Thursday, June 30, 2016

Bowling for strawmen

In the post, "Delusions of a Mars Colonist" Dr. Spudis asks some questions. Let's try to answer them...

The good doctor gives us the formula for success: arrive, survive and thrive.

Arrival, he identifies, must overcome radiation, landing and return. Except to colonize you don't need the return part. Landing is a technical problem that soon will be tested in a new landing profile using a SpaceX Dragon 2 possibly as soon as 2018. That leaves us just radiation. It is an issue, but not one we need to cower from. We've measured the radiation levels of unmanned vehicles going to mars. It's manageable for the length of the trip to mars. Had Inspiration Mars taken place we would have had an example to point to. They planned to use human waste (shit!) as the mitigating factor.

Survival; the martian surface is hostile to life. He identifies cold, cosmic rays, UV radiation and chemicals in the dust: perchlorates and peroxides. Energy is the solution to cold. Cosmic radiation even affects us on the earth's surface but on mars we will simply spend more time indoors. So making the quality of indoor living good will be a higher priority on mars. UV is a similar issue we also deal with right here on earth. We can certainly handle it on mars. The chemicals in the dust are highly reactive making it an easier issue to deal with than if they weren't. The best mitigating agent is water.

Oops, almost neglected to address plant growth. The Mars Society and others have tested plant growth in a simulated mars environment. They grow well and are not toxic to eat.

Yes, we can survive on mars, but what about thrive?

Mars has plenty of water and we can get it. We need to provide the colonists with more than enough energy. Energy, as Jerry Pournelle identified in the 70s, is the only real limiting factor. We should definitely plan to over supply the colony with an over abundance of energy. It can be done with solar power initially (directly and by producing fuel for generators) but we should get over our fear of nuclear power.

Solar arrays can be manufactured from local materials on mars. There is no perhaps about it and dust lowers energy production, but only a bit. Rovers only meant to survive 90 days on mars have lasted over a decade in part because the wind on mars itself gently cleans the dust off of solar cells. Those rovers would have died long ago if it didn't.

I agree with the doctor that thriving has been ignored. We will not. Dr. Spudis starts with a question: "How will martians make a living?" He dismisses autarky without even a thought. Is that justified? How do people make a living on earth? He correctly points out that martians will need imports from Earth, but not that much since mars has the resources (and incentive) to produce almost all they need from local resources. Where will the things they must import come from? Simple; From new arrivals as part of their personal property to be used as trade goods. It would be foolish of new colonists to bring stuff with them they can get when they arrive on mars. We can safely assume each colonist has a personal mass allotment for the trip (beyond just a spacesuit.) Even if it were only 100 kg (and it should be more like 1000 kg for each colonist) that would be worth about $100,000 (what it would cost to get that delivered from earth.) The existing martians would trade labor and materials (producing their trade goods) for those imports before the new colonists even arrive.

We've just answer his next question. "What will they have of value to trade or to sell for these imports?" But let's be explicit... habitats, life support and anything else they think they can sell. Free enterprise works everywhere.

Then he states, "we do not know if Mars contains anything that would have economic value on Earth." I'd go even further and assume it doesn't at all (although it's easy to show it potentially does.) "We have no idea [if] deposits are accessible for mining and refining," he states. This is the most ridiculous statement of all. Humans have been mining and refining since before the invention of writing. We already know that some of the most important elements they require are in the air and the dust. Other minerals will be found because they are abundant and we have the technology and knowledge to find them. The rovers have accidentally discovered useful amounts of ore already and humans on site will do it a thousand times better. "Martian products must be of sufficient worth so as to merit their transportation back to terrestrial markets," he correctly says. Which is why mars will focus on electronic data and intellectual property that has almost no transportation costs. "It is not clear that Mars is particularly rich in factual data marketable to those back on Earth." Only if you assume a level of quality we don't even expect right here on earth. Beside that, we already spend money on rovers when we would get more bang from just hiring local martian researchers for anything a rover might do. Any equipment needed would only require the marginal cost of sending it with new colonists.

"[Colonies are] established primarily for two reasons: power and wealth creation." We have other reasons. We have no need at this time to project power. Those against colonizing mars just assume there will be no wealth creation but that requires an profound ignorance of what humans are. No matter where we go, we create wealth. Suppose we have a million people living on mars one day. Can you possibly imagine them not creating wealth among themselves. This requires an inconceivable level of blindness.

Getting a million people to mars is a problem already being worked out. The thing that people are missing is that once we begin possessing a thing, it gets value. That value will grow over time. Wealth creation? Anything we imagine today will be ridiculously short of the reality tomorrow. Bet on it. The delusion is thinking otherwise.

