Tips & Notices – December 2018

About “Tips”:

While I’m mostly interested in things having to do with:

Computer stuff, especially small single board computers
Making money, usually via trading
Weather and climate (“Global Warming” & “Climate Change”)
Quakes, Volcanoes, and other Earth Sciences
Current economic and political events
(often as those last three have impact on money and climate things…)
And just about any ‘way cool’ interesting science or technology
Oh, and lately, cars ;-)

If something else is interesting to you, put a “tip” here as you like.

If there is a current Hot Topic for active discussion, try one of the Weekly Occasional Open Discussion pages here:

You can also look at the list of “Categories” on the right hand side and get an idea of any other broad area of interest.

This ought not to be seen as a “limit” on what is “interesting”, more as a “focus list” with other things that are interesting being fair game as well.

The History:

Note that “pages” are the things reached from links on the top bar just under the pretty picture. “Postings” are reached from the listing along the right side of any given article (posting).

Since WordPress has decided that comments on Pages, like the Old Tips Pages, won’t show up in recent comments, it kind of breaks the value of it for me. In response, I shifted from a set of “pages” to a set of “postings”. As any given Tips Posting gets full, I’ll add a new one.

I have kept the same general format, with the T page (top bar) still pointing to both the archive of Tips Pages as well as the series of new Postings via a link to the TIPS category.

This is the next posting from prior Tips postings. Same idea, just a new set of space to put pointers to things of interest. The most immediately preceding Tips posting is:

The generic “T” parent page remains up top, where older copies of the various “Tips” pages can be found archived. The Tips category (see list at right) marks Tips postings for easy location.

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Tips and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

151 Responses to Tips & Notices – December 2018

  1. Simon Derricutt says:

    Recently there’ve been some developments on harvesting ambient heat using Graphene. That is mainstream science, and there’s experimental data showing it works, but they carefully avoid mentioning that this violates 2LoT. Because of this, I put some linked comments in that give a better and more-concise description of the principles needed to violate 2LoT that may be a better explanation than I’ve managed before. It takes some time to get an explanation that is acceptable when what I’m explaining is generally considered to be impossible in theory. has a link to the second comment at , where the second comment is actually the clearest I think I’ve managed on the subject. I think the reason for the difficulty is a result of failings in the language we normally use, and a confusion as to what is a vector and what is a scalar – heat is actually effectively a vector quantity with a net vector of zero (the momentum is the vector, but the energy is a scalar), and so it is normally treated as a scalar. Maybe this explanation will produce that satori moment for some people.

    Though the principle is depressingly simple for something that has for so long seemed impossible, the technical problems of actually doing it require a higher technology than I can currently achieve. A friend who does have the necessary technology is however running a test fairly soon, so we may see a commercial device available in a reasonable timespan.

  2. sabretoothed says:

    They should marry :P

  3. Another Ian says:


    Re 6 December 2018 at 11:16 pm

    This comes to mind

    “A beautiful lady proposed to marry George Bernard Shaw “think of the child with your brains and my beauty.”? ”

    His response was “think of the child with your brains and my beauty.”

  4. E.M.Smith says:


    As we’ve demonstrated direct impact on our family health and sleep from EMF exposure, I’m pretty sure we are well past time to assess…

    BTW, in the Pt vs Pd discussion, don’t forget there are Ceramic Catalysts too… When PGM is high enough, they will just be replaced…

    @Another Ian:

    I was never that fond of Shaw… Now I know why. Any man with, erm, “ability” faced with that proposition from a beautiful woman would no not to turn her down… You’ve got at least a few months before deciding on annulment vs divorce ;-)

  5. LG says:

    #Giletsjaunes : 8 Grievances

    Michel Onfray penned an essay on the 8 greivances of the Gilets Jaunes as circulated in the streets of France.

    Here’s a rough first tranlation by google:

    Title: Our 8 grievances

    “We will go home when these measures are applied

    1. We want direct democracy at all levels. We want a government of national unity with a regency of exception to prevent political parties, which are disqualified, from instrumentalizing our distress and anger.

    2. We want a 20% cut in all taxes and burdens for the middle class, the working poor and entrepreneurs. To lower these taxes is to raise our wages. We want immediate action to tax what is worth taxing: GAFA and financial transactions.

    3. We want France to stop living beyond its means and stop accepting the misery of the world because it is already in misery with its millions of people living below the poverty line. We want a chosen immigration that does not destroy us culturally. We are calling for a withdrawal from the UN immigration pact.

    4. We want a relocation of all decisions in regions, cities and municipalities. The state and its officials in Paris are not qualified to decide the future of our communes.

    5. We want an exit from the CAP that corrupts our farmers by allocating its aid only to productivists and poisoners spreading cancer in France. Our taxes should in no way be used to fund Bayer-Monsanto.

    6. We want the creation of trade barriers to prevent Germany from selling us products made in Romania under the “Deutsche Qualität” label and thus destroying our jobs.

    7. We want the withdrawal of all aid to the press for a real separation of media and political powers.

    8. We want immediate action to stop integration in Europe because it is built only on the ruin of small people.

    In my estimation,
    things just got a little more complicated for “le petit monarque, le prince de Paris, le président jupitérien” aka president Macron.

    Below is a published Open Letter to president Mocron, signed by 13 retired Generals and Admirals and one former minister of defense asking him (warning him, really) to refrain from signing the UN pact of Marrakech on immigration.

    Given to tone of the letter, I believe this a little veiled message from the active military brass.

    Original links to text and translation below.

    Paris, December 07, 2018
    Mister President,
    You are about to sign the “Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” on 10 and 11 December, which establishes a genuine right to migration. It may impose itself on our national legislation through pre-existing treaties or the principle of common responsibility set out in this pact.
    It seems to us that the only sovereignty that will remain with France will consist in freely setting the way in which the objectives of the pact will have to be implemented. You can not give up this new part of the national sovereignty without a public debate whereas 80% of the French population considers that it is necessary to stop or regulate drastically the immigration. By deciding alone to sign this pact, you would add an additional reason for revolt to the anger of an already battered people. You would be guilty of a denial of democracy or treason against the nation.
    In addition, the finances of our country are drained and our debt is growing. You can not take the risk of an expensive call for air migration without first showing that you will not have to resort to more taxes to meet the objectives of the pact. On the other hand, you must be able, in terms of security, to curb the consequences linked to the arrival of extra-European populations. Finally, you can not ignore that the very essence of politics is to ensure security on the outside and harmony within. However, this concord can be obtained only if it maintains a certain internal coherence of the society alone capable of allowing to want to do together, which becomes more and more problematic today.
    In fact, the French state is late in coming to realize the impossibility of integrating too many people, in addition to totally different cultures, who have regrouped in the last forty years in areas that no longer submit to the laws of the Republic.
    You can not decide alone to erase our civilizational landmarks and deprive us of our carnal homeland.
    We therefore ask you to defer the signing of this pact and call by referendum the French to vote on this document. You are accountable to the French of your actions. Your election is not a blank check.
    We support the initiative of General MARTINEZ against the signature of this pact which must be adopted by the Member States of the UN at the Intergovernmental Conference of Marrakech.

    General Antoine MARTINEZ
    Charles MILLON – Former Minister of Defense (1995-1997, under president Jacques Chirac)
    General Marc BERTUCCHI
    General Philippe CHATENOUD
    General André COUSTOU
    General Roland DUBOIS
    General Daniel GROSMAIRE
    General Christian HOUDET
    General Michel ISSAVERDENS
    Admiral Patrick MARTIN
    General Christian PIQUEMAL
    General Daniel SCHAEFFER
    General Didier TAUZIN
    Colonel Jean Louis CHANAS

    On 8Chan,Dec 3rd 2019, a BBC anon posted this:–~C

  6. Larry Ledwick says:

    Yep that looks like a warning shot across the bow to me too!

    Clearly the anarchists are also beginning to piggy back on the chaos.

    (note casseurs = breakers = the black bloc anarchists who just want to destroy things)

  7. Larry Ledwick says:

    It is now transitioning into a general uprising as the protests are all throughout the country.

  8. Larry Ledwick says:

    We are also seeing clear signs that Russia is interested in increasing the conflict in Europe by posting misleading translations in RT that will only serve to irritate the Arab immigrant populations.

  9. cdquarles says:

    Ugh. Direct democracy is, in the end, mob rule. Why do the French not see what our founders saw 240 years ago? Why they wanted force, aka government, split? Why they knew that individuals create society, so that the needs of the one, few or many can’t outweigh any of the others? Why a republic needs moral people and knew that the standard of morality has to be external to humans as individuals as well as societies?

  10. Another Ian says:

    LG says:
    9 December 2018 at 3:01 pm

    Looking more like “Marie Antoinette” Macron?

  11. LG says:


    2 events.
    Same Day.
    One in Roma, Italia.
    The other: Paris, France.
    Salvini vs Macron

    “Crowds in support for Salvini in Rome vs rioters burning the city against Macron
    in Paris today. The first man was demonized by the corporate media as a
    dangerous populist, the second heralded as the saviour of Europe.”

  12. Another Ian says:


    I’m getting that shutter ad again on your site.

