I have been a Star Trek fan for as long as it has been on TV. I'm old so I remember Scotty, Capt Kirk et al.
But the best actually was Star Trek Next Gen. I have seen every single episode at least once and some several times. I have favorites.
So, it was not without some fascination that I saw this article about deconstructing water into Hydrogen and Oxygen without the use of electricity. Up till now, you could put a plus and minus electrode in water, induce power and H2 and O would bubble up.
Problem was it took 10 times the energy to produce a single therm of power. Even I can do that.
But, you remember in Star Trek NG, Jordie and Data were always fiddling with the Dilithium Crystals. No one knows what that was. But it powered the Enterprise. Sometimes they had to stop off at some planet to find fresh Dilithium.
Scientists in Tokyo have discovered a crystal which produces Hydrogen and Oxygen from water without using electricity. It uses light. And the catalyst is, Get This, ""Tokyo University of Science said Wednesday that they have succeeded in producing hydrogen from water through the use of gallium nitride (GaN) crystals.""
Beam me up, I'm ready for transport
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Global Warming is a Political Control Scheme
I can’t prove any of what I’m about to say (Yet), I can only tell you I am reading in journals and reports an undercurrent of politically incorrect reports by reputable scientists which tells me that the whole global warming issue is wrong by a large measure.
On University of Southern California TV late last night (I’m a geek) I was an oceanographer delivering a paper on climate change. I love that kind of thing so until I fell asleep I watched it. He said in part:
Every 40,000 years or so for the past half million years the world goes thru a radical climate change. It’s been 40,000 years since the last one. Each one of these has the hockey stick look. Increasing CO2 levels and increasing temperatures. Then boom, in a decade or less the climate gets very very cold to a baseline that makes certain areas uninhabitable. And from that very cold platform the warming cycle starts all over again increasing in velocity slowly to create the hockey stick graph we all know and then the climatological collapse.
This was all discovered by analyzing deep bore ice cores with air bubbles in them which came from Antarctica and Greenland’s ice caps that reveals CO2 and temperature levels for the last 500,000 years.
This has been happening over and over again. Man doesn’t cause climate change, he is merely an observer. All our hand wringing about CO2 and temperature levels is part of a natural cycle. We are in it right now.
The most revealing thing he said was: High CO2 levels are caused by high temperatures and that the increasing cycle high temp – high CO2 – higher temps – higher CO2 etc is normal, repeated and will happen again. Then the crash comes.
WOW. That hit home. I just the same thing the other day. That decomposition rates increase under high temperatures. That makes sense. High decomposition releases CO2’s.
So, don’t panic but don’t put away your parka, enjoy the warm weather while it lasts and fuel up your SUV. Climate change isn’t your fault. It never was. It was all politics. But you knew that deep in your heart.
God is in Control, not you.
On University of Southern California TV late last night (I’m a geek) I was an oceanographer delivering a paper on climate change. I love that kind of thing so until I fell asleep I watched it. He said in part:
Every 40,000 years or so for the past half million years the world goes thru a radical climate change. It’s been 40,000 years since the last one. Each one of these has the hockey stick look. Increasing CO2 levels and increasing temperatures. Then boom, in a decade or less the climate gets very very cold to a baseline that makes certain areas uninhabitable. And from that very cold platform the warming cycle starts all over again increasing in velocity slowly to create the hockey stick graph we all know and then the climatological collapse.
This was all discovered by analyzing deep bore ice cores with air bubbles in them which came from Antarctica and Greenland’s ice caps that reveals CO2 and temperature levels for the last 500,000 years.
This has been happening over and over again. Man doesn’t cause climate change, he is merely an observer. All our hand wringing about CO2 and temperature levels is part of a natural cycle. We are in it right now.
The most revealing thing he said was: High CO2 levels are caused by high temperatures and that the increasing cycle high temp – high CO2 – higher temps – higher CO2 etc is normal, repeated and will happen again. Then the crash comes.
