chuck kottke

It's Christmas time in the city. They go ring a ling, ring a ling, hear them ring, hear them ring

Poking in the ribs? ah, brotherly love!:laugh3:

with a little luck, we can work it out, we can make this whole damn world turn round.

Edgar Winters

Bogart, Humphrey

Xylophone

Zamfier and the pan flute!

Titicaca city, Peru.. and pan flutes too! :)

Quito for some reason I think of the Pan Flute. found a really cool site to enjoy the sounds of the pan flute, if you like! :The Sound of the Panflute & Panpipe inspires Mystery & Wonder :sunny::hippy: Cities staring with the letter R, hm.. Roebourne Australia!

what is there to nibble on?? hm.. cookies!:cooky:

put the pedal to the metal They make them for a fiesta?:stunned: If it can be obtained, that sounds like a great idea! ;) I keep gravitating back towards the original concept of the automobile - light and simple motorized transportation, with optional pedal power. Less fuss to maintain, add a little motor and a PV panel, some lithium batteries, and I'm happy as a clam. ...The only problem is, all those other drivers on the road!:laugh3:

906 Feet, or 276 Meters above sea level Interesting geology site if you wish to look at the lowest points on earth! Lowest Land Points Below Sea Level Map | Depression Elevations

906 Feet or 276 Meters Above Sea Level. High altitude baking instructions I've always looked at, and wondered if anyone outside of the Himalayas needed to use. Hope they work! [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLLNaWs5SH0]Elevation - U2 - YouTube[/ame]

I give up, this thread is too confusing to me, reverse-reverse-reverse psychology isn't my field!:laugh3:

Someone forgot about the Beatles's idols - Americans Buddy Holly, Elvis, and before them many American Blues Artists. John Lennon's Jukebox gave some insights, and the band at one time considered naming themselves the Crickets! But hey, truthfully we're all one big happy family here on earth. :hug:

Hy Tyler. What's new in the new year for you thus far?

Elmo likes Numbers! :) Elmo has Four Ducks, oh gosh oh gee! :laugh3: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI-7jGudpRw]Sesame Street - "Elmo Has Four Ducks" - YouTube[/ame]

Math, it's not just for breakfast anymore. :laugh3: Math is you friend though. :elmo:

Better than current reactors, but not as good as solar and wind, hydro, tidal, geothermal and biomass. If ever that was a problem from, let's say, an earthquake beyond the design level, and since there is a high-temperature molten salt material flowing around in the reactor system (uranium fluoride, plutonium fluoride, thorium fluoride, and others proposed), I would imagine given the solubility of such a material, it may rapidly mix with groundwater or ocean water were the plant sited near one, hence creating a huge contamination problem. The issue of a reactor going critical may be solved, but other issues arise. Hanford site contamination remains a serious problem: Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Black Rock groundwater could affect movement of radioactive contamination under Hanford and keep in mind Japan's recent tragedy - some risks may be unacceptably high, even if the probability of a disaster is low. These reactors appear to be safer in design than what is currently out there in the civilian nuclear plants, perhaps this would provide us with a path to reduce our arsenal of nuclear weapons and render harmless the nuclear materials by "using up" the enriched isotopes - I can see an application for new and novel approaches to solve the current problems of what to do with all these existing nuclear fuels. But we are already doing this by using uranium and plutonium recycled from warheads, using the fuel pellets in current reactors, and given the enormous stockpile of old warheads, we would be well served by using up this matter. Let's not make any more, let's use up what we have, and move on to greener pastures. But it would be wise to put it in the hands of a not-for-profit regulated entity that would not further enrich the very few, wouldn't further consolidate the control of electricity, and which would not further entrench the hold of the global plutocrats on power. Which is why I am a strong advocate of diversified energy from renewable resources - who owns the sun? It's free for all to capture and use it's rays, like the salt in the ocean, or the air we breath, and the water we drink.