    And most of the WordPress sites I use (including yours) are keeping that “X” in the top lhs active and not going to the “circle with arrowhead” which I presume means they have stopped downloading for the moment

  13. R. de Haan says:

    The sun is NOT gaseous.

  14. R. de Haan says:

    Tim Ball, already a Golden Oldy but absolutely one for keeps, so add it to your collection.

  15. Another Ian says:

    Search engine testing and results

    More Google censorship in comment above

  16. LG says:

    #GiletsJaunes: La France des énarques

    Rex Explains.

    The Real France

    Think you know the real France? Here are a few facts that may shock you:

    • The French state has been bankrupt since 2004. A minister finally admitted it in 2013.
    • French GDP hasn’t risen above 2% in 50 years. Yes – FIFTY. The average annual GDP growth rate between 1949-2018? 0.78%.
    • In 2018, 14% of the population in France live below the poverty line (they earn less than 60% of the median income).
    • Worse, more than 50% of French people have an annual income of less than €20,150 a year (about $1,900 US per month).
    • The ‘official’ unemployment rate is 10% – about 3.5 million citizens (in reality, it’s much higher).
    • The youth unemployment rate is 22%. Yes, you did read that right.
    • Astonishing but true: the French government employs 25% of the entire French workforce…and it’s impossible to fire them.
    • Because the citizens make such little money, they pay no tax. Less than 50% of French pay any income tax at all; only around 14% pay at the rate of 30%, and less than 1% pay at the rate of 45%.
    • The government can’t deliver services without taxes, so it borrows money. France’s debt-GDP is now 100%.
    Another revealing statistic: “structural unemployment” is now at 9 -10%. That statistic measures when it is impossible to find people who have the skills and qualifications, to fill available positions. Why? French kids aren’t being educated to participate in the workforce. So even if France has a growth spurt (it won’t), they won’t have the labor to fill the new jobs.

    So how did this epic disaster happen? And if blame is to be allocated, who bears the most of it?

    In other words – why are millions of French citizens on the rampage, right now?

    Because there’s a real France, that few ever see.

    The France of the gilets jaunes. Or as we might label them, les deplorables.


    The French Ruling Class

    This small group of citizens have dominated the business, banking, legal and political scenes for decades.

    The ruling class comes from a small group of grandes ecoles, or elite colleges. There are only 3 or 4. The top of the top? L’Ecole d’Administration Nationale (ENA).

    Emmanuel Macron’s journey is typical of the ruliing class. He completed a Master’s of Public Affairs at Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris(called “Sciences Po”), the #2 elite college, before graduating from ENA in 2004, age 27. He then worked as a senior civil servant at the Inspectorate General of Finances (The Treasury), before getting a high paid gig ad an investment banker at Rothschild & Cie Banque.

    See how fast Macron worked his way into the senior civil servant position in the Treasury, before flipping into an exclusive investment bank? That is normal in France. It’s a never-ending protected cycle of patronage, promotion, favors and cronyism.

    Here’s another French word: parachutage. It is normal for young ENA graduates to be “parachuted” into senior civil service positions at a very young age, some as young as 25 years of age, without even interviewing for positions.

    Imagine this. You’re an American, working in a French corporation. You’re a very talented executive with 20 years experience and stellar performance reviews. Suddenly, your boss’s position becomes available. You apply.

    A week later, a 26 year old is sitting in your old boss’s chair. Your new boss has been “parachuted” into the position.

    This happened to one of my best friends in France, a bi-lingual MIT/Stanford graduate with 21 years of superb work experience across the world.

    The French kid? A graduate of ENA.

    ENA has a complete stranglehold on the French state. Only 100 students graduate every year.

    by 1970, ENA’s meritocracy had become a self-replicating elite caste – and a ticket to the French ruling class. Astonishingly, every French President since de Gaulle has been an ENA graduate, excepting Georges Pompidou, who attended Sciences Po. Eight of the last ten French Prime Ministers have been enarques. All key civil service/government departments are run by enarques. How about business? 84% of the 546 top executives in France’s 40 biggest companies are graduates of a handful of elite colleges. 48% come from ENA and Sciences Po.

    Get it? If you want to be part of the French ruling class, graduate from ENA or Sciences Po.

    Otherwise, screw you.

    Arrogance & Ignorance : A Toxic Mix

    The French elites are young men and women, who have been told that they are not just the intellectual creme de la creme, but morally superior. Better human beings, than their inferiors.

    These people are arrogant. But they are also ignorant. Raised in very wealthy families and cosseted in the networks those families are part of, they have no understanding of ordinary people and their real lives.

    Arrogance and ignorance is a very toxic mix. Macron’s tone-deaf appeal to climate change to justify the rise in diesel taxes, as well as his outrageous suggestion that ordinary French folk must drive less, is a classic example of the problem.

    What makes the gilets jaunes protests unique?

    Their main gripe? Elites blaming ordinary people, for problems that the same elites have caused.

    Elites never being held accountable for their incompetence. And elites never having to experience the conditions, that their failed ideas cause.

    French people are sick of being held in chains by a ruling class. They are sick of being poor and unemployed.

    They want a new direction, for their beloved nation.

    Sound familiar?

    In my opinion, despite their education, a lot of these elites aren’t too bright.

    They are intelligent. They can absorb what they’re told at a very high level of complexity and then spit it out in an exam.

    But they’re not smart. They lack the ability to make decisions in situations that are ambiguous, or where the outcomes are out of their control.

    There’s no critical thinking skills. No skepticism, or testing what they are told is true, against their own enquiry.

    As Macron proves, they lack common sense.

    History demonstrates that a population will tolerate being led by an elite caste, as long as the same elite case can supply benefits to them, on an ongoing basis.

    Once the ability of the elite to ‘buy’ consent starts to decline, civil unrest and disobedience is guaranteed.

    But when an incompetent elite switches from depriving the deplorables of benefits, to punishing and blaming deplorables for the incompetence of elites, uncharted territory beckons.

    Another lesson from history, that French elites appear to have forgotten? National identity and character doesn’t die easy. The French have always been a revolutionary culture. They still are.

    Somehow, I doubt that these lessons of history were ever taught at ENA, or in any of the French elite schools.

  17. E.M.Smith says:



  18. R. de Haan says:

    This is fascinating too.

  19. R. de Haan says:

    And this even more interesting: Absolutely “MUST WATCH” This is about the 5th Colomn who march behind Hitler’s NAZI Germany and who are behind the AGW scam, Agenda 21, Agenda 30, you name it. They were behind the Global Cooling Scam and they have now embedded themselves in all vanes of our society and our Intelligence System. The video also explains why they are sucking up all our data. This must be defeated, rooted out and done with at any price because they are the enemy of humanity, free economy and capitalism.

  20. R. de Haan says:

    Both the left and the right have been pushing Agenda 21

  21. H.R. says:

    @sabretoothed – Nice find. That soft tissue kerfluffle was interesting. I’m not certain from the article that the soft tissue was not in dispute, just his views of a young Earth.

    Relative to all the fossilized dino bones that exist, discovered and undiscovered, I don’t think there have been enough dino bones found and examined to say that 65 million year old soft tissue is not possible.

    If it’s “not possible because it has never been seen before” then maybe we haven’t looked at enough bones.

    And what about those fresh-frozen woolly mammoth-cicles that are 10,000 years old or so? I thought biblical scholars’ age for the young Earth was about 6,000 to 8,000 years. How does that work?

    I don’t see how an old Earth negates anyone’s faith in God. If God is eternal and not bound by time, what’s 3 or 4 or billion vs 6,000 years going to matter? We’re the short-timers here. It’s none of our concern how the long-timers run things.

  22. R. de Haan says:

    @Sabretooth & HR: Science is religion.
    The guy is a convinced Creationist who claimed to have found a “Young Dinosaur”.
    That’s the equivalent of finding a Virgin in an elderly home for retired hookers.
    No wonder he was fired.

    That the Creationist drew money from the following religious discrimination law suit doesn’t wonder me either.
    He’s a Creationist for God’s sake and this was a free kick for an open goal.

    I wonder why they hired the guy in the first place.

    Big mistake.

  23. E.M.Smith says:

    @R. de Haan:

    Believing in creation does not preclude someone from running a microscope lab well, nor from publishing peer reviewed papers about soft tissue in fossils. He was competent in the scope of his employment. To NOT hire him or to fire him for his belief in creation is a direct violation of his First Amendment rights.

    Now were he standing on a corner of one of the University streets or on the steps of one of the buildings shouting “Repent! God Created The Earth 6000 years ago!” or “Evolution is propaganda against God!”, then you have grounds for termination.

    As we do NOT know just how life started, when, and how it got here, to state that only one of the possible explanations is allowable for employees is a bit over the line…

    As just one example:

    I can’t say if life evolved on this planet or arrived from a different one. Life shows up way too early in the planet history to be from the simple chemical evolution process. So what was the “kickstarter”? Panspermia? (bacteria from space). A “Space Alien” species seeding life on planets? (And if that is the case, isn’t that conformant with the anecdotal historical descriptions of “god”?) Evolution on Mars or some other planet earlier than Earth, then impact delivery to Earth after it cooled enough? Bacteria living inside some space rocks / not panspermia but narrow-spermia from some other planet / moon?