WOW. That hit home. I just the same thing the other day. That decomposition rates increase under high temperatures. That makes sense. High decomposition releases CO2’s.
So, don’t panic but don’t put away your parka, enjoy the warm weather while it lasts and fuel up your SUV. Climate change isn’t your fault. It never was. It was all politics. But you knew that deep in your heart.
God is in Control, not you.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Forbes takes a shot over the bow at Bloggers
Forbes Magazine this week has come down hard against bloggers and their influence. There is rumbling in congress to try to “Control” the internet, Read that Bloggers. The Article is here, Attack of the Bloggers as printed in Forbes Magazine. Here is a part of that article.
No wonder companies now live in fear of blogs. "A blogger can go out and make any statement about anybody, and you can't control it.
But if blogging is journalism, then some of its practitioners seem to have learned the trade from Jayson Blair. Many repeat things without bothering to check on whether they are true, a penchant political operatives have been quick to exploit. "Campaigns understand that there are some stories that regular reporters won't print. So they'll give those stories to the blogs," says Christian Grantham, a Democratic consultant in Washington who also blogs. He cites the phony John Kerry/secret girlfriend story spread by bloggers in the 2004 primaries. The story was bogus, but no blogger got fired for printing the lie. "It's not like journalism, where your reputation is ruined if you get something wrong. In the blogosphere people just move on. It's scurrilous," Grantham says.
And though they have First Amendment protection and posture as patriotic muckrakers in the solemn pursuit of truth, the blog mob isn't democratic at all. They are inclined to crush dissent with the "delete" key. When consultant Nick Wreden criticized credit card banking giant MBNA on his blog, a reader responded in support of MBNA. Wreden zapped the comment. "I just thought: ‘This has to be a plant,'" he says.
"Blogging is still in its infancy. Imposing regulations would create a chilling effect," says Annalee Newitz, until recently a policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that defends anonymous attackers. The anonymous assault has a long tradition in American political discourse, recognized by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission in 1995 and in a recent decision by the Delaware Supreme Court refusing to force an Internet service provider to disclose who called a small-town politician inept.
This has put more fear in the hearts and minds of those who like to be in control of things than all the pornography on the Internet ever did.
If you care about the first amendment this is an important dialogue. I have subscribed to Forbes for years, I endorse most of Steve Forbes says.
But he has gone off the end of the plank.
The blogosphere is astonished. Here is an article from one such.
Excerpts from that blog.
Overall, what a pile of trash from Forbes Magazine, which uses its cover to go on the attack against bloggers in the new issue. You have to register to read the stories. Go ahead if you must; it's worth reading to see how a normally solid business magazine can go astray with an alarmist and at times absurd broadside.
Do bloggers sometimes go too far? Of course. But if the best-read bloggers typically did work of the lousy quality shown in the Forbes stories, they'd be pilloried -- appropriately so.
There are columnists from newspapers who are supporting first amendment rights of bloggers to blog. Here is one of those.
In its November 14th issue, Forbes magazine published a cover story titled "Attack of the Blogs!" The deck read, "They destroy brands and wreck lives. Is there any way to fight back?"
The article, which is by Daniel Lyons, is deceptive, specious, and just plain bad journalism. With this article, Mr. Lyons and Forbes do us, as readers, a disservice, and we should mistake neither Lyons' fuming gasconade nor Forbes' absentee editorial oversight for proper journalism.
So, those of the ACLU, You free speech advocates, those of you who are journalists, where do you stand on this? Is the fact that the bulk of the Blogosphre is tilted to the right blinding you to the truth of what this really is?
The blogosphere is nothing more than a soapbox on which I stand in Hyde Park. No one has to listen (Read). No one has to agree or ever come back again. People can disagree or get their own soapbox. We just are speaking to a larger audience than I could have ever reached in Hyde Park. It’s true freedom of speech.
It’s just that it’s become so much more effective at crushing the lies that are out there by so many.
