Innovation goes right back to the founding of the American Republic. Inland canals, cotton gin, steam railroad, repeating firearms, telegraph, mechanical reapers, telephone, electric light, motion pictures, motor vehicles, aircraft, radio, washing machines, refrigerators, air conditioning, radar, 33 rpm records, automatic transmission, microwave ovens, CD players, personal computers, cell phones.
Each of these products caught on, sold like crazy, and created industries, employed people, and made money. Every since the industrial revolution, a small portion of the population has been able to create all the food, clothing, housing and services that the country can consume. It takes an innovation to keep everyone busy. After a while, everyone has the innovation, and sales slack off. In the past, we took up the slack by yet more innovation, another new product that catches on, sells like crazy and keeps the economy moving.
What's the next big thing?
And what can we do to keep the flow of innovation coming?
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Can the US keep a secret?
We have insurrections in Ukraine and Venezuela which are on our side. We ought to be supporting them. We can furnish money, intelligence, internet access, paperwork (passports and such), favorable publicity, and drone strikes. And other things.
Trouble is, support like this has to be kept secret. Otherwise our supporters get called American stooges and worse. The insurrections have to be seen as legitimate native uprisings by the opponents, the natives, the EU, and just about everyone in the world, otherwise they loose legitimacy. Can the US keep support a secret? Can the US keep anything a secret? We had US assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland, blow her cover over the phone just a couple of weeks ago. For that matter will Obama see these insurrections as something he should support? He was stupid enough to cold shoulder an Iranian insurgency a couple of years ago.
For that matter would insurgents dare talk to US agents? After CIA has leaked all sorts of stuff to the NY Times? Some years ago we were intercepting Bin Ladin's satellite phone conversations. CIA leaked that, and Bin Laden scrapped the sat phone and went back to couriers. Every one remembers that one.
Trouble is, support like this has to be kept secret. Otherwise our supporters get called American stooges and worse. The insurrections have to be seen as legitimate native uprisings by the opponents, the natives, the EU, and just about everyone in the world, otherwise they loose legitimacy. Can the US keep support a secret? Can the US keep anything a secret? We had US assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland, blow her cover over the phone just a couple of weeks ago. For that matter will Obama see these insurrections as something he should support? He was stupid enough to cold shoulder an Iranian insurgency a couple of years ago.
For that matter would insurgents dare talk to US agents? After CIA has leaked all sorts of stuff to the NY Times? Some years ago we were intercepting Bin Ladin's satellite phone conversations. CIA leaked that, and Bin Laden scrapped the sat phone and went back to couriers. Every one remembers that one.
Monday, February 17, 2014
Near Earth objects, on Fox News
Astronomers have detected a small asteroid/giant meteor coming sorta close to Earth tonight. Sorta close is like 8 times the distance to the moon, which isn't really all that close. The object is a thousand meters across, which would make one heluva hole if it were to hit the Earth.
Then Fox dove off into magic, far beyond even the science of Star Trek. In the future, with enough funding, we could send a space craft to intercept (there have been movies, Armageddon, Bruce Willis, about this) and use the space craft's GRAVITY to deflect the rock. Not a chance. We have a space going rock the size of a small mountain. The gravitational pull between even a monster spacecraft, one the size of an aircraft carrier, and a mountain sized rock, would be a matter of ounces. A hundred ounces of pull ain't gonna move a mountain sized rock. Not ever.
Possible, even with today's technology, would be to place a large fusion bomb to one side. Detonate it, and I guarantee you that sucker will move. If it doesn't move enough, set off more nukes. Or, if the rock is not very strong, the bomb will blow it into gravel.
So far so good. There is one bad outcome. The bomb blows a huge rock, say a 10 mile rock, into dozens of one mile fragments. In that case, best have more nukes available to deal with each of the fragments.
For this to work, we have to build the necessary rockets, and bombs, and keep them on standby, ready to launch on maybe a day's warning. That will cost serious money.
Then Fox dove off into magic, far beyond even the science of Star Trek. In the future, with enough funding, we could send a space craft to intercept (there have been movies, Armageddon, Bruce Willis, about this) and use the space craft's GRAVITY to deflect the rock. Not a chance. We have a space going rock the size of a small mountain. The gravitational pull between even a monster spacecraft, one the size of an aircraft carrier, and a mountain sized rock, would be a matter of ounces. A hundred ounces of pull ain't gonna move a mountain sized rock. Not ever.
Possible, even with today's technology, would be to place a large fusion bomb to one side. Detonate it, and I guarantee you that sucker will move. If it doesn't move enough, set off more nukes. Or, if the rock is not very strong, the bomb will blow it into gravel.
So far so good. There is one bad outcome. The bomb blows a huge rock, say a 10 mile rock, into dozens of one mile fragments. In that case, best have more nukes available to deal with each of the fragments.
For this to work, we have to build the necessary rockets, and bombs, and keep them on standby, ready to launch on maybe a day's warning. That will cost serious money.
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Phishing nearly caught me
So I'm doing a little leisurely Sunday web surfing. I leave the machine to make a cup of hot chocolate. When I get back, I have a new window open, one I've never seen before. Looks official. And it says there is an emergency browser update, hot off the presses, and I ought to click right here to install the update. It will only take a few seconds.
I nearly clicked. Which probably would have been a big mistake.
But I hesitated, and thought. This isn't the way Firefox updates. They never do a full screen window, their update routine looks different. In fact, I just updated Firefox to version 27.0.1 a couple of days ago. And it didn't look anything like this. So, I closed the window, closed Firefox.
Restarting Firefox, I clicked on the "check for updates" button inside Firefox, and lo and behold, Firefox reports himself all up to date. So much for emergency browser updates.
