winsor

As you note, it has been done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Agreed, but this is orthogonal to the point. First, "Thermodynamics" is a misnomer; "Thermostatics" would be a more appropriate moniker. The study of the dynamics of heat is "Heat Transfer." The two disciplines are related but hardly interchangeable. Second, even though we may agree that the effect upon which the AGW crowd is given to persevorate is, indeed, a factor, I dispute the contention that the measures proposed constitute a solution. Eine Schlimmverbesserung (it unfortunately does not translate well) is more like it. The bottom line is that I dispute the relative significance of the issue, and contend that, given that it is a problem, what is proposed does not constitute a solution. Warm blue skies, Winsor

Which is starting to function on this issue judging by the reports coming out of slanted data and bad science from the fear mongers. Problem is that the global warming activist are so emotionally (and financially) invested in the the whole glaciers going world's ending mindset that they are unwilling to consider that they may be looking at the wrong picture or looking at the picture wrongly. You overstate the problems by an order of magnitude. The preponderance of evidence still shows, by far, that the planet is warming. The shrill trumpeting by the deniers about a few bad apples has deafened you. The laws of thermodynamics remain intact and operational. I cringe at the tenor of this discussion. When someone uses the term "denier" in context, I read "heretic" and thus call the source into question. Of all people, I would consider you to be the one most sensitive to the distinction between the disciplines of Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer, yet you make reference to the one which is of secondary importance to this discussion. As far as the thermodynamic status of our planet goes, we are, indeed, one factor among many. To suggest, however, that we are the single prevailing factor requires Comic Book Science (tm), Blind Faith (r), arrogance, ignorance, or some combination of these. Contending that we have no influence at all is just as bad. My objection to the whole algore thing is that it is a serious distraction to the very real and immediate problems we face. Overpopulation is more of a threat to survival of our species than "climate change" by an order of magnitude - though both are ultimately self-correcting. I immediately discount anyone that talks of "saving our planet." Long-term survival of our species is more to the point; the planet has repeatedly come through much worse than we can dish out, and it's still here. You are free to go back to your bickering, but I am dismayed by the tone taken by you and billvon. I would have given the both of you a bit more credit, but you both appear to think that the odious nature of those who identifiy themselves as "conservatives" makes those who identify themselves as "liberals" somehow better. I am grossly underwhelmed by all but a very few of either, and can't imagine anyone with a three digit IQ concluding otherwise. Henry Mencken once said "for every complex problem there exists a solution that is simple, elegant - and wrong." The whole AGW debate seems but a case in point. Unnaturally blue skies, Winsor

You know how they go.

How about 10 civilians killed yesterday in a missed strike from a drone? Collateral damage? War is lovely ain't it. Fuckin war mongering MF ers Fuck u all If you think war can be waged with absolutely no collateral damage, then you're living WAYYYYY out in Fantasy-land. Uh, I think the point is that collateral damage is a given in war, therefore war leaves something to be desired. It strikes me that only a moron would opt for warfare when equally (or more) satisfactory results could be obtained by other means. War is a particularly ineffective means of population control, tends to be an economic disaster for all involved, leaves survivors on both sides with lasting grudges, and generally has little to recommend it. In fact, the punch line of Sun Tzu's work is that the goals of warfare are best achieved by other, more ignoble, means (subterfuge). The classic remark is translated that if you want peace, prepare for war. It does NOT say ENGAGE in warfare. The incursion into Afghanistan, however justifiable, was poorly thought out in terms of the end-game. The invasion of Iraq was a case study in applied stupidity. If a country is subject to invasion if in possession of WMDs, we're in deep kimchee - we have more of them than anybody, and we're the only country that has ever intentionally nuked anyone (Chernobyl doesn't count). If we had oil in the same quantities as we do stupidity, we would be self-sufficient and able to supply the world with plenty left over. Since stupidity has become a virtue on both sides of the aisle, we should be proud of having it as our only limitless resource. Back to drone-hacking; this is nothing new. During the Southeast Asian War Games, we were so sure of our dominance in all things that we took it as a given that the opposition was dumber than us. It never dawned on us that the empty jungles we bombed so ferociously had been teeming with targets shortly before, but that the area was cleared the moment we made the radio calls that announced our inbound status. We won a variety of conflicts by virtue of seemingly limitless resources (quantity with occasional quality), resources we no longer have. Go to a department store and see if you can find something made in the US of A. von Falkenhayn's claim to have tried to bleed the French white was first made long after he failed to break through at Verdun (if you want to make fun of the French, go there). The dreadful people we now face have stated that goal up front. How are they doing so far? Let's see. They spent less than $500,000 to drop the World Trade Center and nail the Pentagon, while we have racked up over $2,000,000,000,000 in DEBT to fail to prevail over them (they're still in business at a reduced level). If we manage to "win" ("Mission Accomplished" anyone?) it will by a Pyrrhic victory at best, and I'm not holding my breath waiting for anything resembling a victory. Since there is no IQ test required to run for office (not that I'm saying that would help - intelligence is grossly overrated), we have a real dog's-breakfast of talent making key decisions in this fair land. Idiots tend to elect idiots, thus you have our current array of representatives. Unfortunately, the nitwits we put in charge are functioning under the illusion that they are at the pinnacle of decision-making skill, so it should come as no surprise that the our foreign policy, such as it is, is such a train wreck. Thus, there is no example of dunderheaded hubris that should seem unfitting on the part of those in charge. BSBD, Winsor