In speculative markets people trade not on today's value, but what they believe the value will be in the future. If today's value is nearly worthless, that's a good thing from the speculators perspective.

Suppose the govt. (any govt.) did something wise for a change and declared they would fully acknowledge title to martian property (144 million sq. km. of land.) Suppose speculators bought that land for a penny a sq. km. Would that be a smart decision? If some of that land was possessed by colonists which then paid a nickel per sq.km., that speculator would realize a 500% percent profit on the land sold and still have more land to sell at a better price in the future. Since worthless deeds are already being sold for both the moon and mars today for about $20 an acre the actual market value may already be well above worthless. At $1/acre mars is worth over $35 trillion (247 acres x 144,000,000 x $1.) In a trust fund set up for the purpose of colonists transportation that would easily pay the ticket price for more than a million colonists. So the colonists could all arrive debt free and wealthy (in trade goods needed by the colony.)

As far as terraforming goes, it's an unrequired bad idea. Practice on venus instead. We agree that the govt. space program is a ridiculous mess today, but commercial space is just beginning to come into its own. A colony is just the thing to create for them an unprecedented level of growth.

Of course I haven't addressed every issue, just touched on those the dr. brought up. Other issues are all within our ability to mitigate.

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Willful blindness

Andrew says...

...I don’t disagree with the literal statements that Andrew McCarthy’s message...


Let's see if Andrew is lying. Consider these literal statements...
  1. "war-footing strategy is the only sensible counterterrorism paradigm"
  2. "The jihadists who listened to [the Blind Sheikh] did so because he is an internationally recognized authority in the political ideology that draws on Islamic scripture to inspire attacks against the West."
  3. "What matters is that there is a sharia-supremacist construction of Islam to which hundreds of millions of Muslims have adhered for centuries."
  4. "Sharia supremacism is virulently anti-Western..."
  5. "A sensible national security policy cannot regard the objective presentation of evidence as if it were the promotion of hate speech."
  6. "The goal of counterterrorism is supposed to be the prevention of jihadist attacks[, not prosecution after.]"
Six straight forward literal statements to which Andrew claims to agree.

Update: Andrew responds.

A wedding party



Last week.

Monday, June 27, 2016

Ordering from Jet.com

My food order from Jet.com arrived today. I live on the second floor down two long halls. With my heart condition and anemia I have difficulty without carrying anything. We have a shopping cart for tenant use, but it's still difficult for me. It was so nice to have a box delivered right to my door.

I got mostly dried goods and canned food with two exceptions. One was a glass jar of pickles (sealed in its own bubble wrap) and some Mott's candies (ate half the packages today. They are so good!)

I haven't looked at salt content yet, but it will be a consideration if I make another order.

Here's what I'm up to

I don't have the tools I want, but I'm going to try to use the tools I can.

I bought a compiler from France that is just too slow regarding SQL that it was unusable. So I'm going to try something different. Euphoria can be translated to C then compiled. The code bloat is ridiculous, but I can deal with that. While I'd prefer to use a central SQL database I can distribute data among several local databases (for a mega-multi-user game I've been thinking about since the 70s. Interestingly, a non client/server architecture was my original concept.)

I'm using Notetab as my file editor (an IDE would be nice but no good one exists. I just don't like the code they produce.)

In time I may write my own IDE that will produce an exe file directly (skipping C entirely.) It's really the only way I will get the development environment I want. I've got nothing but time.

Further down the road I would like to simplify Euphoria with objects (not what euphoria calls objects) dot notation and intellisense and scoping rules that make sense to me (I used to manage a project with over a million line of VB6 code by myself. I can't do that with the tools I have today.)

The stupid fluff that coders think is important are nothing compared to the ability to drill down to a routine's definition that I had in VB. Even useful debugging tools are less than essential (nice to have, but other debugging methods work just as well.)

I don't know how far I'll get, but I've got a goal now at least. My code should work for both windows and linux if I do it right.

Stating the obvious


Power outage

Last night it took the internet down. So today I visit the library!

Sunday, June 26, 2016

China is no paper dragon

Some would mock China for lacking innovation, but after years of manufacturing and educating some of their workforce it can not be dismissed so easily. They are making real progress in 'rocket science.'

Another GPOe votes Hillary.

The insanity continues...

Spinning McConnell

The media would have you believe he was bashing Trump. That's not what he said. Keep in mind he's talking to a former Clinton employee...
I think there's no question that he's made a number of mistakes over the last few weeks. I think they're beginning to right the ship. It's a long time until November. And the burden, obviously, will be on him to convince people that he can handle this job.
That's just plain truth, not bashing.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Tridymite found on mars

The implication is mars had some of the same type of volcanoes that concentrate ores on earth. The discovery was somewhat of an accident.

