily on their way.
Second: The consequences were therefore borne by whomever bought the mortgage
(i.e. took on the debt), and by the people who had gotten in way over their
heads.

Now, some of those folks were, God bless 'em, just not all that bright;
others thought they were getting something for nothing and went for the
largest mortgages they could possibly get away with; and still others saw
house prices rising and simply ASSumed (as people have done in every bubble)
that prices would continue going up and they would then be able to sell their
oversized house for a profit.

The above would not have happened had the mortgages been brokered buy the
institutions that would have been holding the mortgage.

One of the reasons mortgages used to be harder to get was =not= because of
some half-baked notion that some people don't deserve their own home, as was
implied by Greenspan and this Administration. It was that only an idiot
gives someone a loan with no collateral or other form of guarantee that the
person =can= and =will= repay the loan.

But mortgage brokers were giving loans to people whose monthly mortgage
payment not only exceeded, but far exceeded, the applicant's monthly income.
That is, when the income/employment info was even checked! - which it
increasingly was not.

Why would anyone pay those CEO's millions to fuck up liquidity > that much?

You have to remember how things work when it comes to administrating
publicly-held companies. Now, what "stock" is, is a small part of a company.
A private company can have investors, but cannot sell stock; if a private
company wishes to expand, and do so by raising capital through the sale of
stock, the law is that the company must, in exchange, be administered by a
Board of Directors. Many, and IIRC actually most, people who sit on various
Boards of Directors are actually CEOs of other companies. There is no
requirement for any of them to have come up through the ranks of whatever
company they're directing - and I've personally known of at least one CEOs
who said he actually did not know what the company they're helping direct
even did, what sort of business it was.

It's quite "clubby" and there is a great deal of "you scratch my back and
I'll scratch yours" that goes on - so, even if a CEOP tanks at one place, the
"club" generally sees to it that the person is either hired by another
company, or given some sort of lateral transfer, wherein the individual might
not have any real power, but still draws an obscenely-large salary.

Now, technically, stockholders do vote for the Board of Directors, but the
'candidates' are given to them - IOW, it's a multiple choice question, not a
write-in. SO, if the proffered candidates are
"Former CEO of failed company X"
or
"Former CEO of foundering company Y"
or
"Former CEO of defunct dotcom"
well, one is as bad as the other.

Also, many stock holders vote "by proxy" - IOW, not having the time, or
perhaps interest, in looking into the choices, they sign a waiver that allows
someone else to vote for them.

And speaking of Greenspan, there was nothing more important he > could have
done in his 20+ years at the Fed then to head off
this housing bubble. IMO.

No "IMO" about it - he was a major and direct cause of what happened, which
is why I've *zero* interest in anything that comes out of his mouth at this
point. I'm thoroughly disgusted that he is a "paid consultant", given what
he's done to the economy - I don't understand how anyone can take his
"advice" seriously.


So, goign back to teh elections: all of the above is stuff I've learned
through a lot of listenign and reading and research. What I want to know is
which of the candidates have even that much understanding of the economy. I
am certain, given both his education and intelligence, Obama could learn
that, and much more. Biden is also pretty sharp. Given McCain's repeated
admissions of being rather ignorant about the economy, I don't have much
confidence in that regard. And Given that Palin sees no ethical dilemma in
having nixed a project yet retained the earmarked funds for it, and did not
sell the state jet on eBay but through an aviation broker (and at a huge loss
I might add), and so on, well, I've no confidence in her, either.

YMMV of course

HTH

- Kris

 

[Kris Krieger]

mpm <mpmillard@aol.com> wrote in news:b9404d8d-c709-4525-98fb-ff62a4c64f75
@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

On Sep 8, 8:04�pm, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:

I always appreciate links and book-references that are informative. ď
ż˝
Contrary to your unfounded insistance that I'm a moron, I *do* read and
learn new things.

Yeah, but do you move your lips when you read?