    So given that there are a large number of shortfalls in the Standard Theory, isn’t it quite reasonable to explore possible alternatives? Can not one of them be a Superior Being?

    FWIW, the Sumerian records claim (and names names…) that we were a created life form made by Space Aliens. I can’t prove that wrong. In that era, the “Gods” were essentially highly superior beings, but not necessarily what we’d call supernatural beings. So in the case that there were Space Aliens creating us, and they were at the time vastly superior technically, would that not be Creation by (a) God?

    I think that somewhat makes the point that Creation could account for humans existing, so firing people for thinking that is wrong.

    Now, as to the rest of the Earth:

    While I find it incredible to claim life and the planet were all created just 6000 years ago; it is also the case that once you postulate an omnipotent being, then they could simply create a planet that looks old in every measurable way. Logic will not get you out of that box. In that case, finding “Young Dinosaurs” would be finding a “bug” in God’s creation of ages.

    The alternative (that I prefer) is that it shows we just don’t know how well DNA is preserved in stable rocks and 50,000 year old DNA can be preserved…

    But since we can’t resolve which of those two is accurate, it becomes a matter of preference to choose one. To then punish others for a different preference is evil.

    To assert one of the preferences is absolutely correct and punish holders of the other opinion is irrational and to oppress evidence or explanatory discoveries about the one you do not like is self-dealing abuse.

    FWIW: What I choose to believe is that we have a 4.5 Billion year old earth in a solar system somewhat older (or our formative planetary impact could not happen). Live arrived early from some sort of panspermia-like event (though hard to choose between possible sources) and evolved in The Standard Way from that point. As to the Sumerian story: I don’t know. There’s decent evidence both ways. So, ought I be fired from managing computers for that?

    BTW, if you run around firing Creationists you will have essentially nobody working in the South from Texas to Florida to Virginia… Maybe a few thousand at some of the universities. Similarly a whole lot of the rest of the country will go dark. Santa Clara University, for example, and most of their graduates. (Catholic school…) Take a look at the total Christian, Jewish & Muslim population of the USA. It isn’t a minority… Similarly note that a belief in Creation does not preclude doing good Science; or we’d not have had Newton, Einstein, or even Darwin (who had a dedication to God in his first edition…)

    The way I like to describe things is that Science is the study of HOW God does things. Religion is the study of our reaction… or the WHY we care… (It is also an explanation of the unknowns, as a place holder that’s as good as we’ve got until we find out more.)

  24. sabretoothed says:

    How come you can be transgender but not transracial

  25. beththeserf says:

    Yes, R de Haan,

    Yr 5th Column, George Soros, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Kissinger, forcing us like so many sheep into surveillance city ghettos. The EU is a pilot study. Unaccountable techocrats

    Behind Agenda 21, blueprint for global governance there’s the United Nations’ Brundtland Report recommendation for a new economic model and first mention of Sustainable Development, with a capital ‘S’ and a capital ‘D.’ Behind the Brundtland Report you have the Trilateral Commission, an elite organization with powerful members, bankers, directors of industry, politicians, media heavies. Gro Brundtland, ex-Prime-Minister of Norway, was herself a member. And what do the members of the Trilateral Commission want? Why, they want a new world order, a world order based on an economic model first advocated by a group at Columbia University during the economic depression of the 1930’s but discredited in the same decade. In the 1980’s this movement for a new world order became another phoenix arising, thanks to the efforts of the Trilateral Commission. Here’s an informative you tube overview of its history by Patrick M. Wood, financial analyst and author who has studied elite globalization policies since the 1970s when with scholar Antony Sutton, he co-authored the book, ‘Trilaterals over Washington.’

  26. cdquarles says:

    About that 6000 year thing, well , it would be better to say 8000 today, in my opinion; plus the 6000BC thing came from the work of a man, so don’t hold God to that. God is the being who must exist by logical necessity, I say; and that there is no sound axiom that says that any other being must exist by logical necessity. Once God makes mutable material actual, then the existence of ‘space aliens’ is certainly possible, given our own existence; but not mandatory. That said, the story is that The God created us directly by forming our body and indirectly through his direct creation of the ‘dust’ that our physical bodies are made of. No intermediary ‘space alien’ is required. Plus it very well may be true that we are alone because we are first and only because that’s what The God saw as good, necessary and proper. True enough, a technologically advanced space alien would appear to humans who didn’t know better to be god(s), or maybe better said angels. In the case of non-material angels, the story is that The God created them, too, before he created the physical earth. That does not mean that when The God created angels, He did not have us in mind when He made them. We should also remember that biology started life as a physical shape and behaviors classification system, agnostic about many details of the substance that allows for the shape and the behaviors.

    As stated, we do not know how old the physical planet is. It doesn’t matter that much about the age estimate so long as it is old enough to have a solid crust 10 to 20 miles thick, regardless of how it was formed. *That* it was formed is sufficient. About the 4.5 billion year thing … well, that’s an estimate and it used to have error bounds attached to it, because that number comes from a formation model and an age model. The age model is derived from radioactive decay products and assumptions about mineral stability where we have some idea about current conditions but not enough about past conditions to be fully certain that those ratios can’t nor don’t change over time. [This is where I consider supercritical water, which we know exists under the required conditions and that much of what you know about various chemical solubility data for water may not hold in supercritical water. Given that we do know that supercritical carbon dioxide shows different solubility values compared to liquid carbon dioxide; why would water be different?] So let us speculate about age and formation models. Given that the logistic function can be fit to pretty much every chemical system process(es) that I know of; and that the logistic function is the sum of at least two exponential functions, where one is the starting materials and the other is the resulting materials, so maybe the physical universe isn’t as old as the linear extrapolation from the far right tail suggests? Also, for me, fossils suggest catastrophic disruption of the biological system and thus would have lots of things missing from its record; and that’s granting that we know enough about how that happened chemically.

  27. Another Ian says:

    “Far Southern Ocean cools. Kiss Goodbye to polar amplication around Antarctica”

  28. Another Ian says:


    Playing on comments above

    Not Shaw

    (Used car ad by Diesel Doctor if it doesn’t land there)

  29. sabretoothed says:

    Google Dragon Fly with Sharia the ultimate search engine :P

    “Smart Pakem,” was launched in Indonesia last month, at the request of the government, as a method to preserve and uphold sharia law. It allows friends and neighbors to “target” any people with “misguided” beliefs and those who violate the religious law.

    Can report well drinking :P Or dancing Iranian girls :P

  30. sabretoothed says:

    Killary lost the whole election from $4700 of ads lol

  31. sabretoothed says:

    Google hiding autofind for Seth Rich

  32. sabretoothed says:

    Google’s baby :P “Dragonfly” shhhhhh

  33. sabretoothed says:

    Dragonfly imagine when the Sharia plug in comes into it :P

  34. LG says:

    IMO, we are witnessing an open “clash of Civilzations”.

    More analysis from Charles Gave, a French economist and from
    Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin is a Russian philosopher, political analyst, and geostrategist,

    Translated excerpts from remark by French Economist CHARLES GAVE

    The original excerpts:

    The translation:
    He begins :
    This analysis is not mine but that of Christophe Guilluy, who is this geographer who analyzed and very well planned what is happening. He has written a whole series of books including Les Fractures françaises …
    What does Christophe Guilluy say? Something that’s pretty simple: Our societies are splitting into three groups that do not have much to do with each other.

    The first group that is inside major cities, Paris. They are the winners of globalization, the so-called “boos” that are in finance, the media, the government. These exclude others through a real estate price absolutely untouchable for everyone except for them. They build a world where there is only their class, all the others are excluded. We can say what we want of the nineteenth century, but in the nineteenth century the bourgeois lived in the same neighborhood as the workers and they saw each other, while there, there is more physical contact between the bobos and others.
    Around the bobos, in a kind of concentric circle that is about twenty kilometers thick, you have their servants who are the immigrant workers. You find them in restaurants, as Uber drivers, as taxi drivers, as babysitters, and so on. And that’s where all the subsidies distributed by the boos that control the budget go. This is where we do huge work for public transport, somehow to bring the servants of the bobos, the bobos more easily. There are absolutely huge expenditures and if these people are extraordinarily subsidized, they have not always contributed to these subsidies, they are net subsidies for people who have not paid anything for that.
    If you go beyond this border of 20 or 30 km, you have the deep country where live about 50% of the French. And it’s been 20 years that we let them die. That’s where the schools close, that’s where the hospitals close, that’s where there’s no public transportation, and so on. And so those people who are forced to work, take their car.

