L
Les Cargill
Guest
John Larkin wrote:
--
Les Cargill
Exactly, although that one's probably tougher....
--
Les Cargill
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
A confederacy of dunces will always shoot each other in the foot:
to make $200 million under radar.
You dunces need to work on your talking points more, get on the same
page, etc.
Bret Cahill
You just undermined the "circuit designer's" claim that it is possibleAbout 13 figures a year and climbing.
Cool. How about some links to your public record?
If he really makes ten trillion a year I think we already would have heard
about it.
to make $200 million under radar.
You dunces need to work on your talking points more, get on the same
page, etc.
Bret Cahill
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
More internal contradictions from our dunces:
You dunces need to get on the same page with yer talking points.
Bret Cahill
.. . .There's no more excrutiatingly-boring way to
waste money than getting tangled in the legal system.
Someone needs to tell HP, TI, IBM, Apple etc. to stop defending
patents.
I don't have patents...
.. . .they are a huge waste of time,
You need to tell that to IBM, HP, TI Apple and all those others
wasting money on them.
and only the
first step in litigation, even worse.
So everyone else making trillions off IP is wasting time?
So, was your "money making patent" a waste of time and money?LOL,
You dunces need to get on the same page with yer talking points.
Bret Cahill
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
The young and/or disenfranchised aren't aware of my work.About 13 figures a year and climbing.
Cool. How about some links to your public record?
If he really makes ten trillion a year I think we already would have heard
about it.
Not that we need any more evidence, but that's one more way it's easy
to know you've never done anything remarkable.
Bret Cahill
J
John Fields
Guest
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:38:36 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
Nope, it made me a lot more money than was spent on the patent.
---
We _are_ on the same page, dumbass, we just have different philosophies
and strategies regarding patents.
It's _you_, actually, who's on a different page because even though you
pretend to know what you're talking about, your clumsy use of technical
language and your inability to post the mathematical underpinnings of
your "ideas" clearly labels you as the phony that you are.
Court reporter? maybe.
Theorist? Nope
Futurist? Nope
Circuit designer? Never in a million years.
JF
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
---More internal contradictions from our dunces:
There's no more excrutiatingly-boring way to
waste money than getting tangled in the legal system.
Someone needs to tell HP, TI, IBM, Apple etc. to stop defending
patents.
I don't have patents...
. . .
they are a huge waste of time,
You need to tell that to IBM, HP, TI Apple and all those others
wasting money on them.
and only the
first step in litigation, even worse.
So everyone else making trillions off IP is wasting time?
. . .
LOL, Larkin's got you frothing at the mouth!
So, was your "money making patent" a waste of time and money?
Nope, it made me a lot more money than was spent on the patent.
---
---You dunces need to get on the same page with yer talking points.
We _are_ on the same page, dumbass, we just have different philosophies
and strategies regarding patents.
It's _you_, actually, who's on a different page because even though you
pretend to know what you're talking about, your clumsy use of technical
language and your inability to post the mathematical underpinnings of
your "ideas" clearly labels you as the phony that you are.
Court reporter? maybe.
Theorist? Nope
Futurist? Nope
Circuit designer? Never in a million years.
JF
J
John Fields
Guest
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:43:08 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
Not that we need any more evidence, but that's one more way it's easy
to know _you've_ never done anything remarkable.
---
JF
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
---The young and/or disenfranchised aren't aware of my work.
Not that we need any more evidence, but that's one more way it's easy
to know you've never done anything remarkable.
Not that we need any more evidence, but that's one more way it's easy
to know _you've_ never done anything remarkable.
---
JF
K
krw
Guest
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:13:57 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
taxes on all profits. I'm sure you have as well, though the tax on
zero is...
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
Larkin hasn't made money "under the radar". I'm quite sure he's paidA confederacy of dunces will always shoot each other in the foot:
About 13 figures a year and climbing.
Cool. How about some links to your public record?
If he really makes ten trillion a year I think we already would have heard
about it.
You just undermined the "circuit designer's" claim that it is possible
to make $200 million under radar.
taxes on all profits. I'm sure you have as well, though the tax on
zero is...
You need to got off daddy's computer now.You dunces need to work on your talking points more, get on the same
page, etc.
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:13:57 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
personally "make" that amount. I'm sure there are EEs who have
designed gigabucks worth of stuff.
Tell us more about your thirteen figures. I you mean dollars, that's
close to, or more than, the US GDP. If you're that rich, can't you
hire a web designer?
Personally, I think you're a nobody dreamer, a kid with more fantasies
than skills.
John
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
I have designed around $200M worth of electronics; in never claimed toA confederacy of dunces will always shoot each other in the foot:
About 13 figures a year and climbing.
Cool. How about some links to your public record?
If he really makes ten trillion a year I think we already would have heard
about it.
You just undermined the "circuit designer's" claim that it is possible
to make $200 million under radar.
personally "make" that amount. I'm sure there are EEs who have
designed gigabucks worth of stuff.
Tell us more about your thirteen figures. I you mean dollars, that's
close to, or more than, the US GDP. If you're that rich, can't you
hire a web designer?
Personally, I think you're a nobody dreamer, a kid with more fantasies
than skills.
John
R
Rob Dekker
Guest
"Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message news:gkb6fa21t6r@news6.newsguy.com...
"Specifically, company engineers enhanced certain algaes' ability to make sugar and, through their enzymes, to ferment sugar into
ethanol."
Interesting process (algae that produces ethanol directly). Got my interest.
Algenol claim 6,000 gallons ethanol/acre/year.
That is at the limit of Dimitrov's practical limit but not entirely impossible, since ethanol has lower burn value than oil.
Still there is not much energy left over for the algae's own life and reproduction.
Other things are fishier :
"By pumping carbon dioxide from the station into the algae bioreactors, the saltwater algae farm can boost production to 10,000
gallons of ethanol per acre per year, he said."
10,000 gallons/acre/year is above the Dimitrov limit, so somebody is exaggerating. The question is how much this number is wrong.
"He said the ethanol produced at the farm will cost ... about $3 per gallon."