I'm just messing with you.
Don't let pipe boy get to you. He's a total blowhard.
You don't need to defend yourself.

Mostly, people like that just confuse me becasue I don't "get" why peole get
so emotional. I see it as emotion because, with most people I've known in
real life, name-calling is either a response to someone else's nastiness, or
a sign of extreme frustration with someone who is doing everything possible
to avoid being reasonable.
Maybe I've just known too many sensible people

I wasn't so much justrifying myself as just trying to give the fellow a
chance to make his case, since it might be that he mistook what I wrote as
somehow rude. I try to give everyone a "fair hearing" so to speak. If they
come back again with rudeness, to heck with them. If they come back with a
reasonable reply, well OK then...


It's actually a form of laziness on my part In my 20's and 30's, yeah, I
was a lot more reactive and even contentious, but now, well, I have less
energy than I did back then, so concentrate it on the things that are
necessary and/or fun, and the things I feel passionate about - and there's
little left over to waste of getting all POed

Or, in a nutshell: "Stress, baaaad - beer'n'BBQ, goooood" <L!>

 

[bg]

David Lesher wrote in message ...

So a fellow EE asked me:


//

There is a 107.9 MHz FM transmitter about 3 miles from my house.
There is a 107.3 MHz FM transmitter about 45 miles from my house.
See any problem?

Do you have any suggestions for a notch or lowpass filter to kill the
107.9 MHz signal (Hip-Hop format)? I believe it is causing intermod
distortion on 107.3 and other FM stations.

I already tried a 5-element directional antenna at various orientations
(vert/horiz, tilt up/down, etc.)

I was looking at the following:
1) Coax stub notch filter.
2) Filters from Tin Lee Electronics.
3) Filters from Par Electronics.
4) Complaining to 107.9 and getting a free filter.

\\


I wonder if anyone here has experience with 2 or 3? I suspect 1) will not
have enough Q, and the 4) people won't have enough clue. [Anyone here
remember back when radio stations had Chief Engineers with a First Class
License?]



--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

A long time back, cable TV injected an interfering beep into pay TV
channels. Those that paid for the service got a notch filter to remove the
beep. Those that didn't pay, could buy a kit and build their own filter. The
kits were tuneable and provided about a 40db notch 1 mhz wide. If you search
google for TV notch filters, there still might be information available.
With a bit of tweaking, I'm sure you could get one of those kits to work.
bg

 

[Kris Krieger]

Simon S Aysdie <gwhite@ti.com> wrote in news:3aa84f9f-6e7c-4024-bf55-
e0796387d932@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:

[snip]

You stated the obvious (that government will enforce decisions of the
court), and follow up with another obvious (that judges ought to do
their best honest effort to determine the Constitutionality of laws)
and I'm supposed to think you offered something?

Er, what you're "supposed" to think is your business. For my part, I could
not tell, from the post, that you had info - I only saw an opinion. Maybe a
lot had already been snipped without being noted as such, but, if it wasn't
noted, I wouldn't have known it was snipped...

If you already know some thing, you can just say so.

The point was that the judges were actually making law, not judging
simply legislation. You know, that thing so-called judicial activism.

OK, that's reasonable enough. Justices have been skirting the edge between
evaluating law andmaking law for a long time, AFAIK - that's one of the
challenges of the system. Poeple have indeed criticized teh fact that the
Supreme Court is the ultimate legal authority, and as such, has no oversight;
at teh same time, tho', the Legislature and Executive, even if they had
oversight, are in no way immune from either passing laws that are
unconstitutional, or changing laws in a way that makes tehm unconstitutional.
Also, something that might be offensive to some might be completely
constitutional - that's one of the dicey parts about Freedom of Speech,
because it's not unusual for one group of poeple to say things that are
compeltely abhorrent to another group.

It'd be more clear if you could mention the specifc cases (since I get the
impression that you have some things in mind) where you think the Supreme
Court is in error. The main difficulty is that I'm not, and don't know
anyone who is, a scholar of the Constitution. In lieu of scholarship, all
someone can offer is their best understanding.

