Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The Standard Oil Trust was an odd form of failure, if you ask me. And JP Morgan pretty much controlled banking, too. Remember, you don't have to control everything to set the rules.

As expected you didn't actually listen to what he had to say.

The point of having a monopoly is to restrict production in order to raise prices. Standard Oil was never able to achieve this prior to the progressive era since prices for petroleum product continually decreased through out the nineteenth century. Indeed if you had listened to his lecture you would know that he eventually had to give up buying competitors refineries because it was too expensive.

As for J.P. Morgan I very much doubt that he had the same amount of control over the banking system that the Fed holds today.

You still haven't answered why they supported a system that was presented, at least to the public, as a way to reign them in unless it was a way to accomplish a goal that they couldn't achieve under laissez-faire. It seems unlikely that they would be willing to support something not in their best interest.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Murray Rothbard. He lacks widespread authority.

You may not realize this by Rothbard wrote what is still considered by academics to be the definitive work on the Panic of 1819. You also did not listen to the lecture because if you had you would know that one of the authors of a textbook he used in his classes disliked the free market but had reached the same conclusions that Rothbard had about how effective cartels were in a free market. As usual you declined to actually look at the material I pointed out to you because it might upset your world view.

Skipping past the already overly discussed ...

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

You still don't seem to understand the fallacy of your analogy. Both concepts (computing and fusion)were thought to be out of reach initially. One of them proved to be doable while the other remains out of reach eighty years later. There is a fundamental difference between the concepts. It's not as simple as we want it to happen and therefore it will.

Look, machine computing is old ... very old. Computing engines may have been conceptual when they were conceived in the late 18th and early 19th centuries (who would finance them then?), but they were the forerunners of the computing explosion that started in WW-II. Fusion, on the other hand, wasn't understood on any fundamental level until Edward Teller developed the models while working on the Manhattan Project.

I think your pessimism is unjustified but understandable. On the other hand, we'll need fusion by mid-century. It simply won't be an option to tinker and wait for funding.. Luckily, I don't think that will be a problem, but stupidity has reigned in the past.

Originally Posted by Galen

As expected you didn't actually listen to what he had to say.

The point of having a monopoly is to restrict production in order to raise prices. Standard Oil was never able to achieve this prior to the progressive era since prices for petroleum product continually decreased through out the nineteenth century. Indeed if you had listened to his lecture you would know that he eventually had to give up buying competitors refineries because it was too expensive.

Rockefeller amassed a fortune equal, in 2012 dollars, to nearly $1Trillion. At some point, even an avaricous capilatist realizes that having any more is not only foolish, but self defeating. As it was, his trust was broken out of rational fear of excessive private power.

Originally Posted by Galen ...

As for J.P. Morgan I very much doubt that he had the same amount of control over the banking system that the Fed holds today.

No, and why would we want a private indivdual to have that much power (see my previous comment).

Originally Posted by Galen ...

You still haven't answered why they supported a system that was presented, at least to the public, as a way to reign them in unless it was a way to accomplish a goal that they couldn't achieve under laissez-faire. It seems unlikely that they would be willing to support something not in their best interest.

Even the greedy understand that having everything in Hell is not as good as having a lot in Heaven. Now, the US wasn't then nor is it now either Heaven or Hell, but excessive conceptration of wealth moves the needle down, not up.

We live in a much coarser and less amenable world today than the one I occupied in my youth and young adulthood. The 1973 oil embargo is the line that separted then from now. You, of course, were not there to see the change.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Rockefeller amassed a fortune equal, in 2012 dollars, to nearly $1Trillion. At some point, even an avaricous capilatist realizes that having any more is not only foolish, but self defeating. As it was, his trust was broken out of rational fear of excessive private power.

And he didn't actually become the richest man in the world until after that trust was broken up and he was the majority stockholder of all the resulting spinoff companies like Mobil, Exxon, Shell, etc..

Thank god we got rid of big oil!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Look, machine computing is old ... very old. Computing engines may have been conceptual when they were conceived in the late 18th and early 19th centuries (who would finance them then?), but they were the forerunners of the computing explosion that started in WW-II. Fusion, on the other hand, wasn't understood on any fundamental level until Edward Teller developed the models while working on the Manhattan Project.

I think your pessimism is unjustified but understandable. On the other hand, we'll need fusion by mid-century. It simply won't be an option to tinker and wait for funding.. Luckily, I don't think that will be a problem, but stupidity has reigned in the past.

Very old indeed. While the discussion has focused primarily on digital machines, a gear based celestial computer known as the Antikythera mechanism goes back to the first century BC.

While digital electronic computers have triumphed over other forms, World War II US battleships used gear computers for trajectory computing.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Skipping past the already overly discussed ...