What exactly is there about this shotgun that makes it so much more desirable for the military? It overpowers virtually everything else that comes before it. What exactly is your problem with keeping it out of the hands of criminals? Hey, I have an idea! Why don't we make it as illegal, and hard to obtain by criminals as, say, cocaine? Boy, that would be great! All you have to do is pass a law and the problem is solved! Next, we can solve the problem of drunken driving. Pass a law against alcohol - we could call it, I don't know, Prohibition or something - and the problem would be nipped in the bud. No more alcohol, and no more DUIs. Why has nobody else thought of that? With enough laws, we can make everything perfect for everybody. BSBD, Winsor

We love free speech. Yep. We did, too. Many decades ago. We learned the hard way. And why are you still bashing us for that at every given chance??? Upshot: Your reply is just babble. You seem not to know what you're talking about. Can't take that serious. Let me help you to understand a bit. Even with all of our warts the U.S. never allowed someone to come into power who wanted to rule the world and nearly wiped out entire races. Paleface speak with forked tongue. "Manifest Destiny" had us on quite a roll for rather a while. When it comes to hegemony, the NSDAP were rank amateurs compared to some of the fearless leaders we have put in place. Ignorance of the whys and wherefores of the rise of the Third Reich concerns me. To paint them as all evil, and their enemies as pure as the driven snow, is too simplistic. In any event, the US of A has in place policies regarding the treatment of the original inhabitants of this land that are worse that anything that is imposed on jews in, say, Iran (okay, so I cherry-picked). BSBD, Winsor

One reason that long range shooting is not linear is that the bullet tends to retain constant orientation during its flight, but incident air does not. The more the bullet drops, the more it goes sideways through the air. IIRC, a rifle with a right hand twist will pull to the left at long range and a left hand twist will pull to the right. Think of a football thrown with a decent amount of spin. When it first leaves the player's hand it is pointed in the direction of travel. By the time it reaches the receiver, however, it is dropping enough that it is going in a direction different than the way it is pointed. The spin at that point tends to initiate drift to the right or left, depending on the way it is spinning. If you doubt the effect of spin on trajectory, watch the path of a ball thrown by a major-league pitcher. Between the mound and the plate, the ball can wind up going in a completely different direction. In addition, the farther the bullet travels the more it gets established on a particular drift trajectory - whether it is by virtue of wind or spin. Thus, a correction amounting to 1 MOA at 100 metres may show up as a 3 MOA deflection at 500 metres. Put another way, conditions that cause 1" of drift at 100m could result in 15" of drift at 500m. In any event, the physics of long-range marksmanship are not quite as simplistic as one might imagine. BSBD, Winsor

JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh, Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, PA 1999/5759

Each is entitled to thier own opinion, mine is that glorifying guns is ignorant, idiotic, pathetic and a sign of ones lack of respect! Would you rather characters like me were filtered out so you can have gun orgies with your loser mates in peace? If I could, I'd killfile your ass in a heartbeat.

Gosh, I have a solution. What do you say that Israel resolves to immediately grant every Muslim precisely the same level of rights and protection as is afforded to Jews in Muslim lands. Boy, would that straighten things out! BSBD, Winsor

While I condemn the actions of the terrorists on that fateful day, I think it's unfair to condemn the entire faith for it. I couldn't agree with you more. I condemn the entire faith for myriad other reasons. BSBD, Winsor

The Earth doesn't care at all if it warms or cools. People may find it kind of inconvenient if their 100 year floods become 5 year floods. Well, you know that and I know that, but it does not have much to do with the idea that, having achieved climactic perfection, it is incumbent upon us to maintain it ad infinitum. Having people who flunked watered down Science for Liberal Arts Types courses lecture me on Mechanisms of Global Radiation Heat Transfer and other such subjects is a bit tough to swallow. I do not dispute that humanity is a factor in the heat balance of our planet. I do have an issue with the Problem vs. Solution mechanism that is now afoot. While I do not condone the treatment Galileo received from the Vatican, it turns out that neither the Vatican nor Galileo had a valid model of the issue that brought their conflict to a head (the effect of the moon on tides, IIRC). Thus, just because one side is out to lunch does not mean the other side is any less faulty. Anytime an argument takes on religious fervor ("deniers" "heretics"), I am likely to hold both sides suspect. Blue skies, Winsor

Terrified as we may be of the environmental apocalypse that is now unfolding, there are people working feverishly on solutions. This may give us hope. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2511875/nathan_myhrvolds_anti_global_warming.html

"In the beginning God created Man. Man, being a gentleman, returned the favor." Clarence Darrow

