I really don't know when the governments switched from using rhetoric to use the system of bribery to get their ideas across to each other, but more importantly to the people in general.
There are 435 Representatives in the House and 36 new Senators. Their salaries should be less than the president, which is $200,000.00 a year which comes to $400,000.00 for two years, which is the term of office for a representative, who then tries to get re-elected. This is a total salary of $188,400,000.00. Then why would they spend over $4,000,000,000.00 on advertisements on radio and TV? Just to make so little money or to help all the people who elected them or is it the unannounced benefits that they receive from all those "benefactors" who contributed to their election.
This last advertising/shows were one of the dirtiest (meanest/underhanded/lying) things the campaign managers did, I believe, in the history of the pre-election campaigns. That a "mentally disturbed" person shot so many people was a direct result from all of these advertisements. I was always taught that if you couldn't say anything good about a person, you didn't say anything. You especially didn't lie in public about the other person. I am sure that the campaign managers will be called onto the carpet (told off) as to what is true and what is not.
Maybe it's just that the politics in the world have gotten to the point where the politicians no longer think that they are to be held accountable by their constituents (voters) as the only ones they have to worry about is the person who lines their pockets with "contributions" (?bribes?).
There are now a few countries in the world, Sudan, Tunisia and Egypt where the people are taking things into their own hands to change the way the people in charge are treating them. Isn't this one of the ideas behind the American Revolution in 1774 and the reason behind the Declaration of Independence?
I am not condoning or asking people to revolt against the government, but I am asking them to start requiring that those people who they elect start to listen and do the things that the "people" would like them to do. I know that in the 60's that a Senator from Colorado would send a survey out to all of his constituents as to what THEY thought about items that were coming up for a vote in the Senate. I have always thought that this is what ALL Congresspersons should do at least 4 times a year. And then publish what the majority thought and prove that they voted the way the majority wants.
Life has so many enigmas that it is hard to know them all. Enigmas: somebody or something that is not easily explained or understood like puzzles and riddles: Life, travel, people, places, animals and things. You can help me find some about Nature, History, Governments, People and your everyday life. As it is Christmas time read T'was the Night Before Christmas.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
To Build a Spacecraft
I believe that in order to build a spacecraft that would be able to travel to Mars and return, that it would have to be built in orbit around the earth. We do not have to propulsion system available yet, to propel everything that would be needed to get to the planet, like we did with the landings on the moon.
Mars is so far away that it would require a much larger system to include everything that the astronauts would need to get there. First just orbit mars. Launch the craft and personnel who would land on mars to explore an area to collect samples. Return to mars orbit and dock with the craft that has been orbiting and waiting for them. Then return to earth orbit where the could be met by a shuttle like craft to bring them back to earth with all the information and samples that they acquired on their trip.
One part of the space craft, maybe the most important part, may have been developed privately by a veteran astronaut, Franklin Chang Diaz. He has tied for the most amount of time spent in space and has always been interested in space travel. His dream is a Plasma powered craft that would travel up to 123,000 miles per hour or go from New York to Los Angeles in about 1 minute. To read more about Diaz and his engine go to http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-10/123000-mph-plasma-engine-could-finally-take-astronauts-mars and http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6543-magnetic-beams-could-power-swifter-spacecraft.html.
But that would only be one part and it might be too heavy by itself to be lifted into orbit, which would require construction in space along with the craft to carry the crew, the lander, the fuel, the food, water, extra air, etc. etc. Using the present systems of liquid rocket boosters would become too expensive and wasteful so a craft that could take off from earth and then either launch the booster to bring the parts to orbit and return, or more desirable would to have the craft launch like a regular aircraft and go by itself into orbit. This is why I say we need to look for newer means of propulsion, which I know the large engine manufacturers and the US Air Force are looking for. Have they found it yet? I don't know, but then I am not privy to all this hush-hush information. Someday they will announce it, but only when they need to, to get the craft doing what it needs to do that everyone should know about.
Mars is so far away that it would require a much larger system to include everything that the astronauts would need to get there. First just orbit mars. Launch the craft and personnel who would land on mars to explore an area to collect samples. Return to mars orbit and dock with the craft that has been orbiting and waiting for them. Then return to earth orbit where the could be met by a shuttle like craft to bring them back to earth with all the information and samples that they acquired on their trip.
One part of the space craft, maybe the most important part, may have been developed privately by a veteran astronaut, Franklin Chang Diaz. He has tied for the most amount of time spent in space and has always been interested in space travel. His dream is a Plasma powered craft that would travel up to 123,000 miles per hour or go from New York to Los Angeles in about 1 minute. To read more about Diaz and his engine go to http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-10/123000-mph-plasma-engine-could-finally-take-astronauts-mars and http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6543-magnetic-beams-could-power-swifter-spacecraft.html.