Look, machine computing is old ... very old. Computing engines may have been conceptual when they were conceived in the late 18th and early 19th centuries (who would finance them then?), but they were the forerunners of the computing explosion that started in WW-II. Fusion, on the other hand, wasn't understood on any fundamental level until Edward Teller developed the models while working on the Manhattan Project.

I think your pessimism is unjustified but understandable. On the other hand, we'll need fusion by mid-century. It simply won't be an option to tinker and wait for funding.. Luckily, I don't think that will be a problem, but stupidity has reigned in the past.

Your example was Von Neumann's theories. Why are you now moving the goalpost?

I just pointed out the irony of using Von Neumann as an analogy to fusion because his theories were worked out at the same time as Teller's Manhatten Project work.

I don't think you really understand the fundamental difficulties involved with stable fusion energy production. The timeline you keep referring to was devised in part to convince investors (private and government) to give it a shot. I hope something comes of it. If it can be achieved, it will be a game changer. But, you seem to be operating under the premise that it is a when question rather than an if question.

Self-propagating is easy. Self-quenching is very difficult.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Protecting people from force and fraud is what governments are for, why we pay taxes. You miss the point.

And wealth is power (and government power at that); you miss the point. We need to be protected from corporate misdeeds that harm us, as fully as from criminals and invaders. And we need to be protected with safety nets. That's why we pay taxes; except regardless of what government does, libertarians and conservatives don't want to do their part. They use supply side/trickle down to cover up their unwillingness to pay. The TEA Party is NOT "Taxed Enough Already." They need to pay more.

Grown-ups pay their taxes and don't complain. Grown-ups don't pollute their environment and deny the facts about global warming.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Your example was Von Neumann's theories. Why are you now moving the goalpost?

Easy. This isn't a contest. We're just chatting ... mostly for our own enjoyment.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72 ...

I just pointed out the irony of using Von Neumann as an analogy to fusion because his theories were worked out at the same time as Teller's Manhatten Project work.

My reason for brining ing Muller and Babbage into the discussion is the longevity of the one line of thinking in comparison to the other. If you wish, you can move the line back on fusion to the intial understanding of the atomic nucleus ... let's say the work of Neils Bohr.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72 ...

I don't think you really understand the fundamental difficulties involved with stable fusion energy production. The timeline you keep referring to was devised in part to convince investors (private and government) to give it a shot. I hope something comes of it. If it can be achieved, it will be a game changer. But, you seem to be operating under the premise that it is a when question rather than an if question.

I knew one of the members of the Princeton team. In fact, she was a professor of mine in the late '80s. They already had formed the basic fusion containment even then. What they lacked were adequate magnets and tritium injection managment, if I remember the status correctly. There have been any number of test tokamaks in the interim that have worked through many of the individual challenges. Now, the ITER will combine them and refine them.

But I do appreciate the intense and precise managment needed to keep high-energy charged particles (yes, I know plasma is not a particle swarm), at least to the extent of a knowledgable layman. I won't minimize the challenge, but physics is not magic. The math is well developed.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72 ...

Self-propagating is easy. Self-quenching is very difficult.

True for fission, exactly the opposite for fusion.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Rockefeller amassed a fortune equal, in 2012 dollars, to nearly $1Trillion. At some point, even an avaricous capilatist realizes that having any more is not only foolish, but self defeating. As it was, his trust was broken out of rational fear of excessive private power.

I am sure that someone else will point out that he ended up with controlling interests in the spin off companies so really nothing changed. Clearly you did not listen to the lectures because Rothbard pointed out material from Rockefeller and Morgan people that made it clear they were supporting the progressive agenda to further their own interests and not out of any sense of altruism.

What probably will not be pointed out is that the trust busting of the early twentieth-century was a consequence of a war for dominance between the Rockefeller and Morgan interests. The Progressive Party was funded by Morgan to make certain that Taft would not be re-elected which also makes it a consequence of this conflict.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Easy. This isn't a contest. We're just chatting ... mostly for our own enjoyment.

Agreed. But changing subjects over a point of contention is rude.

My reason for brining ing Muller and Babbage into the discussion is the longevity of the one line of thinking in comparison to the other. If you wish, you can move the line back on fusion to the intial understanding of the atomic nucleus ... let's say the work of Neils Bohr.

I don't think Bohr's work would be comparable in the analogy. His focus was overall atomic structure, primarily electrons. I don't think fusion theory can really be said to begin until the confirmation of the existence of the neutron.

If you extend calculating machines into the 19th century then you yourself have debunked your original analogy.

I knew one of the members of the Princeton team. In fact, she was a professor of mine in the late '80s. They already had formed the basic fusion containment even then. What they lacked were adequate magnets and tritium injection managment, if I remember the status correctly. There have been any number of test tokamaks in the interim that have worked through many of the individual challenges. Now, the ITER will combine them and refine them.