I think that’s a good thing.
No wonder companies now live in fear of blogs. "A blogger can go out and make any statement about anybody, and you can't control it.
But if blogging is journalism, then some of its practitioners seem to have learned the trade from Jayson Blair. Many repeat things without bothering to check on whether they are true, a penchant political operatives have been quick to exploit. "Campaigns understand that there are some stories that regular reporters won't print. So they'll give those stories to the blogs," says Christian Grantham, a Democratic consultant in Washington who also blogs. He cites the phony John Kerry/secret girlfriend story spread by bloggers in the 2004 primaries. The story was bogus, but no blogger got fired for printing the lie. "It's not like journalism, where your reputation is ruined if you get something wrong. In the blogosphere people just move on. It's scurrilous," Grantham says.
And though they have First Amendment protection and posture as patriotic muckrakers in the solemn pursuit of truth, the blog mob isn't democratic at all. They are inclined to crush dissent with the "delete" key. When consultant Nick Wreden criticized credit card banking giant MBNA on his blog, a reader responded in support of MBNA. Wreden zapped the comment. "I just thought: ‘This has to be a plant,'" he says.
"Blogging is still in its infancy. Imposing regulations would create a chilling effect," says Annalee Newitz, until recently a policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that defends anonymous attackers. The anonymous assault has a long tradition in American political discourse, recognized by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission in 1995 and in a recent decision by the Delaware Supreme Court refusing to force an Internet service provider to disclose who called a small-town politician inept.
This has put more fear in the hearts and minds of those who like to be in control of things than all the pornography on the Internet ever did.
If you care about the first amendment this is an important dialogue. I have subscribed to Forbes for years, I endorse most of Steve Forbes says.
But he has gone off the end of the plank.
The blogosphere is astonished. Here is an article from one such.
Excerpts from that blog.
Overall, what a pile of trash from Forbes Magazine, which uses its cover to go on the attack against bloggers in the new issue. You have to register to read the stories. Go ahead if you must; it's worth reading to see how a normally solid business magazine can go astray with an alarmist and at times absurd broadside.
Do bloggers sometimes go too far? Of course. But if the best-read bloggers typically did work of the lousy quality shown in the Forbes stories, they'd be pilloried -- appropriately so.
There are columnists from newspapers who are supporting first amendment rights of bloggers to blog. Here is one of those.
In its November 14th issue, Forbes magazine published a cover story titled "Attack of the Blogs!" The deck read, "They destroy brands and wreck lives. Is there any way to fight back?"
The article, which is by Daniel Lyons, is deceptive, specious, and just plain bad journalism. With this article, Mr. Lyons and Forbes do us, as readers, a disservice, and we should mistake neither Lyons' fuming gasconade nor Forbes' absentee editorial oversight for proper journalism.
So, those of the ACLU, You free speech advocates, those of you who are journalists, where do you stand on this? Is the fact that the bulk of the Blogosphre is tilted to the right blinding you to the truth of what this really is?
The blogosphere is nothing more than a soapbox on which I stand in Hyde Park. No one has to listen (Read). No one has to agree or ever come back again. People can disagree or get their own soapbox. We just are speaking to a larger audience than I could have ever reached in Hyde Park. It’s true freedom of speech.
It’s just that it’s become so much more effective at crushing the lies that are out there by so many.
I think that’s a good thing.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Without a Vision we will ALL Perish
Can’t see the Forest for the trees. We all know that it’s true. We’ve been there at one time or another. Our pain, our frustration, our anger, our circumstance causes blindness to the solutions that others see so well. They may help us as they step out of the as-is situation we find ourselves in and toward the could be situation we all desire. When we are in that place we are the least likely least qualified person or people to solve our own problems. We need a voice of hope and vision.
Sometimes all it takes is that outside voice describing a why-not scenario to get us off our duffs and on to the solution that waits in our future. The Kennedy brothers were famous for the quote (which wasn’t theirs), “Some people see things as they are and ask WHY? I see things as they could be and ask Why Not?” That’s what visionaries do. Forget the situation as it is right now. Stop asking why. Start believing for why not. Things will change.
