Dialogue with Kenny Pittman:

The provocateur:  

A rare victory for the people against the tyranny of the system. Thank you Mr. Harper and government, this one greatly appreciates it.

Kill backdoor registries: RCMP commish

www.sunnewsnetwork.ca

The commissioner of the RCMP has ordered all chief firearms officers across Canada to put an end to backdoor long-gun registries.

· · · Share

• Tom Wilson and Kenneth Pittman like this.
• • 

    Kenneth Pittman Harper is a fascist .Canadian rights are being diminished day by day. Nobody needs a gun except a hunter and until he needs it it should be in a community storage facility at the local police station.

    4 hours ago ·
  • 

    Owen Abrey ‎:)Kenny, that's not a nice thing to say...

    35 minutes ago ·
  • 

    Owen Abrey Did you know that Hitlers facism was actually left wing? The Nazis were a socialist party. In the early days of facism, it actually embraced communism.

    33 minutes ago ·
  • 

    Owen Abrey Nazism was actually closer to the NDP than the Conservatives, by far!

    32 minutes ago ·
  • 

    Owen Abrey

    However, the root of facism comes from a latin word that meant, a bundle of sticks tied together. The first "facist" was a old king in Northern Italy. He had a mace made out of a bundle of sticks, (that was the handle). He ruled by the p...See More

    23 minutes ago · · 1
  • 

    Kenneth Pittman More Canadian soldiers have been killed and have killed since the Korean War. After 50 years as the greatest peacekeeping nation we have reverted to a combat role that will benefit nobody but the rich and greedy who holds the puppet strings attached to these politicians of ours. The defence companies are posting record profits while the innocent perish.

    16 minutes ago ·
  • 

    Owen Abrey A better argument for that could be made when looking at the USA. Mega companies like Haliburton have stolen the wealth of that nation. However, I know soldiers who served in Afghanistan--personally.

    10 minutes ago ·
  • 

    Owen Abrey They have a different view about the value of their sacrifice and what it meant to the poor and powerless.

    10 minutes ago ·
  • 

    Owen Abrey I am not saying I like the way things have gone, but I try to keep perspective as best I can...

    9 minutes ago ·
  • 

    Owen Abrey And the real experts were our boyz on the ground (girls too of course)

    8 minutes ago ·
  • 

    Owen Abrey BUT start talking about what Canada has done to their pensions, and I am with you all the way. It is disgraceful how we treat them.

    8 minutes ago ·

 

 

 

 

 

It is neccessary to call everyone wealthy when you are unwilling to pick up a broom and start sweeping.

The easiest way to influence corporations, is not to picket outside their gates, but rather, to buy their stock.

Most bank stocks are less than 50.00/share

If every "complainer" bought some shares, they then have the actual right to stand up in shareholder's meetings and advocate and vote according to their conscience.

I have concluded that is the most democratic way to effect change. Democracy is actually not about protesting in the streets. Although it seems everyone has accepted that without really thinking about it.

Oh, well... sorry to rant, I have always been a bit "strange". I like to think outside the box. On either side of this question as well.

Today

Protesting is a democratic way to help make the world a better place for all . If the average Canadian is struggling to make ends meet how are they going to buy stocks, and if they did have a few stocks would their voices be heard? I think not. Only the major shareholders have any clout within a corporation.I have nothing against a wealthy person who has worked hard and accumulated wealth but when it comes to oil and defence companies manipulating or putting their own people into offices to attack and kill for profit paid for by us its pure evil.

Killing for profit is truly evil.

But there are new grass-roots movements of ethical investors who are standing up and being heard.

One share is a small voice, but 99% can buy a share and be impossible to silence.

_______________________________

 

 

 If one were inclined to believe this before this note, they probably will continue to believe it afterward-despite it's paucity of truth. It is the ignorant manipulating the ignorance of people who want to perpetuate their ignorance rather than be able to consider the facts from a neutral, rational space.

Good points in reply. If you believe you are in a 3rd world country, and you live in Canada, then you have a profound astigmatism.

It is true that R&D in Canada could be much better. However, to build a Gen 5 air-force, the starting price is around 500 BILLION. Few single countries in the world can afford that, China being the notable elephant in the room. So, NATO thought it might be a good idea to cooperate on building one...what a concept! Canada's 60 planes and what ever we spend to acquire them is a blip in comparison to the 2500 planes the US will acquire. Silly Canada. We have so much, but are compromised by our small thinking.

 The facts: The F-22 has the radar profile of a speeding marble. The F-35 has a profile of a speeding baseball--"speeding" faster than the speed of sound. Good luck. Learn from Baghdad and Tripoli. The stealth bombers came first and took out the air-defense. Come on people wakey wakey!

"

Peorhum

12:08 PM on May 6, 2012

Well it is the JSF-joint strike fighter...it was meant to back up, to a point, the F22 which was going to be doing the air combat role while the F35 does the strike roles. The F35 is about being a bomb truck with some air defence capability. It is designed to replace bomb trucks flown by the US air force, US navy, US marines. It is designed to replace the Harrier mainly with a supersonic Vtol aircraft. So yes your right, the F35 even though it can do air defence, it isn't truly meant for that role.

You voted

Report Abuse

 

Score: 0

Mikey from the GWN

1:02 PM on May 6, 2012

It's a multi-role fighter just like the CF-18s it may replace

Report Abuse

 

Score: 0

Alethia

2:16 PM on May 6, 2012

Actually, it is a 30-50 mile tactical range. Russia does have a missile capable of 86 mile range, so the NATO strategy is to be able to deploy a fighter that can "fight from the inside" get close enough to be effective with shorter air-to-air missiles. If Russia is able to resolve and target a speeding baseball 1.2 times the speed of sound, then we would be in trouble...

Delete

 

Providence

Owen Abrey

Josh. It is a good thing that "all things work together for good for those who love Him *and are called according to His purpose*" That adds extra significance to this event; you have an important job that God approves of. If it is true He intervened here, then He has a special purpose for you folk... one I think you are walking out right now. Like charts? "He has charted you on the palm of His hand." Is: 49 The word is Catov in the original which means to carve/write but the sense is often missed: Special significance is given to writing because what is written is the first step in becoming true...

Carney and the BOC--The Villany.