As you say, if actual production will be a more realistic 2,000 gallons/acre/year, then they will make at least 3X or 4X less money
than claimed. Consequently, ethanol from this plant would cost $9/gallon or more. Please note that wholesale ethanol even at the
peak in June 2008 was never higher than $2.90/gallon.
All their predictions should come true, otherwise it will be very hard to make a profit even when oil prices return to record
levels.
More noteworthy info :
http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/
"Does use treated manure instead of fossil fuel based fertilizers"
So they DO need fertilizer ! Seawater alone is not enough.
Check this out :
http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/advantages-affordable.html
They DO need enhanced CO2, even for their 6,000 gallons/acre/year.
The 10,000 number is just a projection (which violates Dimitrov limit).
Other questions remain :
Seawater input : How do they deal with contamination ?
Seawater is filled with microorganisms, including massive amounts of algae, bacteria and other microorganisms.
If you give these guys enhanced CO2 and sunlight and nutrients, everything will start to multipy like crazy too. Not just your
intended algae that makes ethanol.
Even worse, the algae produces suger as an intermediate product. Everything microscopic LOVES suger....
They better have a pretty good filter or sterilization process, otherwise the odds are against the expensive GM algae, and ethanol
yield will be very low. You WILL get a lot of biomass probably. Maybe you can burn that, in that nearby power plant that's needed.
"... a saltwater algae farm in the Sonoran Desert in northwest Mexico".."The Mexican site is located a few miles away from a power
generation station."
A powerplant in the Sonora desert ? How big ? (remember that the ethanol yield is limited by the amount of enhanced CO2 available).
I would not yet invest in this venture, even if you could...
Rob
Thanks for the link.On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:32:29 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:
"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
news:RYv9l.12680$yr3.8378@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
"Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gk5lab2akv@news5.newsguy.com...
.......................
Has anyone seen any real evidence of anything close to 2,000
gallons/ acre year?
That's $20,000/acre when berry crops fetch more than that.
A 1000 percent increase above $2 per gallon (that will be the
price by summer) would be $200 per gallon or $400K per acre if
2000 gal/acre.
1000 percent would be 10X, which would be $20/gallon. or $40K per
acre per year for a 2000 gal/acre algae farm.
Actually it would be $30 a gallon because the price is currently
$1.50.
Don't want to nit-pick here, but 1000% (10X) of $1.50 is $15 a
gallon.
OK, fine, At $15 a gallon the capital investment needed for algae
production is quite profitable. The land costs are zilch. All the
costs are in the short 15 year capital depreciation-amortization of
the reactors. You build 100 reactors they are expensive (even plastic
bags). But when you build 20k reactors the price per reactor goes way
the hell down. That is especially true in a depression. And BTW,
Mexico is running out of oil regardless of what happens elsewhere.
I know what you are saying, and I also felt like this for a long time.
I just don't see the profitability that you see, or to put it
differently : I think that other farm use of cheap land would be more
profitable that growing algae.
Let me run an example in detail, and see if I can validate this
statement a bit more concrete. That may clear up the difference in
perspective that we seem to have. Don't have time now, but I will do
this soon.
Michael, I can't get good numbers on the profitabillity of food grown on
marginal lands in greenhouses, but I did find this one that is doing
just that right now in the Arizona desert :
http://kjzz.org/news/arizona/archives/200602/organicfarming2
The point is that food grown in greenhouses is already profitable now.
With increase in fuel prices (and with that increase in food prices, and
increase in land prices) growing food on marginal lands in greenhouses
will become a HUGE profitable market. Food is always more valuable than
fuel, and that's why I believe that algae grown for fuel (in bioractors)
will not ever be as profitable as growning food in similar costing
greenhouses. Even on marginal lands as this example shows.
Unless... Algae farms 'bioreactors' become a factor 10X cheaper (per
acre). THEN and only then will growing algae for fuel become profitable,
and will already be profitable now. Don't wait for the price of fuel to
go skyhigh.
According to what I have seen the 2000 gal per year does not require
the enhanced CO2.
Do you have a link to such an algae pilot project (without enhanced CO2)
?
Rob
The following is one of those hollow claims that are very difficult to
investigate, but even the Dimitrove stuff does not disprove the viability
of 3000 gallons per acre. If this operation claims $3/gal at 6k per year
then a realistic 2K per year would be $9 per gallon. If we were to load
the price of gasoline with its true unsubsidized cost we would have been
looking at close to this amount when oil was $145/bbl.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9966867-54.html
"Specifically, company engineers enhanced certain algaes' ability to make sugar and, through their enzymes, to ferment sugar into
ethanol."
Interesting process (algae that produces ethanol directly). Got my interest.
Algenol claim 6,000 gallons ethanol/acre/year.
That is at the limit of Dimitrov's practical limit but not entirely impossible, since ethanol has lower burn value than oil.
Still there is not much energy left over for the algae's own life and reproduction.
Other things are fishier :
"By pumping carbon dioxide from the station into the algae bioreactors, the saltwater algae farm can boost production to 10,000
gallons of ethanol per acre per year, he said."
10,000 gallons/acre/year is above the Dimitrov limit, so somebody is exaggerating. The question is how much this number is wrong.
"He said the ethanol produced at the farm will cost ... about $3 per gallon."
As you say, if actual production will be a more realistic 2,000 gallons/acre/year, then they will make at least 3X or 4X less money
than claimed. Consequently, ethanol from this plant would cost $9/gallon or more. Please note that wholesale ethanol even at the
peak in June 2008 was never higher than $2.90/gallon.
All their predictions should come true, otherwise it will be very hard to make a profit even when oil prices return to record
levels.
More noteworthy info :
http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/
"Does use treated manure instead of fossil fuel based fertilizers"
So they DO need fertilizer ! Seawater alone is not enough.
Check this out :
http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/advantages-affordable.html
They DO need enhanced CO2, even for their 6,000 gallons/acre/year.
The 10,000 number is just a projection (which violates Dimitrov limit).
Other questions remain :
Seawater input : How do they deal with contamination ?
