[Breakable]

It would be interesting to see the FF reactor to go open source, and people building one for their own community in 10-15 years. I wonder if the laws would allow that.

[Breakable]

I guess you would have to get membership to receive such information on short notice, otherwise the membership itself would not make sense.

[Breakable]

I wish every shot was streamed live on the Internet, but I don’t think that in the best interest of LPP

[Breakable]

See http://twitter.com/focusfusion
other than that you would have to buy membership.

[Breakable]

Please define what you mean by Open-Mindedness
My belief is well reflected by:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote: …Since CO2 is and will ultimately be proven and acknowledged to be beneficial to …/

Well this can become another highly controversial topic afterward FF will make global warming obsolete, but I don’t think I would still be interested in the debate.

[Breakable]

Great to hear you have video.
For audio you might want to look at
http://www.archive.org/details/opensource_audio

[Breakable]

It is probable that if you are able to connect everything properly and it does not detect anything it means the drivers are missing. I would propose taking a picture of the ports you connect, the cable and a screen shot of Device Manager so we can propose something.
Yes the cards jamesr proposed would have to be added with a screwdriver, and they are compatible only with a desktop PC.
There are firewire-to-usb transfer cables available, but I am not fully sure if it would be compatible with your camera and the cost is somewhat high:
http://www.pixela.co.jp/en/products/tv_capture/pix_uvcd_u1w/spec.html

[Breakable]

Also take a look at the open source alternatives (in the bottom):
http://www.osalt.com/movie-maker

[Breakable]

You should be able to convert m2v files:
http://www.soft29.com/m2v_converter.html
Restarting windows could restore Movie Maker.

[Breakable]

You can try installing Max OS on your pc, and see if you can use their movie making software:
http://lifehacker.com/348653/install-os-x-on-your-hackintosh-pc-no-hacking-required
PS:Might not work depending on hardware

[Breakable]

It’s very interesting to me how nobody likes the high fuel prices,
but everyone fails to notice the current subsidies on coal and oil,
which can be from 100 to 6000 usd per Capita per year, depending on how you calculate:
http://cleantech.com/news/node/554
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/d-s-hube/2008/07/01/r-f-k-jr-oil-coal-subsidies-over-2-trillion-year

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote:
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the problems the poor of the world are facing. The techy solutions you suggest are available to them only in small measures at (for them) immense cost. And the most direct routes to improvement of their conditions are explicitly verboten under the anti-CO2 rubric.

I believe I understand quite well that the problem is money, and there are low tech solutions to most problems.
water transportation
http://other90.cooperhewitt.org/Design/q-drum
filtering
http://other90.cooperhewitt.org/Design/ceramic-water-filter
refrigeration
http://other90.cooperhewitt.org/Design/pot-in-pot-cooler
cooking
http://www.greenpacks.org/2009/04/09/kyoto-box-solar-cardboard-cooker-wins-climate-prize/

I agree that not all solutions can be low tech, and they might not apply for all the situations, but even high tech solutions does not need to be prohibitively expensive:
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Humdinger_Windbelt
http://other90.cooperhewitt.org/Design/one-laptop-per-child

And no, i don’t think that power hungry appliances are the most important for quality of living in third world countries.

Brian H wrote:
They have no “carbon credits” to trade with, that’s simply dreaming. One’s saleable “right to omit CO2” is a function of the plant you have in place. If you have none, you’re SOL. A few areas can refrain from cutting trees and get them that way, etc., but for Africans living hand-to-mouth, e.g., there is no base from which to begin.
Many or most Africans themselves regard the prospect of C-a-T as a farcical disaster. They are right.
If you want an example of the kind of practical initiative that can work (nothing to do with C-a-T), check out lutw.org .

Regarding the complications of CAT in different countries, of course there are plenty. Some countries might be in a position where they don’t have anything except poverty. This is where their government (using international aid) should do something about it. If you can plant trees (or other growth) and make money from it, then it might become a profitable business. Of course you cannot plant anything in the desert, but even if you have access to saltwater – there a crops that can grow there.
On the other hand I don’t think it would be fair if the developing countries would be limited to much lower emissions of co2 (per capita) and would not get something in return, but even if that would be the case with recent legislation, it does not mean it can not change in the future.

[Breakable]

Phil’s Dad wrote:
Breakable – you posted at 24 September 2009 03:55 AM
“…if there is even a remote possibility that by a slight reduction (in) the quality of living a catastrophe can be prevented isn’t it a good idea to take that chance?”
Then at 26 September 2009 07:21 AM
“I do not think its a good idea to reduce the quality of living anywhere – if properly done carbon tax can instead slow down the speed at which quality of living is improving instead, and its increasing the fastest in developing countries.”
I’ll let you untangle that one. 🙂

After including the full sentence, let me clarify what I tried to mean:
Reducing quality of living to prevent catastrophe is acceptable, and its better to slow down the improvement in quality of living than to reduce it.

Phil’s Dad wrote:
(“Its” by the way is the possessive. “It’s” is the contraction of “it is”. Pedantry – sorry.)

I understand. Still I am to lazy to fix it.

Phil’s Dad wrote:
You then give two examples to make your point (for which I applaud you by the way)
…A third of the number that will die, this year, from lack of energy. As I posted earlier there are top evangelists for the environmentalist view who do not think cap & trade will achieve even this much.