    As second group subsidies become very important, taxes need to be increased. But taxes will not increase on the boos since they are the ones who control the political power. Taxes will therefore increase on the third group, the one who receives nothing. And the fastest way to raise taxes is always to tax energy. And we come to tell calembredaines that it is to prevent the atmospheric warming which is not their problem, because their problem is that their fridge is empty.
    So you have made this class of people in France – who are hardworking people, etc. – enraged. Because if someone earns 1400 € in this area, he still has 100 € per month if all goes well, to do things that amuse him, the rest is mandatory expenses: taxes, repayment of loans The children’s school … If he has 100 € left and the energy is increased, as they have just done, there is nothing left. So for the men, it’s annoying: they can not go to the rugby match. But for women who use their cars to do charitable work – to see their grandmother who has Alzheimer’s disease – to look after children, etc. That’s why you have women on the barricades: somewhere, these increases kill private charity, that is to say, family mutual help, which is the only way these groups maintain themselves. If you can not take care of your grandchildren because you do not have access to the car, you become enraged.
    So this government has reached a level of deafness, autism, which has rarely existed in the history of France. It is quite extraordinary to think that you are so superior as a central booby, while accumulating signs of contempt for those people in the 3rd zone who are all idiots according to them. Well no ! that’s not true, they are hardworking people.
    What is curious is that this is the first revolt in the history of France – since 1789 – which is not a revolt of the left. It’s a right-wing revolt, hardworking people who get up early in the morning, who are fed up and want to know where their money is going. Why do we take all this money from them because they are not given anything in exchange?


    Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin ‘s analysis.

    The protests in France, symbolized by yellow vests, cover an increasingly large part of society. Political experts have already called this movement a “new revolution”. The scale of the “yellow vest” movement is already so serious that it is absolutely necessary to analyze this phenomenon in a detailed way.

    We are dealing with a vivid manifestation of modern European populism. The meaning of populism as a phenomenon rising from the political structure in the societies formed in the wake of the Great French Revolution, and based on the confrontation between right and left, are changing radically.

    Populist movements reject this classical political left/right scheme and do not follow any strict ideological attitudes, either right or left. This is the strength and success of populism: it does not play by the preset rules. Nevertheless, populism has its own logic: for all its spontaneity, it is quite possible to trace some logic and even the beginnings of a populist ideology taking shape before our eyes.

    First of all, the fact that populist movements are directed against the political elite as a whole, without making a distinction, whether it is right or left-wing, is striking. This is the ‘uprising of the periphery of society against its center’. In his famous work, the American sociologist Christopher Lasch (1932–1994) designated the form of government that prevails in modern Western society as the “elite revolution”.

    At the beginning of the 20th century, it was customary to follow José Ortega y Gasset’s discourse about the “revolt of the masses”, whose increasing influence on politics threatened, it seemed, to destroy Western culture – the European Logos.

    But Christopher Lasch noted a new political trend: it is the elites that are destroying culture and European Logos today. These new western elites, who have reached the pinnacle of power only by their resourcefulness and immense will to power, are much worse and more destructive than the masses.

    An ordinary person still maintains some cultural traditions; it is almost impossible to find a “pure proletarian”. But the modern capitalist elites, who have no aristocratism in their senses, are greedy for power, position and comfort. At the same time, more and more marginal types began to penetrate into the “new elite”, people not from peripheral groups, but from minority groups — ethnic, cultural, religious (often sectarians) and sexual — became dominant among them. It is this perverted rabble, according to Christopher Lasch, that forms the basis of the modern globalist elite, which destroys the foundations of civilization.

    Accordingly, populism – including the populism of the “yellow vests” – can be viewed as a retaliatory uprising of the people against the elites, who have completely lost their connection with society. The elites have built their own world in which double standards, norms of political correctness, liberal demagogy reign.
    Accordingly, populism – including the populism of the “yellow vests” – can be viewed as a retaliatory uprising of the people against the elites, who have completely lost their connection with society. The elites have built their own world in which double standards, norms of political correctness, liberal demagogy reign.
    Big Stakes in the French Presidential Election: Global Governance Versus the People

    According to these “new elites”, the people and society, in their current state, have no place in this world. Therefore, the typical representative of the “new elite”, Hillary Clinton, upset by the success of the right-wing populist Trump, openly insulted ordinary Americans – as deplorables, which in meaning means “shameful.” “Deplorables” have chosen Trump – not because they loved him, but to respond to the “globalist witch” Clinton.

    Macron is a representative of the same type of “new elite”. It is curious that on the eve of the elections the French newspaper ‘Libération’ published the headline ‘Faites ce que vous voulez, mais votez Macron ‘ (“Do what you want, but vote for Macron”). This is an obvious paraphrase of Aleister Crowley, who proclaimed himself in the 20th century as the Antichrist and the Beast 666: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”. In other words, obedient crowds should vote for Macron not for some rational reasons, not because of his ideas and virtues, but simply because this is the imperative law of the ruling elite. And the disregard of the elites towards the obedient, slain masses is so open that they do not even bother to seduce them with impracticable promises: “Vote for Macron, because this is an order and this is not discussed.” Vote and then you are free. Otherwise you are deplorables. And that’s all.

    In Italy, where half of the population voted for right-wing populists of ‘Lega’, and the second half – for left-wing populists from the ‘Cinque stelli’ (5 Star Movement – ed., Flores), and together these parties managed to create the first populist government in European history.

    And now in France. And although in France there is practically no political contact between the right-wing populism of the National Front and the left-wing populism of Mélenchon, today it is united in the heroic revolt of the “yellow vests”. “Yellow vests” are deplorables, both right and left (but not liberal left, nor liberal right). The right-wing populists are terrified by the insane new elite policies regarding immigration and the destruction of the remnants of French identity. Left-wing populists are outraged by the disastrous economic policies of the liberals, who defend only the interest of big business: Macron is a protégé of the Rothschilds and that shows on which side he is…

    The “yellow vests” rebelled against Macron as against the ruling liberal elite. But today, it is already no longer a movement of the classical right or left. Macron is left in support of migration, protection of minorities, the legalization of degeneracy and so-called “cultural Marxism,” but right (liberal right) in terms of the economy, firmly defending the interests of big business and European bureaucracy. He is a pure globalist, not disdaining a direct declaration of his belonging to Freemasonry (his famous hand-sign, representing a triangle), even with direct satanic slogans: “Do what you want, vote for Macron.” The revolt of ‘yellow vests’ is precisely against this combination of liberal right and liberal left.

    If Mélenchon and Marine Le Pen cannot be united politically, being one – too left and the other – too right, then the ‘yellow vests’ will do it instead of the political leaders seeking to lead a populist movement. The “yellow vests” are not just against economic policy or immigration — they are against Macron as a symbol of the whole system, against globalism, against liberal totalitarianism, against the “existing state of affairs”. The “yellow vest” movement is a populist and popular revolution. And the word “people” (populus, ‘le peuple’) in the concept of “populism” must be understood literally.

    These are not abstract masses or an impersonal proletariat — they are the last living people who have risen up against the world power of globalist progeny,the rebels (as Lasch believes) of culture and civilization, as well as on man as such, on people, on God. Today there is no more right and left: only the people are against the elite. The “yellow vests” are creating a new political history, a new ideology. Macron is not a personal name, it is a label of the Matrix. To achieve freedom, he needs to be annihilated. Thus sprach the “yellow vests”, and they speak the truth…

  35. sabretoothed says:

    Clinton Foundation owes $400,000,000 IRS ignores it?

  36. sabretoothed says:

  37. sabretoothed says:

  38. E.M.Smith says:


    A very very good description of the state of things, of populists vs the overlords…

  39. sabretoothed says:

    Since BBC is into the Gender Neutral Stuff for Xmas

    Its time for Happy Gender Neutral Ramadan

  40. beththeserf says:

    Macron gettin’ ready, as rats do, to leave the sinking ship,
    viz the S.S. EU ?

  41. LG says:


    Funny you should ask..
    Le Canard Enchaîné reported that, on Dec 8th 2018:

    Cinq cents gardes républicains, la centaine de policiers et gendarmes du Groupement de sécurité de la présidence de la République ont été mobilisés, avec tout leur attirail lances à eau, drones, etc. Aux autres personnels, il avait été demandé aux personnels de rester au chaud, chez eux.
    “Jupiter est resté de marbre”

    À l’extérieur, un hélicoptère était placé au cas où…

    Yep. He who had screamed back last July 2018 during the Benalla scandal :“let them come and get me !” was barricaded behind 500 republican guards and 100 gendarmes with a chopper on standby to evacuate him, à la Nicolae Ceaușescu back in 1989

    The English version of the Story.

  42. E.M.Smith says:

    Whatever penalty JPM gets will be covered primarily by their liability insurance. This is more like a traffic ticket for a company of their scale.

  43. H.R. says:

    @sabertoothed: Must be young guys who never heard of the Hunt brothers.

  44. Larry Ledwick says:

    The Hunt Brothers Silver cornering effort in the early 1980’s is why I don’t trust precious metal markets. If you have big enough pockets you can push the price up and down at will. I especially get nervous about precious metals when every late night TV show has a “buy gold now” pitch every 3rd commercial.

  45. jim2 says:

    I’m aware the Fed has been raising interest rates rather aggressively. I feel the current market meltdown is irrational. OTOH, it is always possible the LICs (liberals in charge) have chosen to tank the markets in order to prevent Trump claiming victory.