Seawater is filled with microorganisms, including massive amounts of algae, bacteria and other microorganisms.
If you give these guys enhanced CO2 and sunlight and nutrients, everything will start to multipy like crazy too. Not just your
intended algae that makes ethanol.
Even worse, the algae produces suger as an intermediate product. Everything microscopic LOVES suger....
They better have a pretty good filter or sterilization process, otherwise the odds are against the expensive GM algae, and ethanol
yield will be very low. You WILL get a lot of biomass probably. Maybe you can burn that, in that nearby power plant that's needed.
"... a saltwater algae farm in the Sonoran Desert in northwest Mexico".."The Mexican site is located a few miles away from a power
generation station."
A powerplant in the Sonora desert ? How big ? (remember that the ethanol yield is limited by the amount of enhanced CO2 available).
I would not yet invest in this venture, even if you could...
Rob
You may be right. Not sure though. These EuroFresh tomatos DO taste good. I never buy anything else, and they are moderately priced.And, BTW. You are going to see this hothouse tomato factory go tits up.
Crap like that works great when times are good. It goes to hell in a
hand basket when recession hits. No more foo-foo foods. The beans and
the rice, the corn and wheat are IN thing.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
M
Michael Coburn
Guest
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:35:36 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:
enhance the process with additional CO2.
seawater is merely a starter, i.e. the seawater is used to fill up the
vats and after that it is recycled with fertilizer added. I have no idea
what cow crap costs and the energy content of it. If these people are
converting cow crap to ethanol very efficiently then that might be OK.
The solar energy is, therefore, not all the energy being input. It is
like the most recent entry from Ca. where they were converting sewage to
biodiesel. But you are right about all the contaminates. If the system
is closed so as to reduce the contaminates then where does the CO2 come
from? That is the part that is impossible. There are not enough power
plants surrounding the Sea of Cortes. And the amount of CO2 in the air
in that area is surely a lot less then in a metro area. The biggest
problem is the contaminates anyway. It's bullshit.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
NO. I can't find the place in what is on-line that tells me they must"Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gkb6fa21t6r@news6.newsguy.com...
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:32:29 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:
"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
news:RYv9l.12680$yr3.8378@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
"Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gk5lab2akv@news5.newsguy.com...
.......................
Has anyone seen any real evidence of anything close to 2,000
gallons/ acre year?
That's $20,000/acre when berry crops fetch more than that.
A 1000 percent increase above $2 per gallon (that will be the
price by summer) would be $200 per gallon or $400K per acre if
2000 gal/acre.
1000 percent would be 10X, which would be $20/gallon. or $40K per
acre per year for a 2000 gal/acre algae farm.
Actually it would be $30 a gallon because the price is currently
$1.50.
Don't want to nit-pick here, but 1000% (10X) of $1.50 is $15 a
gallon.
OK, fine, At $15 a gallon the capital investment needed for algae
production is quite profitable. The land costs are zilch. All the
costs are in the short 15 year capital depreciation-amortization of
the reactors. You build 100 reactors they are expensive (even
plastic bags). But when you build 20k reactors the price per reactor
goes way the hell down. That is especially true in a depression.
And BTW, Mexico is running out of oil regardless of what happens
elsewhere.
I know what you are saying, and I also felt like this for a long
time. I just don't see the profitability that you see, or to put it
differently : I think that other farm use of cheap land would be more
profitable that growing algae.
Let me run an example in detail, and see if I can validate this
statement a bit more concrete. That may clear up the difference in
perspective that we seem to have. Don't have time now, but I will do
this soon.
Michael, I can't get good numbers on the profitabillity of food grown
on marginal lands in greenhouses, but I did find this one that is
doing just that right now in the Arizona desert :
http://kjzz.org/news/arizona/archives/200602/organicfarming2
The point is that food grown in greenhouses is already profitable now.
With increase in fuel prices (and with that increase in food prices,
and increase in land prices) growing food on marginal lands in
greenhouses will become a HUGE profitable market. Food is always more
valuable than fuel, and that's why I believe that algae grown for fuel
(in bioractors) will not ever be as profitable as growning food in
similar costing greenhouses. Even on marginal lands as this example
shows.
Unless... Algae farms 'bioreactors' become a factor 10X cheaper (per
acre). THEN and only then will growing algae for fuel become
profitable, and will already be profitable now. Don't wait for the
price of fuel to go skyhigh.
According to what I have seen the 2000 gal per year does not require
the enhanced CO2.
Do you have a link to such an algae pilot project (without enhanced
CO2) ?
Rob
The following is one of those hollow claims that are very difficult to
investigate, but even the Dimitrove stuff does not disprove the
viability of 3000 gallons per acre. If this operation claims $3/gal at
6k per year then a realistic 2K per year would be $9 per gallon. If we
were to load the price of gasoline with its true unsubsidized cost we
would have been looking at close to this amount when oil was $145/bbl.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9966867-54.html
Thanks for the link.
"Specifically, company engineers enhanced certain algaes' ability to
make sugar and, through their enzymes, to ferment sugar into ethanol."
Interesting process (algae that produces ethanol directly). Got my
interest.
Algenol claim 6,000 gallons ethanol/acre/year. That is at the limit of
Dimitrov's practical limit but not entirely impossible, since ethanol
has lower burn value than oil. Still there is not much energy left over
for the algae's own life and reproduction.
Other things are fishier :
"By pumping carbon dioxide from the station into the algae bioreactors,
the saltwater algae farm can boost production to 10,000 gallons of
ethanol per acre per year, he said." 10,000 gallons/acre/year is above
the Dimitrov limit, so somebody is exaggerating. The question is how
much this number is wrong.
"He said the ethanol produced at the farm will cost ... about $3 per
gallon." As you say, if actual production will be a more realistic 2,000
gallons/acre/year, then they will make at least 3X or 4X less money than
claimed. Consequently, ethanol from this plant would cost $9/gallon or
more. Please note that wholesale ethanol even at the peak in June 2008
was never higher than $2.90/gallon.
All their predictions should come true, otherwise it will be very hard
to make a profit even when oil prices return to record levels.