Thank you for the applause, but what kind of power do you think they need?
I agree that they need lighting, refrigeration, clean water, communications. But that can be supplied more cheaply and inexpensively in a distributed fashion, and most of the time with no/minimal/muscle power. There are solutions to most problems:
http://other90.cooperhewitt.org/
its just a matter of funding to implement them. And if properly done Cap & Trade can benefit those poor countries, because by not having any fossil fuels to burn they can sell their right to emit Co2 and buy the aid their need instead of putting their countries into debt or relying on foreign help.
The alternative is to build a huge infrastructure with centralized fossil fuel plants (which will be operated as cheap as possible meaning all the unfiltered pollution), and distribution network (lower efficiency), water pipes, water treatment facilities and then tax all the villagers (into oblivion) to support this infrastructure.
One interesting part is that FF is also a non-carbon source, so Cap & Trade legislation can help push this technology in research, development and distribution.

Phil’s Dad wrote:
Other environmental initiatives have actually made matters worse. In recent years the colossal increase in bio-fuel crops, which effectively put food into cars, drove up food prices. The World Bank states that this has driven at least 30 million more people into hunger.
…
It is not sufficient to say “we will do this because of what might happen in the future if temperature goes up 1oC” when we know full well what will happen if we continue energy deprivation. It will be every bit as bad or even worse. To put it harshly, do we let someone die now on the off chance we might save someone later?
Sorry this is so long but you touched a raw nerve. >:-(

Well I agree that when improperly or unreasonably done legislation can cause more harm than good. I never was a supported of bio-fuels, solar panels on other hand is something I like. There are many designs for solar panels, some of them can be homemade, some of them can be cheaper than fossil fuels. Its also a matter of funding to get them into the hand in need. And if you remember FF is still (probably) 10 years away, so why don’t we save someone now?

Phil’s Dad wrote:
Just to tie up a loose end; at 24 September 2009 03:55 AM you say “Consensus is much harder to form when there is nothing to test on.” And at 26 September 2009 07:21 AM “It is much easier to disprove criticism when you can make experiments”.
From your second, perfectly logical, statement (made when well rested) we can form the double negative – it is much harder to disprove criticism when you can not “make experiments”. For all the same reasons it is harder to disprove consensus (i.e. easier to form and maintain) when there is nothing to test on. Or, to take out the double negative, consensus is much easier to form when there is nothing to test on.
You see how that makes much more sense.

Well it is possible this can go both ways, still people like to find things on which to disagree, otherwise we would have a single world religion/philosophy by now.

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote:
* The few who write the IPCC reports, yes, pretty much. The examples are legion. The hydrologists are particularly contemptuous of the ignorance shown of the effects of the oceans and water cycles on climate, which are huge, arguably dominant.
** A typical example of distortion by data manipulation. The range and scale are selected to make the graph look steep, when it is not. It also begs the question about what the source of the rise is. The Earth has been warming since the Maunder Minimum, long before human industrial activity was significant, and warming seawater gives up CO2–which has also been rising since long before industrial activity became intense (generally pegged as early WWII, ~1940). With, be it noted, a LAG — it follows the warming by about 9 months. That, despite “feedback loop” double-talk by the alarmists, means it is an effect, NOT a cause. And a typical order-of-magnitude alarmist error: 22% in 50 years is a 0.4% compounding rate, not 4%. Which requires 180 years to double, not 20. Further, the slope of that progression shows no signs of being “compounded” (exponential). It is pretty much a linear progression. And 0.4% linear requires 250 years to double.
Since the IPCC models aren’t competent to predict even 1 year’s climate (actually they have shown no competence to predict at ANY time scale), using them to predict the non-linear climate 20, 175, or 250 years out is outrageous mendacity or ignorance.
*** So full of errors I don’t know where to start. I’ll just satisfy myself by pointing out that a 1% contribution does not = 0.1°/year unless it is a given that the temperature is rising 10°/year, which not even the most slavering Gore-ite claims. This time, the error is THREE orders of magnitude, even granting the other (erroneous) assumptions. 😆
**** Au Contraire!! That C-a-T is going to cost Trillions$ with NO detectable climate benefit is at the very core. Unless, like some of the investment hucksters who are circulating their promo newsletters, you are slavering to get some of that lovely money action–preferably leveraged by owning stock in a company with an inside track, like AlGore! What, exactly, do you think is worth discussing about C-a-T, if not its economic impact? Which is contingent upon its effectiveness–which, I argue, is deeply negative

* Well I don’t actually know how they work at IPCC or any other climate change research center, because I don’t work there, but I would believe that there can be disgruntled employees everywhere. If some scientist was turned down, and is screaming “Global Conspiracy” all over the media, then that is his problem. Otherwise if they are falsifying data, or perpetuating a fraud I don’t see a problem with anyone going to court about it.

** It is really strange to me that you see data manipulation on this chart.
http://tinypic.com/r/2mwidd/4
Whatever the range/scale you select it will stay exponential. Of course you can say that there is some margin or error there, or that data was altered. But then this is EVIDENCE, just take it to court and bye-bye global warming perpetrators.

Edit: Economy is also mostly based on fossil fuels. Is this chart linear as well?
http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1254091224089&chddm=493051&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=INDEXDJX:.DJI&ntsp=0

*** I did not try to quote any real numbers here. My only assumption is that the heat is accumulating. And while the temperature is not changing, melting ice can indicate that heat is accumulating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage#2008

**** So do you think it makes sense to discuss Cap & Trade in the context that global warming is a scam? In my opinion if global warming is not real then cap & trade does not make sense, and we can happily burn fossil fuels, well at least until drinking water and oxygen prices are still affordable. Of course free energy (from renewable sources) might sound attractive, but I would love to wait until new technology is available and prices drop instead of paying now for 20 years in advance.

[Author]

Posts