Alethia

12:13 AM on April 30, 2012

When I read articles like this, I become extremely angry. For Carney and the BOC to lecture poor home-owners who are forced to buy homes--slum homes on paltry wages is unforgivable. Do the math, and calculate a home budget for a below average home in Vancouver. Then apologize to us Mr. Carney.

Then there is the consumer, who carried this economy through the worst global recession ever. Consumer confidence, buying vehicles from the bankrupt big 3, homes, and durable goods on declining incomes ought to be lauded as heroes, not berated for taking on the added debt the banks and BOC were begging us to do. For some Carney may be considered a hero, but for the commoner in Canada, he appears destined to infamy. Of course let him go to the UK and get an education of what a real disastrous economy looks like. He will pine for the days Canadians made him out to be a hero.

Cold fusion Quantum theory and the Standard Model.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTz5Bq6dsA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/user/ColdFusionNow/videos


There's a kind of schizophrenia between the classical and quantum interpretations described by Frank Z and fans. On the one hand, modern physics is derided for its use of quantum mechanics, and on the other hand, many of these concepts are frequently invoked by the authors to explain the physics. But they do their best, given that neither is correct; that's all anyone can do.

I like what Frank has done, to interpret the Coulomb law as resonant and this resonance as the source of electromagnetic radiation, and it is very interesting he finds the 1.094 Mhz-m figure for similar dimensionality of the podkletnov and cold fusion experiments from this perspective, with his interpretation of matching the phonon(gravity) and photon(EM) speeds.

There is something very important about this finding.

Logged

Scattered thought relating to Cold fusion and Neutron size vaccilation.

 
 >
> Hi all,
> if my theory about the shrinking Hydrogen Atom to a Neutron is true,
> you can prove this:
>
> I calculated the energy
> for to build a complete Neutron from a complete Hydrogen Atom
> to 509134.428 eV
>
> Theory of the Hydrino
> Dietmar Stölting, 7.August 2008
> dietmar.stoelting@...
> Germany
>
> Now, the energy, that is needed in Nature to build a Neutron from a Hydrogen Atom is
>
> n - p - e = 782333.242 eV
>
> The difference 782333.242 - 509134.428 belongs to the needed Neutrino, to keep angulo momentum.
>
> So, there should be a VERY sharp energy peak for the build neutrino
> with an exact energy of
>
> 273198.814 eV
>
> So, Hydrogen shrinking to Neutron means
>
> H + 782333.242 eV = n + v(with 273198.814 eV)
>
> The neutron n takes about 2/3 of the energy, the neutrino v about 1/3.
>
> This can be validated with the Boraxino Neutrino detector, similar to the PEP reaction, a VERY sharp Neutrino peak,
> Dietmar
>
> PS: That a neutrino with 273198.814 eV is needed to destroy a Neutron
> to become Hydrogen, may be the reason, why a naked Neutron lives LONG, about 15 min.
>



 7Be + e- = 7Li + v (sharp Neutrino with 862 keV)
1H + e- + 782 keV = 1n + v (sharp Neutrino with 273 keV)

More technical experimental results studying Cold Fusion.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6id5Hf-xMWOYXVjekJCN1ZkQk0/edit?pli=1

A discussion around Cashmir effect, Dark energy, and potential for space travel.

“We’re always keeping an eye on potentially using this for propulsion systems for human spaceflight. Some of the specific force numbers are very competitive when you’re looking at Hall thrusters, so we’re looking to see if there’s places these can be used for human spaceflight and what type of missions that would enable if this technology is successful.”
“Can the properties of the quantum vacuum be used to propel a spacecraft?”, he asked, noting that it is not a new question. Arthur C. Clarke had earlier coined the term quantum ramjet drive.
Clarke’s perspective was that “if vacuum fluctuations could be harnessed for propulsion, then certainly our lives would be a lot easier for human space exploration.”
“When we view this question through the ‘classical muscle memory’ in engineering, the answer to that question is no, because there is no reaction mass that can be used to conserve momentum. You have to conserve momentum, you have to leave a wake.”
“However when you look at things from a quantum perspective QED, a very successful model, also predicts that the quantum vacuum the lowest energy state is not empty, but rather is a sea of virtual particles and photons that pop in and out of existence stemming from the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle.”
One of the earliest vacuum models from Paul Dirac actually predicted the electron’s anti-particle the positron in 1928, it was later confirmed by Carl Anderson in 1932. In 1948, Willis Lamb was measuring energy levels associated with the hydrogen atom, and when he realized they were slightly different from prediction, it turned out there were some contributions from the vacuum field that reconciled that issue. Another indication that the quantum vacuum can have classical measurements in a lab comes from Casimir‘s derivation of the Casimir Force in 1948.
“Dr. Miley’s earlier talk mentioned Eric Allin Cornell who is the first gentleman to actually produce a Bose-Einstein Condensate is now researching at Rice University on the Casimir-Polder Force. He started off a recent talk by saying that ‘if the zero point field is not real, he wouldn’t be here talking about the results he was presenting’”.

The Casimir force from Revolutionary Propulsion & Power for the Next Century of Space Flight H. White

“What’s the Casimir Force? Thinking from a classical perspective, if you could put two conducting plates in a vacuum chamber with some distance between the two, and you were able to produce a perfect vacuum, as these plates get closer and closer, there’s going to be a point where the distance between the two, and it actually happens the whole time but the force doesn’t get measurable until you get extremely close, but as the two plates get closer and closer together, it precludes certain wave modes of photons and particles that cannot appear between the plates.”
“So even though you may have a perfect vacuum on the outside, from a classical perspective, we think there’s no difference in the vacuum level between the two plates, but when you look at the quantum perspective, it is different, there is a negative pressure between the two plates.”
“And this has been measured a number of times over the years”, continued Dr. White. “As we start to make more products that fit into this category, we’re starting to see more issues where the classical and quantum tend to overlap and we actually have to factor that into that design process. So there’s some scenarios where the size of these things can also incur some things like friction between surfaces that have to move relative to one another.”
“So the quantum vacuum is not empty per se. Not we ask, how much energy is available in the quantum vacuum field to do something with?”
The predicted energy density in quantum vacuum is given by an integral equation. But says Dr. White, “Although QED is one of the most successful theories, it’s also responsible for one of the worst predictions in physics.