More noteworthy info :
http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/
"Does use treated manure instead of fossil fuel based fertilizers" So
they DO need fertilizer ! Seawater alone is not enough.
Check this out :
http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/advantages-affordable.html They DO need
enhanced CO2, even for their 6,000 gallons/acre/year. The 10,000 number
is just a projection (which violates Dimitrov limit).
Other questions remain :
Seawater input : How do they deal with contamination ? Seawater is
filled with microorganisms, including massive amounts of algae, bacteria
and other microorganisms. If you give these guys enhanced CO2 and
sunlight and nutrients, everything will start to multipy like crazy too.
Not just your intended algae that makes ethanol.
Even worse, the algae produces suger as an intermediate product.
Everything microscopic LOVES suger.... They better have a pretty good
filter or sterilization process, otherwise the odds are against the
expensive GM algae, and ethanol yield will be very low. You WILL get a
lot of biomass probably. Maybe you can burn that, in that nearby power
plant that's needed.
"... a saltwater algae farm in the Sonoran Desert in northwest
Mexico".."The Mexican site is located a few miles away from a power
generation station."
A powerplant in the Sonora desert ? How big ? (remember that the ethanol
yield is limited by the amount of enhanced CO2 available).
enhance the process with additional CO2.
I have no intention of investing in anything at all. I am just curious.I would not yet invest in this venture, even if you could...
Rob
OK. I'm going to give you the fertilizer input. That being the case theAnd, BTW. You are going to see this hothouse tomato factory go tits
up. Crap like that works great when times are good. It goes to hell in
a hand basket when recession hits. No more foo-foo foods. The beans
and the rice, the corn and wheat are IN thing.
You may be right. Not sure though. These EuroFresh tomatos DO taste
good. I never buy anything else, and they are moderately priced.
seawater is merely a starter, i.e. the seawater is used to fill up the
vats and after that it is recycled with fertilizer added. I have no idea
what cow crap costs and the energy content of it. If these people are
converting cow crap to ethanol very efficiently then that might be OK.
The solar energy is, therefore, not all the energy being input. It is
like the most recent entry from Ca. where they were converting sewage to
biodiesel. But you are right about all the contaminates. If the system
is closed so as to reduce the contaminates then where does the CO2 come
from? That is the part that is impossible. There are not enough power
plants surrounding the Sea of Cortes. And the amount of CO2 in the air
in that area is surely a lot less then in a metro area. The biggest
problem is the contaminates anyway. It's bullshit.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Z
zzbunker
Guest
On Jan 11, 10:35 pm, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:
STOOGEY.
Since that's how bascially how you make CO2 lasers.
Which is also why the people with real engineering brains invented
ruby lasers, laser-disks,
RISC, Calibrated Piezo-Electric, C++, Mini Harddisks, laser-guided
phasors, CD, DVD,
HTDV, E-Publishing, Fiber Optics, On-Line Publishing, On-Line
Banking,
GPS, Holograms, Biodiesel, Digital-Terrrain Mapping, Drones,
AUVs,
and Post Ford Batteries, for the Chemistry wanks.
The numbers are probably are right, the science is mostlly just RNA"Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:gkb6fa21t6r@news6.newsguy.com...
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:32:29 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:
"Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
news:RYv9l.12680$yr3.8378@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
"Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gk5lab2akv@news5.newsguy.com...
.......................
Has anyone seen any real evidence of anything close to 2,000
gallons/ acre year?
That's $20,000/acre when berry crops fetch more than that.
A 1000 percent increase above $2 per gallon (that will be the
price by summer) would be $200 per gallon or $400K per acre if
2000 gal/acre.
1000 percent would be 10X, which would be $20/gallon. or $40K per
acre per year for a 2000 gal/acre algae farm.
Actually it would be $30 a gallon because the price is currently
$1.50.
Don't want to nit-pick here, but 1000% (10X) of $1.50 is $15 a
gallon.
OK, fine, At $15 a gallon the capital investment needed for algae
production is quite profitable. The land costs are zilch. All the
costs are in the short 15 year capital depreciation-amortization of
the reactors. You build 100 reactors they are expensive (even plastic
bags). But when you build 20k reactors the price per reactor goes way
the hell down. That is especially true in a depression. And BTW,
Mexico is running out of oil regardless of what happens elsewhere.
I know what you are saying, and I also felt like this for a long time..
I just don't see the profitability that you see, or to put it
differently : I think that other farm use of cheap land would be more
profitable that growing algae.
Let me run an example in detail, and see if I can validate this
statement a bit more concrete. That may clear up the difference in
perspective that we seem to have. Don't have time now, but I will do
this soon.
Michael, I can't get good numbers on the profitabillity of food grown on
marginal lands in greenhouses, but I did find this one that is doing
just that right now in the Arizona desert :
http://kjzz.org/news/arizona/archives/200602/organicfarming2
The point is that food grown in greenhouses is already profitable now.
With increase in fuel prices (and with that increase in food prices, and
increase in land prices) growing food on marginal lands in greenhouses
will become a HUGE profitable market. Food is always more valuable than
fuel, and that's why I believe that algae grown for fuel (in bioractors)
will not ever be as profitable as growning food in similar costing
greenhouses. Even on marginal lands as this example shows.
Unless... Algae farms 'bioreactors' become a factor 10X cheaper (per
acre). THEN and only then will growing algae for fuel become profitable,
and will already be profitable now. Don't wait for the price of fuel to
go skyhigh.
According to what I have seen the 2000 gal per year does not require
the enhanced CO2.
Do you have a link to such an algae pilot project (without enhanced CO2)
?
Rob
The following is one of those hollow claims that are very difficult to
investigate, but even the Dimitrove stuff does not disprove the viability
of 3000 gallons per acre. If this operation claims $3/gal at 6k per year
then a realistic 2K per year would be $9 per gallon. If we were to load
the price of gasoline with its true unsubsidized cost we would have been
looking at close to this amount when oil was $145/bbl.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9966867-54.html
Thanks for the link.