I need visionaries in my life. I need a fresh ray of light shown on my situation from outside. When I was in corporate America we often brought people in from outside our discipline to help us see things differently. They might have been wrong but they pushed aside issues that blinded us from seeing things as they really were. That’s why Steve Jobs hired the President of Pepsi to run Apple for a while. Sometimes it’s just better to have a person who doesn’t have so many trees in their forest to blind them to lead the way. His vision reconfigured Apple, a company Mr. Jobs now runs with great success.
I appreciate a wonderful Church we attend (albeit really far away). It’s worth the drive. When we are there and the Spirit of God is flowing, (like last night) a fresh download of vision takes place in word, song and prophecy such that the troubles in my life don’t seem so big and potentials that could be part of my future see more possible. I thrive on the could be or should be. I need vision. I would perish without it. Sometimes I need to be jarred out of my lethargy.
Here’s are truths I have learned about vision:
--It comes from people you least expect to get it from sometimes
--The less people know about your situation the more visionary they can be
--Our biggest hindrance to our vision is being in the proverbial forest
--Most big visions seem impossible and impractical at first
--Some visionaries only have a piece of the puzzle but it can be the critical key to the full solution
--It’s easy to criticize vision, discount a vision, reject a vision, the only loser in that is not the vision carrier, they have nothing to lose; it’s you. You perish.
So, be careful not to put qualifiers on the vision carriers in your life, what they know, what you believe you know better, the size or radical nature of the vision, the fact that the way out and up seems incomplete, impossible or impractical.
Visions always do.
Remember, God used a Donkey to speak to a prophet. He could use the least likely least qualified person you know to speak to you. Are you qualified to listen? Let he who has ears to hear………………
Sometimes all it takes is that outside voice describing a why-not scenario to get us off our duffs and on to the solution that waits in our future. The Kennedy brothers were famous for the quote (which wasn’t theirs), “Some people see things as they are and ask WHY? I see things as they could be and ask Why Not?” That’s what visionaries do. Forget the situation as it is right now. Stop asking why. Start believing for why not. Things will change.
I need visionaries in my life. I need a fresh ray of light shown on my situation from outside. When I was in corporate America we often brought people in from outside our discipline to help us see things differently. They might have been wrong but they pushed aside issues that blinded us from seeing things as they really were. That’s why Steve Jobs hired the President of Pepsi to run Apple for a while. Sometimes it’s just better to have a person who doesn’t have so many trees in their forest to blind them to lead the way. His vision reconfigured Apple, a company Mr. Jobs now runs with great success.
I appreciate a wonderful Church we attend (albeit really far away). It’s worth the drive. When we are there and the Spirit of God is flowing, (like last night) a fresh download of vision takes place in word, song and prophecy such that the troubles in my life don’t seem so big and potentials that could be part of my future see more possible. I thrive on the could be or should be. I need vision. I would perish without it. Sometimes I need to be jarred out of my lethargy.
Here’s are truths I have learned about vision:
--It comes from people you least expect to get it from sometimes
--The less people know about your situation the more visionary they can be
--Our biggest hindrance to our vision is being in the proverbial forest
--Most big visions seem impossible and impractical at first
--Some visionaries only have a piece of the puzzle but it can be the critical key to the full solution
--It’s easy to criticize vision, discount a vision, reject a vision, the only loser in that is not the vision carrier, they have nothing to lose; it’s you. You perish.
So, be careful not to put qualifiers on the vision carriers in your life, what they know, what you believe you know better, the size or radical nature of the vision, the fact that the way out and up seems incomplete, impossible or impractical.
Visions always do.
Remember, God used a Donkey to speak to a prophet. He could use the least likely least qualified person you know to speak to you. Are you qualified to listen? Let he who has ears to hear………………
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Reference posts on Say Anything
Posts on Say Anything last week by yours truly.