Energy Density from the Quantum Vacuum From Advanced Propulsion Physics: Harnessing the Quantum Vacuum H. White, P. March

“When you compute this integral from zero to the Planck frequency, it calculates an extremely high energy density. But when we compare that predicted energy to the observed critical density in the cosmos kilograms per cubic meter, there’s a vast difference between these two, many many orders of magnitude.”
“However, the difference between the predicted and observed values is not understood, so there’s some interesting things we can learn in that area”, he added.
So is there a way to utilized this sea of virtual particles and photons to transfer momentum from a spacecraft to the vacuum?
There’s been many ideas over the years: the vacuum sail, a type of ‘solar sail’ for the quantum vacuum; inertia control by altering the vacuum energy density and reducing total spacecraft mass, and then the focus of Dr. White’s interest, dynamic systems that make use of the Casimir Force to generate a net force.
He described the dynamic Casimir force as “resulting from Unger radiation whereby an accelerated observer sees the the effective temperature of the surrounding vacuum increase, there’s an equation that calculates how they perceive that, so that the vacuum actually takes on a higher temperature, and appears to be a warm photon bath.”
“You may have heard of Hawking radiation”, he said. “If you have a black hole, and a pair of virtual particles is created right on the horizon, where one particle goes inside the the horizon, and one particle goes away from the horizon, then the black holes total mass is actually reduced by one particle, because one of the particles when In and annihilated with something inside the black hole.”
“The simplest mechanism to think about this from a practical application perspective would be through generating thrust by the use of vibrating mirrors, where the mirror it would accelerate more in one direction than it would in the other.”
The dynamic Casimir force was potentially observed in the lab in 2011 and the magnitude of thrust from a dynamic Casimir force has been derived quite a number of times in the literature, but its been found to be pretty very small. “So while its theoretically possible”, says Dr. White, “its very small.”
“Another way to think of this, is you have to leave wakes, a submarine doesn’t carry water with it, it uses a propeller to couple with a mechanism. Maybe overly simplistic but I think people can understand. I think that’s why Arthur C. Clarke talked about a quantum ramjet, just to help people draw analogies.”
Are there ways he can increase the net force from this dynamic Casimir force? Dr. White summarized a few claims resulting from the work that he’s been doing at the Johnson Space Center:
Claim 1 The observed vacuum fluctuation density based on cosmology is kilograms per cubic meter. This relationship here predicts, in the presence of conventional matter, we can increase the local vacuum fluctuation density as a result of that.
“What this suggests is that with in the presence of a barium Type A capacitor, the vacuum field energy density is going to be in a slightly different state than what it would be otherwise. So this equation right here [see Figure 1 Equation 1], this is the free vacuum state, this is the local density of matter. And that’s what the altered vacuum state is.”

From Advanced Propulsion Physics: Harnessing the Quantum Vacuum by H. White, P. March

This takes the vacuum fluctuation density up from kilograms per cubic meter to kilograms per cubic meter. “So you might be able to do something with that, but its still pretty hard.”
With such tiny amounts vacuum fluctuation, how does Dr. White convince himself that this might have some validity as a power source?
“Simply put”, he answered, “the reason this equation has some interest to me is that this can derive the Bohr radius from first principles. So I can go through and show that meters is a consequence of dark energy. So its an interesting finding. It’s either a pretty significant numerical coincidence, which does happen from time to time in physics, or it has some potential interest from a physical medium.”
Claim 2 The energy density of the quantum vacuum can be amplified not only by acceleration but by changing acceleration and in turn, its subsequent derivative. This is an extension on the approach of the dynamic Casimir force.
“This is the wave equation [see Figure 1 Equation 2] this comes from the Friedmann equation and then use the Unruh equation, you can get this wave equation, and what this wave equation says is that when you convert this from acceleration into potential, that a varying energy density will also have an impact on the local vacuum fluctuation energy density.”
“Why do I have confidence that this might have some some validity?”
“We’ve got some test data with several different test articles that we have run within several different operating conditions, and the predicted thrust was reasonable close within a factor of 2.”
Claim 3 “The altered state of the vacuum can be modeled quasi-classically as a electron-positron virtual plasma. From my plasma physics background we just use the tools of Magnetohydrodynamics MHD to predict the macroscopic behavior depending on how we implement things. And so this is a pictorial representation of that.”
“Now, you can go look at cosmological data, you can also look at things down at the microscopic level and see if your claims can be proven or disproven without actually having to go into the lab.”
“This interests me in that, we have shown the magnetic pressure from the electron rotating round the hydrogen nucleus exactly equals the thermal kinetic pressure if we claim that the altered state based on the equation that we just talked about, can be modeled as an electron -positron plasma.”
“A test article that we ran it at 2 MHz and 4 MHz, the predicted force was very close to the observed force. We’ll be building a much larger test article, we’re trying to get to the 0.1 million newton level of thrust, and we’ll be working on that over the next year.”
How does all this apply to human spaceflight?
“This quantum vacuum energy is centric to nuclear systems, whether its nuclear reactors or nuclear thermal rockets. With the specific force that we have with this type of system, since effectively you’re pushing off the vacuum, you don’t have to have large tanks; you get to push off the vacuum, and the vacuum needs to carry the momentum information for you, so we can have much heavier specific power systems, and still accomplish pretty significant missions because the specific force is so much higher.”
“With this type of a thruster, if we could couple a 2MW reactor to the equivalent of 2MW of thruster capability we could do a Jovian mission, and this is a capture time, in 138 days, and 196 days for Saturn.”

From Eagleworks Laboratories: Advanced Propulsion Physics Research H. White, P. March, N. Williams, W. O'Neill

R. K. Obousy
Project Icarus: Anti-Matter Catalyzed Fusion Propulsion for Interstellar Missions 3104.pdf with K. F. Long and T. Smith

Dr. Obousy is investigating matter-anti-matter propulsion for human interstellar travel.