"Specifically, company engineers enhanced certain algaes' ability to make sugar and, through their enzymes, to ferment sugar into
ethanol."
Interesting process (algae that produces ethanol directly). Got my interest.
Algenol claim 6,000 gallons ethanol/acre/year.
That is at the limit of Dimitrov's practical limit but not entirely impossible, since ethanol has lower burn value than oil.
Still there is not much energy left over for the algae's own life and reproduction.
Other things are fishier :
"By pumping carbon dioxide from the station into the algae bioreactors, the saltwater algae farm can boost production to 10,000
gallons of ethanol per acre per year, he said."
10,000 gallons/acre/year is above the Dimitrov limit, so somebody is exaggerating. The question is how much this number is wrong.
STOOGEY.
Since that's how bascially how you make CO2 lasers.
Which is also why the people with real engineering brains invented
ruby lasers, laser-disks,
RISC, Calibrated Piezo-Electric, C++, Mini Harddisks, laser-guided
phasors, CD, DVD,
HTDV, E-Publishing, Fiber Optics, On-Line Publishing, On-Line
Banking,
GPS, Holograms, Biodiesel, Digital-Terrrain Mapping, Drones,
AUVs,
and Post Ford Batteries, for the Chemistry wanks.
"He said the ethanol produced at the farm will cost ... about $3 per gallon."
As you say, if actual production will be a more realistic 2,000 gallons/acre/year, then they will make at least 3X or 4X less money
than claimed. Consequently, ethanol from this plant would cost $9/gallon or more. Please note that wholesale ethanol even at the
peak in June 2008 was never higher than $2.90/gallon.
All their predictions should come true, otherwise it will be very hard to make a profit even when oil prices return to record
levels.
More noteworthy info :http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/
"Does use treated manure instead of fossil fuel based fertilizers"
So they DO need fertilizer ! Seawater alone is not enough.
Check this out :http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/advantages-affordable.html
They DO need enhanced CO2, even for their 6,000 gallons/acre/year.
The 10,000 number is just a projection (which violates Dimitrov limit).
Other questions remain :
Seawater input : How do they deal with contamination ?
Seawater is filled with microorganisms, including massive amounts of algae, bacteria and other microorganisms.
If you give these guys enhanced CO2 and sunlight and nutrients, everything will start to multipy like crazy too. Not just your
intended algae that makes ethanol.
Even worse, the algae produces suger as an intermediate product. Everything microscopic LOVES suger....
They better have a pretty good filter or sterilization process, otherwise the odds are against the expensive GM algae, and ethanol
yield will be very low. You WILL get a lot of biomass probably. Maybe you can burn that, in that nearby power plant that's needed.
"... a saltwater algae farm in the Sonoran Desert in northwest Mexico".."The Mexican site is located a few miles away from a power
generation station."
A powerplant in the Sonora desert ? How big ? (remember that the ethanol yield is limited by the amount of enhanced CO2 available).
I would not yet invest in this venture, even if you could...
Rob
And, BTW. You are going to see this hothouse tomato factory go tits up.
Crap like that works great when times are good. It goes to hell in a
hand basket when recession hits. No more foo-foo foods. The beans and
the rice, the corn and wheat are IN thing.
You may be right. Not sure though. These EuroFresh tomatos DO taste good. I never buy anything else, and they are moderately priced.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
J
John Larkin
Guest
On 11 Jan 2009 02:40:35 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net>
wrote:
Without some fundamental changes to the health care industry, just
having government pick up the "insurance" tab will probably make
things worse. Where's the money to come from?
They tend to not be unionized, and the big unionized companies are
being Darwinized out of existance. That's life.
John
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:35:40 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 07:59:54 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
Right. ?If the USA had decent government run pension and health care
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
systems
This is an oxymoron. We've had a government-run pension and health
care system since the Great Depression (1930's).
Nothing will work without tax hikes on the rich.
Surely you mean "nothing will work after tax hikes on the rich."
The best stimulus the government could do IMMEDIATELY is single payer
national health insurance.
Without some fundamental changes to the health care industry, just
having government pick up the "insurance" tab will probably make
things worse. Where's the money to come from?
Excuse me, but a lot of American companies do compete, and very well.The "legacy cost" at GM would shrink
considerably and no other American corporation would ever be ensnared in
that sort of crap again. The American companies can't compete with the
civilized nations and this is why.
They tend to not be unionized, and the big unionized companies are
being Darwinized out of existance. That's life.
John
R
Rob Dekker
Guest
"Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message news:gkfsk7324m7@news7.newsguy.com...
But the mention CO2 'sequestration' as a benefit of the system.
From one press release : "There are tons of CO2 being emitted, and we can take it all. There are lots of opportunities for good
locations in the U.S.,"
and "Its process absorbs about 90 percent of the CO2 that is fed to the algae bioreactors".
How else would you 'feed' CO2 to the bioreactors if not by enhanced CO2 airation ?
Their picture also show this :
http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/advantages-affordable.html
IMHO, there is every indication that their goal is to use enhanced CO2, and that they see this as an advantage.
Concequently, I'm pretty sure their 6,000 gallon number is based on that.
Enhanced CO2 might be an advantage when new environmental regulations (carbon cap or so) actually put a price on CO2 emission.
In that case, all we need is an extension of the (already existing) CO2 piping system, and you can get enhanced CO2 from that and
receive money as well.
The picture shows it all :
http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/advantages-affordable.html
You need access to a power plant, for this algae farm to work, you need waste-water input (or manure), they fail to mention how they
get the ethanol out of the water (distillation?), or how they avoid nutrient runoff, or flood the Sea of Cortez with algae, nor do
they mention how they keep the seawater free from alien m.o.'s. And this is their 'advantages' web-page. I wonder what their
'disadvatages' page looks like....
On top of that, their production cost is high ($3/gallon ethanol is not competitive with US corn based ethanol), and the yield
estimates (6,000-10,000) are topping the Dimitrov limit.
I'm surprised that the Mexican Government actually fell for this.....
Rob
True. They do not mention it explicitly.On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:35:36 -0800, Rob Dekker wrote:
......