 

[Kris Krieger]

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6iltk8Frirp7U1@mid.individual.net:

Kris Krieger wrote:


Only Nanosolar are claiming
to offer anything better but they won't release data. Smells of
something nasty to me.
It's called "proprietary info", and it's common for companies in all
sectors to not release their trade secrets. What will need to be
seen is what results are shown from tests.

Nanosolar have just had a $300m injection of capital to boost their
production capacity.

Yes, despite the naysayers and those who are addicted to the status
quo, at least some people *are* doing research and testing ideas.
And one might suppose that people investing $300m actually look at the
tech in some detail.


What I was replying to (eeyore's comments) went far beyond the
specifics of the original post.

Re: the specific company, as with any investment, it's a case of
"caveat emptor" - a person should look carefully into *any* investment.
THat's a different matter from what I commented on.

There's also the matter of efficiency. The actual efficiency of a PV
cell doesn't really matter much once you get beyond 10-20%.
The real determinant is cost per peak Watt, and there's no reason to
believe physics will somehow magically limit it to $1/W (which works out
at $200 per sq m at 20% efficiency). Thin film tech like Nanosolar's
could eventually reduce the cost far below that price, to the extent
that no other form of generation could compete on cost.

Yup! Some more interesting reading:

http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/?p=138

http://greenwombat.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/08/27/thin-film-solar-
startup-scores-a-fat-300-million/

http://greenwombat.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/08/14/california-game-
changing-solar-deal/

http://greenwombat.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/08/25/from-rustbelt-to-
greenbelt/


The last is of aprticular interest to me - I'm interested in companies that
are looking to do just that, revitalize the "rust belt" by tapping into its
workforce and talent via renewable energy technologies and manufacturing.
Makes good sense in terms of business, environment, *and* poeple

There are a lot of talented people out there, and Nanosolar is IMO a great
example. I also think this is a really great idea:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/solarcells-0710.html

It was tried in the past but wasn't feasible for various reasons - but now,
it is feasible thanks to the ingenuity and creativity of the researchers
who forged ahead rather than merely accepting that "it couldn't be done"
=:-D

- Kris

 

In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

The pilots I have spoken to are not saying that about airplanes. They
are speaking for both themselves as well as the other people who might
want something different from what they have.

It just keeps going right over the top of your head, doesn't it?

They are trying to get you to understand the realities of regulation,
science, engineering, and economics.

It doesn't matter if I or any other pilot likes the idea of a 4 place
GA aircraft with fly-by-wire controls.

The simple reality is that such an airplane would be heavier, more
complex to maintain, more expensive to build, purchase and insure,
and have no advantage over the same airplane with cable and pully
controls.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 9, 2:35?pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:

The simple reality is that such an airplane would be heavier, more
complex to maintain, more expensive to build, purchase and insure,
and have no advantage over the same airplane with cable and pully
controls.

Except for the part about insurance, I disagree.

So, how much real world experience in design and manufacture to
government specifications do you have that leads you to that
conclusion?

And, with your vast piloting experience, name some things that a fly-by-wire
Cessna 172 could legally do that a cable and pulley Cessna 172 could not.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Kris Krieger]

Simon S Aysdie <gwhite@ti.com> wrote in news:1fec8018-d3f4-4978-abbd-
bd76a69fcb33@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com:

On Sep 9, 11:05 am, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
Simon S Aysdie <gwh...@ti.com> wrote in news:3aa84f9f-6e7c-4024-bf55-
e0796387d...@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:

[snip]

[snip]

The point was that the judges were actually making law, not judging
simply legislation.  You know, that thing so-called judicial activism
.

OK, that's reasonable enough.  Justices have been skirting the edge bet
ween
evaluating law andmaking law for a long time, AFAIK - that's one of the
challenges of the system.  

They weren't just skirting it. They were violating the grant of
powers in "that document" you posted.