The last speaker was R. K. Obousy of Project Icarus, a non-profit group dedicated to designing an interstellar mission to the nearest star Alpha Centauri.
Dr. Obousy’s talk was outlined in three sections: the physics of interstellar travel, Project Icarus a fusion based interstellar starship design study, and a new project of anti-matter catalyzed fusion.
He began by articulating the main problem with interstellar travel: the distances involved. Voyager I, a spacecraft launched in 1977 designed to travel to the outer planets, is now traveling at about 38,000 mph at a distance of 116 AUs from Earth. With that speed, if Voyager was traveling to the nearest star Alpha Centauri, it would take on the order of 70,000 years to get there.
“If you imagine Earth on the East coast of the US in NYC and Alpha Centauri on the West coast in San Francisco, then Voyager launched in 1977 has traveled only a single mile on that journey.” [Voyager from NASA]
“What we want to accomplish is interstellar flight not in 70,000 year, but something closer to the timescale of a human lifetime about 70 years. So we need to increase our top speed by at least a factor of one thousand.”
“The problem becomes apparent when we consider one of the simplest equations in rocket physics, the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation.” The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation gives the maximum change in rocket velocity as directly proportional to the exhaust velocity and the natural log of the ratio of initial total mass to the final total mass .

“When you plug in the numbers for chemical propulsion fuel, a of ten percent the speed of light meters per second (which is roughly what it would take to get to the nearest star in the timescales of a human lifetime), the specific impulse of chemical rocket fuel is on the order of about 450 seconds. When you plug in the numbers, you discover that you need more chemical rocket fuel than there is mass in the known universe. Needless to say, it’s impossible to engage in interstellar missions on timescales of a human lifetime using chemical propellants.”
“However, there are other ways to liberate energy from matter. Once you go down into the sub-structure of the atom, and you liberate energy from the nucleus, then you can liberate far higher amounts of energy.”
“Specific energy is the theoretical maximum amount of energy per unit mass that you can extract. For chemical energy, that’s on the order of 15 million Joules per kilogram. When you jump up to fission, you jump up by a factor of almost ten million, so pound for pound, you can liberate about a million more times energy than from chemical sources. About ten times more energy when you go to fusion, and about 100 times more energy than that when you go to matter-anti-matter reactions.”
“So within the known laws of physics, there are ways that you can liberate for greater amounts of energy that you can then utilize for impulse purposes.”
Project Icarus is one component of Icarus Interstellar [visit] which has a number of research avenues. Project Icarus was inspired by a famous interstellar study called Project Daedalus [visit] which ran between 1973 and 1978.
Project Icarus has a four-fold purpose.
1. To motivate a new generation of scientists and inspire the next generation to get into this field.
2. To generate a lot of interest in the real-term prospects of an interstellar mission.
3. To design a credible probe for a mission that we could potentially do this century.
4. Provide an assessment of the maturity of fusion-based space propulsion.
With an volunteer, international team, they want to design an unmanned probe capable of delivering useful information about another star system and any associated planetary bodies. It must use current or near-future technology, must reach stellar destination in as fast a time as possible – not exceeding a century and must be designed for a variety of target stars. They want to allow for decelleration in the target system as well.
“We’ve got twenty research modules really encompassing the whole amalgam of what we believe you’d need to conduct to conduct an interstellar mission”, says Dr. Obousy. “Astronomical target, mission analysis, primary and secondary propulsion, fuel, navigation…the list goes on. We’ve demarcated the project into all the salient research regions. We apply academic rigor and are in a number peer-reviewd publications.”
For the primary propulsion, they are looking at fusion to provide continuity with Project Daedalus.
Within fusion, there are a number of different ways to accomplish propulsion, inertial confinement fusion, Polywell, magnetic target fusion, aneutronic fusion. PB11 which is valuable because of the fusion by-products are charged particles which can be channeled by nozzles.
“So let’s say a little bit about anti-matter, first predicted by Paul Dirac in 1928. It’s a very mercurial form of matter. When it touches its matter component, it annihilates with perfect efficiency according to Einstein’s equation .”
“We believe that for all known particles of matter, there corresponds an existing anti-particle. So for an electron, there’s an anti-electron or positron, for a proton, there’s an anti-proton. More fundamentally, it’s at the quark level, so protons consist of up and down quarks, so there’s anti-up and anti-down particles.”
“It’s not just science fiction. The positron was found in 1932, the anti-proton was discovered in 1955, and really the main issues with anti-matter are creation and storage.”
“We create incredibly small amounts of anti-matter each year, mostly in the CERN particle accelerator in Europe, about 1-10 nano-grams per year, at an estimated cost of 100 billion dollars per milligram. So its not cheap.”
“However I will say that the facilities where we create anti-matter, are not specifically designed to create anti-matter, they’re particle accelerators of which a nice by-product is you get anti-particles out. So I’d have to do an in depth research study but I would say you could probably push down that number by a significant factor if you constructed dedicated anti-matter factories.”
“There are a number of ways to store anti-matter. Penn State University has created a trap that can store 10 billion anti-protons for about a week. Certainly we haven’t mastered this technology, but we’re at a stage where our understanding of the technology is maturing and we’re beginning to create anti-particles, and we’re beginning to store anti-particles.”
“It seems that because anti-matter liberates such a huge amount of energy when it collides with its matter component, would it not be pertinent to study the possibilities for propulsion?”

Electrons and positrons meet and annihilate emitting a gamma ray.

“One of the first models was the Sanger rocket. In the Sanger rocket you collide electrons and positrons. The by-product of this is 511 keV gamma photons. The problem is most gamma rays radiate isotropically, and what you want to do is figure out some way to collimate that thrust. Sanger had this idea for an ultra-dense electron momentum transfer device, something along those lines.”
“The other possibility is to annihilate anti-protons. When protons and anti-protons collide, you get neutral pions, which are quite short-lived, they propagate for about a micrometer before decaying into gamma rays. You also get charged pions, again quite short-lived, they decay into muons and anti-muons, and they further decay into electrons and anti-electrons and electron neutrinos and muon neutrinos, and ultimately gamma rays.”
“But during that time when they exist for that short period as charged pions, you actually get 1.88 GeV of energy out, and about 64% of that is in the form of kinetic energy of the charged pions. If you’ve got these rapidly moving charged particles, you can utilize that for thrust via magnetic nozzles.”