But that would only be one part and it might be too heavy by itself to be lifted into orbit, which would require construction in space along with the craft to carry the crew, the lander, the fuel, the food, water, extra air, etc. etc. Using the present systems of liquid rocket boosters would become too expensive and wasteful so a craft that could take off from earth and then either launch the booster to bring the parts to orbit and return, or more desirable would to have the craft launch like a regular aircraft and go by itself into orbit. This is why I say we need to look for newer means of propulsion, which I know the large engine manufacturers and the US Air Force are looking for. Have they found it yet? I don't know, but then I am not privy to all this hush-hush information. Someday they will announce it, but only when they need to, to get the craft doing what it needs to do that everyone should know about.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Energy of the Future III
To give you an idea as to where the energy is going, and faster then we can create new sources, China is building the equivalent of 2 New York Cities per year. That’s how many more people in just one year? Just about 17 million, and that's only 1 country. Just think of what's happening around the world. And we need to find and build more energy supplying sources. There will be an extra 1.3 billion (1,300,000,000) people requiring twice as much energy in the next 10 years. How are we going to do it?
Chinas people are becoming the new middle class of the world with the US becoming a 2nd rate or even a 3 rate country if we don't start doing something now to change the future.
Are the energy sources up to the job? Well, nuclear energy could supply 9%, maybe 15%, if we build new plants, but that would take a change in the attitude of the people in the different countries and then what would we do with the radioactive waste that every nuclear plant creates, every day?
We could build new dams which could supply up to 25% of the worlds energy needs, but we would have to dam every river in the world. Some of them would require multiple dams. Then where would all of the migratory fish and water life go? You can't build a dam and still allow all of the fish to go up and down the river. Only the salmon can use water ladders to return to their breeding grounds as it has always been their nature to go up water falls throughout history.
Wind would be a good idea and would give us up to 30% of our needs, but as you noticed, I said 'up to'. The bad part of this is that the wind has to be blowing all of the time on all of the windmills all of the time. You and I know that doesn't happen so windmills will help, but not really enough.
Solar cells right now only supply 0.1% but we would need over 4,000 times as many as we now have to really make a difference. But the good part is that it would supply us with power as long as the sun shines. Which means that over 50% of them will not be producing 50% of the time. They would also require millions and millions of hectares of land that people could not live or work on.
With the right mobilization you and I can do just about anything, but it also requires industries to create and change to new technologies. Renewable energy in not just a plant but also a business that we all need to be a part of. We could use existing factories and change the existing equipment to make new products for using or creating renewable energy.
You and I need to get together with all the rest of our friends, neighbors, countrymen and the rest of the people on earth to design/create new sources of energy
Chinas people are becoming the new middle class of the world with the US becoming a 2nd rate or even a 3 rate country if we don't start doing something now to change the future.
Are the energy sources up to the job? Well, nuclear energy could supply 9%, maybe 15%, if we build new plants, but that would take a change in the attitude of the people in the different countries and then what would we do with the radioactive waste that every nuclear plant creates, every day?
We could build new dams which could supply up to 25% of the worlds energy needs, but we would have to dam every river in the world. Some of them would require multiple dams. Then where would all of the migratory fish and water life go? You can't build a dam and still allow all of the fish to go up and down the river. Only the salmon can use water ladders to return to their breeding grounds as it has always been their nature to go up water falls throughout history.
Wind would be a good idea and would give us up to 30% of our needs, but as you noticed, I said 'up to'. The bad part of this is that the wind has to be blowing all of the time on all of the windmills all of the time. You and I know that doesn't happen so windmills will help, but not really enough.
Solar cells right now only supply 0.1% but we would need over 4,000 times as many as we now have to really make a difference. But the good part is that it would supply us with power as long as the sun shines. Which means that over 50% of them will not be producing 50% of the time. They would also require millions and millions of hectares of land that people could not live or work on.
With the right mobilization you and I can do just about anything, but it also requires industries to create and change to new technologies. Renewable energy in not just a plant but also a business that we all need to be a part of. We could use existing factories and change the existing equipment to make new products for using or creating renewable energy.
You and I need to get together with all the rest of our friends, neighbors, countrymen and the rest of the people on earth to design/create new sources of energy
Friday, January 21, 2011
Energy of the Future II
By the year 2050 the world will need more than 50% more energy to keep up with the growth of the consuming publics demand for the energy. Right now it takes 110,000 watts a day for each person in the US. In Europe they need 55,000 watts. And in Asia they consume 16,000 watts and Africans us only 8,000 watts.
Where does all this come from? Well it comes from fossil fuels (oil, coal and gas), water, sun, nuclear, and wind. As we all know, we are running out of fossil fuels and because of that all the prices have risen and will continue to rise until we find a more usable (reusable?) source. You and I have heard of the "new" engines for cars and other means of transportation that use other sources. But you probably don't know that they have had these engines for decades, but because the oil was so cheap, the manufacturers thought that retooling their assembly lines would cost too much and the consumer (you and I) would not purchase them as long as the price of gasoline was so low. Now that the prices of the fuel have risen so much, they have decided to bring them out of the development stage to the fabrication process.