"That document"...why in quotes? Er, that's usually done is when someone is
demeaning the Constitution...which might not realize so I just mentioned it,
as opposed to immediately reacting with passion...

I said "skirting" because (1) I was speaking in generaland (2) I know that
I'm by no means any sort of scholar on the topic, and I therefore don't want
to make absolute statements when I, well, er, might not really know what I'm
talking about.

Poeple have indeed criticized teh fact that the
Supreme Court is the ultimate legal authority, and as such, has no oversi
ght;

I wish to make a small point. The supreme court is only the ultimate
authority on matters dealing with the powers granted to the federal
government. They are certainly *not*, at least by the constitution,
the final authority on *all* matters of law occuring within the bounds
of the US. Strictly speaking, there are many matters they -- by the
acutal powers granted them -- cannot rule on (at least cannot by what
the constitution says is granted).

Fair enough, and something to think about.

In fact, this has been often
usurped and that is a good part of my point.

The US is a divided soveignty political construction. This means that
what powers were not granted to the federal government, are reserved
to the people of the States.

THat's true. It's also a Representative Democracy, not a direct Democracy.
My own understanding of that is far from perfect (hell, probably far from
even moderately sophisticated) but I have the impression that the average
level of understanding is even, well, "less perfect" than my own

I am not at all optimistic that the constitution (and thus federalism)
will be restored in force, including all amendments, and that was my
original point.

Maybe that had gotten snipped? - let's see (I'm reloading the group including
the alread-read posts...) ((Which is why I try to not just get PO-ed - this
is a very imperfect medium...or, as the ancient proverb says, "shit
happens".))

OK, now that I got the context back - I see now, you mentioned the erosion of
States' Rights, and your thought was that both SOcial Security and any
futrure form of nationalized health care are no COnstitutional - Oh, OK, tehn
someone said
QUOTE: "The Supreme Court decides what is legal or illegal (Constitutional,
that is. Congress is free to do what it wants within those bounds)."

Alrighty then, now we have Context...Yeah, OK, so I was responding to
something unrelated. Oooops...

Going back to what you'd mentioned - again, I'm in no way a scholar of the
Constitution, so all I can say is that I've heard it argued that Soc. Sec.,
and some other forms of entitlement payments, are justified by the phrasing
of "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare".

Is that actually a justification? Well, to be honest, I don't know.
My education has some significant "holes" in it that I've still not come
anywhere near filling. All I know is that I've heard it argued that the
above phrases legitimize social security, welfare, and other social programs
- but, that being said, it's also not a stretch to argue that those
entitlement programs can easily get to the point where they *erode* Domestic
Tranquility and *upset* the General Welfare becasue theincreased taxation
required to make the entitlement payments will eventually become oppressive
to the people who are being taxed.

IIRC, the main tenet of Marxism was "from each according to his ability; to
each according to his need", but Marx was obviously not a student of human
nature and thus seemed to have no concept of the fact that most people want
to benefit from their own labor, and that most people take freebies for
granted. He also either refused to acknowledge, or had no comprehension of,
the trait of greed. And when people are elft to determine their own needs,
some - oh hell, let's be honest, *many* - will exaggerate their needs:
yesterday, maybe the was for a clean bed to sleep in an a hot meal, but as
those things become expected, the "need" expands until it includes cell
phones and cable TV and so on. That's why all but only a couple of Communes
not only failed, but failed rapidly - there always ended up being moochers
and slackers, and their constant use of resources, without contributing to
obtaining those resources, led to the demoralization and eventual dispersal
of the members.

The thing is that most animals are essentially "lazy"- they do only as much
as they need to do to first, feed themselves, and second, feed their
offspring. Thnik of how much lions sleep - something like 18 hours a day.
It's a sensible approach becasue it conserves energy and thereby enhances
survival when food is in short supply. And when food in plentiful it makes
sense becasue, heck, why run your buns off in the hot sun, when sleeping alot
means you have to hunt less.