Michael, I can't get good numbers on the profitabillity of food grown
on marginal lands in greenhouses, but I did find this one that is
doing just that right now in the Arizona desert :
http://kjzz.org/news/arizona/archives/200602/organicfarming2
The point is that food grown in greenhouses is already profitable now.
With increase in fuel prices (and with that increase in food prices,
and increase in land prices) growing food on marginal lands in
greenhouses will become a HUGE profitable market. Food is always more
valuable than fuel, and that's why I believe that algae grown for fuel
(in bioractors) will not ever be as profitable as growning food in
similar costing greenhouses. Even on marginal lands as this example
shows.
Unless... Algae farms 'bioreactors' become a factor 10X cheaper (per
acre). THEN and only then will growing algae for fuel become
profitable, and will already be profitable now. Don't wait for the
price of fuel to go skyhigh.
According to what I have seen the 2000 gal per year does not require
the enhanced CO2.
Do you have a link to such an algae pilot project (without enhanced
CO2) ?
Rob
The following is one of those hollow claims that are very difficult to
investigate, but even the Dimitrove stuff does not disprove the
viability of 3000 gallons per acre. If this operation claims $3/gal at
6k per year then a realistic 2K per year would be $9 per gallon. If we
were to load the price of gasoline with its true unsubsidized cost we
would have been looking at close to this amount when oil was $145/bbl.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9966867-54.html
Thanks for the link.
"Specifically, company engineers enhanced certain algaes' ability to
make sugar and, through their enzymes, to ferment sugar into ethanol."
Interesting process (algae that produces ethanol directly). Got my
interest.
Algenol claim 6,000 gallons ethanol/acre/year. That is at the limit of
Dimitrov's practical limit but not entirely impossible, since ethanol
has lower burn value than oil. Still there is not much energy left over
for the algae's own life and reproduction.
Other things are fishier :
"By pumping carbon dioxide from the station into the algae bioreactors,
the saltwater algae farm can boost production to 10,000 gallons of
ethanol per acre per year, he said." 10,000 gallons/acre/year is above
the Dimitrov limit, so somebody is exaggerating. The question is how
much this number is wrong.
"He said the ethanol produced at the farm will cost ... about $3 per
gallon." As you say, if actual production will be a more realistic 2,000
gallons/acre/year, then they will make at least 3X or 4X less money than
claimed. Consequently, ethanol from this plant would cost $9/gallon or
more. Please note that wholesale ethanol even at the peak in June 2008
was never higher than $2.90/gallon.
All their predictions should come true, otherwise it will be very hard
to make a profit even when oil prices return to record levels.
More noteworthy info :
http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/
"Does use treated manure instead of fossil fuel based fertilizers" So
they DO need fertilizer ! Seawater alone is not enough.
Check this out :
http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/advantages-affordable.html They DO need
enhanced CO2, even for their 6,000 gallons/acre/year. The 10,000 number
is just a projection (which violates Dimitrov limit).
Other questions remain :
Seawater input : How do they deal with contamination ? Seawater is
filled with microorganisms, including massive amounts of algae, bacteria
and other microorganisms. If you give these guys enhanced CO2 and
sunlight and nutrients, everything will start to multipy like crazy too.
Not just your intended algae that makes ethanol.
Even worse, the algae produces suger as an intermediate product.
Everything microscopic LOVES suger.... They better have a pretty good
filter or sterilization process, otherwise the odds are against the
expensive GM algae, and ethanol yield will be very low. You WILL get a
lot of biomass probably. Maybe you can burn that, in that nearby power
plant that's needed.
"... a saltwater algae farm in the Sonoran Desert in northwest
Mexico".."The Mexican site is located a few miles away from a power
generation station."
A powerplant in the Sonora desert ? How big ? (remember that the ethanol
yield is limited by the amount of enhanced CO2 available).
NO. I can't find the place in what is on-line that tells me they must
enhance the process with additional CO2.
But the mention CO2 'sequestration' as a benefit of the system.
From one press release : "There are tons of CO2 being emitted, and we can take it all. There are lots of opportunities for good
locations in the U.S.,"
and "Its process absorbs about 90 percent of the CO2 that is fed to the algae bioreactors".
How else would you 'feed' CO2 to the bioreactors if not by enhanced CO2 airation ?
Their picture also show this :
http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/advantages-affordable.html
IMHO, there is every indication that their goal is to use enhanced CO2, and that they see this as an advantage.
Concequently, I'm pretty sure their 6,000 gallon number is based on that.
Enhanced CO2 might be an advantage when new environmental regulations (carbon cap or so) actually put a price on CO2 emission.
In that case, all we need is an extension of the (already existing) CO2 piping system, and you can get enhanced CO2 from that and
receive money as well.
Yes.I would not yet invest in this venture, even if you could...
Rob
I have no intention of investing in anything at all. I am just curious.
And, BTW. You are going to see this hothouse tomato factory go tits
up. Crap like that works great when times are good. It goes to hell in
a hand basket when recession hits. No more foo-foo foods. The beans
and the rice, the corn and wheat are IN thing.
You may be right. Not sure though. These EuroFresh tomatos DO taste
good. I never buy anything else, and they are moderately priced.
OK. I'm going to give you the fertilizer input. That being the case the
seawater is merely a starter, i.e. the seawater is used to fill up the
vats and after that it is recycled with fertilizer added. I have no idea
what cow crap costs and the energy content of it. If these people are
converting cow crap to ethanol very efficiently then that might be OK.
The solar energy is, therefore, not all the energy being input. It is
like the most recent entry from Ca. where they were converting sewage to
biodiesel. But you are right about all the contaminates. If the system
is closed so as to reduce the contaminates then where does the CO2 come
from? That is the part that is impossible. There are not enough power
plants surrounding the Sea of Cortes. And the amount of CO2 in the air
in that area is surely a lot less then in a metro area. The biggest
problem is the contaminates anyway. It's bullshit.
