Re: High strength fibers for high pressure tubes.

Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:mjones-C630BB.22461301052005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> In article <Xns96492B163688EWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> bz <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> news:mjones-04F04C.00284001052005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>
>> > In article <Xns96472ACA7C4FWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> > bz <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> >> news:mjones-223160.01354929042005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <Xns9646861EC47E2WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> >> > bz <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Mitchell Jones <mjones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> >> >> news:mjones-72AA33.12394628042005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > In article
>> >> >> > <Xns964641AC76568WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> >> >> > bz <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >
.....
>> That is only a small part of the 'cleaning up the environment.' And I
>> am not advocating filling in mines just because they are not currently
>> profitable. Only when the hole is of no use [other than storage of the
>> tailing that have been accumulating during the mining and refining
>> operations].
>
> ***{This very concept of "cleaning up the environment" implies that
> force is to be used, because nobody, including the government, owns "the
> environment."
> The reality is that parts of it are owned by some, and
> other parts by others; hence by its very nature any generalzed effort to
> "clean it up" is going to require violating the property rights of those
> owners who do not agree with the part of the cleanup plan that applies
> to their property. The reality is that it's none of society's business
> what owners do with their property, so long as they respect the property
> rights of others.

What about their invading my property when they contaminate MY air or my
water or my land with any of the byproducts of their operations?

> For example, it's not my neighbor's business whether there is junk in my
> yard, unless there were deed restrictions prohibiting me from storing it
> there, which I accepted when I purchased my property. And it's not my
> neighbor's business whether there is a box of dynamite on my front
> porch, unless it is close enough to pose a significant threat to his
> property, including his person.

I decide to rent part of my property for the storage of high level nuclear
waste. None of my neighbors business.

A criticality accident floods his property (and him) with high levels of
neutron flux. Of course, he won't be around to collect damages and neither
will I as we both just got a fatal dose of radiation. And the low level
explosion that distributed the waste over half the city... just bad luck
for those downwind?

> If the neighbor believes that it is too
> close and cannot persuade me to make changes that will put his mind at
> ease, then a neutral arbiter should consider the facts of the case,
> decide whether the threat is in fact real, and prescribe a remedy. To
> ensure neutrality, such an arbiter should be selected by means of a
> neutral winnowing process--e.g., by making a list of the persons willing
> to decide the case, and the plaintiff and defendant taking turns
> striking a third of the names off the list, rounded to the nearest whole
> number, until only one name remains.

I don't know the poeple on the list. How do I know if they are neutral and
not my neighbor's friends or in his pay?

> Why not let a government court
> decide? Because government courts are not neutral. They are elected or
> appointed by a process that requires them to consider the opinions of
> uninvolved third parties--to wit: legislatures and bureaucrats--rather
> than base their decisions of the facts of the case at hand.

I agree that govenment officials are not neutral parties. They have their
own agendas.

XYZ Chemicals Corporation, in north Baton Rouge, just invaded my property
with a plume of fumes from their operations. I need not even prove the
plume is harmful to me. It was on my property. I was forced, I had no
choice as long as I wanted to breath, forced to breath chemicals.

What is my remedy?

The plume is odorless. The fumes are cumulative and toxic. I don't know I
have been exposed. What is my remedy?

> Bottom line: those who want to impose "cleanup" requirements on others
> ought to be required to demonstrate, on a case-by-case basis, that the
> conditions to which they object are violating, or pose a serious danger
> of violating, their rights. If they refuse to do so, they are criminals.

You don't accord the property owner rights to be security in his own
property. You would give my neighbor the right to cross my property any
time I don't catch him. Not only that, I must then prove that he caused me
damages. That doesn't sound like I have many rights at all.

If I have property rights, the violator has to prove that I gave them
permission to cross my property, otherwise I have NO property rights at
all.

.....
>> Now 'waste' is a resource out of place. Much 'waste' could, if it were
>> in the right location, be used as a raw material in the manufacture of
>> some other product.
>
> ***{Yup, but that's for the owners to decide, and becomes the business
> of others only when their property rights are violated, or when there is
> a demonstrable likelihood that they will be violated in the future.
> --MJ}***

My property rights are violated when the car in front of me is spewing a
blue cloud into the air. I am forced to breath the vapors. That is NOT a
risk I choose to accept by getting into my car.

>
>> My 'cleaning up the environment' includes proper use or disposal of all
>> waste.
>
> ***{That's fine, and you get to decide for your property, just as others
> get to decide for theirs--assuming, of course, that you *really* "don't
> want to force anyone." --MJ}***

I don't want to force anyone and I don't want to be forced.

I don't want to be forced to drink water that is contaminated with runoff
from spraying the fields upriver from me, nor the runoff from that hog
farm. I have a property right to clean water. The water was clean before
the hog farmer and the wheat field owner invaded MY property.