From Interstellar Propulsion Research: Realistic Possibilities and Idealistic Dreams L. Johnson

Anti-matter energy has a lot of advantages of conventional fusion.
“The entire mass of National Ignition Facility NIF which uses lasers to ignite deuterium-tritium pellets is on the order of one hundred kilotons. It wouldn’t be feasible to transport 100 kilotons of hardware into space just to accomplish a fusion reaction. What’s great about anti-matter is that its an immensely efficient energy delivery packet. So an anti-proton beam offers 90 Megajoules per micro-gram.”
“Now you wouldn’t exactly power a rocket directly from matter-anti-matter annihilation because for an interstellar mission, you’d need quite a vast quantity. But what you could do is use very small quantities, on the order of about a micro-gram of anti-protons to actually deliver energy to, for example, a deuterium tritium pellet which would then fuse, and then you’d be able to utilize that for propulsive purposes.”
Dr. Obousy put up a slide containing a list of non-conventional technologies that the Project will look at to power their spacecraft to the nearest star. Cold fusion or LENR was not among them.
At the end of the talk, Professor Kim asked Dr. Obousy, “Why wasn’t cold fusion included in his list of breakthrough technologies that could contribute to the propulsion system?”
Dr. Obousy’s reply was “We haven’t decided as of yet, but that’s not something we’re actively looking at. But by all means, we certainly don’t have a complete list of all the different ways of accomplishing fusion, but perhaps we can begin a dialogue.”
Well, after he finished, and the Session was over,

upshots on Fighters

 You do recognise Kevin Page was a Liberal stooge don't you?  Or is that now a fact we have forgotten.  This whole debate is threatened by distortions, distortions that have yet to be clarified.  I am all for keeping the pressure up, but  I refuse to draw conclusions with out all the evidence.

    Edit

    3 minutes ago
    in reply to Catherine48

Aleithia

 Cathrine, this debate has been shaped.  Canada DID sign on the dotted line ordering 65 planes for 9 billion dollars.  There was a 40% contingency added to the base price to come to that figure--to accommodate price over-runs.  You think it is a simple thing to project numbers to 2030?  What we are measuring in this debate has been changed.  We have added maintenance, which was never part of the 9 billion purchase, We have added ordinances, also not accounted for; we have added upgrades--granted an inevitability, but that wasn't part of the measurement.  There is no deception saying you can buy this truck for 30,000.00 in an advertisement, and driving off the lot at 40,000.00 once all the extras and upgrades are added.  But then to figure in the extra 60,000.00 in maintenance you will spend over the next 30 years keeping your truck on the road is something vastly different.

What has happened in this debate is that no one is keeping his eye on the marble in this shell game.

On Auditors and Governments

Canada's system of checks and balances is working.  I note the government has done many things right: 1) It accepted the report.  It didn't deny it.  It didn't argue with the numbers, or deflect the information itself.   2) It reacted.  It didn't ignore it.  It didn't behave like an unmovable monolyth as other governments have done in the face of these reports.  It immediately formed new oversight and a study to determine where the process went wrong, and how the numbers might be off.  3)  Canada signed up for 65 jets at 9 billion.  That was what we **signed**.  Few Canadians appreciate how complex these deals are.  Both sides have armies of lawyers trying to pick language that is favorable.  There are loop holes, no doubt some even favor the buyer.
If the transmission shop says to you a repair will cost you 1,000.00, do you suspect it is actually going to cost 2500.00?  Hey I could tell you a transmission shop that pulls that one routinely.  They are all set up with a car lot next door of used cars--confiscated from drivers who couldn't afford the bill thousands over the estimate.  But I digress.  The government signs an agreement, they believe that the contract is established.
4) Canada has many loopholes.  If the costs go up, even on that basis we can walk away.  We **can**,  This is responsible government.  The contracts are set up with exit strategies.  What the auditor didn't say was why the numbers have changed so much.  That is going to be investigated, and Canadians will be able to see where and if there were mistakes in the process.  While some may have a problem with the opposition parties, I say that at least we can be sure they will keep up the pressure.  But as to judging the right of this or the wrong of it, I would like to wait for all the facts.   Too often on these blogs people bail in on partisan agendas and make vacuous condemnations and attributions, I call for a higher standard that looks as *all* the facts.  That's what differentiates Canadians from a hang-man's mob.

Beautiful

I married the most beautiful girl in the world.  30 years ago.  No tummy tucks or face lifts or boob jobs, but I still think she is the most beautiful in the world.  I like beautiful things.  I like butterfies and flowers and a mountain sunrise.  I also appreciate beautiful women.  I have an aesthetic pleasure in them.  I don't have a harem, nor have I ever cheated on my wife (believe that or not).  There has been a conditioning or an instinct that creates a bias toward people in the 'beautiful" category.  I call it being born with a gold coin.  But being beautiful is about how it's spent.  Over-eating and other craven self-hatred projections on the world are the dark side of this.  But real beauty, is the beauty of the heart.  One inevitably fades, the other lasts forever.

AGW links

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/monckton_ca_assembly_presentation.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WNm1-GMWdlw

Watching 100% of the Canadian voters participate in a Federal election.

Please allow me to point out 100% of Canada's eligible voters contribute
to a federal election: 38% vote Conservative, 28 each for the NDP and
Libs, a few vote for the PQ and Green parties.
But the largest
voting block are the voters who stay home. That group exercises it's
constitutional right. However, we in the poverty of our education have
not been taught the most important fact about abstaining: An abstaining
vote is a vote for the majority. That is a fundamental democratic
principal that no one is willing to talk about. Most Canadians have
never thought about that, and we as a society haven't bothered to teach
them. Ironically, those who foam at the mouth the most about majority
governments are most likely the same ones who have ingrained antipathy
in those who stay home. We teach it in our schools, we support it in
our media, but take no responsibility for it at the ballot box.

As my children grew up, I challenged their reticence to vote.  I said something like, if you didn't vote and your friends didn't vote, what would happen if a real bad guy won the election.  Would you be more happy or less happy about that?  Since you never voted, your democratic rights allowed you to abstain, in fear perhaps, or in antipathy, or confusion.  Abstaining allows a citizen to criticize a selection irregardless of who it is that wins the election.  There is a certain smugness in that, but in truth all citizens either actively or passively decide the vote.  The passive side in democratic language says they either don't care who governs them, or perhaps object to "all of the above", but in the end by abstaining declare they will accept what the rest of Canada wants.  You are saying you are with the 38% of the vote who wins the house.  Therefore, if you add 50% of any abstaining vote to the winners of the majority, you can quickly see they have actually won 85% of the vote in Canada.