>I'm 11 minutes into his talk, and what Robert Hargraves says would make sense if his assumptions about our ability to foster efficiency in the developed world were so limited, and if we simply correlate energy use vs. prosperity on a graph. >But I know from my own experiences that applying known technology and materials to a home in this vicinity increased the energy efficiency of that home by 500% over it's previous heating and cooling energy use, and significantly reduced it's electricity use since heating and cooling systems draw a sizable share of the total electric load. Adding skylights and solar panels to the rooftop then makes sense at this point, since the energy demand of the structure has been so reduced that what little demand is left can be provided by locally sourced renewable energy. > Now if the energy companies didn't manage to buy off the politicans via their political races and future lobbying jobs, and if those elected were accountable to an educated citizenry as they should be, then it would be possible to foster the right investments into energy efficiency and renewable energy, so these basic upgrades can be made en masse. > So if we were to graph the actual service or good made available to people vs. prosperity, we might then be able to separate prosperity from gross energy consumption, as it ought to be. It's the lighting that allows us to read, the refrigerator that keeps the food cold, and if we correlate these uses separate from gross consumption of energy, we find that a great deal more of good can be made available with much much less energy than we currently consume, which then makes it much easier to provide that energy from renewable resources. > Better built, better insulated refrigerators vs. more megawatts. Better uses of daylighting, more efficient lights vs. inefficient lights. Insulation, air seals, ventilation, fresh air heat exchangers vs. more fuel or electricity. > But to incentivise this we need honest government, which is why we need to cap political spending and restore our democracy to be one of, by, and for We the People.

And while the hour-long YouTube presentation loads, I'd just like to mention a few things we all need to consider before leaping into more nuclear energy. 1. The energy we waste is on the order of 80 to 90% of the energy we produce, that's energy not being used wisely, or energy which simply is lost in transmission from one form to another. Before all the other sources are considered, I think the #1 energy 'source' should be a move towards greater efficiency. Hunter and Amory Lovins can provide ample examples and statistics showing this, and help advise us all on our energy future, to point it in a sensible direction. 2. When considering nuclear, one has to take into account all of the externalities - this includes risks run from beginning to end for the fuel, and for the other currently inadequately accounted for issues surrounding nuclear power, such as mining impacts, long-term viability, secondary waste issues (embrittled 'hot' vessels, milling wastes, handling equipment) and the risks run at each step of the way to achieve nuclear power. I have yet to watch this video, but I am curious as to see what is said about these matters. 3. Human judgement factors. When a problem is foreseen, is it ignored by corporate bosses who simply want to push forward with a project? Does corporate wealth and influence buying trump reason when it comes to civilian nuclear power? The reason I bring this issue up, is that we can all see the affects of hubris in how nuclear power plants were built without adequate consideration for disasters, with tremendously bad consequences. 4. Concentrated power in the hands of the few. Any technology, which limits to a few the availability of the resource, and profits the few who have proprietary control over that technology, generally hinders progress in terms of democratic governance and the checks against the abuses of power. 5. Compare accurate risk assessments between energy sources. No technology relating to energy is without risk, but when you add up all the risk factors and their consequences, what does the outcome tell us? 6. Thorium, Uranium, Coal, Oil, Gas - these energy resources are all limited. Wind, Solar, Hydroelectric, Geothermal, Tidal Power, Biomass - these energy resources are virtually unlimited. Wouldn't we be better off switching to resources which will be there in the long run, and skip the risks associated with mineral & fossil fuel resourced energy? In transition we have to work with what we've got, but it makes more sense to me to transition over to green, long-term energy sources today, so when the energy crunch really hits, we're already a long ways down the path to sustainable energy use.

> hm, yes, some vehicles are like that - poor rear vision and side vision issues, I drove a Cadillac recently which didn't allow for easy checking of the blind spot, and that can be a problem when changing lanes! >Perhaps you could mount a camera in back and use a computer & screen in front to provide a view electronically of what's in back of the vehicle? It seems that many newer vehicles have problems with not allowing the driver to see to the sides or behind the vehicle.. > Or, replace the upper half of the vehicle with clear plexiglass! Guaranteeing a 360 degree view. ;)

Good Night Amy ! :)

Good Night Anna, sleep well and count sheep. :cowboy:

Happy New Year randomnames from Canada!!