About Sharia

Islamic shariah is not implemented in any country of the world. This got me thinking. In the USA, Sharia is being implemented in Muslim communities. So could this also be the case in Muslim countries where it's 'not' implemented?

In other words, is this another example of the Quran algorithm at work?

Can Texas leave?

Secession not legal, but if it was?

What would it do to the United States politically? What would it then mean for Texas?

Friday, June 24, 2016

Torches and pitchfork time

That's what will happen if the GOP doesn't get its act together and support Trump over Hillary.

Insanity at the convention?

Brexit aftermath

First I need to get this out of the way... 'Brexit' reminds me of how adolescents make up their own language. Then others can feel superior because your not up on the latest lingo. The advantage once you're up on the term is it's a useful summarizing tool. 'nuff said.

Now pundits are going to 'explain' Brexit to us.

It's xenophobia, thus dismissing decent people as nothing but rubes. With the implication of more rubes.

Trump said, "Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence. Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first. They will have the chance to reject today's rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people."

What's wrong with that? Nothing, but it's being ridiculed by the same clueless media that wants to tell us what we all should think.

Self determination is suddenly a hostage situation? Or a self inflicted wound?

Self determination. How horrible for those that want to control other peoples lives.

Sarah Palin said, "It is time to dissolve political bands that connect us to agendas not in our best interest." Not worthy of even considering the media says. So apparently they let out of the bag that we should have connections that are against our interests. Nice of them to tell the truth for a change.

In negotiations and relationships, national leaders should first ensure they have protected the safety and legitimate interests of their own people. This principle has been eroded and Brexit is a warning for America. Our British friends have sent the message loud and clear.

It's like they read Ayn Rand or something.

Liberals by acts reveal who they are.

A positive perspective.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Radicalized by Andrew

Andrew, you've made a number of statements along these lines...
being as indoctrinated against Islam as thoroughly as you are
I would disabuse you of this line of thought. You are the one indoctrinating me, along with numerous news stories where the media continuously tries to sell a false narrative. Note the link rot on my blog for Pam Geller. Why? because it's not news there. Which reminds me I have to do some house cleaning of my links.

Andrew, I think you've got both a good heart and strong mind. I do not know to what extent you are sincere or just playing games. But suggesting that I don't think for myself is not going to win me over.

You tell me the terrorists are not representative, but the evidence you give is not persuasive. I would expect most Muslims to be peaceful because I see them as people before I see them as Muslim.

I will argue about those things that make no sense to me. I honestly tell you the problems I have with your arguments and you respond that I'm a liar. That also is not persuasive. You may dismiss me if you like, but that's your loss. Not mine.

What you don't know about Christianity is another area where you lose me. Don't try to teach me something you don't understand when I've seriously studied it from many perspectives for over half a century. I don't need to google an explanation about almost any scripture because not only have I likely read it numerous times, but I've meditated, considered cross reference, looked it up in Strong's and often discussed it's understanding among members of different sects.

You can't just assert something about me, not knowing my background, and not look foolish. When you're not doing that, I admire how you often make a decent argument even when I disagree with your conclusions Take it for what its worth.

Ed's two excellent points

Ed said...
There are a couple flaws here. First, the First Amendment would not allow the prohibition of any religion, and laws and common practices that tried to do so would be struck down under the same reasoning that got such laws and practices used against Jews struck down. Secondly, there are already Muslims in America, generations of them, so many American Muslims were born in America. How could they be deported?
June 23, 2016 at 12:58 PM

Second point first. This has nothing to do with Muslims per se. Anyone following the Quran's world domination algorithm should be stripped of citizenship and deported. I don't care where or if they are a natural born citizen. It is insane that the family members that colluded with the Florida nightclub killer will not face punishment or that we even have a support network in this country that would hide them from justice.

The first amendment does not require self extermination and not all religious beliefs are protected by it. If we come to understand the Quran as an algorithm to exterminate the non-Muslim (which although it is the end state, does not happen all that quickly) we can make law to deal with it. Paying Jizyah, for example, has an expiration date, after-which you must convert to Islam or die. Granted this is only after the return of a spirit being, but it is the Islamic algorithm's rule.

So if we see Islam as an existential threat we could just rule that it doesn't meet the requirements for 1st amendment protection. This of course would lead to a supreme court fight. The outcome would require solid evidence of the existential threat (and justices that want to see America endure.)

BTW, this fight has already started over Sharia law.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Trump hammers Hillary


Update: And the left is terrified.

The solution to Islam

It's a pretentious title, but I think apt.

First we need to define the problem. The Quran is an algorithm (originally a Persian term) for conquering the world. It will succeed, if it is not understood and fought properly. It's not going to happen today or tomorrow, but it's end state is a Muslim world that does not tolerate anything outside of Islam.