What? You say the water belongs to the water company, not to me? The water
company has the right to clean water, not me?
I paid for the water. It is mine and I have the same rights to clean water
that the water company has.
.....
>
> ***{Unless you plan on lifting the oil to some other celestial body,
> such as the Moon, the fixed and irreducible energy costs will always be
> less than the fuel value of the oil.

We disagree on the 'always'.

> All the other costs are neither
> fixed nor irreducible. That's not to say, of course, that oil will
> always be a major fuel source. Nuclear fission, for example, would by
> now have been vastly less expensive than oil, if the industry had not
> been taxed and regulated to death from the beginning.

Nuclear is clearly LESS dangerous than coal, IF handled properly. Cheaper?
Be sure to include the costs of waste disposal and decomissioning and the
cost of accidents.

Short term operating costs are not the total cost of fossle fuel nor
nuclear. We need to look at long term costs.

> But a cessation of
> usage of fuel oil for that sort of reason will not mean a point was
> reached where the fixed and irreducible energy cost of extraction
> exceeded the amount of energy available in the oil. Quite the contrary:
> the use of nuclear powered ore processors may at some point allow the
> profitable extraction of oil from deposits that are presently too
> diffuse to be profitable--including the very sorts of deposits you have
> been talking about so incessantly, in fact. :-) --MJ}***

But that would invade the property rights of those who's ground water
would be contaminated by the process.

>> All of those recovery methods have associated costs. Those who figure
>> the costs need to factor in all of the costs of producing that
>> superheated steam and getting it into the matrix, etc. The costs are
>> NOT just the dollar costs at the wellhead.
>
> ***{I never said or implied that they were. My point is (a) that the
> energy cost of lifting a barrel of oil from its point of origin to any
> point of use on the Earth is vastly less than the energy contained in
> the barrel of oil, and (b) other costs are technology dependent, and
> thus will always be subject to reduction, as technology improves. Why
> does that matter? Because it implies that those who are claiming that
> "Peak Oil" is here or imminent, have no basis for that claim.

There WILL come a day when the peak is past.

> There is
> not a shred of a reason, other than political interference, for
> believing that engineers will not continue to improve extraction
> technology fast enough to increase total world oil reserves, for as long
> as the world cares to use oil as an energy source.

No technology can improve without limits.

> It is easily proven
> that we have deposits equivalent to more than 100,000 years of usage at
> current rates of consumption,

Deposits of carbon containing strata is not deposits of reduced carbon in
useable forms.

> and there is no reason--other than
> political interference--to think that the rate at which those deposits
> are converted to reserves will fall below consumption in the foreseeable
> future. Remember: technological improvement is the means by which
> deposits are converted into reserves. We know that deposits are ample
> for more than 100,000 years of usage, and we know that the ingenuity of
> engineers is unlimited.

We disagree on both points.

Lets see them produce a perpetual motion device that produces free energy.
Can't be done? Right! There are limits.

> Hence the only question is whether the
> politicians will let them get at the oil. --MJ}***

Not politician. The owners of the properties effected.

.....
.....
>> > Hence as a
>> > practical matter the only way any Earth-based life form will avoid
>> > extinction will be if man moves into space and takes them with him.
>> > That means man is not a threat to other species, as environmentalists
>> > believe, but, instead, represents their only hope of avoiding
>> > extinction. --MJ}***
>>
>> Their only hope and their worst enemy unless the hope is fulfilled.
>
> ***{Man uses force against animals, 'tis true. But that's OK: it is
> perfectly moral to use force against creatures who have voluntarily
> accepted its use, and hence its risks, by using it themselves. --MJ}***

And animals have voluntarily accepted the use of force?
Informed consent?

Or do you classify humans that use force as animals?

.....
>> Nuclear energy is clearly the best choice for many things.
>> Solar energy is clearly the best choice for most things.
>> Using both in space is clearly the best choice.
>
> ***{I don't agree that solar energy is the best choice for most things,
> even in high Earth orbit, but it's not an important point if you concede
> that the choice should be made by the owners of the property, rather
> than by "environmentalists" or by the government. --MJ}***

Oh, I will not only concede that point, I too will insist upon it.

.....
>> > ***{If nobody is being forced, then most people are going to continue
>> > living on Earth, continue mining on Earth, and continue manufacturing
>> > on Earth. Some of those who opt to live in space may earn their
>> > living by mining near-Earth asteroids, of course, but most will
>> > pursue other lifestyles. Again, can you live with free choice in such
>> > matters? --MJ}***
>>
>> Free choice is the only kind I favor.
>> Truely free choice. Really free, based on knowledge and logic.
>
> ***{Too many qualifiers. It's not your business to decide how others
> decide, or whether they decided the "right" way. What matters is that
> the owners of the property decide its use.

My neighbor just invaded my property with cigarett smoke. I do NOT allow
cigarett smoke on my property. I have a right to decide how my property is
used and by whom.

> Period. If they do less
> research or employ less logic than you think they should, they assume
> the risks voluntarily, and in a free society it is their call, so long
> as they do not impinge on the property rights of others. --MJ}***

OK, as long as they stay completely off my property.