But vehicles are only one of the consumers of these fossil fuels as I have stated before. You and I also use electricity for our cooking, ironing, washing, housecleaning, and just lighting our homes. Think about all of the consumption that is going on in all the offices and stores where we shop. Again, lighting, heating/cooling, advertisements, and of course the ever present computers, screens, and printers which we no longer can get along without. How many of you have more than one computer at home? At work? We see special stores selling them and all of the accessories that we "need" to have to make our work/gaming easier and faster. New larger homes need more energy just because of their size and the growth of the earths population and their connection to the "lines" require more and more energy.
If everyone on the planet used the same amount energy as the "average" US user, we would need 5.4 earths to supply the amount of force required to feed their requirements. This calls for all of us to use less and less and for someone to design more efficient equipment requiring less energy supplies. And there is the request for all of us to be more creative in how we re-use our supply and find ways to use less energy. More efficient light bulbs can save 1% of requirement. If everyone on earth would use these light bulbs and turning off the light when it is no longer required, you would save 20 power plants around the earth.
As a little thought before I go: Raising beef cattle requires the use of 10X more energy than to raise the same weight in chickens. So save where you can.
Where does all this come from? Well it comes from fossil fuels (oil, coal and gas), water, sun, nuclear, and wind. As we all know, we are running out of fossil fuels and because of that all the prices have risen and will continue to rise until we find a more usable (reusable?) source. You and I have heard of the "new" engines for cars and other means of transportation that use other sources. But you probably don't know that they have had these engines for decades, but because the oil was so cheap, the manufacturers thought that retooling their assembly lines would cost too much and the consumer (you and I) would not purchase them as long as the price of gasoline was so low. Now that the prices of the fuel have risen so much, they have decided to bring them out of the development stage to the fabrication process.
But vehicles are only one of the consumers of these fossil fuels as I have stated before. You and I also use electricity for our cooking, ironing, washing, housecleaning, and just lighting our homes. Think about all of the consumption that is going on in all the offices and stores where we shop. Again, lighting, heating/cooling, advertisements, and of course the ever present computers, screens, and printers which we no longer can get along without. How many of you have more than one computer at home? At work? We see special stores selling them and all of the accessories that we "need" to have to make our work/gaming easier and faster. New larger homes need more energy just because of their size and the growth of the earths population and their connection to the "lines" require more and more energy.
If everyone on the planet used the same amount energy as the "average" US user, we would need 5.4 earths to supply the amount of force required to feed their requirements. This calls for all of us to use less and less and for someone to design more efficient equipment requiring less energy supplies. And there is the request for all of us to be more creative in how we re-use our supply and find ways to use less energy. More efficient light bulbs can save 1% of requirement. If everyone on earth would use these light bulbs and turning off the light when it is no longer required, you would save 20 power plants around the earth.
As a little thought before I go: Raising beef cattle requires the use of 10X more energy than to raise the same weight in chickens. So save where you can.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Energy of the Future
There have been a number of ideas brought forth as to being the solver of part of the problem of future energy for use upon this little blue planet of ours. But no one has a solution that will, by itself, solve our energy problems by themselves. This is also true of what energy to use to propel us to far distant stars and planets. They have one solution but it will only last for 10 years and then the people using the space craft will have to develop their own solution. What I think the problem is, is that they are all looking to solve the problem with 20th century solutions. What they have to look for is a 21st or even a 22nd century solution. What does this mean? Well I think it means that they have to look at what elements they don't know and how could they use them with what they know to create new sources of energy. Just because they haven't found them does not mean that they don't exist, it just means that they have not found they way and/or means to find them.
I was taught in computers that when you start to design something and you don't know how long it will take, you start at the end and calculate what you need before the end to get there. And then what is needed to get to the next to last step and so on until you get to the beginning or where you are at this time. I know that it sounds strange to some and logical to others but really isn't that the way that the physicists, chemists, and mathematicians should be thinking. Not how to get there, but what are they trying to get to and work back wards. Isn't that really what Einstein was trying to tell us with his famous equation E=MC2? I know that he worked out how to get there, but didn't he really understand where he was going and worked it out as to how to get there? I don't know as I am not a genius or even really smart, but I do know how to think logically and that is how you get to where you want to get to. This simple idea has been running around my brain ever since I first heard of it and tried it out to solve my first computer problem.
I also used it to plan the implementation of a new system for NATO that is now the basis for all communications between all the different military departments around the world. This is to insure that no-one military will be left in the dark when it comes to working together to solve a problem. Therefore I believe that I can speak with a little confidence when I say: "Start solving the problem, by looking at the final solution".
