Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
"William Sommerwerck" writes:
Lead in petrol was even worse, and it was found that average academic performance was affected adversely by children living closer to main roads. An effect which is now greatly reduced. Once again, if there were any data to suppport that assertion I would have expected the environmentalists to be waving it in our faces. I haven't seen any evidence that the academic performance of children has increased since lead was removed from petrol. Whether it has or hasn't, there has supposedly been a significant reduction in the amount of lead in people's blood. True, but in my reading this has been attributed to the eventual removal/encapsulation of the last remaining bits of lead paint, scrubbers on various smokestacks where lead might have escaped, etc. And fuel has been lead-free for decades. Seems to me that house paint, for example, would have an immediate path to a child's bloodstream, while landfill leaching would be a much longer path, and RoHS has only been around in any widespread way for what, 5-8 years, and perhaps only just recently have RoHS waste electronics been hitting the landfills. And, at the same time, at least here in the USA much has been done to stop landfill leaching. That, by the way, seems to be the far wiser solution: appropriate disposal rather than forced inferior manufacturing that makes devices malfunction early on. RoHS has that dual aroma of crony capitalism and fantasy-result feel-good-ism... Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Neil wrote in message ... William Sommerwerck wrote: If anyone is interested in a little more of the psychology of all this, pick up "ECO FADES -- How the Rise of Trendy Enviromentalism is Harming the Environment" by Todd Myers, published by the Washington Policy Center in Seattle, WA. The Washington Policy Center is a right-wing organization that supports free-market solutions to problems. Oddly, I do, too -- except that I don't believe the free market always has a real, effective solution to problems. I would like someone to point out where a free market has ever existed in the history of humans, because I can't find a single example. If it doesn't exist, decisions based on the fantasy of it re no better than any other scam or hoax. I would say we have a basically free market in this country. It works fairly well when greed doesn't run rampant, and there are no attempts to manipulate it. Historically, many economic collapses (such as the most-recent) were the result of attempts to manipulate the market, or corner a valuable commodity. Most weren't. Vanishingly few actually were. The most recent was as far away from that as you could get. read Scott Sumner for details... -- Les Cargill |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
hank alrich wrote:
William wrote: "Neil wrote in message ... William Sommerwerck wrote: If anyone is interested in a little more of the psychology of all this, pick up "ECO FADES -- How the Rise of Trendy Enviromentalism is Harming the Environment" by Todd Myers, published by the Washington Policy Center in Seattle, WA. The Washington Policy Center is a right-wing organization that supports free-market solutions to problems. Oddly, I do, too -- except that I don't believe the free market always has a real, effective solution to problems. I would like someone to point out where a free market has ever existed in the history of humans, because I can't find a single example. If it doesn't exist, decisions based on the fantasy of it re no better than any other scam or hoax. I would say we have a basically free market in this country. It works fairly well when greed doesn't run rampant, and there are no attempts to manipulate it. Historically, many economic collapses (such as the most-recent) were the result of attempts to manipulate the market, or corner a valuable commodity. I'd say you're running on fantasy. "Free markets" give away vast areas of "public" land for the building of railroads, Nope. Nothing free market about that. It's just like a divine right king giving other people's land away as a reward for victory in battle. That was Manifest Destiny, and it wasn't free at all... Was it necessary? Good question. Slight tangent; James McMurtry is the only living songwriter who seems to write about Manifest Destiny (mainly its effect on the present day) ... prolly 'cuz his Dad did, too.. slaves provide uncompensated labor that allows the nation to accrue wealth, Again, no. Nothing in any system derived from say, Adam Smith justifies slavery. Slavery is the abject *antithesis* of free, much less "free market". Slavery is the cooption of government itself in granting the privilege to force labor from others. Don't confuse the liars with what they're lying about. A Dred Scott decision is worth about a half million deaths... General Motors buys and then eliminates public transportation in favor of their own products, Cecil's always good: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/551/did-general-motors-destroy-the-la-mass-transit-system Granted, that's just LA... Money shot: "...but blaming GM is like blaming the inventor of gunpowder for war." we save the corrupt bankers from their well-deserved free-market fate. Nothing free market about that either. For starters. Neil is spot-on here. Few have the eyes to see it and the balls to say it. I used to think that stuff, too. I was wrong, one fallacy at a time, over decades. It was fun finding out, though. -- Les Cargill |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