  46. E.M.Smith says:


    The Fed has the mandate to try to make the economy “stable” so it is expected to work counter-cyclically. In bad times it is to make credit easy and in good times to “take the punch bowl away just when the party picks up”. All good in theory…

    Then we layer in some unfortunate truths:

    It can take a year+ for changes of Fed Policy to manifest in the real world. They must be doing NOW what is needed in January 2020… This is somewhere between very hard and impossible.

    By Definition, this means they will be in opposition to USA Government Policy (and goals). So Obama was killing the economy with tortuous regulations and “crap”. Fed had to take interest rates to zero just to prevent a massive recession. (In Japan they are at negative a fraction% due to ossification… and still no pick up…)

    Since Trump has fixed a lot of that “crap”, the economy is doing quite well. So naturally The Fed sees their duty as putting a foot on the neck of economic success. Especially doing a exponential prediction of increasing “hotness” of the economy out to 2020.

    The Problem, of course, is that We The People have only just now begun to feel like we’re at “nearly normal”. Not much inflation, jobs available (at last…), times relatively good.

    BUT, the real question is: What will it be like in Jan. 2020?

    Since nobody really knows, it becomes an exercise in “what do you want it to be given your dreams?”.

    That is where it becomes very very muddy…

    Clearly Trump would like a flat out Boom! Like China with growth at 10%+. He’d be reelected easy. But that would also come with profound labor shortages and both cost-push and demand-pull inflation. Clearly too, the LICE (Liberals In Charge of the Economy ;-) would like nothing less than a full on depression so Trump gets tossed. So would like Fed Funds Rate at 5%+…

    In the end:

    Is The Fed just “normalizing” interest rates to the 2% inflation +1% nominal target? or…
    Is The Fed seeing inflation on the cards from full employment and 4% growth in 2020? or…
    Is The Fed trying to tank the economy in time for Nov. 2020?

    Spin your wheel and pick an answer…

    FWIW, my belief is that they THINK they are doing “normalize” now that Federal policies are sane and pro-growth; but are also adding 20% or so of “Salt” for the 2020 election… In other words: Were I running The Fed I would have raised to 2% and announced rates on hold. 2% is the target inflation rate and I don’t see justification for going above that just yet.

    Now the Stock Markets being a forward looking predictive activity, are saying (to some extent) what they think the economy will be doing a year from now. (It’s a game of 2 players both playing one year out – The Fed vs Mr. Market…) which makes predicting The Market even harder as you are into 2nd Integral land… Much easier would be to use the market to predict future economic activity and then bet on THAT – but I don’t know of an instrument for doing that… ;-)

    I certainly would not put it past The Fed to be interested in tanking Trump, so “juicing things” as much as they think they can do without being caught at it. Globalists run The Fed AND the schools that train the folks that end up at The Fed, so control both the policies and the belief structure. They do not like to leave levers of power un-pulled…

  47. Simon Derricutt says:

    For interest, a logical and experimental proof that an effective perpetual motion is possible. We just need to get the practical output up to something that’s actually useful…. Happy Christmas everyone!

  48. H.R. says:

    Here’s an article that is just so wrong. It’s about Dollar Tree and Dollar General stores.

    It appears to be written by someone with an SJW bias, who is economically clueless, who relies on expert research, which seemed to be lacking any sense of cause and effect or contrary evidence, and it wouldn’t surprise me to find that the author just made up some of the stuff.

    The demographics are poorly analyzed to arrive at a foregone conclusion. I and my neighbors shop Dollar Tree. They have things priced at $1.00 – exact same items – that are sold elsewhere for 2 or 3 or 5 times as much. They also have downsized versions of national brand products so they can price them at $1.00. We all have good incomes. We’re just sensible about not paying 3 times more for an item when it’s available for $1.00.

    To make one point, the author compares Dollar Tree to Whole Foods, fer cryin’ out loud!

    How can an article which is supposed to be informative contain so much misinformation, stereotypes, and logical fails? I would be hard put to write something this wrong if I set out to intentionally do so.

    Anyhow, it’s a few minutes of jaw-dropping, head-scratching, face-palm inducing reading if you care or dare to “go there.”

  49. E.M.Smith says:


    That’s an interesting example of a crazy biased article.

    Whole Foods caters to the college educated with too much money willing to pay crazy prices for strange stuff folks. ( I shop there sometimes ;-) Then they “diss” Dollar Stores for “offers little in terms of fresh produce and nutritious items” which is just crazy. (I shop there some times too). Their market segment is NOT the Whole Foods Organic Strawberries in January kind of store. They sell more canned goods. But there isn’t anything lacking in nutrition about canned goods. Just you can’t live on kale alone, you can’t live on canned Lima beans alone either. But that doesn’t make kale a non-nutritious item.

    Similarly the existence of a discount store with “deals” does not mean other stores can not exist too. The local Dollar Store is about 200 yards from a grocery store and about 1/4 mile from a High End Italian Grocer (with $17 / lb fish and $15 / pound steaks and where I buy hand made sushi once a week ;-) I shop at ALL of them. One does not reduce the other.

    Then the notion that a Dollar Store indicates a lower income area, just daft. This is Fru-Fru Silicon Valley we’re talking about and we’ve got ’em.

    Then the writers blatant racism shows in “The one in a whiter, more affluent neighborhood regularly advertises grains, nuts, seafood, olives, and wine.” Stores advertise what their customers buy. At the same time they are dissing “white trash” areas for having Dollar Stores they are saying only white folks buy wine? Really? There’s a LOT more seafood advertised in the local Asian areas (even the lower income ones in Little Saigon…) than in the white areas. Why? Asians traditionally eat more fish…

    Just amazing that got published. It’s such crap.

  50. cdquarles says:

    I, on the other hand, am not amazed. It fits the narrative the GEBs like to, or want to, hear. What would amaze me, today, is a paper published that didn’t toe the ‘Jim Crow’, er ‘SJW’ party line.

  51. cdquarles says:

    @ Simon,
    A million thanks for that article. Overloaded language gets us too often. In computer programming, the machine is literal. In human interaction, the machine isn’t literal. I realize that people too often slough off semantics, yet a lesson from debate class (where a formal introduction to semantic predicate logic took place, sans symbols) still holds. Semantics, that is, actual meaning to be transmitted, is key. People must be clear about what you mean when you say it and not include things not said, as if you said it.

  52. Simon Derricutt says:

    CDQ – thanks, since that’s the best Christmas present so far. The explanation is finally clear enough that it has been understood. It’s also an insight that it’s likely the years of programming computers, and then going back to the words used in thermodynamics and finding them imprecise, may be the reason I saw this in the first place. I never had that formal introduction to logic, but of course if you get the logic wrong or make a typo, the program doesn’t do what you expect.

    Having a pretty formal proof, and some principles to work on, also makes the job of making a practical version of recycling heat somewhat easier. Maybe someone else will have a better design than I’ve thought of, too. Once you know something is actually possible, it is worth working on.

  53. E.M.Smith says:

    I was also going to heap some praise for the article, Simon, but CDQ beat me to it!

    I don’t know why, but the notion that a column of air would become all the same temperature just seems wrong to me… As an atom at the bottom zooms up, it loses KE and gains PE, so is colder when it gets there. As an atom at the top zooms down it gains KE and loses PE, so is hotter when it gets there. Just seems to me that on first principles it ought to be hotter at the bottom and colder at the top!

    Yes, there are collisions, but not ever atom collides in an inch… and atom “knocked” downward will still gain V and those upward lose V, so seems like it still ought to hold. At high enough air density the air at the bottom will eventually make a bolus that rises (think Lava Lamp ;-) but the Lava Lamp stays hotter at the bottom.. and only starts working after ‘enough’ density gradient exists from that excess heat…

  54. Simon Derricutt says:

    EM – the temperature drop of air with height is well-known, but for some reason it’s assumed to be non-existent in thermodynamics because if you put that in then it it both trashes 2LoT and enables an effective perpetual motion system, and since both of those are considered impossible then there must be *some other reason* for them to remain impossible. Abd thought there must be an effect with thermocouples (i.e. also affected by gravity) that would stop us harvesting this temperature difference, so I calculated what that would be and it turns out around 6 orders of magnitude down in itself per metre of height, but in any case we have a loop for the current so even that effect won’t actually happen.

    Graeff stopped convection currents in the air, and thus got a much higher lapse rate (by an order of magnitude) than is normally measured. The “normal” measured lapse rate of around 9°C/km is thus actually a non-equilibrium state, not because of the lava-lamp effect you’re talking about but simply because the air isn’t still so turbulence mixes it all up.

    On first principles, a material (solid or fluid) that is not electrically conductive will be hotter at the bottom than the top, as there is more PE at the top and the total energy per molecule/atom remains constant. An electrically-conductive material has the heat shared a lot more equally since electrons carry the heat around and aren’t much affected by gravity. Still, gravity is a very weak field and so though we can use it to absolutely prove that energy can be recycled, it’s not going to produce a lot of power. Electric and magnetic fields are way stronger, so we should be able to get useful amounts of power by utilising them instead.

    I’ve been battering at this concept for quite a few years now, but since I was also fighting against my definitions of the words (CDQ’s semantics problem) it’s been a slow job to find that underlying principle and an absolute and undeniable proof that demonstrates that our axioms are actually wrong. Also means that TANSTAAFL is wrong, too – we can get a free lunch here.