If you can live with that, then its fine, you have after all demonstrated your democratic right to abstain.  You know you are in effect saying I will go along with the majority of voters decisions.   To consider this a nil vote simply is not true.  However to vote, is to indicate you want only one direction for your country to go.   And, if that puts you in a minority position and your guy doesn't win, you have actively  been a part of the exercise in democracy.  Surely that is preferable to being under a government that came into being because of the abstaining vote of the country.

I have a hard time not believing the haters aren't disingenuous nay-sayers, since this was an absurd partisan issue that was thoroughly aired almost a year ago.  But for those who genuinely wonder:
1) Sole-sourcing.  Sounds like there was no competitive bid process.  But in fact there was.  It happened in the Liberals era.  Boeing and LHM were the only manufacturers that presented a bid with a working proto-type.  If your really want to dig, you would discover this is actually sourced from numerous companies all over NATO including Canada, who's aerospace industry has already earned hundreds of millions sourcing to the project.  The bidding process continues as hundreds of companies are constantly competing and bidding to provide the parts that make this plane.
2) Build our own.  Most Canadians are nostalgic for the Avro Arrow we designed in the 1960s for good reason.  But in this case, designing and building a 5th gen plane costs 300 Billion dollars.  Is it reasonable for Canada to take on a project that will add 300 Billion to our debt (remember Canada's total debt from decades is around 600 Billion. )  Considering the hew and cry of spending up to 30 billion for aircraft now.
3) Alternative planes.  Unless you buy off the Russians, there are no alternatives.  We have the choice to build superior planes, far above the playing field of today's fighters.  In World War II Poland saw no need to build tanks when their horses were just fine.  And they were fine--the Polish cavalry was one of the best.  The current version of the F-18 hornet suggested by some to be the way to go, has a kill ratio against the F-22 and F35 of 0 (yes that's zero) to 100.  The enemy in 5th gen planes could kill 100 Hornets without losing  plane!  When it comes to warfare technology, you don't want to field equipment that is as good as the enemy, you want to field the superior equipment.  It has been the vast superiority that has decided every war we have fought since WW I.
4)Buying from an American country.  Yes the main assembly will be done at LHM in the US.  BUT the equipment is going to be built by all participating NATO countries.  Canadian aero space has already made hundreds of millions of dollars providing Canadian equipment for the project.  LHM expects to spend 12 Billion dollars in Canada in comparison to the 9 billion quote.  Even supposing the price balloons to 30 billion; if the Canadian factories have zero inflation, we would be buying for at least 30% less than anyone else.  AND will create thousands of high-paying jobs in Canada.

Finally one important point.  We are not buying these planes for 2012.  We are buying them for 2030.  It is so easy to be backwards looking to save a buck.  But this direction is a direction that has a firm grip on the future.

Please allow me to point out 100% of Canada's eligible voters contribute to a federal election:  38% vote Conservative, 28 each for the NDP and Libs, a few vote for the PQ and Green parties.
But the largest voting block are the voters who stay home.  That group exercises it's constitutional right.  However, we in the poverty of our education have not been taught the most important fact about abstaining:  An abstaining vote is a vote for the majority.  That is a fundamental democratic principal that no one is willing to talk about.  Most Canadians have never thought about that, and we as a society haven't bothered to teach them.  Ironically, those who foam at the mouth the most about majority governments are most likely the same ones who have ingrained antipathy in those who stay home.  We teach it in our schools, we support it in our media, but take no responsibility for it at the ballot box.
______

 I pose the question: **Could** this have been done by the NDP?  It is rather odd that these Robo-calls be centered in bastions of Conservative support.  Everyone does polling, few ridings were surprises to either side, except perhaps the NDP's surprise wins in Quebec. Liberals and NDP knew those ridings were solidly conservative, so who had anything to gain by this?  I wouldn't be surprised to find that the trail of Pierre Poutine leads to an NDP dirty tricks squad.  One has to admit they are pretty much the only ones to benefit from this--I know, this used to be the kind of thing the Liberals were good at with the brat pack, but might be difficult with 3rd party status and millions in debt...  Suppose this was Conservative.  How could they expect to benefit, since things like this inevitably come to light?  Even if they thought the would get away with a conspiracy on this, in the end there were no political points to win.  A huge swing in Guelph wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome everyone's polling had indicated.  Nor would a few hundred votes matter to the Conservative victory.  No, it doesn't make any sense for it to be a Conservative conspiracy, but an NDP or Liberal dirty trick squad could mine this for years... even if in the end this was a fabrication.

I rish Blessing

Irish Blessings: Just a few...
As you slide down the banister of life, may the splinters never point the wrong way.
May the saddest day of your future be no worse than the happiest day of your past.
May you have warm words on a cold evening, a full moon on a dark night, and the road downhill all the way to your door.
May the sound of happy music, and the lilt of Irish laughter, fill your heart with gladness that stays forever after.
May you be in heaven half an hour before the devil knows you're dead! (my fav...)

On IRAN'S Motives, and a simple quest for truth.

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/11/peter-beaumnont-iran-nuclear-threat?commentpage=last#end-of-comments



It is an interesting thesis that other papers around the world have promoted recently as well.  There are sever flaws however.  It is based on a premise that Iran ceased military dimensions to its nuclear technology in 2003.  Come on, give us a break.  I wish this were an identical situation to Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" but it isn't.  To pretend not to know the difference is as a credible journalist, simply and exercise in intellectual dishonesty, or profound laziness since the idea has been published earlier this week, this could be an innocent "regurgitation".  It could be that due to incompetence the writer has opted out of the merest modicum of critical thinking.  However the reason for this, it is a tragedy that many readers who are simply not aware or are not trained in critical thinking, to line up behind this idea. 
The first and obvious difference begins with the very fundamental issues of science.  We knew Iraq had a nuclear program before the first gulf war.  We didn't know if it had one when the hew and cry for WMDs were happening under Bush.  Sure we had suspicions, but we didn't know.  How different is Iran?  The whole world knows it has a nuclear program.  The whole world knows it's fairly recent non-compliance with the IAEA.  (ahem, notice that this fact is certainly true post 2003), 
The second involves the very publicised acquisition of nuclear triggers.  To think this is a pre-2003 issue is beyond comprehension:  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/world/middleeast/25iran.html?pagewanted=all  This was published everywhere last year.  This issue hardly compares with the Iraqi inspections.  Sure both countries were evasive to inspectors, but Iran was caught with the goods--as it has numerous times in the past decade. 
Do I really need to go on to recount what this author has apparently forgotten?  This was the initial premise the argument was written upon.  Since it is a profoundly false or ignorant premise, so falls the rest of the logic.  How many decades can Iran's nuclear reactors run on just the 20% proof-uranium it now has?  No, this article is the sort I would expect from PressTv or some other Iranian propaganda organ, but not the Guardian.