John wrote: [...] As for RoHS removing lead from solder, it's not so much that the lead kills people, it's the long term effect of debilitation in physical and mental capacity that's the problem,... I wouldn't disagree with that. ... and it was found that lead from electonic equipment going into landfill was reaching water sources, and causing noticeable pollution of drinking water with biologically available lead compounds. I have yet to see any proof of that. There are lots of vehement assertions, but never any proof. Most of the evidence I have seen suggests the opposite: that lead does not leach out of landfill into drinking water. Lead in petrol was even worse, and it was found that average academic performance was affected adversely by children living closer to main roads. An effect which is now greatly reduced. Once again, if there were any data to suppport that assertion I would have expected the environmentalists to be waving it in our faces. I haven't seen any evidence that the acedemic performance of children has increased since lead was removed from petrol. That's not science nor environmentalism but PR. PR causes those distortions. Humans are a story-species, and it makes us harder to inform. http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/papers/kettering.html Incredible story there... -- Les Cargill |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
John Williamson writes:
At least two casualties, but from steam burns when they were working in the reactor enclosure. What's scaring the Japanese is the unknown quantities of environmental damage that may result from the radiation release, and the way that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they view *all* nuclear stuff as bad. The evidence from Chernobyl is that the consequences are not nearly as bad as feared. Although human beings are still unwilling to enter certain areas, animals and plants seem to be doing quite well (in part because there aren't any human beings around to harass them). Maybe if the tables had been turned and the Japanese had nuked New York and Washington, the American publiuc would feel the same way. The American public already feels the same way, and for no good reason. It's very disappointing to see Americans ignoring the 19,000 people killed by the tsunami, in favor of cowering in fright over nuclear bogeymen that have killed no one and don't even actually exist. Other countries with more emotion than brains, such as Germany and France, are making the same mistakes. The answer is that we all need to use less, starting a decade or three ago. Keep our buildings closer to ambient temperature, drive smaller cars, and use public transport and bicycles wherever possible. Long term, we need to re-arrange society so things and people don't need to move around so much. Don't replace your home electronics, computer and cellphone every year or two, but keep them going as long as possible, which means redesigning them to be repairable. None of that will help, because the real problem is increasing population. As long as the population continues to increase, the environment will continue to deteriorate. Eventually resources will run thin, and there will be wars, famine, and pestilence to reduce the population. This is inevitable. With increasing population, no amount of conservation can protect the environment. Conversely, with a small population, you can waste resources all you want without doing any lasting harm to the environment. Ultimately, it's all about population. As for RoHS removing lead from solder, it's not so much that the lead kills people, it's the long term effect of debilitation in physical and mental capacity that's the problem, and it was found that lead from electonic equipment going into landfill was reaching water sources, and causing noticeable pollution of drinking water with biologically available lead compounds. The only problem is that no actual biological effects of this have been shown. Many environmentalists believe that the only safe level is zero, but that is both unachievable and untrue. There are some things that you cannot entirely exclude from society. I wonder why they don't worry about uranium. It's everywhere (especially in granite), and it's radioactive in addition to being a toxic heavy metal. Lead in petrol was even worse, and it was found that average academic performance was affected adversely by children living closer to main roads. An effect which is now greatly reduced. Lead in gasoline was (is?) long the primary source of toxic lead in the environment. It amazes me that it was ever used at all, since tetraethyl lead is just asking to be incorporated into body tissues. And if lead is so dangerous, why are car batteries exempt? |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
William Sommerwerck writes:
Oh, let's see. There's wind power. There's solar power. Maybe tide and geothermal. There are many long-term solutions other than nuclear. None of these can come even remotely close to satisfying current or future needs for electricity. The only viable options are nuclear power or fossil fuel. Either you split atoms or you burn coal. There's no law that says we have to switch to one type of power. A mix can provide what we need, night and day. Unfortunately, that is a myth. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
William Sommerwerck writes:
You've missed the point. The point is that alternative sources won't make a dent in energy needs. The notion that they can is one of the greatest myths spread by militant environmentalists and their followers. The reality is that it's not going to work. The widespread use of "alternative" energy would reduce the need for nuclear and fossil-fuel plants. Not to any significant degree. Some other source must be found, and soon. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
William Sommerwerck writes:
I don't think we're even close to a limit on energy. We are receiving a kilowatt per square meter from the sun, but we have no efficient way to collect it. But there are far too many humans on this planet, and we use our physical resources with little regard to their eventually exhaustion. Exactly. And the real solution is to reduce the population. The population must go down, not up. And the only practical way to do this is to have fewer children. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
Les Cargill writes:
Birth rates are declining. Widely. They are declining only in affluent societies, which are ironically the very societies that can best afford to support larger populations (although that's not an excuse to allow the population to increase). The poorest basket cases of Africa also have the highest rates of population increase. They must either progress or starve. The best way to progress is through education, especially of women. In a decade or so, you'll see a drop in population even in Mexico. Nothing from those doom books in the '70s has held up... Wait and see. Eventually either people will limit their own population, or nature will. |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
The evidence from Chernobyl is that the consequences
are not nearly as bad as feared. Although human beings are still unwilling to enter certain areas, animals and plants seem to be doing quite well (in part because there aren't any human beings around to harass them). The plants mutated and /ate/ all the humans. |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... William Sommerwerck writes: Oh, let's see. There's wind power. There's solar power. Maybe tide and geothermal. There are many long-term solutions other than nuclear. None of these can come even remotely close to satisfying current or future needs for electricity. The only viable options are nuclear power or fossil fuel. Either you split atoms or you burn coal. There's no law that says we have to switch to one type of power. A mix can provide what we need, night and day. Unfortunately, that is a myth. Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing? Jeez. |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
Mxsmanic writes:
John Williamson writes: At least two casualties, but from steam burns when they were working in the reactor enclosure. What's scaring the Japanese is the unknown quantities of environmental damage that may result from the radiation release, and the way that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they view *all* nuclear stuff as bad. The evidence from Chernobyl is that the consequences are not nearly as bad as feared. Although human beings are still unwilling to enter certain areas, animals and plants seem to be doing quite well (in part because there aren't any human beings around to harass them). Maybe if the tables had been turned and the Japanese had nuked New York and Washington, the American publiuc would feel the same way. The American public already feels the same way, and for no good reason. It's very disappointing to see Americans ignoring the 19,000 people killed by the tsunami, in favor of cowering in fright over nuclear bogeymen that have killed no one and don't even actually exist. Other countries with more emotion than brains, such as Germany and France, are making the same mistakes. The answer is that we all need to use less, starting a decade or three ago. Keep our buildings closer to ambient temperature, drive smaller cars, and use public transport and bicycles wherever possible. Long term, we need to re-arrange society so things and people don't need to move around so much. Don't replace your home electronics, computer and cellphone every year or two, but keep them going as long as possible, which means redesigning them to be repairable. None of that will help, because the real problem is increasing population. As long as the population continues to increase, the environment will continue to deteriorate. Eventually resources will run thin, and there will be wars, famine, and pestilence to reduce the population. This is inevitable. With increasing population, no amount of conservation can protect the environment. Conversely, with a small population, you can waste resources all you want without doing any lasting harm to the environment. Ultimately, it's all about