    Now all I’ve got to do is to apply the principles and get something working….

  55. cdquarles says:

    There is this catch, about our atmosphere, too. The dry air lapse rate is -9C/km. The moist one (fully saturated with water) is -6.5C/km. Actual air varies between the two, all the time, and can locally change quite rapidly from biased random walks of the constituent atoms and molecules that we call wind (advection = horizontal, convention = vertical). The effect of non-condensing IR active gases would be to move the ‘dry’ rate toward the ‘moist’ one. I can’t see how an atmosphere with IR active agents can go past the dominant one (here, that’s dihydrogen monoxide, aka water; on Mars or Venus, that’s carbon dioxide). The lapse rate is due to gravity, yet may not be wholly due to gravity. Changing the lapse rate in the atmosphere, which is set by the ground and the atmosphere’s constituents and energy flows, does not necessarily mean that the ground’s internal KE must increase. It can, but can != must.

    That the 2nd LoT can be violated shouldn’t be seen as impossible categorically. Science deals with observations about a mutable system by mutable beings within said system. Change the conditions, change the result. Labs are extremely constrained systems. Extrapolation from that is fraught with danger. The 2nd LoT was developed by people working in labs, with limited technology. Just like Newtonian gravity works well enough for the experienced conditions on planet Earth, so does the 2nd LoT.

    Well, about TANSTAAFL, well, Heinlein was writing about people, so I suspect that as long as human nature is what it is and that humans can’t change it by their own will and power; I suspect it will hold as long as that’s the case.

  56. cdquarles says:

    Ouch, one other thing that gets people about gases. They are fully miscible. They will ‘mix’ themselves fully. Why? Even ‘cold’ as long as we’re far enough above absolute zero (no internal KE) gas constituents move fast. At surface Earth conditions, that’s about 1km/sec, in 3 dimensions, at all times we can detect. The volume occupied greatly exceeds the volume occupied by the constituent atoms and molecules. So ‘heavier than air’ gets some things wrong. “Heavy” gases move slower while containing the same amount of KE (average and range about the average) that “light” gases do. Conflating some gas properties with those of condensed forms will bite you if you don’t keep the distinction in mind when conditions require that you be mindful of them.

  57. Larry Ledwick says:

    The conclusion is unavoidable that the lapse rate is due to gravity if you look at the gases as simply very small moons in orbit around the earth.

    Look at the theoretical case of a planet in a perfect vacuum with three molecules in orbit around the planet. One at a low circular orbit, one at a high circular orbit and one with a elliptical orbit which has perigee at the same altitude as the low circular orbit and Apogee at the same altitude as the upper circular orbit such that they never collide with each other.

    As an atom / molecule gains altitude you are simply increasing the eccentricity of the orbit it would follow if it was collision free. Orbital mechanics shows that it is unavoidable that as the particle gains altitude above the body it orbits, it loses kinetic energy of motion and gains gravitational potential energy. Energy is conserved it just changes form.

    As the particle descends toward perigee it gains energy of motion in exchange for a reduction in gravitational potential energy.

    If you worked out the orbital velocity of two atom/molecules in circular orbit unaffected by collisions with different heights above the planet those velocities should define the true lapse rate absent mixing and collisions or radiation transfer as a limiting case.

    I can see no other conclusion that there must be a lapse rate in a gaseous atmosphere in a gravitational field around a planet. That lapse rate must equal the difference in orbital energy required to maintain various orbital altitudes above the planet. You of course can change energy by radiation absorption but that will primarily effect energy of vibration and rotation not the mean velocity of motion (ie temperature) of the gas atoms/molecules.

    Anyone know the relationship between particle velocity and sensible temperature scales? That is all you would need to calculate that orbital altitude kinetic energy value for the true lapse rate due to gravity.

  58. Larry Ledwick says:

    Hmmm looks like this little calculator could be used to figure out the effective temperature at a given molecular velocity (of orbit).

    From this page we have some representative orbital velocities

    Orbiting at Earth’s surface (equator)
    center to center distance = 6,378 km
    altitude above surface = 0 km
    orbital velocity = 7.9 km/s (28,440 km/h or 17,672 mph)
    orbial period = 1 h 24 min 18 sec
    specific orbital energy = −31.2 MJ/kg

    Low Earth orbit
    center to center distance = 6,600–8,400 km
    200–2,000 km
    circular orbits at those altitudes
    Circular orbit: 6.9–7.8 km/s (24,840–28,080 km/h or 14,430–17,450 mph) respectively
    200 km orbital altitude = 6.9 km/s
    2000 km orbital altitude = 7.8 km/s

    change in orbital velocity due to excentricity of an eliptical orbit
    which varies from 200 km to 2000 km
    Elliptic orbit: 6.5–8.2 km/s respectively

    orbital periods at those altitudes
    1 h 29 min – 2 h 8 min

    specific orbital energy −29.8 MJ/kg

    Plugging the above numbers into the magic on line calculator
    Using the mass of a nitrogen molecule = 28.02 amu
    And using this calculator for orbital velocity at various altitudes

    We have three altitude values:
    earth’s surface = 6,378.14 km orbital radius, @ 7.9053644369783 km/s = 28459.31197312188 km/hr = 17683.79661099 mph
    200 km low earth orbit = 6,578.14 km orbital radius, @ 7.7842605418292 km/s = 28023.33795058512 km/hr = 17412.89491282 mph
    2000 km low earth orbit = 8,378.14 km orbital radius, @ 6.8975540598246 km/s = 24831.19461536856 km/hr = 15429.38900283 mph

    surface orbital velocity
    17683.79661099 mph ~= thermal velocity for air of 108714 deg C
    200 km altitude orbital velocity
    17412.89491282 mph ~= thermal velocity for air of 105400.3 deg C

    108714 – 105400.3 = 3313.7 / 200 = 16.5685 a gravitational lapse rate of 16.57 deg C / km altitude from 0 to 200 km altitude

    2000 km altitude orbital velocity
    15429.38900283 mph ~= thermal velocity for air of 82696.94 deg C

    105400.3 – 82696.94 = 22703.36 / 1800 = 12.61298
    Giving a gravitational lapse rate of 12.61298 deg C / km from 200 to 2000 km altitude

  59. Larry Ledwick says:

    Minor correction the last values for lapse rate were calculated with the nominal molecular weight of air of 29 rather than of nitrogen at 28.02

    Looks like the gravitational orbital velocity lapse rate should be considerably higher than the measured lapse rate. I would suspect as Graeff noted that the difference could be explained by other effects like mixing and transition of energy from lateral motion to rotation and vibration of the molecules due to trillions of collisions and radiant energy transfer. Accounting for all the degrees of freedom the atoms/molecules have to share energy.

    I will let the physics majors figure that little detail out

  60. E.M.Smith says:

    Verrrry interrrrresting….. (best German accent while holding cigarette in holder ;-) and looking for helmet… (Laugh In fans will get it…)

    So in essence we know air will be hotter with density around a planet and we also know that only things like convection, mixing, etc.etc. are keeping us cooler. Geee… doesn’t that mean the radiative warming model ‘has issues’ since we are already “cooler than theoretical”? Hmmm…..

  61. Simon Derricutt says:

    Larry – maybe an easier way to approximate the lapse rate. Kinetic energy for a monatomic gas is 1.5kT, though given most molecules will be diatomic then providing the vibrational degree of freedom is a low enough energy level to be excited then we’d see around 2kT as the kinetic energy at ground level. k is Boltzmann’s constant, T is absolute temperature. Meantime, though the gravitational acceleration drops with height, for the odd km or so we can approximate the potential energy as simply mgh, where m is the molecular mass, g is the gravitational acceleration of around 9.8m/s², and h is the height in metres.

    The temperature drop is thus simply raising the PE from the increase in height at the expense of the KE at ground level.

    Thus Tdrop = mgh/2k approximately.

    For 1000m lift, k= 1.38e-23J/K, g=9.8m/s², average molecular mass 28.8 (80%N2, 20%O2, traces of others), atomic mass unit 1.66e-27kg, that comes to:
    (28.8)(1.66e-27)(9.8)(1000)/(2)(1.38e-23)= 16.97K drop per kilometre. OK, call it 17K/km. For a monatomic gas this would rise to around 22.6K/km if that gas was atomic weight 28.8, and rises with the atomic weight as well. Play around with the figures to get other answers.

    This won’t be linear, since gravity drops off with height, and I didn’t check on the actual degrees of freedom either. IIRC the ratio of the specific heats at constant pressure and constant volume will tell me that. The number of DoFs (degrees of freedom) will change with absolute temperature, too. Still, it’s nice having a simple equation to give a ballpark figure.

    Water vapour has more degrees of freedom. As such, at the same temperature it holds more energy in the KE and thus the drop in KE won’t be such a high proportion of the total energy. The lapse rate will thus be lower for moist air.

    Exchange of energy between degrees of freedom seems pretty quick, and they are always exchanging energy until the rate of giving out energy from one degree of freedom equals what it’s getting from the others. I haven’t seen where anyone has measured that rate of exchange, though – it’s logically mediated by the collisions so with a collision rate of around 7GHz at NTP in air it’s going to be of the order of nanoseconds.