I was taught in computers that when you start to design something and you don't know how long it will take, you start at the end and calculate what you need before the end to get there. And then what is needed to get to the next to last step and so on until you get to the beginning or where you are at this time. I know that it sounds strange to some and logical to others but really isn't that the way that the physicists, chemists, and mathematicians should be thinking. Not how to get there, but what are they trying to get to and work back wards. Isn't that really what Einstein was trying to tell us with his famous equation E=MC2? I know that he worked out how to get there, but didn't he really understand where he was going and worked it out as to how to get there? I don't know as I am not a genius or even really smart, but I do know how to think logically and that is how you get to where you want to get to. This simple idea has been running around my brain ever since I first heard of it and tried it out to solve my first computer problem.
I also used it to plan the implementation of a new system for NATO that is now the basis for all communications between all the different military departments around the world. This is to insure that no-one military will be left in the dark when it comes to working together to solve a problem. Therefore I believe that I can speak with a little confidence when I say: "Start solving the problem, by looking at the final solution".
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Why Libraries
One of the most famous people in history said "No society can exist without a library."
This was said as a result of people talking about the internet and how you won't need a library anymore because you will be able to get all the information you need using your computer. Even though I am a user of the internet to get free books about computers, programming, history, etc. I still believe in libraries. This is because they will continue to be the greatest source of information about anything you would want to know. Also there is something about having something in your hand and seeing the quality of the book itself and going back and forth between information in a number of books at the same time.
Throughout history there have been gigantic libaries that had all of the known books of the time. But because they were so hard to copy and to translate into other languages there sometimes weren't any other copies. When Ceasar burned Rome he destroyed the greatest library of his time. How many of ancient writings were lost forever we will never know, unless we can go back in time and "Copy" those documents. The problem was that some were written on papyrus or animal skins or clay tablets or other ways and means that the ancients developed to write upon. When the library was burned it really started the dark ages in Europe.
The only places that they thought was the only place to keep a book was in a Monestary. There monks worked long hours coping the few books that they knew about by hand. What they didn't realize was that in the are around the Mediterranean Sea the Arabic society had a number of large libraries. These were in Seville in Spain and Cario Egypt and Constantinople (now known as Istanbul) Turkey. They had books that were translated from the ancient languages and from Hindu and Chinese. This would make them some of the most educated people in the world. But what happened to them?
It seems that as the "Intelegent" Christians went to save the Holy Land they destroyed the libraries because they did not have the "Bible". But what is the Bible? That is an idea for another day.
It seems that as the "Intelegent" Christians went to save the Holy Land they destroyed the libraries because they did not have the "Bible". But what is the Bible? That is an idea for another day.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Robots of the Future
I was in a discussion the other day with some Portuguese friends and it came around to robots doing everything and there wouldn't be anything left for humans to do. That they would take over the world, etc.
I don't think it will come to that as all computers and robots are all designed, built, and programmed by different people. As I was a programmer before I retired I know that no two programmers really think alike and have a different way to come to the same solution. This would mean that no two types of robots would think the same way to come to the same conclusion, just like people. There is also the difference, right now, that there are a number of computer languages, written by people who speak, write and think in a different language. So I am not afraid of one computer taking over as it now stands.
There would be a way if they developed one robot to take over the memory and the programming of all the other robots to their way of working. This is what a number of geeks are now trying to do, in a way, with their viruses that they try to put into your computer. But there are a number of other geeks out there whose job it is to find all these viruses and get rid of them. This would be what I think would happen to the robots, as long as they keep making different robots.
I would be afraid if society allowed just one company to produce all of the robots, thereby giving them the ways and means to really take over from mankind. But if that happens, what would happen to the creators of the robot? They would disappear like the rest of mankind leaving only robots.
Do you agree with my reasoning and why it would never happen? Let me know what you think.
I don't think it will come to that as all computers and robots are all designed, built, and programmed by different people. As I was a programmer before I retired I know that no two programmers really think alike and have a different way to come to the same solution. This would mean that no two types of robots would think the same way to come to the same conclusion, just like people. There is also the difference, right now, that there are a number of computer languages, written by people who speak, write and think in a different language. So I am not afraid of one computer taking over as it now stands.
There would be a way if they developed one robot to take over the memory and the programming of all the other robots to their way of working. This is what a number of geeks are now trying to do, in a way, with their viruses that they try to put into your computer. But there are a number of other geeks out there whose job it is to find all these viruses and get rid of them. This would be what I think would happen to the robots, as long as they keep making different robots.
I would be afraid if society allowed just one company to produce all of the robots, thereby giving them the ways and means to really take over from mankind. But if that happens, what would happen to the creators of the robot? They would disappear like the rest of mankind leaving only robots.
Do you agree with my reasoning and why it would never happen? Let me know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)