Harold Squared

Thanks for understanding the limitations of my equipment. Power is low here, storm is interrupting supply but we need the rain.

 

Be of good cheer and thanks for your comments, I must sign off. We are getting HAIL, for heavens sake!

No, but it shows that using the bombs was not a last resort. We had options. It was a preference and not a neccessity of war. The issue was how to best obtain surrender. Victory was not was already inevitable.

It has been suggested that the acts of Truman in question were more for the benefit of the Soviets than the Japanese. If the Bomb had been available earlier we might all be having a similar conversation about Berlin, Bonn, or Munich.

 

Without a doubt, if such weapons were available to the Axis powers, they would have been used, in fact this is probably the only way Japanese balloon bombs or submarine delivered munitions could have any effect upon the United States mainland.

 

Why focus on these two cities, and not the dozens of ones bombed earlier in the war, by both sides? The "novelty" of nuclear bombs was a matter of destructive power, not the act of bombing cities.

Excellent point, the firebombing of Tokyo was just as much a product of the times as that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Ukraïne isn't save because of at least two different races inhabiting the country.

 

Would Iraq have been invaded had they actually possessed serious weapons-of-mass destruction(WMDs) or even MAD-capabilities ?

We have a couple of races in my country according to most. Japan has its Ainu ethnic minority as well. And I am willing to bet the answer to your question would be a resounding NO.

Thanks for asking it, though of course we hàve no way of knowing for sure.

Do professionals make such mistakes?

 

Let's ask Arthur Andersen and the good folks at Enron.

 

Basically salespeople are paid to lie, so the more heavily promoted something happens to be, the bigger a grain of salt my experience encourages me to take along with it.

 

All the same, thanks for the links.

Not asking for data, just a date. OUR doctrine should include it.

 

How do you (or we) know that, as you have provided no numbers to back up your claim?

Waves are pretty much constant but wind is extremely variable. By harvesting the energy of such sources on an "as available" basis and storing it as compressed air we can later release that energy on demand, as hydroelectricity does. It is sort of an inverted version of hydropower, only driven by pressure rather than gravity.

 

Can it? With what efficiency? And what costs?

 

Why not just set up a giant treadmill powered by unicorns?

Unicorns are based upon traveler's tales about what we now know as the rhinoceros, a vile tempered beast resistant to domestication. You are welcome to try your luck with this approach but it is off topic.

So no numbers to back up your claims. Why should we bother pursuing this without even a cursory feasibility analysis of efficiency compared to other methods?

Because it addresses a primary deficiency of wind power, it is not dispatchable. Incorporating wave power should give us some sort of minimum baseline, too. And when someone develops the idea to that point, the engineering section of the board might be a more appropriate venue.

found this:

Penza is the town where the line seems to stop. No further info about the "Lomovskaya sentry line built in 1640"

 

 

https://www.google.nl/maps/place/R158,+Penzenskaya+oblast',+Rusland,+442411/@52.9615576,45.0479314,13272m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m12!1m9!4m8!1m3!2m2!1d44.901894!2d52.9882774!1m3!2m2!1d45.0397761!2d52.9499346!3m1!1s0x41404359e1b923d3:0x5ae3941399493f2e

Although looks weird to me that a human intervention with tree plantings from 1640 still persists today.

All over North America there are remnants of the "Mound Builders" civilization, but I understand what you mean, trees represent fuel, and Russian winters are notoriously harsh. Much of New England was stripped of trees before coal came into widespread use.

 

Things that are not true do not count as evidence.

Unless they are Mann made, right?

 

Of course, your posts are always full of objective evidence, well-researched data and copious references, aren't they. Aren't they? Oh no, they aren't.

Look, all I am asking for here is the date of the Tipping Point, if such a thing exists. According to your doctrine, it does, why can't anyone cough it up? I am having a hard time converting my buddies who are still in denial about this matter, help a guy out.

Pretty cool, I had never heard of using trees for defensive purposes. Makes sense though.

Indeed, concealment of military formations. In medieval times trees were cut and the sharpened branches laid towards the enemy, they are called "abatis".

 

In the days of the Raj, a great hedge was maintained to keep the inland population from getting salt from the sea. This hedge has largely disappeared but was very effective in its day.

I assume he made some sort of veiled threat/insult (1). But because most of his posts are almost totally content free, I completely missed it.

 

(1)

Slartibartfast: Come. Come now or you will be late.

Arthur: Late? What for?

Slartibartfast: What is your name, human?

Arthur: Dent. Arthur Dent.

Slartibartfast: Late as in the late Dentarthurdent. It's a sort of threat, you see. I've never been terribly good at them myself but I'm told they can be terribly effective.

I did imply that you might have nothing worth stealing, in as many words. One's peace of mind is beyond any monetary valuation.