____________________________

"Come on, give us a break. I wish this were an identical situation to Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" but it isn't. To pretend not to know the difference is as a credible journalist, simply and exercise in intellectual dishonesty, or profound laziness since the idea has been published earlier this week, this could be an innocent "regurgitation"
This is getting tiring Pot calling the Kettle syndrome on your part.If you have the inclination or willingness to read the above excellent @AnthropoidApe post and his links, please do , otherwise you are blowing the same trumpet of war. Either sir or madam you are willingly or unwillingly misinformed hopefully the latter or you have some sinister private agenda hopefully not. Of course yo have an absolute right to your own opinion,unlike the real threat to innocent people who may die or be maimed in any hostile from either side who will most certainly not have such recourse.

_____________________________

I have read all comments. Given the inclinations of the authors, I was tempted to write a response to 80% of those who have bought the author's gibberish. Or I could have joined the fair of bloggers who go off topic.
This was a simple critical analysis of the thesis of the article. If an argument is based on a clearly flawed premise, it cannot stand as a credible piece. It is clear many commenting here have bought into the conclusion, and giving every benefit of the doubt, if they arrived at these conclusions only as a result of this argument and presupposition: it is evidence of the deception and devastation of illogical arguments. If every commentator was not prejudiced prior to reading this, it would be one thing, however it would seem both author and commentators are demonstrating the profound ignorance of the herd mentality: Moved and herded by logic simply imperceived. (unrecognized)
 

iran

Scott, books have been written about the doctrine of the fragility of the mutual annihilation of nuclear powers.  To argue Iran needs special consideration starts with the Iran/Iraq war: which saw hundreds of boys running across mine-fields, blowing themselves up, so the Revolutionary Guard could penetrate the area.  This is how much it values human lives.  The avoidance factor behind "Mutually Assured Destruction" dogma pre-supposes both sides value it's citizens temporal lives.  Radical Islamist see their annihilation a door way to paradise.

Questrade Edge Problems elucidated:

There are numerous problems.  I am working on a youtube to post so you guys can see for yourself.
   First of all the program crashes a minimum of 4 times a day due to runtime errors: ie: R6016 not enough space for a thread", and many that crash without leaving me information beyond indicating they were C++ errors. 

Default settings need to be reset every time you restart the program.  Very poor studies section.  Bolingers were poor, check out Trade Navigator.  No RSI, Occilators are minimal, MacD, and most important studies are just not there. 

The program needs short cut keys.  An alt-c to close a window is crucial.  Volume defaults are nice, but we should be able to set the defaults we want, ie fast-moving averages, bolinger bands, MacD and they should tuck away nicely like your volume pane does.

Security should have defaults.  On my home computer I want to be able to elect an auto sign-on.  Why not have the option.  Default at public computer settings, but then let us change them as we like.  Reset to factory defaults should be universal and on the bar.

Link colour choices should survive restarts.

Account summary/order/positions etc. screens should show positive (greens) and negative (reds) by default.

Need a vertical scroll and/or a grab chart feature for charting.   How do you extrapolate a channel, set targets or exit strategies outside of the rigid parameters of the immediate chart?

Symbols needed in charting.

 Escape should undo, or revert a chart backwards one step.

Pricelines, either double click to set them or press and hold to set, now I have to triple click or click and drag to get them to appear.

Why not have a hot-key default for basic charting needs (especially support and resistance lines {pricelines})?

Peas about Pipelines.

Political, Posing, Posturing People Proposing Pseudo-science Platitudes, Place their People in Peril.  Promoting Penile, Putative Positions, they Prattle Preposterously against Pragmatic Petroleum Pipelines, Preferring instead Presuppositions that *iss in Pathetic Places Pretending Presuppositions are Preferred to Preposterous imProbability.

Political, Posing, Posturing People Proposing Pseudo-science Platitudes, Pretending Presuppositions are Preferred to Preposterous imProbability.  Promoting Penile, Putative Positions, they Prattle Preposterously against Pragmatic Petroleum Pipelines, Preferring instead Presuppositions that Pander to Pathetic Philosophy:  Put all that Petroleum on Rail or Truck instead.  Then we can Pretend to be Positive People Profound in our Putrid Polemic.

Northern Gateway discussion.

 Inevitability. If you drive, it is inevitable you will crash. If you fly, it is inevitable you will crash. If you walk across the street enough, inevitably you will eventually be hit. That is the deception in using that word. If you know statistics, the risks can be ranked: Walking across the road--Most risk. Driving less risk. Flying--negligible risk. So by using such terms, to the extent the gullible buy into it, so then real discussion of risk is near impossible. Right now, the highway from Prince Rupert to Alberta spills far more oil than a modern pipeline. There is no probability in that calculation apart from 100%. Finally, a rail line follows the Fraser river bed, sometimes no more than a stone's throw away. The people hysterical on the pipeline issue have no clue how much disastrously worse the risk of a derailment could deal to the ecosystem. I find this so tedious, people want to be seen right more than they want the truth.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Proposed+pipeline+have+effect+prices/6178034/story.html#ixzz1mtdgDGtn