The scary part is, that update browser window managed to force itself onto my PC with no help from me. That's kinda unusual. Then it wanted me to click on a button. I wonder why. Here is a hostile website, powerful enough to move into my computer all by itself. Anything that powerful can do pretty much anything it pleases. Why does it want to get a mouse click from me?
I nearly clicked. Which probably would have been a big mistake.
But I hesitated, and thought. This isn't the way Firefox updates. They never do a full screen window, their update routine looks different. In fact, I just updated Firefox to version 27.0.1 a couple of days ago. And it didn't look anything like this. So, I closed the window, closed Firefox.
Restarting Firefox, I clicked on the "check for updates" button inside Firefox, and lo and behold, Firefox reports himself all up to date. So much for emergency browser updates.
The scary part is, that update browser window managed to force itself onto my PC with no help from me. That's kinda unusual. Then it wanted me to click on a button. I wonder why. Here is a hostile website, powerful enough to move into my computer all by itself. Anything that powerful can do pretty much anything it pleases. Why does it want to get a mouse click from me?
Scoring presidents on executive order count.
Doing so reveals true ignorance, or rabid partisan ship on behalf of the newsie. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to issue executive orders. Some presidents were more administratively minded and liked to have policy set down in writing. Others accomplished their jobs in a more informal manner, face to face or over the telephone.
The sticking point is executive orders that address matters assigned to Congress or the courts by the Constitution. For instance Article I Section 8 says that Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of Naturalization thruout the United States. When Obama used an executive order to establish the "dream act" he is issuing an executive order that should be rights be an Act of Congress. Especially as the "dream act" had failed to pass Congress only a few months before.
Obama has been able to get away with this one for two reasons. First nobody has standing to sue him over it, and second, many people think the "dream act" is a good idea.
It's not the number of executive orders, but the content of them.
The sticking point is executive orders that address matters assigned to Congress or the courts by the Constitution. For instance Article I Section 8 says that Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of Naturalization thruout the United States. When Obama used an executive order to establish the "dream act" he is issuing an executive order that should be rights be an Act of Congress. Especially as the "dream act" had failed to pass Congress only a few months before.
Obama has been able to get away with this one for two reasons. First nobody has standing to sue him over it, and second, many people think the "dream act" is a good idea.
It's not the number of executive orders, but the content of them.
Saturday, February 15, 2014
National Ignition Facility claims break even hydrogen fusion
National Ignition Facility is the laser fusion project. Zap a hydrogen or deuterium droplet with very powerful lasers and maybe it will fuse. Article here. They are only claiming laboratory break even, where laser energy actually delivered to the fuel droplet is counted. Practical breakeven is where fusion energy is enough to power all the equipment, lasers, magnets, whatever. Needless to say, prectical breakeven is a higher bar than laboratory breakeven.
However this is the first time anyone has claimed to reach laboratory breakeven.
It's the first step toward realizing the Mr. Fusion device from Back to the Future. Long way still to go, but we seem to have accomplished that first step.
Much druther have Mr. Fusion than a clean burning wood stove.
However this is the first time anyone has claimed to reach laboratory breakeven.
It's the first step toward realizing the Mr. Fusion device from Back to the Future. Long way still to go, but we seem to have accomplished that first step.
Much druther have Mr. Fusion than a clean burning wood stove.
How DO you make a wood stove burn cleaner?
Wood fires, pretty simple tech, you pile some logs up and watch 'em burn. Dry hardwood burns a little cleaner than softwood, but other than that, what's to do? And a wood stove is just a wood fire in a fire proof iron box. Ben Franklin invented them. So they have been around a long time. Not much you can do to change the amount of smoke and soot.
Anyhow, our ever vigilant EPA thinks regulations can make wood burn cleaner. Stove makers have to submit their stoves to EPA labs for testing, at their expense. In January the EPA decided to lower the limits on soot emissions. They claim that wood smoke and soot is a terrible health hazard, nearly as bad as second hand cigarette smoke. By making it impossible to make a compliant wood stove they will save the country untold dollars in medical costs. Right. Compared to Ben Franklin's time, when everyone heated with wood, wood smoke is just not a problem in the 21st century.
If you heat with wood, you have a problem. More people heat with wood than heat with furnace oil. 12% of American homes heat with wood, only 7% heat with oil. Since you won't be able to buy a stove, you will have to make one. An old oil drum makes a nice warm stove.
And then the greenie controlled states are passing laws forbidding the sale of home with "non compliant" woodstoves. You have to take the stove out and scrap it to make the sale. Practically no woodstoves have passed the tighter EPA soot limits.
If you regulate it they will come....
Anyhow, our ever vigilant EPA thinks regulations can make wood burn cleaner. Stove makers have to submit their stoves to EPA labs for testing, at their expense. In January the EPA decided to lower the limits on soot emissions. They claim that wood smoke and soot is a terrible health hazard, nearly as bad as second hand cigarette smoke. By making it impossible to make a compliant wood stove they will save the country untold dollars in medical costs. Right. Compared to Ben Franklin's time, when everyone heated with wood, wood smoke is just not a problem in the 21st century.
If you heat with wood, you have a problem. More people heat with wood than heat with furnace oil. 12% of American homes heat with wood, only 7% heat with oil. Since you won't be able to buy a stove, you will have to make one. An old oil drum makes a nice warm stove.
And then the greenie controlled states are passing laws forbidding the sale of home with "non compliant" woodstoves. You have to take the stove out and scrap it to make the sale. Practically no woodstoves have passed the tighter EPA soot limits.
If you regulate it they will come....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)