 

Regrettably, there are those who would do harm for nothing more than their amusement.

 

Returning to the topic, wave energy could be harvested by such means by connecting pipes with check valves to floats. The entire assembly could function as a breakwater for a harbor or other area requiring erosion abatement.

 

Of course, you have looked into the costs of getting the energy from there to where it is needed?

 

Or not ...

That is one of the persistent problems of renewable energy. I daresay more power consumers live near the ocean than the desert but there are notable counterexamples of course.

 

Nuclear power is completely site independent, of course.

So, 'no' then...

 

Ha - syncro posting.....

Hi, Doc. Deserts are of course obvious locations for solar installations, insolation is high and land prices are low. Even so, there are generally seasonal fluctuations, e.g., the so called "monsoon" season of Arizona.

That's a no, then. (As usual.)

Yes. And since I have your attention, sir, awhile back I made some comments regarding your personal safety which might have seemed flippant. I regret them and would like to make amends here. I am pleased that up until now you have not been victimized by crime.

 

I can assure you from personal experience that it has little to recommend it.

 

Off topic but I tried and failed to say as much by other means.

Do you have any numbers to back up your assertions?

There are potential losses whenever such conversions occur so it makes sense to minimize them. The major advantage of the plan described is essentially storing wind energy for use at periods of peak load, similar to hydroelectricity. Need more power, turn a valve. And being entirely pneumatic up to that point, fewer problems with electricity in the marine environment can be anticipated.

 

Also, the tanks need not have bottoms, being inverted reservoirs like giant diving bells.

 

If one of the more dramatically disastrous tipping points has been passed, such as the detonation of the methane bomb, then it has not worked out ok so far - really, really not worked out ok so far. It's worked out about as far from ok as can be imagined. And the traditional adaptation will be bottleneck species survival as scattered populations of hunter/gatherers.

 

Let's say none of those tipping points have been passed, and talk about what we should be doing in more optimistic - and fortunately, by sheer luck, more likely - views of the situation. Should we be acting to delay and head off the more severe consequences of current trends, or acting to make them worse and arrive sooner?

 

They are to be found in the river delta wet rice farming regions along the southern coast, and in the "Three Furnaces" region of the Yangtze River valley. The millions living there will become refugees when or a little before the level of the South China sea has risen another 15 centimeters, and the second heat wave featuring wet bulb temperatures over 85 degrees for more than three days has hit that valley.

And still no dates, Jesus, this is worse than high school.

We aren't.

Then when is Doomsday?

I was just musing and admit the connection to earth science is tenuous. The notion is that it is necessary to generate electricity by not burning stuff, ergo, wind power, which does not provide said power on demand.

 

A good number of such installations are located offshore where hills and caverns are conspicuously absent. By running current through wire mesh armatures, minerals can be induced to precipitate out of seawater rather economically.

 

I propose storing mechanical energy as compressed air since it is the most direct way of doing so vs converting it first to electricity, electrolysis of water to hydrogen, and then conversion to electricity from hydrogen, for example.

If nuclear weapons are not a credible deterrent, why does Israel have them?

It is on YouTube, although it seems the date is in question, 2008 or 2009. Either way, he is on record as saying as much.

 

It appears he fully intends to carry this policy through.

I'm in favor of cutting off the money flowing into ISIS. How can we do that? Maybe precisely targeting key structures, that are easy to rebuild later, will cut the flow of oil for ISIS to sell. After ISIS is finacially crippled, soldiers no longer getting pay checks, no gas for vehicles, less food and supplies, recruiting dwindles, so they can be defeated. Key infrastructure can be rebuilt, but rebuilding it should be JUST beyond the capability of ISIS.

 

Not a scorched earth policy.

 

Does Trump come across to you as resembling Hitler a little bit? He is a political outsider with radical ideas, pompous and grandious, pedantic, except maybe without Hitlers famous hand gestures and hateful rhetoric.

Hispanic voters might find his rhetoric offensive. So might women, particularly less attractive ones. Also Hitler had a great war record, Trump, not so much. So Trump actually suffers by comparison.

Since robots are only superior in repetitive basic tasks, the haphazard nature of human talents is clearly superior since that nature includes the invention of robots.

Superiority in what way? In terms of carrying out "repetitive basic tasks" such as calculation, robots win. In terms of productivity around the clock, robots win. In terms of labor relations, robots never go on strike, in fact they can be designed to labor in conditions humans would never tolerate.

 

As a matter of experience, creativity in most workplaces is viewed as a liability. Conformity is generally more accepted.

And the post had nothing to do with that topic, hence its irrelevance.

 

Robots have no advantage doing things that exceed their capabilities

And humans are able to exceed their capabilities? How so? Your statement is a tautology, nothing is capable of exceeding its capabilities by definition.