Teenage Christians Beheaded
A Real Pessimistic View of the Future
State Lotteries are a Shell Game
Phony Government Help
Why Muslims Behead
Unused Fuel in the Ground
Second Hand Smoke is Good for You (or not)
Smurfs under Sharia Law
I am totally unbiased, they are worth reading.
Teenage Christians Beheaded
A Real Pessimistic View of the Future
State Lotteries are a Shell Game
Phony Government Help
Why Muslims Behead
Unused Fuel in the Ground
Second Hand Smoke is Good for You (or not)
Smurfs under Sharia Law
I am totally unbiased, they are worth reading.
Child Support in Fargo, North Dakota
On Say Anything, another blog, this entry appeared. Then there was a comment by a man who's brother is being victimized in the same way. I think this is a problem. I don't live any more in Fargo, but I know Fargo influencers who might decide to take this issue on. It's a big one. Read the whole thing and the comments.
Government run amuk.
Read the whole thing and the comments.
By 2sweet4u69 on October 30, 2005 at 1:38 pm
I live in West Fargo, ND. I am a single mother of 3 kids. Awhile ago my two older children were put in foster care for a short amount of time. They are now back home with me and doing great! My problem is I started a new job in August and within two days of working child support garnished my wages for past due child support for when my kids were in foster care.
Now, I don’t have a problem with paying that at all. What I do have a problem with is the amount that they think they need to take out. They are taking out $280.00 a month. I am working at the local high school right now when my kids are in school (about 22 hours a week because there is no way I can afford child care for my youngest). My last check they took exactly half of my paycheck which left me pretty much broke after paying electricity, phone and putting gas in my car. Now this is the same child support agency that has done pretty much nothing about my two older children’s dad not paying child support. His arrears for child support as of 10/27/2005 is $47,338.04. He moved to California to get away from child support and boy did it work!
I have filled out an online application with Legal Assistance of North Dakota to see if they can help me. My thought is this: no matter what the payment is a month child support will get their money. I have asked them if they could lower my payments and they basically blew me off. I told them I am willing to pay $100.00 a month and they said that won’t do. This is a past due bill for child support - it’s not like my kids are still in foster care racking up more of a bill.
I want to know what you people think of this situation. I fully believe in paying child support for you children whether it’s because you children were in foster care or because you’re the non-custodial parent, but some of the collection methods used by child support enforcement leave something to be desired.
Government run amuk.
Read the whole thing and the comments.
By 2sweet4u69 on October 30, 2005 at 1:38 pm
I live in West Fargo, ND. I am a single mother of 3 kids. Awhile ago my two older children were put in foster care for a short amount of time. They are now back home with me and doing great! My problem is I started a new job in August and within two days of working child support garnished my wages for past due child support for when my kids were in foster care.
Now, I don’t have a problem with paying that at all. What I do have a problem with is the amount that they think they need to take out. They are taking out $280.00 a month. I am working at the local high school right now when my kids are in school (about 22 hours a week because there is no way I can afford child care for my youngest). My last check they took exactly half of my paycheck which left me pretty much broke after paying electricity, phone and putting gas in my car. Now this is the same child support agency that has done pretty much nothing about my two older children’s dad not paying child support. His arrears for child support as of 10/27/2005 is $47,338.04. He moved to California to get away from child support and boy did it work!
I have filled out an online application with Legal Assistance of North Dakota to see if they can help me. My thought is this: no matter what the payment is a month child support will get their money. I have asked them if they could lower my payments and they basically blew me off. I told them I am willing to pay $100.00 a month and they said that won’t do. This is a past due bill for child support - it’s not like my kids are still in foster care racking up more of a bill.
I want to know what you people think of this situation. I fully believe in paying child support for you children whether it’s because you children were in foster care or because you’re the non-custodial parent, but some of the collection methods used by child support enforcement leave something to be desired.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)