population. IMO, you're quite correct with everything up until the paragraph just above. Technically the thought is correct, but as a practical matter history proves this fixed-sized-pie notion not a very reliable model. In the early 1970s Paul Erlich, et al, predicted dire, terrible things would occur by the year 2000. Those things -- wide-spread food riots, life spans in 1st World countries dropping to 45, etc -- never happened. Just the opposite occurred: we live way longer and are overweight. (Not necessarily the same groups, but rather as viewed on the societal whole.) What he and so many others like him fail to consider is the changing nature of technology and societal trends. Even before huge advances in agriculture, the carrying capacity of the planet was thought to be 50-60 Billion, where the current population is around 7B (In 1970 the Zero Population Growth movement had its collective hair on fire and were predicting a global population of 12B by 2000.) You could comfortably fit that entire 7B population at suburban densities into a land mass the size of Texas. Big state, but only a small fraction of the entire global land mass. As it is now, there are vast, vast stretches of low density rural settings in many countries. We are not overcrowded, except in some population centers where that has been the edict, or the desire of the people who live there. We are not in any way at a wholesale level of resource depletion, either. And where shortages occur (and as someone mentioned, signaled via market price spikes), work-arounds or new technology emerges (assuming its creators have the freedom to make things happen). Yes, there are finite limits, but we're a long way from many of those limits. By the time many of the more crucial limits are actually hit, we will have become a star-traveling race -- assuming we've not done something really stupid, like use RoHS electronics to control our star ships! g In terms of trends, many societies are well *below* the replacement bithrate right now -- Italy and Russia (dangerously so) to name two. Some of the longer range thinkers view this downward population trend as a major problem in the next 500-1000 years, but again technology may change those dire predictions as well. And if lead is so dangerous, why are car batteries exempt? Because they go into Green Cars, and boys and girls, don't we all feel good about Green Cars? Frank Mobile Audio (Another wrist-slap for an OT post.) -- |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
Mxsmanic writes:
Les Cargill writes: Birth rates are declining. Widely. They are declining only in affluent societies, which are ironically the very societies that can best afford to support larger populations (although that's not an excuse to allow the population to increase). The poorest basket cases of Africa also have the highest rates of population increase. They must either progress or starve. The best way to progress is through education, especially of women. In a decade or so, you'll see a drop in population even in Mexico. Nothing from those doom books in the '70s has held up... Wait and see. (See my other post about the changing nature of trends and technology.) We have "waited and seen." The 1970 warnings were *dire and immediate* -- yet nothing like those predictions ever occurred. Any many of the African basket-cases are self-imposed by the deepest forms of corruption imaginable. Rather than pour resources down a rathole, international bodies should first remove the rats. But that's admittedly iffy. Remember the $20B fraud scandal with the UN aid programs a few years back? And just in the past few days French authorities arrested some mid-level agricultural minister from a very poor African nation living the high-life in France. This joker had several sports cars (each valued at more than US$200K), a private night club in the building where he lived, a private jet, a room dedicated to objects made of gold, and so on; all this while the folks back home were starving and kept illiterate. That's the kind of rat I mean. (If he actually did something to earn that wealth -- and paid the appropriate taxes -- well, then, maybe it's legally okay. But he was arrested, suggesting theft of resources intended for others.) Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ... why China has been the top economic power for 9 out of the last 10 centuries. What's your criteria for "top economic power"? |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
"William Sommerwerck" writes:
The evidence from Chernobyl is that the consequences are not nearly as bad as feared. Although human beings are still unwilling to enter certain areas, animals and plants seem to be doing quite well (in part because there aren't any human beings around to harass them). The plants mutated and /ate/ all the humans. Guffaw. Good one, William. Frank Mobile Audio |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