Galileo from a different view

It seems normal to lay willful ignorance at the feet of the Catholic church. I begin by saying I am not Catholic, so any defense is not because of any leanings to.
Here are facts to consider, in case some are innocently ignorant: After the destruction of the Roman Empire, the only entity with enough organization to retain knowledge, was the church. In the early middle ages, monasteries contained and collected what was ever known about philosophy and science. The monastic orders can at least be credited for writing down what was meticulously. Universities rose from these foundations. They were sponsored by the church. Within the framework of the middle ages, DaVinci and Copernicus and… Galileo. There was nevertheless a growing segmentation. Philosophy, and Theology became increasingly distinct. Within Philosophy there were further groups forming, that gave birth to most of the major branches of science. What apparenltly “modern” scholarship has profoundly failed to do, is recognise that this happened and the implications that it did. Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler were a form of natural sciences focused on the heavens. This scientific interest extended back millenia, –For the purpose of astrology. In the early middle ages, astrologer/astronomers were consulted before launching a war… Massive volumes of the study of the movements of stars were written, and massive costs were paid to scholars to preserve this “knowledge”.
This group was directly threatened by the simplicity of a helio-centric universe. Debates raged through Universities in Europe. The simplicity the accuracy and the beauty of the helio-centric of Galileo withstood a broad assault by the most prestige astrologers and philosophers of the day. Universities arose to repudiate Galileo. The problem was, they consistently lost debates.  Realizing their very survival that depended on the old star system's income was threatened, they appealed to the pope. Who, you have to admit was not trained in science. The church was compelled to make judgement not because the entity itself was threatened, at least at first, but because of the political agenda of “the sciences”. Frankly, the theologians were duped into backing the wrong horse. There was more prestige and money to be gained by siding with the wealthy astrologers after all…

So now there are two choices to make.

One sort of ignorance is glad for new information, the others…

Neocon?

Neocon? Really are we still throwing that around? That is a word that means nothing,but sounds like the writer thinks he is important by the use of his "sophisticated" language. Sophisticated? Really? Neocon is just a 90's swear word. Means nothing today.

Privacy and Child Pornography.

Dear Mr. Toews.  I can appreciate you are a man of principles.   In many respects I am probably more socially conservative than  you are; I say that as a matter of fact and not to boast.  I see a parallel between this legislation and the previous long gun legislation: It provided a cover for illegal search and seizure.  If there were long guns in the house, the house could be "inspected" at any time without notice.  I believe you share with me the profound concerns about state intrusion, not only in what may happen as intended in the legislation: Nailing Child Pornographers asap, but what other things could be found out on fishing expeditions.  Already much of what should have been private has been made public.  The conservatives once opposed SIN cards, the Liberals promised the Sin Card would only related to an orderly way for government to organize social security and taxes.  The conservatives raised alarm--that was smothered under the decades long slide toward liberalism.  Mr. Toews, my concern is that we may be making the same mistake.  Please allow the bill to be amended so it cannot be abused by some later government to do what it was not intended to: Stop Child Pornography.

Poor poor climate change scientists...

It seems to me that instead of having difficulty, anyone who is pro climate change is riding the tidal wave.

It is utter hypocrisy to appeal to science when the IPCC has lost its foundational data. So you tell each other you do science, but have destroyed it and will make a mockery of it in the end.

Here is an example of how it works.  India has many climate scientists, this is what they report, and how they were found out absolutely lying about the scientific "facts".

A diplomatic cable published last month by the WikiLeaks website reveals that most of the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects in India should not have been certified because they did not reduce emissions beyond those that would have been achieved without foreign investment. Indian officials have apparently known about the problem for at least two years. The revelations imply that millions of tonnes of reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions are mere phantoms, she says, and potentially cast doubt over the principle of carbon trading, Nature News, 27 September 2011

In order for sin to be atoned for, God who has no sin needed to turn away from the sacrifice, so that the total abandonment (that is the real hell) by God would be afflicted on Jesus: "He who knew no sin, was made sin for us." The idea of God's righteous judgement has been marginalized in western society. But that doesn't change its existence. God in heaven and God on the cross, is an incredible paradox. It reminds me of "if god is omnipotent can he make a rock he cannot lift?" Atheists feel smug and some Christians don't know how to respond. But the right answer is yes--yet the instant he did so, he could move it. This is the paradox of God and Salvation. The only one who could bear the wrath of God against sin, was God. And in bearing it, he prayed: "forgive them for they know not what they do."

On Pandas and Pipelines

Railways, built over the last centuries and a half were carefully built along side rivers in BC.  In many cases major tributaries flow a few metres from the rail bed.

A simple risk calculation will show, the danger of a derailment's impact on the ecosystems are far far higher than a pipeline (which statistically loses 2.2 litres per thousand miles; 22bbl of oil per billion bbl).  If anyone would quiet down, do the math, and think rationally, the numbers show this has insignificant risk compared to current modes of transportation that have been moving for the past 100 years.

If Canada were to ship its oil by rail to Kitimat, (and we could be already shipping hydrocarbons by rail to the North West Coast,) the risks would be astronomical by comparison.  Worse, if a pipeline were compared with the far more toxic chemicals that are presently shipped to and from Kitimat and Prince Rupert.  The devastation to fish stocks in event of derailment would make a pipeline spill so insignificant, that if you are talking real risk, a pipeline spill-danger approaches zero at infinity.  Saying that an oil spill is inevitable is like saying it is inevitable you will win the lottery.  Someone does every time after all...

Inviting death and scathing rebuke...

Risking death, I have a different view.  Philosophically it begins with the idea that with a push of a button man can destroy the world.  We are the only creature with that power of dominance.  We are also the only creature that comprehends global environmental issues; we are self aware, therefore we have some understandings of our impacts on nature.  We also carry a guilt complex--with varying degrees validity.  We are aware that we have conquested the world, and have taken on such horrid power that we in fact can destroy it.  Therefore, we cannot escape our stewardship of the world.  Stewardship demands active management:  Because to be purely passive, let be and let be, will mean we will mindlessly go on to reduce this gaia into a cinder.  That is what the human animal will do.  However, despite protestations to the opposite, man is more than an animal; our self-awareness is unique if only because of its comprehensiveness--even given that perhaps some animals share self-awareness with us. 

We are aware that we are self aware.  Why does this matter?  Responsibility.  Either we have upset the balance of nature, or we are part of it.  If we fail to appreciate the concept of stewardship, then as a mindless beast we shall destroy all life around us.  An old indian chief sat by my fire and told of times when as young braves they would hunt all winter and not cross a moose track.  A wolf explosion that happened in their grandfather's time had created a vast area of extinction.  It took a hundred years for peripheral animal life to fill in the void.  The moose was actually extinct from central BC until the white man opened it up.  Tribes there have no indigenous word for them.  So one needs consider extinctions.  The fact is, we would rather not have them.  The agonizing agony is, that instead of being active stewards, we think we are being environmentally friendly by abdicating our necessary place in the world.