 

With that said, the capabilities demonstrated by electronic intelligence are expanding at a very great rate. No human can beat the latest generation of chess programs, for example.

Good post +1

 

It seems to me that a potential pitfall is somewhat similar to the OPs conclusion You are already obsolete, have a nice day. not that well become obsolete obviously ridicules, but more that we may lose our sense of purpose at least in part.

 

Even if we can overcome the, seemingly, insurmountable problem that money not only equals power but also bragging rights.

 

A job, for most, fills a great deal of our time and while we dream of retirement and a chance to relax, put our feet up and just chill. What, after all, is life without contrast and purpose?

What is work, after all, but a series of repetitive tasks? Whether a person is standing on an assembly line or bending over an operating table, a robot can do it faster, better, and cheaper.

This is very much dependent upon a variety of factors. Note that in Germany, even though nuclear power is not being sold, somebody must pay for the remainder of the cost of the installations and their eventual decommissioning. The matter is before the relevant courts and since the facilities cannot be put to their intended use, the cost is arbitrarily high.

 

Germany must also pay for arguably superfluous coal generation capacity as well as renewables.

 

In the case of solar photovoltaic panels, unless I am mistaken, the projected life expectancy of the equipment is closer to 25 years vs the customary 50 to 60 years of conventional sources, so doubling the cost seems reasonable. I confess I have little knowledge of the longevity of wind power equipment.

There is a great deal of "common knowledge" out there which is simply untrue, particularly with regard to nuclear matters. Again, welcome to the discussion but the hour here is quite late and I must bid you good night. I look forward to investigating your links and hope to supply resources of my own at a more opportune time.

How much the consumer pays for electricity is not an indication of how much it costs to generate said electricity. Last year, when German consumers were paying high prices for their power, Germany had one of the lowest production costs in Europe (substantially lower than France with all of its nukes). Here is an article with a good explanation of the reasons for this. http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/27/german-electricity-prices/

 

Even more importantly than price, German per capita CO2 emissions have gone down, especially when compared to the 1990's when the push for renewables began in earnest.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?page=3

 

I apologize for entering this discussion late but this is a topic I spend a lot of time talking about.

Good heavens, please do not think for a moment that your comments are unwelcome. Please elaborate and if you have the time be kind enough to correct any errors that review of the thread may reveal to you. Many of us are based in the USA where matters are obviously quite different. It is my understanding though, that reliance on coal to see the demand for power is met when renewables fall short(as they regularly and inevitably must) must increase in the absence of nuclear power.

Not every nation can enjoy the abundance of hydropower that Norway does, unfortunately.

As to Phi's claim that opponents of the AGW hypothesis are "the best when it comes to fear", I beg to differ. In general such persons tend to take the view that there is no cause for alarm and/or that whatever changes in climate may lay in wait, human ingenuity will enable us to cope adequately.

 

AGW proponents, on the other hand, tend to claim that doom lurks somewhere in the immediate future, or the shadowy past, perhaps, and that only drastic measures will possibly ameliorate utter catastrophe. Repent, repent, etc.

 

I understand that they are reaching out to fundamentalist Christian sects to explore common strategies, correct me, if I am wrong. And please pardon the digression, all.

 

Returning to the topic, this very site must defend itself from spam bots, so the battle for tomorrow has actually begun.

I think perhaps robots have already taken over the job of trolling on the internet in discussion forums. Make bold claims but never back it up with justification that exceeds their AI capacity.

Good morning sir, I hope you are well. I would like to chat longer today but I am studying for my Turing Test, lol.

Are you confusing your opinion for fact or do you have evidence of this 'fact'?

 

If so could you share it with us?

Proverbially, "time is money". Does it take decades to program any robot? Contrast this with the education of human larvae and draw your own conclusions.

 

Thank you all for your comments!

 

How is that relevant to the comment that not everyone is capable of becoming a physicist, or that not everyone can afford an education?

One last response.

The topic is the superiority of robots vs humans. Arguably, the superior quality control possible with robots vs the haphazard nature of human talents and irrational distribution of resources is a point in favor of robots, hence, relevant.

 

Again, your comments are much appreciated.

 

Good day to all.

Short selling may be a factor as well, selling high and buying low are the important things. The order of these events, not so much.

 

Tulipomania.

BTW overtone, I don't fear my neighbors, I fear psychopaths, sociopaths, the desperate, and the delusional, none of my neighbors seem to fit in any of those categories...

Oh yeah, on another note the gun my friend found was found due to a cat dragging in a bunch of baby opossums and turning them loose in the house, the woman thought they were rats and tore her whole house part looking for them and in that effort turning up an old loaded gun behind the couch... Weird things do happen...

When cats are outlawed, only outlaws will have cats.