In the early 1970s Paul Erlich, et al, predicted dire, terrible things would occur by the year 2000. Those things -- wide-spread food riots, life spans in 1st World countries dropping to 45, etc -- never happened. Just the opposite occurred: we live way longer and are overweight. (Not necessarily the same groups, but rather as viewed on the societal whole.) What he and so many others like him fail to consider is the changing nature of technology and societal trends. Even before huge advances in agriculture, the carrying capacity of the planet was thought to be 50-60 Billion, where the current population is around 7B (In 1970 the Zero Population Growth movement had its collective hair on fire and were predicting a global population of 12B by 2000.) You could comfortably fit that entire 7B population at suburban densities into a land mass the size of Texas. Big state, but only a small fraction of the entire global land mass. As it is now, there are vast, vast stretches of low density rural settings in many countries. but how much land area does it take to supply food and clean water and energy dispose of the waste from those folks? and how many fish can you take from the sea before it no longer regenerates? I don't think land area is the limiting factor. I'm not sure what is though.. Mark |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
comments on overpopulation
The problem, Frank, is that humans are not /doing/ anything, overall, to control their population. People in wealthy countries are having fewer children, yes, but this is more than made up for by people in poorer countries continuing to have "too many". This has the side effect of encouraging the latter to migrate to the wealthier countries to take menial jobs. The Earth's population cannot continue to increase indefinitely. Once we reach the limit -- and there /is/ a limit -- there will likely be a "catastrophe" (in the mathematical sense) with an abrupt collapse of agricultural and economic systems. One cause of overpopulation is that the developed countries, with perfectly good intentions, have spread death control throughout the world, without simultaneously FORCING its recipients to practice birth control. You cannot have the former without the latter. At some point, all governments will have to FORCE their citizens to have fewer children, whether or not they like it. |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
snip
Seems to me that house paint, for example, would have an immediate path to a child's bloodstream, while landfill leaching would be a much longer path, and RoHS has only been around in any widespread way for what, 5-8 years, and perhaps only just recently have RoHS waste electronics been hitting the landfills. I would agree with that. i can see where house paint, especially interior might have a direct link. Toddlers chew on anything, as do pets. And, at the same time, at least here in the USA much has been done to stop landfill leaching. INdeed it has. Seems to me to be the most sensible solution to all of this. That, by the way, seems to be the far wiser solution: appropriate disposal rather than forced inferior manufacturing that makes devices malfunction early on. Yep, again agree. I don't see why the tools i buy should be manufactured in an inferior way just because somebody who would buy a throwaway device might dispose it inappropriately. But, even more important to this, as we become more technology dependent, i.e. medical monitoring devices, etc. We place people at grave risk with this inferior junk. But then, it's for the children. if grandma dies because her medical device malfunctions prematurely because the manufacturing was crap she didn't have any rights anyway, out with the old, it's for the children!!! I like the children too, with rice and gravy they're great! RoHS has that dual aroma of crony capitalism and fantasy-result feel-good-ism... OF course it does, potential benefits don't have to be proved. But, we should all plan on replacing all of our tools every couple years anyway just to keep the wheels of commerce turnin' ya know. Reliability be damned, it's newer so it's gotta be better. Regards, Richard -- | Remove .my.foot for email | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own. |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
Frank Stearns writes:
You could comfortably fit that entire 7B population at suburban densities into a land mass the size of Texas. It's not a question of finding space. It's a question of providing 7 billion with the same standard of living currently enjoyed by only about 1 billion. That's a seven-fold increase in resource requirements. As long as most of the population lives in dirt, you can afford to keep a few people fat and rich, but if you want everyone to have the same standard of living, you have to either settle for a very modest standard or keep the population small. |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
Frank Stearns writes:
We have "waited and seen." The 1970 warnings were *dire and immediate* -- yet nothing like those predictions ever occurred. Countries with high birth rates reduced them somewhat. But the problem didn't go away, it just wasn't newsworthy any more. |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
William Sommerwerck writes:
Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing? No, I'm describing reality. There are no magic alternative power sources that can replace or even significantly supplement fossil fuels and nuclear. Not politically correct, but true. |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
Mxsmanic writes:
Frank Stearns writes: You could comfortably fit that entire 7B population at suburban densities into a land mass the size of Texas. It's not a question of finding space. It's a question of providing 7 billion with the same standard of living currently enjoyed by only about 1 billion. That's a seven-fold increase in resource requirements. As long as most of the population lives in dirt, you can afford to keep a few people fat and rich, but if you want everyone to have the same standard of living, you have to either settle for a very modest standard or keep the population small. That's perhaps the saddest part of the equation. Many impoverished nations have the means live much better lives, but for any number of reasons -- some even well intentioned (though that's rare) -- greed and corruption of the leadship undercuts the population. No easy solution, and this includes simply cutting back the numbers. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
Mxsmanic writes:
Frank Stearns writes: We have "waited and seen." The 1970 warnings were *dire and immediate* -- yet nothing like those predictions ever occurred. Countries with high birth rates reduced them somewhat. But the problem didn't go away, it just wasn't newsworthy any more. Agreed in some respects -- though not "newsworthy" in the sense of predicting Complete Doom. "If it bleeds, it leads;" and there isn't nearly the amount of blood hoped for 40 years ago. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
"MarkK" writes:
In the early 1970s Paul Erlich, et al, predicted dire, terrible things would occur by the year 2000. Those things -- wide-spread food riots, life spans in 1st World countries dropping to 45, etc -- never happened. snips but how much land area does it take to supply food and clean water and energy dispose of the waste from those folks? and how many fish can you take from the sea before it no longer regenerates? I don't think land area is the limiting factor. I'm not sure what is though.. It is of course many things, and in some areas of the planet some things are more acute than others. The "carrying capacity" of 50-60 billion is doable but probably at the great cost of some pretty massave macro engineering projects. The point is that with current technology, it's likely we could accommodate quite a few more folks. let's say 10B total over 30 years, not to mention new technologies as yet not widely available: say, super-clean fission, or even the elusive fusion finally comes to pass. Heck, even solar advanced enough to make economic sense (at the present 80 cents/KwHr, it really doesn't make much sense now, but that might change). Full-blown Nanotechnology as envisioned by Eric Drexler and others could be a complete game-changer. The jump from 5B to 7B took 40 years, though leaping to 12B was forecast in 30 years. That ramp might be just as shallow now, perhaps even dipping a bit; I admit I don't know. As far as the "wrong" people having babies... I understand the point, but uh oh, you could sure get in some trouble for that.... Who decides? But find a way to make those populations prosper, and they too will start having fewer babies. And don't forget those who've looked at a larger time scale, say to the year 3000, and how we might be having serious issues with *too little* population growth. Interesting stuff, indeed, but I need to get back to some editing and mixing. There! I tied this to audio. :/ Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
PStamler writes:
snips I spent the time to sit here and write this partly to suggest that environmental issues aren't as simple as some folks seem to think, and partly to avoid going in the other room and doing my taxes. Hi Paul - I deeply appreciate your sentiment on taxes; same here (along with some editing that had to be done; but that's now done; taxes next, but in a minute...g) Your effort to present what Commoner and Erlich have formulated is appreciated. However, given how broad-brush incorrect both gentlemen have been over the past 40 years on a number of key issues, it's difficult to lend much real-world credibility to their formulations -- attractive as they might be from a theoretical or academic stance. I know they both have a devout following so bits and pieces of what they do are perhaps dazzlingly correct, but some of the most significant things they've called incorrectly. But the exposition perfectly represents the difficulty with such predictions: static formulations, static variable sets, fail in the broadest sense because the next Clever Thing/Clever solution/emergence of an Entire Clever Industry can't be taken into account. A great deal has happened in the past 40 years, good and bad, that was not predicted -- everything from telecomm to personal computation to new ways to manage resources; the list is long. And yes, some cultures lag in accessing those things, but these items could be available if impeding problems were dealt with. (That discussion would make this post too long!) The point is that while such predictions or formulations can be helpful, relying on them exclusively (in the face of past performance, and from the detriment of doing what might /really/ be useful) is not a good thing, IMO. YMMV. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?