The picture shows it all :
http://www.algenolbiofuels.com/advantages-affordable.html
You need access to a power plant, for this algae farm to work, you need waste-water input (or manure), they fail to mention how they
get the ethanol out of the water (distillation?), or how they avoid nutrient runoff, or flood the Sea of Cortez with algae, nor do
they mention how they keep the seawater free from alien m.o.'s. And this is their 'advantages' web-page. I wonder what their
'disadvatages' page looks like....
On top of that, their production cost is high ($3/gallon ethanol is not competitive with US corn based ethanol), and the yield
estimates (6,000-10,000) are topping the Dimitrov limit.
I'm surprised that the Mexican Government actually fell for this.....
Rob
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
M
Michael Coburn
Guest
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:16:51 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
expensive to consolidate. The producers will take more money to the bank
as a result of the consolidation even though the tax bill will rise.
can't take advantage of returns to scale in pensions and health care. And
that has been caused by unions and Republicans.
ago they went for the company health care deal because it fit their
closed shop approach. Now they are facing total destruction because of
it. But the points remain the same concerning health insurance and
pensions. The unions essentially screwed the non union workers out of
nationalized health insurance. They are now going to pay the price for
their private club greed.
The same situation exists with large versus small companies. The smaller
companies cannot compete with the larger because of the group health
size. And the proprietorships are totally screwed. Amazing how the
rightard can understand return to scale until you write government on the
box.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
The money comes from the same place it comes from now. It is just lessOn 11 Jan 2009 02:40:35 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:35:40 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 07:59:54 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
Right. ?If the USA had decent government run pension and health
care
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
systems
This is an oxymoron. We've had a government-run pension and health
care system since the Great Depression (1930's).
Nothing will work without tax hikes on the rich.
Surely you mean "nothing will work after tax hikes on the rich."
The best stimulus the government could do IMMEDIATELY is single payer
national health insurance.
Without some fundamental changes to the health care industry, just
having government pick up the "insurance" tab will probably make things
worse. Where's the money to come from?
expensive to consolidate. The producers will take more money to the bank
as a result of the consolidation even though the tax bill will rise.
Manufacturing in the United States is much less profitable because weThe "legacy cost" at GM would shrink
considerably and no other American corporation would ever be ensnared in
that sort of crap again. The American companies can't compete with the
civilized nations and this is why.
Excuse me, but a lot of American companies do compete, and very well.
can't take advantage of returns to scale in pensions and health care. And
that has been caused by unions and Republicans.
The union demands are being Darwinized and that is a fact. Many yearsThey tend to not be unionized, and the big unionized companies are being
Darwinized out of existance. That's life.
ago they went for the company health care deal because it fit their
closed shop approach. Now they are facing total destruction because of
it. But the points remain the same concerning health insurance and
pensions. The unions essentially screwed the non union workers out of
nationalized health insurance. They are now going to pay the price for
their private club greed.
The same situation exists with large versus small companies. The smaller
companies cannot compete with the larger because of the group health
size. And the proprietorships are totally screwed. Amazing how the
rightard can understand return to scale until you write government on the
box.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
Just try to get something going in Puerto Libertad first then worry�If the system
is closed so as to reduce the contaminates then where does the CO2 come
from? � That is the part that is impossible. �There are not enough power
plants surrounding the Sea of Cortes. ďż˝
about the rest of the area.
And they are already trying to stop tourism in the area.
http://wildsonora.com/threats.html
That's fine but they may try to stop other industry as well.
And the amount of CO2 in the air
in that area is surely a lot less then in a metro area. �The biggest
problem is the contaminates anyway.
Bret Cahill
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
This one claims that it's a waste of time and money to mess withRight. ?If the USA had decent government run pension and health
care
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
systems
This is an oxymoron. We've had a government-run pension and health
care system since the Great Depression (1930's).
Nothing will work without tax hikes on the rich.
Surely you mean "nothing will work after tax hikes on the rich."
The best stimulus the government could do IMMEDIATELY is single payer
national health insurance.
Without some fundamental changes to the health care industry, just
having government pick up the "insurance" tab will probably make things
worse. Where's the money to come from?
The money comes from the same place it comes from now. �It is just less
expensive to consolidate. �The producers will take more money to the bank
as a result of the consolidation even though the tax bill will rise.
The "legacy cost" at GM would shrink
considerably and no other American corporation would ever be ensnared in
that sort of crap again. �The American companies can't compete with the
civilized nations and this is why.
Excuse me, but a lot of American companies do compete, and very well.
Manufacturing in the United States is much less profitable because we
can't take advantage of returns to scale in pensions and health care. And
that has been caused by unions and Republicans.
They tend to not be unionized, and the big unionized companies are being
Darwinized out of existance. That's life.
The union demands are being Darwinized and that is a fact. �Many years
ago they went for the company health care deal because it fit their
closed shop approach. �Now they are facing total destruction because of
it. �But the points remain the same concerning health insurance and
pensions. �The unions essentially screwed the non union workers out of
nationalized health insurance. �They are now going to pay the price for
their private club greed. ďż˝
The same situation exists with large versus small companies. �The smaller
companies cannot compete with the larger because of the group health
size. �And the proprietorships are totally screwed. Amazing how the
rightard can understand return to scale until you write government on the
box.
intellectual property.
In other words, he's a complete idiot.
Bret Cahill
Guest
On Jan 10, 9:47 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Oh, that's img0.gif. It's a copy of his CAT scan.On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 08:15:12 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
www.bretcahill.com
THIS is your great web page design? What's the broken link box on the
bottom supposed to be?
J
John Fields
Guest
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:46:12 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:>
Not him...
You've placed more cacophonyous output caused by the unrelenting,
unknowingly witless input of negative intelligence into the noise input
of the signal-to-noise generator.
But why?
On a microscopic scale, it's simple.
The stenographer learns to love strife since that's how she makes her
living; writing down all the words owners of infringed intellectual
property and the infringers and their lawyers hurl at each other.
On a macroscopic scale it's the same since, if there's strife, anywhere,
someone should keep track of the dance in order to determine where
fairness broke down.
No strife and she'd go the way of the buggy whip so, in order to make
sure her job doesn't go away, she foments strife.