Marx seemd to have no concept of any of that. Most Utopians don't.
"Utopia" literally means "noplace/no such place/nowhere".


So going back to the General Welfare, etc., it seems to me that the word
"general" had a differnt meaning when the COnstitution was written. I think
that, back then, the idea was to see to it that opportunity was available to
all, not that cradle-to-grave support was available to all. The latter is
Socialism, and the biggest problemk with Socialism is not that it costs
moneyu - after all, if it costs $X to go to the doctor, that's what it costs.
THe problem is that, where a private individual foes to the doctor's office
and can directly $X in cash for the doctor's services, doing the same thign
via a Socialist system requires that paperwork be doen at the Dr.'s office,
which is sent to a processing center, which divvies up the various
'categories' of required payments - and so on and so forth, through a number
of people as it (the paperwork for the payment) navigates the Bureaucracy.

So the actual *cost* is no the $X, but rather, $X plus the cost of the
bureaucracy.

And I somehow, juuuuust somehow, don't think that's really what the framers
of the Constitution really had in mind. As to what role the Supreme Court is
actually taking with regard to this - I have to plead ignorance, and just say
that I still have a lot to read and learn.

at teh same time, tho', the Legislature and Executive, even if they had
oversight, are in no way immune from either passing laws that are
unconstitutional, or changing laws in a way that makes tehm unconstitutio
nal.  
Also, something that might be offensive to some might be completely
constitutional - that's one of the dicey parts about Freedom of Speech,
because it's not unusual for one group of poeple to say things that are
compeltely abhorrent to another group.

It'd be more clear if you could mention the specifc cases (since I get th
e
impression that you have some things in mind) where you think the Supreme
Court is in error.  The main difficulty is that I'm not, and don't know
anyone who is, a scholar of the Constitution.  In lieu of scholarship,
all
someone can offer is their best understanding.

Well, I gave you a link to Berger, who is a scholar. Liberty Fund has
the entire book online and in pdf, and you can get a used hardcopy at
Amazon for <$10. It is chock full of case references.

Right, and I honestly appreciate that - my education has a lot of holes in it
(OK, most of it kind so suked...), and I see learnign as a lifelong process
I just can't read very fast (wonky eye)...

It's some heavy reading, too, and I like to digest rather than skim, but it's
interesting so far. Just slow going for me.

I like this phrase a lot, tho':
"To thrust aside the dead hand of the Framers is to thrust aside the
Constitution."

SO true!

Regardless of your agreement or disagreement, once you study it, it
shall still serve as a rich resource of "who's who" in the field, and
all the pertinant historical records. Footnoting and references are
_extensive_. You can check everything for yourself. IOW, if nothing
else, it is launch pad for further study.

THat whole website looks like it has some great resources, actually.

Note: I have never read an author with whom I did not disagree with on
various points. Another way of saying this is that no one is right
about everything. Weigh all the arguments and try to do what a judge
ought to do: see who is most compelling, and try to push out your own
biases.

One of my own tenets is that One never learns anything from people who are
mirror-images of oneself Some people see that as "fence-sitting", but I
really don't care.

You can also do the basic studies, like the federalist and anti-
federalist papers. Some good historians are Forrest McDonald, Leonard
Levy, and Bernard Bailyn, although I have a mixed review of Levy (his
BoR book is very good).

OK, cool, it's good to have a place to start, thanks! - I jotted those down
in my hardcover/permanent book of notes, so I don't lose or forget the info.

In my studies, I have to say there is no question that the federal
judiciary has overstepped its bounds, with certain 20th courts being
among the worst. I do not intend to spend time here articulating this
-- it is neither the forum, and nor do I have the time.

Treu enough, and makes sense. THanks for the references, tho'

I appreciate the open-mindedness and apologize for the insulting
language.

Thanks, I appreciate that - and in the end, it's all part of being Human, so
it wouldn't make sense for me to hold grudges, when I'm certainly no more
perfect than anyone else. And certainly more confued (Asperger's ) than
most, heh