Early practical use of calculating machines was WWII. Fusion is still only experimental in the 80's. Your original analogy is kaput.

But I do appreciate the intense and precise managment needed to keep high-energy charged particles (yes, I know plasma is not a particle swarm), at least to the extent of a knowledgable layman. I won't minimize the challenge, but physics is not magic. The math is well developed.

The math for the basics of string theory was worked out in the 60's and 70's, any practical uses for it yet?
Having the "math worked out" is not an indicator of when future technologies will be developed.

True for fission, exactly the opposite for fusion.

Not sure i understand your response. Are you just agreeing with my statement?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Human Greenhouse Gas Emissions Traced to Roman Times

ETA:
From the comments section ...

From the main section...

Methane production also spiked during Europe’s mini-ice age, around 1400, as people burned wood to stay toasty inside, she said. Across the time period the researchers studied, human activities such as growing food or keeping warm were responsible for 20 percent to 30 percent of the methane released from burning organic matter. Of course, the historical methane emissions were still small in comparison with modern levels.

The findings suggest that climate change predictions may need tweaking, Sapart said. Prediction models assume baseline, natural levels of methane emissions to forecast how human actions will change levels in the future. Previously, researchers thought natural events produced almost all of the methane prior to industrialization.

I think the operational word is 'tweak.' Human burning before the industrial age was not a major factor. It was small in comparison to natural processes. Still, the models are getting accurate enough that 20 to 30 percent of the natural processes is enough to throw the results of the model off the actual data.

I've heard suggestions that human slash and burn agriculture had been going on at a large enough scale that there might be measurable effects even before Roman times.

Originally Posted by Galen

What probably will not be pointed out is that the trust busting of the early twentieth-century was a consequence of a war for dominance between the Rockefeller and Morgan interests. The Progressive Party was funded by Morgan to make certain that Taft would not be re-elected which also makes it a consequence of this conflict.

It is not uncommon for monied interests to fund idealistic populist movements. The American Revolution was in part about Boston shipping interests wanting free trade. The US Civil War was in part about the robber barons wishing to use the federal government to support industrial expansion. The 99% are understandably dubious about supporting one group among the 1% against another. Thus, the progressive faction of the 1% will often support idealistic arguments designed to take establishment 1% establishment out of power.

I'm inclined to think part of the reason we've had no regeneracy is a lack of a minority among the 1% needing to take out established factions or methods in order to advance their personal profits. Most of the big money is on the side of the status quo.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I'm inclined to think part of the reason we've had no regeneracy is a lack of a minority among the 1% needing to take out established factions or methods in order to advance their personal profits. Most of the big money is on the side of the status quo.

I would qualify that last statement. The monied interests are split between the status quo and a reactionary move to the pre-New Deal economic system. You are right in that I don't see any group fighting for policies that advance the little people.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Agreed. But changing subjects over a point of contention is rude.

I don't think Bohr's work would be comparable in the analogy. His focus was overall atomic structure, primarily electrons. I don't think fusion theory can really be said to begin until the confirmation of the existence of the neutron.

If you extend calculating machines into the 19th century then you yourself have debunked your original analogy.

Early practical use of calculating machines was WWII. Fusion is still only experimental in the 80's. Your original analogy is kaput.

The math for the basics of string theory was worked out in the 60's and 70's, any practical uses for it yet?
Having the "math worked out" is not an indicator of when future technologies will be developed.

Not sure i understand your response. Are you just agreeing with my statement?

Let me start by saying I like you, and you are obvously knowledgable in this field, but, to be honest, far too rigid in approach for a message board. Try arguing in the professional fora, where that level of detail actually applies. I'm not interested in dissectig the feet of the angels dancing on a pin head. It's too demanding of my free time.

Like I said: nothing wrong with your approach, though the venue may be inadequate.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Human Greenhouse Gas Emissions Traced to Roman Times

ETA:
From the comments section ...

This just seems bogus on the surface. What was the total human population at the time of Rome? The estimates run from 200 to 300 Million. Today, it's 7 Billion. Lets go with 280 Million and 7 Billion, for a 25-fold increase. Now add to that, the mulitplier of industrialization and hydrocarbon-based transportation.

Sorry, it was the same world, but with a trivial driver.

Originally Posted by B Butler

From the main section...

I think the operational word is 'tweak.' Human burning before the industrial age was not a major factor. It was small in comparison to natural processes. Still, the models are getting accurate enough that 20 to 30 percent of the natural processes is enough to throw the results of the model off the actual data.

I've heard suggestions that human slash and burn agriculture had been going on at a large enough scale that there might be measurable effects even before Roman times.