    EM – this might explain why we actually get thermals, and the rising or falling air vortices. “Low pressure” for a weather forecaster says that the air is rising there, but there doesn’t really seem to be anything warm to provide that lift a lot of the time since that normally means it’s clouding over and the sun isn’t warming the ground. That paradox always bothered me too. Likewise, the “high pressure” areas are where air is coming down, and they are bright and sunny mostly so the land is getting warmed. Could be that the difference between the calculated lapse rate and the measured one means that the air masses won’t be in equilibrium and thus being driven by heat-sources (gravitation-caused heating) that climate models don’t even know about. No idea if this is actually true, but the idea of air movements to try to restore equilibrium is far more satisfying.

  62. sabretoothed says:

    Old but great video

  63. Simon Derricutt says:

    One thing I should point out is that we’ve just been talking about gravitational effects on the temperature. As a mass of air goes up, the pressure goes down and so the gas will cool from that as well.

  64. Larry Ledwick says:

    As a mass of air goes up, the pressure goes down and so the gas will cool from that as well.

    So we would have an ( Tdrop = mgh/2k) term and
    an adiabatic cooling/heating term

  65. Larry Ledwick says:

    Well expected that image link to expand to display the image

    T2 = T1 (P2/P1)^(gamma -1 / gamma) where gamma = (Cp/Cv)

    For a monatomic ideal gas, γ = 5/3 = (1.3333…), and for a diatomic gas (such as nitrogen and oxygen, the main components of air) γ = 7/5 = 1.4

  66. Larry Ledwick says:

    Which the adiabatic term would evaluate to approximately :
    T2 = T1 (P2/P1)^(1.4 -1 / 1.4) = T1(P2/P1)^(0.2857) for dry air.

  67. Simon Derricutt says:

    I’ll see if WP allows a table to be entered. This is the International Civil Aviation Organisation table, and the book it’s in was published in 1986. I doubt if a lot has really changed since then though.

    height (m) pressure Pa density kg/m³ temp K lapse from previous entry

    0000  101325          1.2250       288.150
    1000   89876.2        1.1117       281.651   6.5
    2000   79501.4        1.0066       275.154   6.5
    3000   70121.1        0.90925      268.659   6.5
    4000   61660.4        0.81935      262.166   6.5
    5000   54048.2        0.73643      255.676   6.5

    More entries if needed, but I can’t use tabs to get it nicely aligned anyway.

    Using Larry’s adiabatic relation, for a rise from ground level to 1km,
    T2 = T1(P2/P1)^(0.2857)
    T2 = 288.15(89876.2/101325)^(0.2857) = 278.45 which is a lapse rate of 9.7K from the pressure drop alone. The actual lapse rate is a lot less than the calculated one when we also add in the gravitational reduction in temperature (17K), which would give a drop of 26.7K total over that first km in height if the system was in full thermodynamic equilibrium. Around 20K of that is swallowed by the mixing of air, and that certainly seems to be enough energy to cause a few vortices from instability of the system.

    I’d never thought of the standard lapse rate as being so far out of equilibrium before – one of those things you don’t consider until the maths is done.

  68. cdquarles says:

    What do you mean by equilibrium Kemosabe ;p ? The standard chemical one where there is no net change in the forms of chemical constituents? That’s just one kind of ‘steady state’, so to speak. The one where there is no motion whatsoever? The one where there is no net energy transfer? Why would the actual atmosphere ever be in equilibrium, other than height above the ground corresponding to all of the chemical processes going on within it, with the ground, and the gravitational field associated with the mass of the planet (which includes its atmosphere, let us recall)?

  69. Simon Derricutt says:

    CDQ – here I’m only talking about a thermodynamic equilibrium. That’s where the movements of energy are equal and opposite in all directions, so the net situation remains stable even though there’s just as much movement as a non-equilibrium situation. No net energy transfer.

    We know that in a non-equilibrium situation the system will move towards an equilibrium – at least that’s what we see in all situations I know about. Potential energy tends towards a local minimum, and is changed to kinetic energy in the process.

    What we see in the atmosphere is quite a way from equilibrium, so we’d expect there to be movements towards the ~-27K per km in height. With rising height, the air has more energy than the equilibrium situation, so there’s going to be a tendency to correct that. It may take a while to grok what that actually means, though, since I haven’t a lot of background when it comes to atmospheric mechanics. On the other hand, someone here may realise what the effects of that non-equilibrium situation will be. One thing that strikes me, though, is that when we have air coming down then it will be warmer than we’d expect from the known lapse-rate, and that rising air will be colder.

  70. E.M.Smith says:


    You can use the <pre> and </pre> preformatted table markers to make a table.

    It can be a bit tricky to get the exact alignment right “first time” so I usually “pretty them up” if there’s an “off by a bit” that’s obvious how to fix. ;-)

  71. Pouncer says:

    The resurrection of the Commodore 64:

    “The company behind this new Commodore is Retro Games … They will reportedly sell it as THEC64. … The finished product is due to arrive sometime in 2019.”

  72. Quail says:

    @Sabretoothed :
    Your Thiamine post may be of help with some funky health problems my elderly uncle has been displaying.
    Thank you.

  73. Larry Ledwick says:

    It is interesting to note that the 26.7K total over that first km in height calculated is very close to 4x the measured thermal lapse rate. That implies that the energy is equally distributed in 4 different forms of potential energy.

    could it be as simple as the gravitational potential energy of altitude being converted to:

    potential energy of motion (kinetic energy of molecular velocity)
    potential energy of pressure (liter atmospheres ?)

    liter-atmosphere[′lēd·ə·r ¦at·mə‚sfir] (physics)
    A unit of energy equal to the work done on a piston by a fluid at a pressure of 1 standard atmosphere (101,325 pascals) when the piston sweeps out a volume of 1 liter; equal to 101.325 joules.

    potential energy of molecular rotation
    potential energy of molecular vibration

  74. E.M.Smith says:


    DIY C-64 kit using R. Pi and emulator:
    Under $50…


    Sure makes a tempting kind of sense. You have 4 “modes” where the energy can go and nothing to prevent “flow”. It sure looks like it ought to flow evenly between them… at first muse.

  75. Simon Derricutt says:

    Larry – normally if there’s a way for PE to change to KE, it will happen until the PE is at a local minimum, so any changes from that minimum would increase PE at the expense of KE. Molecular rotation and vibration are both KE (degrees of freedom) with rotations always available for anything above monatomic (how can you see if an atom is rotating, and how would you grab it to make it rotate too?) and vibrations often having a certain minimum quantum of energy before it will happen. IIRC water vapour has a total of 9 DoFs available, 3 of which only start coming in above a threshold temperature, so the amount of kinetic energy that can be stored in a molecule goes up the hotter it gets until it reaches that plateau of 9 DoFs and then is constant.

    As such, it looks to me that the measured lapse rate isn’t because energy is going into some store of PE that the measured temperature can’t see, but that instead it’s the mixing and little vortices we find in non-still air that smear out the temperature gradient. If a packet of air goes downwards, it will be slightly warmer than the air it then mixes with, giving a larger packet of air that then will tend to rise again since it’s a bit less dense than the surrounding air. It thus looks like there will be constant air-movements somewhat similar to EM’s idea of the lava lamp, as the temperature (average KE) tends towards being equal and the potential gradient works against that. Where there’s a measurable upwards or downwards wind, though, the temperature of the air that moves will be more out of thermal equilibrium with the air around it the more the height changes.

    This could be part of the puzzle of clouds, in that there’s more of a temperature drop when air rises than we calculate from the adiabatic pressure drop.

    Some links: is the basics, and covers the modes of a water molecule. I haven’t however found a graph of DoFs against temperature for water vapour. I did find which says the number of DoFs for Nitrogen and Oxygen are actually 5 and not 4 as I estimated. Thus:
    Tdrop = mgh/(2.5)k approximately, and the gravitational temperature drop is not around 17K but instead around 13.5K (for 1km height rise). Sorry I got that wrong. Still a 9.7K drop per km from the pressure drop, so around 23.2K total drop per km for still dry air (not 27K). Still getting on 4 times the measured lapse rate, though.

    The main thing I’ve noted from this is that when we measure temperature it’s only the translational kinetic energy that we see, and we don’t see the vibrational and rotational modes or any other degrees of freedom such as spin-waves. We also can’t see any potential energy. It remains though that we can extract power from a measured temperature difference, and thus that if we mess around with the other energy stores we can manipulate the measured temperatures and produce such a temperature difference to extract energy from. Here, we’ve just used gravity to change kinetic energy into gravitational potential energy, which gives us a small but measurable temperature difference, but other fields are far stronger and can give us a much larger temperature change.

  76. cdquarles says:

    A catch, Simon, with regard to water. Water has a fascinating chemistry. Only the overall chemistry of the element carbon, is to me, more fascinating. Do not forget hydrogen bonding, and also that water hydrogen bonding happens with water hydrogen bonding to other molecules besides itself.