Since it is a fact that only a heretic would dare deny that CO2 is going to turn this fair planet into just one more sterile orb, no amount of hysteria is sufficient to address the issue. I say we should put our money where our mouth is. The US of A should IMMEDIATELY ban the importation of ANY materials subject to combustion and subsequent release of CO2. Since we use something like 21 million, and produce only 4.7 million, barrels of oil a day, this should do more to reduce our carbon footprint than any recommendation I have yet heard. Hybrid cars? There won't be enough surplus petroleum to fire up a moped! I think it's a great idea, and one whose time has come. We won't even have to pass any legislation to accomplish this anyway - the moment one of our T-bill auctions fails to find enough buyers and the dollar reverts to its inherent value (zero), we will go on just such an energy diet. Sure, some of us are going to have to make some minor sacrifices, but such luxuries as having food to eat are greatly overrated. Now, if only we can get Algore to sign on, this will be a slam dunk.! Enjoy yourself - it's later than you think. BSBD, Winsor

The guy is a Mormon convert, which discredits him thoroughly as far as I am concerned. LDS and Scientology pin the meter when it comes to verifiably nonsensical claims. Blue skies, Winsor

Which one of these is false? a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas Using the term "greenhouse gas" denotes a political, rather than technical, standpoint. It may or not be "false," but it certainly is junk science. b) The concentration of atmospheric aCO2 is increasing As you surely have no idea, this is a self-correcting problem. c) Thermodynamics works The fact that you chose the discipline of Thermodynamics (better described as "ThermoStatics"), rather than Radiation Heat Transfer, shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject. The Holy Grail of Systems Theory is SISO - Single Input/Single Output. When followers of Algore present their scenario of SISO disaster, it may be dismissed out of hand. There are problems, sure, but addressing this nonsense is a waste of time. Al Gore is a moron, and anything he says is likely wrong. BSBD, Winsor

News flash: the death rate for uninsured is the same as for insured - one to a customer. Life is fatal. Get over it.

reinforce my position truth be damned Just thought I'd inject a little accuracy Oh, and to answer your user name, I think it was koolaid. If you refer to Jonestown, it was actually Flavor Aid.

You should ask the police to install a video camera in your bedroom, so that if a burglar ever breaks into your house, they can have clues to capture the miscreant. What, you don't have a video camera in your bedroom?

I, for one, benefited by the presence of CCTV when someone scarfed my ticket in Mayfair. The video was reviewed, which showed me paying for the ticket, so I was given a pass through the turnstile. The Crime was not Solved, in the sense that the culprit was not apprehended, but I was not left holding the bag, for which I am grateful. There have been more instances where I wished that I had video to demonstrate what really happened than cases where I was relieved that events were not filmed. Blue skies, Winsor

When I was a youngster, it seemed unlikely that the average Stanford-Binet score was actually 100. I could not concieve of people on the low end of the two-digit range being able to get through life. A few years in the Army disabused me of that notion. It occurred to me that, say, Labrador Retrievers do not do well on standardized tests, yet they go through life generation after generation with their own peculiar version of cognitive and correlative skills - and that their human analogue is closer to the norm than one might guess. Every time I catch myself falling prey to the illusion that progress might take place by dint of enlightenment of the masses, however slight, I am forcefully remided of the extent to which the obvious is to remain forever elusive to the bulk of humanity. Intelligence is vastly overrated. I contend that stupidity is a force with unlimited potential, and that anyone who comes across the means to harness ignorance is set for life. Witness Scientology. Taylor Caldwell put it ever so succinctly that five percent of the population think, five percent think they think and ninety percent would sooner die than think. I have the sneaking suspicion that she, like George Orwell, was an optimist. Thermite? That does not rise to the level of a good joke. Blue skies, Winsor

but i'm sure you're a strong believer that the US had to free the iraqi folks from dictatorship... Bad guess, Sparky. Frankly, I figured that Saddam Hussein was a political godsend. The idea that he was the benefactor of his political rivals to our detriment is ludicrous. When his Secret Police came across anyone on our list of bad people, they typically disappeared for being a greater threat to him than to us. Suspicion of Weapons of Mass Destruction as a Casus Belli? If that had the slightest hint of legitimacy, we would be attacking North Korea, North Dakota, South Africa, South Carolina, Israel, France, Great Britain, Russia, China, India and Pakistan. These are places we KNOW have WMDs. Also, given our Holy Quest to overthrow the Bad Man, A) Quite who is supposed to pay for it? and B) Who is supposed to replace him in that charming locale that is not an order of magnitude worse? I learned to quit asking "who could be worse than this turkey?," since we tend to answer that question by electing them. Just because I think that one politician is an idiot, or that a political party is a bastion of morons does not mean that I am any greater a fan of the politician or party in opposition. As a rule, they are equally contemptible; stupidity knows no political persuasion. Politics largely consists of various people trying do outdo each other - successfully - in the extent to which they are imbiciles. Blue skies, Winsor

Since Islam and Communism are two of my very least favorite religions, I can see no reason to champion either side. Hopefully, if they are at each other's throats they will be more likely to leave us alone - though it never seems to work out that way. Sticking our nose into it is probably the worst thing we can do. Blue skies, Winsor