This would be a temporary issue in any case. Burning something grown in near real time returns a lot of carbon to the atmosphere that was withdrawn in the immediate previous period. That's a lot different from burning fossil fuels.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This just seems bogus on the surface. What was the total human population at the time of Rome? The estimates run from 200 to 300 Million. Today, it's 7 Billion. Lets go with 280 Million and 7 Billion, for a 25-fold increase. Now add to that, the mulitplier of industrialization and hydrocarbon-based transportation.

Sorry, it was the same world, but with a trivial driver.

Romans were using coal and peat without even the basic environmental and health precautions we take when using any fossil fuel.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I would qualify that last statement. The monied interests are split between the status quo and a reactionary move to the pre-New Deal economic system. You are right in that I don't see any group fighting for policies that advance the little people.

Here I am, wrong again.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Romans were using coal and peat without even the basic environmental and health precautions we take when using any fossil fuel.

Again, look at the scale. Even the Amerinds burning of the mid-American forest was a blip in comparison to the magnitude of what we do now.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Let me start by saying I like you, and you are obvously knowledgable in this field, but, to be honest, far too rigid in approach for a message board.

Not sure how wanting to be accurate translates as rigid.

Try arguing in the professional fora, where that level of detail actually applies. I'm not interested in dissectig the feet of the angels dancing on a pin head. It's too demanding of my free time.

My posts are nowhere near the level of professional fora. All I wish to do is discuss things based on as real an understanding of the issues as possible.

Like I said: nothing wrong with your approach, though the venue may be inadequate.

And I appreciate your general advocacy for a need to overhaul our energy system. I just find your prognostications to be more an expression of wishes about the future rather than a concrete, achievable plan. Nothing wrong with pie in the sky dreaming as long as everyone is aware of what it really is.

http://www.presstelegram.com/breakin...n-orders-early

Where is Eeric the Green is and world saving policies?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

http://www.presstelegram.com/breakin...n-orders-early

Where is Eeric the Green is and world saving policies?

Ear-ache the Green is riding his bike!

OK, I say, if high prices are due to supply and demand, then I withdraw my "demand."

Conservatives and libertarians say high prices are due to low supply and high demand. Senator Feinstein disagrees, and I agree with her:

"Meanwhile, (CA) Sen. Diane Feinstein issued a second call on Sunday to the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the spike in gas prices. Historically, some gas price spikes were the result (of) "malicious and manipulative trading activity," Feinstein said, and not shortages.

"California commuters are facing the highest gas prices and the longest commutes in the country," Feinstein wrote in the letter to FTC chairman Jon Leibowitz

"Paying hundreds of dollars to fill your tank every time you go to the pump is untenable, particularly because it does not appear the price spike and supply disruption are related to supply and demand." "

It seems like only in America do we turn over our economy to speculators, just to satisfy the right-wing trickle-down free-enterprise philosophy of people like Wallace.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Ear-ache the Green is riding his bike!

OK, I say, if high prices are due to supply and demand, then I withdraw my "demand."

Conservatives and libertarians say high prices are due to low supply and high demand. Senator Feinstein disagrees, and I agree with her:

"Meanwhile, (CA) Sen. Diane Feinstein issued a second call on Sunday to the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the spike in gas prices. Historically, some gas price spikes were the result (of) "malicious and manipulative trading activity," Feinstein said, and not shortages.

"California commuters are facing the highest gas prices and the longest commutes in the country," Feinstein wrote in the letter to FTC chairman Jon Leibowitz

"Paying hundreds of dollars to fill your tank every time you go to the pump is untenable, particularly because it does not appear the price spike and supply disruption are related to supply and demand." "

It seems like only in America do we turn over our economy to speculators, just to satisfy the right-wing trickle-down free-enterprise philosophy of people like Wallace.

Perhaps Diane will hop in her limousine and head on over to the Richmond Chevron facility and get her hands dirty by assisting with the repair of said facility. On second thought, Diane never gets her hands dirty. Much easier to drop her own political cowpies all over the landscape.

Get used to it though. You ain't seen nothing yet.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Perhaps Diane will hop in her limousine and head on over to the Richmond Chevron facility and get her hands dirty by assisting with the repair of said facility. On second thought, Diane never gets her hands dirty. Much easier to drop her own political cowpies all over the landscape.

Get used to it though. You ain't seen nothing yet.

Why have we seen nothing yet? Are refineries due for more breakdowns? Because oil companies are being squeezed for funds? In what universe?

Did you miss the part about Gov. Brown relaxing the "mandates"? Are you starting to miss things as often as you accuse me of missing? Comeon Copperman, you can do better than that!

No, it's just the speculators that are given free rein by you free market apologists. The facility in Richmond is already repaired or will be in a few days, acc. to local news reports.