>> Choices not forced by fear or hate or poverty.
>> How many of your choices in life have been free choices?
>
> ***{Politically, freedom is the state of the man who can reasonably
> expect that his property rights will not be violated.

Under your system, I do not have property rights.

> Politically, a
> choice is free if the owner was uncoerced when he decided how to employ
> the property. Period. It doesn't matter whether he was toilet trained
> improperly and wet the bed as a child. It doesn't matter whether his
> choice was influenced by bad advice from his mother. It doesn't matter
> whether she beat him as a child, and, as a result, has undue influence
> over him in the present. All that matters is that he made the decision
> without being subject to force or the threat of force, at the time the
> decision was made. If he felt like he was forced because of the way he
> was treated as a child, it doesn't matter. Unless his mother was
> standing in front of him with a cocked revolver pointed at his head, or
> something similar, he made the choice, and he assumed the risks
> associated with that choice. --MJ}***

Ahh, but I live near the railroad tracks.

I am FORCED by my location to accept certain risks (train derailment,
leaks, explosions, etc.), to accept diesel fumes
from the trains, to accept noise and vibrations from passing trains. They
invade my property. They hold a gun to my head.

Lets assume that the tracks were not there when I bought my property and
that they have never received permission to invade my property.

What is my remedy?

....
>> I would not coerce them. [to go into space]
>>
>> I would not want them coerced by fear or hate or poverty into remaining
>> on earth either.
>
> ***{Meaning what? That you would accept their choices only if you agreed
> with the thinking by which the choices were made?
>
> You could say, for example, that a guy was "coerced by fear" into
> remaining on Earth, because he saw Arnold Schwartzenegger sliding down a
> hill on Mars with his eyeballs bulging out in *Total Recall.* But would
> you say that?

If he was coerced by propaganda, his choices were not free.

>
> You could say a guy was "coerced by hate" into remaining on Earth,
> because he despises the intellectuality of engineers, scientists, and
> the like, and knows he will have to associate with lots of them if he
> moves into space. But would you say that?

If he was coerced by propaganda, his choices were not free.

> As for being "coerced by poverty," I can't even hazard a guess at what
> you mean by that, since free enterprise in space would need grunt labor
> so badly that they would doubtlessly pay the fares into space of those
> they hired, and train them on the job. (How else could you train someone
> to work in zero gravity, other than on the job? You sure won't be able
> to learn such skills at a university on Earth.)

If he was too poor to migrate, then his choices were not free.
If migration is at the cost of endentured servitude, then his choices are
not free.

>
>> They. You. Me. We all are being coerced by circumstances, right now.
>
> ***{Only if "circumstances" = "governments." --MJ}***

Many of the circumstances are NOT the government.

.....
>> I want to see that which curently forces us to fear, hate and kill each
>> other removed. I want to see poverty defeated
>
> ***{Then remove the socialist governments which do not permit property
> rights, and the fascist governments which reserve the right to violate
> property rights "in the public interest," and your job is done. --MJ}***

Property rights, the freedom to swing my arm, end when my arm or any other
result of my actions cross my property line.

>
>> without the use of force on
>> any side.
>
> ***{Oops, sorry: you just left reality behind. While there are ways that
> the world might gradually become free, the authorities would continue to
> use force to oppress us while that gradual process was underway.

But, by your reasoning, if we don't use force to prevent oppression, we get
oppressed. If we DO use force, then we consent to their using force on us.

>
> Alternatively, if you would be satisfied with decent people being able
> to get away from their oppressors, then come up with a technology that
> will enable individual humans to transport themselves into space, or to
> live underground, or to live beneath the sea, and then post your plans
> on the internet.

I am trying to do my part toward that goa.

> By doing so, you would restore the frontier, and make
> it possible once again for independent minded people to live "out of
> sight and out of mind of those unwilling to live and let live."
>
.....
>> > Bottom line: the only moral use of force is against persons who have
>> > voluntarily accepted the use of force, and hence its risks, by
>> > initiating its use against others.
>>
>> The use of force includes the manipulation of others through the use of
>> hate, ignorance, fear, and poverty.
>
> ***{Any attempt to unilaterally settle a dispute over property is a
> criminal act. The proper course is always to bring the disupte before a
> neutral arbiter, and let him decide.

Where do I find a neutral arbiter? I tried. All are biased.

> Thus if someone whips up a lynch
> mob using inflammatory rhetoric, he commits a criminal act. But it is
> not the fact that his presentation appealed to hate, ignorance, fear, or
> poverty, which made it criminal. His presentation was a criminal act
> because he was attempting, in a credible way, to unilaterally settle a
> disupte over property. Persuasion of and by itself, even if it relies on
> demagogic manipulations, is not a criminal act. --MJ}***

I disagree on your final point. I see demagogic manipulation of a
population as a crime, one of the worst of crimes.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+nanae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.