Looking at its history we can clearly see it taking over countries. Occasionally some countries seem to have effectively fought back, but that's an illusion. As it gains power in a country, first by demanding minority rights and later by imposing majority rule, it becomes less and less tolerant of rivals until you have a Muslim country. Many examples, all of which began as non-Muslim countries, existing today.

Terrorism is barbaric but focusing on that is not the solution to Islam. We could easily defeat Islam militarily, but that doesn't work either. Islam destroys from within. The mongols found this out when they beat Islam militarily (1258), but then became Islamic themselves.

The key to Islam's success is deceit. They simply move forward with their algorithm while the world is focused on the wrong things. Terrorism is a diversion.

Islam, unlike the west, is not interested in winning wars. They are only interested in conquest which is a different thing altogether. We think of war as a last method of resolving a dispute. We aren't interested in conquest, or as Colin Powell once put it, "we only ask for six feet of ground to bury our dead." Islam is only interested in conquest. The algorithm has only one final outcome: the entire world must fall under the control of Islam.

The key to Islam is they work in parallel to existing systems. Sharia is their law and they operate under it wherever they migrate, slowly changing the lands they occupy into Muslim lands. Here in America they claim sharia is only used to resolve religious issues. This is one of their many lies. They also claim not to use sharia at all (it's all just a right wing nutcase theory) but then we find it is operating in one place after another where Muslims live in America. If there were no sharia, why do Muslims cause an uproar when some legislation simply resolves that American laws will be the law of the land without even mentioning sharia? Because Muslims know exactly what they are doing.

The Muslims support 'diversity' when it suits them, then clamp down after it's served its purpose.

Lying is not only not a sin in Islam, it is a sacred duty. Taqiyya is part of the Quran's algorithm for advancing the cause of Islam - "...in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them."

Even better is to use the truth to mislead. Because human's have fought wars throughout the ages, Islam can claim to be a religion of peace in comparison. Tolerating no dissent, countries that are under full Muslim control can seem relatively peaceful. Defenders of Islam even making the outrageous claim that, "Slay non-Muslims wherever you find them" doesn't mean what you think it means. Who are you going to believe? Them, who are steadfastly insistent, or your own lying brain?

The problem for Islam is when they seem to have the upper hand, they get cocky and tell the truth, like this Muslim ambassador for the 18th century Barbary pirates that said...
“[the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
American marines still talk about the shores of Tripoli.

One common tactic is to disavow Muslims that are currently seen unfavorably, like ISIS, but at the same time claim they have a justification because we first caused them some grievance. Even if they have to go back hundreds of years for some supposed justification. Not that they agree with that justification. No never that, but it's only reasonable right? They will even contradict themselves as long as it furthers the progress of the algorithm.
Does social disruption cause terrorism apart from religious considerations?
Of course it does. But this is not THE explanation for Islamic terrorists. Terrorism is just a component of the Quran's algorithm. Don't get drawn into the why's of terrorism. Terrorism exists outside of Islam, but in Islam it is part of their algorithm. Other injustices also exist outside of Islam. How can the defenders of Islam use this to support Islam? Logically they can't, but since it's useful to cause confusion and doubt, they do.

Muslims are the masters of spin. For example. The crusades were an attempt to protect pilgrims going to Jerusalem from Muslim attack. Muslim spin: The Crusades were a series of attacks and wars by European Christianity against Muslim lands. Note that this statement is technically true. Those pilgrims were going to Jerusalem which the Muslims controlled. The crusaders could not possibly protect the pilgrims without fighting on Muslim lands. The Muslim wants you to get distracted from the fact that Muslims attacking pilgrims was the entire cause.

Make any point about Muslims and their defenders will point to non-Muslims doing the same thing or worse. Never will they allow the clear pattern of the Muslim algorithm written in black and white in the Quran not be obscured. A word can have different meanings, so they will claim the most common meaning is not what the Quran is saying. They can correctly point out that some fighting is justifiably defensive but then generalize to claim all Muslim fighting is just defense (as if slaying doesn't mean what you think it means.)

The solution to Islam is intolerance which goes against our ideals. We don't want to tell others how to live. That's the weakness that Islam exploits. Islam's algorithm does not allow other systems to exist. To tolerate Islam is an invitation to destruction. There is no other solution.

So we have to implement Islam's algorithm in reverse. Islam can do what it wants in other nations, but not here in America. Other countries are reaching this same correct solution. If Muslims want to remain in America they need to renounce Islam. Any indication that they are lying should result in revocation of citizenship and expulsion. Nothing less will work. An algorithm is a step by step process with a result that is certain. We face this reality or we lose our lives.