============================
UNRELENTING HATE
The world at peace now
is something I can't allow.
I need to punish.
JF
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:>
---This one claims that it's a waste of time and money to mess with
intellectual property.
In other words, he's a complete idiot.
Not him...
You've placed more cacophonyous output caused by the unrelenting,
unknowingly witless input of negative intelligence into the noise input
of the signal-to-noise generator.
But why?
On a microscopic scale, it's simple.
The stenographer learns to love strife since that's how she makes her
living; writing down all the words owners of infringed intellectual
property and the infringers and their lawyers hurl at each other.
On a macroscopic scale it's the same since, if there's strife, anywhere,
someone should keep track of the dance in order to determine where
fairness broke down.
No strife and she'd go the way of the buggy whip so, in order to make
sure her job doesn't go away, she foments strife.
============================
UNRELENTING HATE
The world at peace now
is something I can't allow.
I need to punish.
JF
J
John Larkin
Guest
On 12 Jan 2009 23:06:19 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net>
wrote:
waste. Insurance companies, for all their faults, are cost-sensitive;
a state getting Federal money is not.
dental plans as a big one does. And we have no desire to compete
against big companies. US companies can and do compete and thrive, but
not in old big-iron industries with massive unions dragging them down.
John
wrote:
Government-funded health care in the US is notorious for fraud andOn Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:16:51 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
On 11 Jan 2009 02:40:35 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:35:40 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 07:59:54 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
Right. ?If the USA had decent government run pension and health
care
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
systems
This is an oxymoron. We've had a government-run pension and health
care system since the Great Depression (1930's).
Nothing will work without tax hikes on the rich.
Surely you mean "nothing will work after tax hikes on the rich."
The best stimulus the government could do IMMEDIATELY is single payer
national health insurance.
Without some fundamental changes to the health care industry, just
having government pick up the "insurance" tab will probably make things
worse. Where's the money to come from?
The money comes from the same place it comes from now. It is just less
expensive to consolidate. The producers will take more money to the bank
as a result of the consolidation even though the tax bill will rise.
waste. Insurance companies, for all their faults, are cost-sensitive;
a state getting Federal money is not.
I have a small company, and we pay about the same for medical andThe "legacy cost" at GM would shrink
considerably and no other American corporation would ever be ensnared in
that sort of crap again. The American companies can't compete with the
civilized nations and this is why.
Excuse me, but a lot of American companies do compete, and very well.
Manufacturing in the United States is much less profitable because we
can't take advantage of returns to scale in pensions and health care. And
that has been caused by unions and Republicans.
They tend to not be unionized, and the big unionized companies are being
Darwinized out of existance. That's life.
The union demands are being Darwinized and that is a fact. Many years
ago they went for the company health care deal because it fit their
closed shop approach. Now they are facing total destruction because of
it. But the points remain the same concerning health insurance and
pensions. The unions essentially screwed the non union workers out of
nationalized health insurance. They are now going to pay the price for
their private club greed.
The same situation exists with large versus small companies. The smaller
companies cannot compete with the larger because of the group health
size. And the proprietorships are totally screwed. Amazing how the
rightard can understand return to scale until you write government on the
box.
dental plans as a big one does. And we have no desire to compete
against big companies. US companies can and do compete and thrive, but
not in old big-iron industries with massive unions dragging them down.
John
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:46:12 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:
algorithms, techniques, circuits, software, and "goodwill." What I
don't have time or money for is patents and the lawyers that patents
drag in. A lot of what we do probably isn't patentable; it's the skill
level, the way we do things, the performance, that sells.
I do have an excellent attorney who keeps me out of trouble. Reminds
me of the conversation I had with my wife:
ME: Remind me once again, why do we have cats?
MO: To protect us from other cats.
So, what do you do? Is it fun?
John
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:
My company is based on intellectual property; we have a neat kit ofRight. ?If the USA had decent government run pension and health
care
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
systems
This is an oxymoron. We've had a government-run pension and health
care system since the Great Depression (1930's).
Nothing will work without tax hikes on the rich.
Surely you mean "nothing will work after tax hikes on the rich."
The best stimulus the government could do IMMEDIATELY is single payer
national health insurance.
Without some fundamental changes to the health care industry, just
having government pick up the "insurance" tab will probably make things
worse. Where's the money to come from?
The money comes from the same place it comes from now. ?It is just less
expensive to consolidate. ?The producers will take more money to the bank
as a result of the consolidation even though the tax bill will rise.
The "legacy cost" at GM would shrink
considerably and no other American corporation would ever be ensnared in
that sort of crap again. ?The American companies can't compete with the
civilized nations and this is why.
Excuse me, but a lot of American companies do compete, and very well.
Manufacturing in the United States is much less profitable because we
can't take advantage of returns to scale in pensions and health care. And
that has been caused by unions and Republicans.
They tend to not be unionized, and the big unionized companies are being
Darwinized out of existance. That's life.
The union demands are being Darwinized and that is a fact. ?Many years
ago they went for the company health care deal because it fit their
closed shop approach. ?Now they are facing total destruction because of
it. ?But the points remain the same concerning health insurance and
pensions. ?The unions essentially screwed the non union workers out of
nationalized health insurance. ?They are now going to pay the price for
their private club greed. ?
The same situation exists with large versus small companies. ?The smaller
companies cannot compete with the larger because of the group health
size. ?And the proprietorships are totally screwed. Amazing how the
rightard can understand return to scale until you write government on the
box.
This one claims that it's a waste of time and money to mess with
intellectual property.
In other words, he's a complete idiot.
Bret Cahill
algorithms, techniques, circuits, software, and "goodwill." What I
don't have time or money for is patents and the lawyers that patents
drag in. A lot of what we do probably isn't patentable; it's the skill
level, the way we do things, the performance, that sells.
I do have an excellent attorney who keeps me out of trouble. Reminds
me of the conversation I had with my wife:
ME: Remind me once again, why do we have cats?
MO: To protect us from other cats.
So, what do you do? Is it fun?
John