No, I'm describing reality. There are no magic alternative power sources that can replace or even significantly supplement fossil fuels and nuclear. Which public utility pays you to post such silly remarks? |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
Frank Stearns writes:
The "carrying capacity" of 50-60 billion is doable but probably at the great cost of some pretty massave macro engineering projects. And why should these be carried out, instead of simply limiting the population to a lower number? The fewer people there are to support, the higher the standard of living that they can enjoy with finite resources. As far as the "wrong" people having babies... I understand the point, but uh oh, you could sure get in some trouble for that.... Who decides? But find a way to make those populations prosper, and they too will start having fewer babies. Yes. The "wrong" people are always the ones reproducing the most prolifically, because they are poor and uneducated, and when you are poor and uneducated, there isn't much else to do except reproduce (or have sex with reproduction as a side effect). As populations become more educated and affluent, they find many other things to do besides procreate, and the rate of population increase falls. In many developed countries, the rate of natural increase is flat or in decline. The most important segment of the population to educate is women. Also, societies with great inequalities between the sexes may have higher rates of increase, because the only role available for women in such societies is motherhood (and, in some cases, chores). And don't forget those who've looked at a larger time scale, say to the year 3000, and how we might be having serious issues with *too little* population growth. The population can always be increased rapidly (or decreased rapidly) by birth control. It only takes a generation to dramatically reduce or increase the population. |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ... why China has been the top economic power for 9 out of the last 10 centuries. What's your criteria for "top economic power"? *MY* criteria is irrelevant, since I'm not one of the economists that arrived at that conclusion. -- Neil |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
Mxsmanic wrote:
William Sommerwerck writes: You've missed the point. The point is that alternative sources won't make a dent in energy needs. The notion that they can is one of the greatest myths spread by militant environmentalists and their followers. The reality is that it's not going to work. That's because once they start to make a dent in energy needs, they aren't alternative any longer. There was a time when gasoline was an alternative fuel.. it was a way to use the lighter petroleum fraction that would otherwise be poured off in the making of lamp oil. Now it's pretty mainstream. The widespread use of "alternative" energy would reduce the need for nuclear and fossil-fuel plants. Not to any significant degree. Some other source must be found, and soon. That's the point of alternative energy sources, yes. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote: The evidence from Chernobyl is that the consequences are not nearly as bad as feared. Although human beings are still unwilling to enter certain areas, animals and plants seem to be doing quite well (in part because there aren't any human beings around to harass them). The plants mutated and /ate/ all the humans. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQcGQhRp0VY --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Neil Gould" wrote in message ... why China has been the top economic power for 9 out of the last 10 centuries. What's your criteria for "top economic power"? *MY* criteria is irrelevant, since I'm not one of the economists that arrived at that conclusion. So then if you don't want to stand behind it, why cite it? |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
Mxsmanic writes:
Frank Stearns writes: The "carrying capacity" of 50-60 billion is doable but probably at the great cost of some pretty massave macro engineering projects. And why should these be carried out, instead of simply limiting the population to a lower number? The fewer people there are to support, the higher the standard of living that they can enjoy with finite resources. Sorry, I might not have stated that clearly enough. I was not proposing actually making massive changes to support 50+ billion people. The point was that as a practical matter it's likely the planet could carry another 3B or so over the next 30-40 years, without such gigantic changes. That's breathing time for additional game-changing technology to come online and perhaps start looking outward on a multiple-century horizon. (No, you're not going to shuttle a billion people off world, but perhaps start shifting some trends over a very long horizon.) -snips- The population can always be increased rapidly (or decreased rapidly) by birth control. It only takes a generation to dramatically reduce or increase the population. I'm still scratching my head here. Who decides? Are you advocating a centralized planet-wide authority? While given the potential of some problems, this might seem attractive. The problem is, who is so noble that you could give them such complete power and control? Every time something like this is tried, it fails, rather badly. I'd rather face enviro problems than live in a totalitarian setting, no matter how well intentioned. But you might perhaps prefer otherwise. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
Scott Dorsey writes:
That's because once they start to make a dent in energy needs, they aren't alternative any longer. That hasn't happened yet, and it won't happen in the foreseeable future. There was a time when gasoline was an alternative fuel.. it was a way to use the lighter petroleum fraction that would otherwise be poured off in the making of lamp oil. Now it's pretty mainstream. Maybe the same will happen to natural gas, which is now being completely wasted in many cases. That's the point of alternative energy sources, yes. The only viable options are fossil fuels and nuclear. Nothing else can produce the volume of energy required. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Neil Gould" wrote in message ... why China has been the top economic power for 9 out of the last 10 centuries. What's your criteria for "top economic power"? *MY* criteria is irrelevant, since I'm not one of the economists that arrived at that conclusion. So then if you don't want to stand behind it, why cite it? Why are you conflating the two? I cited it because their data refutes William's statement. If you want to know the veracity of the data, Google is your friend, and you can argue with those economists about it. -- Neil |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
Frank Stearns writes:
The point was that as a practical matter it's likely the planet could carry another 3B or so over the next 30-40 years, without such gigantic changes. That's breathing time for additional game-changing technology to come online and perhaps start looking outward on a multiple-century horizon. History seems to show that human beings will not address a problem until a crisis arises, and then not very well. So breathing room probably won't help. I'm still scratching my head here. Who decides? Probably government authorities, as in China. Are you advocating a centralized planet-wide authority? Individual countries can take the same actions. While given the potential of some problems, this might seem attractive. The problem is, who is so noble that you could give them such complete power and control? What's so special about it? We issue licenses for driving and piloting and practicing law or medicine. Why not license parents? The future of civilization depends on how we raise children, so it's very ironic that parenthood is totally unregulated, whereas we worry about licensing cosmetologists who will have no lasting effect on anything. Every time something like this is tried, it fails, rather badly. It's working in China. I'd rather face enviro problems than live in a totalitarian setting, no matter how well intentioned. But you might perhaps prefer otherwise. Regulation does not equate to totalitarianism. |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
The only viable options are fossil fuels and nuclear.
Nothing else can produce the volume of energy required. You miss the point -- alternative sources don't have to. Simply reducing our dependence on nuclear and fossil energy is A Good Thing. |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Neil Gould" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Neil Gould" wrote in message ... why China has been the top economic power for 9 out of the last 10 centuries. What's your criteria for "top economic power"? *MY* criteria is irrelevant, since I'm not one of the economists that arrived at that conclusion. So then if you don't want to stand behind it, why cite it? Why are you conflating the two? Two??? I cited it because their data refutes William's statement. Not necessarily. You may think that there is only one criteria for the title of "top economic power", but well-informed people generally don't. If you want to know the veracity of the data, Google is your friend, and you can argue with those economists about it. Since you don't seem to want to even cite which economists you are listening to... |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
William Sommerwerck wrote:
The only viable options are fossil fuels and nuclear. Nothing else can produce the volume of energy required. You miss the point -- alternative sources don't have to. Simply reducing our dependence on nuclear and fossil energy is A Good Thing. The question is whether or not it's a Good Enough Thing. If you're wealthy, you can use alts, with maybe a break even 20 or 50 years out. Most people aren't that wealthy ( or will have to sell the property and move ). The question then becomes - what gets traded for the Good Thing? ideally, (IMO), we'd like to say "in 10 years, we'll be to where one erg of traditional fuels costs .080 of what it costs for an alt. source, because we can spend $xTrillion to get there." . Then you can construct a finance model for it. Two curves will intersect at time T. But we can't do that. So this makes alts a kind of gambling. -- Les Cargill |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
From NASA - tin whiskers - why all your gear will fail
William Sommerwerck writes:
You miss the point -- alternative sources don't have to. Simply reducing our dependence on nuclear and fossil energy is A Good Thing. We cannot reduce our dependence on nuclear or fossil fuels to any significant extent without returning to living in straw huts. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
How can techical people fail to master their computers? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Amp on 110º angle = fail? | Car Audio | |||
here is how firewire ports fail | Pro Audio | |||
NASA EMI Shielding Guidebook | Pro Audio | |||
NASA Tests Apple G5 | Pro Audio |