    Water vapor is not solely monomers via hydrogen bonding! Water in the atmosphere is present from monomers to visible liquid and/or solid suspended drops. Ever seen a hazy, yet not cloudy day? Part of that is suspended dust and soot (human and plant derived) which will have adsorbed water on it, and suspended ‘colloidal’ aggregations of water that are smaller than human naked eye resolution (100 micron). Strictly speaking, then, should we consider water aggregations gas (vapor to a degree) or liquid (condensed); and if so, how many water molecules in the aggregation is the cutoff (3?, more?)?

    One should not forget that real gases do not follow the ideal gas law. That’s an abstracted limit law under a defined set of conditions. Real gases, especially condensing gases (called vapors) will bite you when the actual conditions don’t fit the ideal gas law conditions. Do the model-makers use the Van der-Waal’s and/or other corrections to the Ideal Gas Law in their models, when they should? Likewise, do they do that with Henry’s Law. Strictly speaking, that’s for the dissolution/ex-solution reaction only. Any other chemistry in the system requires modifying the relation to take these additional conditions into account.

    Oh, thanks for that link.

  77. Simon Derricutt says:

    CDQ – thanks, that’s a timely reminder. We could probably spend a lifetime learning the intricacies of what water does. Those aggregations of water molecules will have more degrees of freedom, and thus a higher (and somewhat variable) heat capacity. The better solutions to achieving a real perpetual motion system (may as well call it what it is) are easier to make using electronics, though, so luckily I don’t expect to need to go into the problems of water, even though the simpler systems do in fact rely on water to work. For climate science, I’d expect the models to use experimental curves that have the various corrections built-in, but I doubt if they actually do. Could be quicker than calculating it, if you have look-up tables and interpolation. May need a multi-dimensional look-up table in order to allow for water vapour content as well as temperature, pressure, and other gases such as CO2. Not that I expect CO2 to have any large effect anyway in real terms, though increased CO2 means less moisture transpired from leaves and thus lower water removal from green areas. That would only affect the packets of air at ground-level, though – above that the water-vapour would simply be passed around in the air.

    A little aside here. CO2 sublimes at normal atmospheric pressure at -78.5°C. I’ve noticed recently that some of the low-temperature “records” have gotten pretty close to that. Maybe the ice-cores from ancient times in an Ice Age show high levels of CO2 (around 6000ppm IIRC) because the CO2 was actually close to condensing at the time? Just something that struck me as maybe worth some thought.Though CO2 is not normally regarded as a condensing gas, it may happen.

  78. Simon Derricutt says:

    A friend pointed me at which is a new climate theory that applies across the rocky solar system planet (not the gas giants). The idea is that the global temperature depends on the solar input and the atmospheric pressure, and that’s it. No difference whether the atmosphere is N2, O2/N2, or CO2. I think they may have missed a bit by ignoring water vapour (condensing gas and so the clouds change the albedo) but they say they get to within 1°C as it stands. The link has onward links to the papers themselves, and I only just started reading them. Could be they’ve got the majority right, anyway. This will annoy mainstream climate science….

  79. Larry Ledwick says:

    Yes Dr. Karl Zeller and Dr. Ned Nikolov were being discussed on WUWT a few years ago and their papers are the root origin of much of the discussion about a gravity well gradient driven lapse rate, since the atmospheric pressure is actually driven by the local gravity and mass of the atmosphere (which by implication defines the depth of the atmosphere).

    There was much discussion about it and several folks refused to discuss it intelligently going off on tangents about it being a perpetual motion engine – one of the reasons I no longer spend any time over there, as they have developed the same sort of approved PC topics as the climate change folks, and if you step out of those bounds they go nuts to shut the discussion down.

    Their logic is the basis behind my observations about orbital mechanics and potential energy stated above. Just a different way of stating the same concepts in an easily grasped mental model.

    It is in my mind unavoidable and perfectly reasonable that the atmospheres thermal gradient (lapse rate) should mirror the gravitational gradient as you move away from the planet. The combined effects of gravity and mass also produce a pressure gradient. I find the thought that those 3 gradients should be some how independent of each other unacceptable. They most have some physical connection and at first principles should all trace back to the same physics and forces.

  80. Simon Derricutt says:

    Larry – since I’ve just been pointing out that a gas in a gravity well is a perpetual motion machine, the complaints from WUWT seem a bit based in belief rather than data. I’ve read their paper now, but haven’t done any sanity checks on the maths – I expect they’ve done the calculations well, anyway. It’s interesting that the function they give is actually fitted and not from first principles, and I suspect that if they included the gravitational component into the lapse rate and then the mixing, they might be able to explain the fudge factors.

    It’s always bothered me that Venus is so much hotter than Earth, based on the standard explanations. I couldn’t see how it kept so hot, given the fourth power relationship for radiation. With this explanation, the fit is good and the explanation feels better. I’ll probably put this up at R-G as well and get some nice splody heads as people try to dismiss it.

    Turns out that the CO2 will warm the planet after all, since it makes the atmosphere that bit more dense and a bit more mass. Also means that volcanic emissions will have some warming effect after the reflective dust comes down, since again there’ll be more mass of atmosphere. Getting the fine-tuning of the model, and seeing why the cloud-cover varies (and thus albedo) would help, too. The theory looks basically correct, though.

  81. Ossqss says:

    Would it be safe to say that our atmosphere is a dance of varied constrained chaos ;-)

  82. jim2 says:

    SD – a gas in a gravity well is a perpetual motion machine, but if you extract work from it, it won’t last long.

  83. Simon Derricutt says:

    Jim2 – “SD – a gas in a gravity well is a perpetual motion machine, but if you extract work from it, it won’t last long.”

    Only if you store that energy in something such as a battery or in lifting a weight and leaving it lifted. If you do other work with it, then that will produce heat that warms the atmosphere again. Any energy store is going to get used at some point, and also return that energy as heat to the environment. That heat energy will re-enter the column of air, and come out as usable power. It’s a cycle.

    That’s really the start-point of the logic. Conservation of energy says you have the same amount of (scalar) energy after some work is done, but practically we can’t re-use that energy because the momentum vectors of that energy are randomised. Work is a vector quantity – it’s force times distance, but that distance must have a direction too. Random-direction energy can’t move anything in one direction, except when you get down to Brownian motion. However, work is normally seen as a scalar quantity. Once you start seeing it as a vector, and that because heat is particles moving around then each particle’s heat is also a vector quantity, but because we are looking at a lot of random momentum vectors those vectors sum to zero over time it can’t on average move anything, then we only need a process to align those momentum vectors in order to make that energy usable again. We can do that with fields, or with diodes, as a direct conversion of heat back to usable energy, or we can use the standard method of a heat engine to change a proportion of the heat energy to having their momentum vectors aligned.

    The solution to perpetual motion system is thus really semantic, in that we normally define both work and heat as scalar quantities. We need to see work as a vector, and heat as a vector. Kinetic energy is a scalar quantity of energy with a momentum vector, and the two quantities must be separately handled. De-randomising the momentum vectors requires only a momentum exchange. Above we’ve shown that gravity does that, and that we can make such a perpetual motion system using gravity and a column of air. We won’t get a lot of power out, and it’s going to cost far more than it’s worth, but the salient point is that it’s obvious it will work and that there is experimental evidence that it works. It’s not impossible after all. To get something more useful, and hopefully producing power cheaper than burning some sort of fuel, we need to apply that principle of realignment of momentum vectors of the heat energy using a stronger field such as an electric field, which is many orders of magnitude more effective.

    The principle is thus ridiculously easy, and I think the reason we haven’t seen it before is simply that we’ve got the word definitions a bit wrong. Practically, of course, it’s a bit more difficult, and really needs the facilities of a chip fab to achieve the feature dimensions and purity needed for a good device. Also really needs someone with a lot deeper knowledge than I currently have to design the right electronic structure. I think I’ll achieve that at some point, but there’s a chance that if enough people see the theoretical possibility then someone who has the facilities may decide to try as well, and may get a better design than I can.

  84. cdquarles says:

    I have not thought much about this actual fact of Earth’s atmosphere. Its mass is *not* constant, though for most practical applications we can consider it as constant. Evaporating water adds to the mass and to the gaseous mass. Suspending aerosols of any other kind add to the mass, yet not to the gaseous mass. Volcanic eruptions add to the mass, too; as well as Earth’s perpetually in motion orbit that still captures things moving through the solar system’s space near enough to it. A question then becomes: “Under currently known conditions, is this mass change large enough to be measurable and sufficient to have a measurable effect, particularly for weather?”, with other questions following from that one.

    There are processes that remove mass from the atmosphere, too. Collisions by the stream of particles with the atmosphere boost some past escape velocity, with the already faster moving ones easiest to get there (thus, Earth is slowly losing hydrogen and helium, mostly; but does lose extremely small, but not zero, amounts of the other chemical elements, too). Then there is chemical weathering. Water scrubs carbon dioxide out of the gas phase rather easily, add calcium and you get calcium carbonate in the water. Get enough calcium in the water, the carbonate precipitates out; provided there are no other conditions present that prevent this. Now add chemically mediated biological life.

  85. Simon Derricutt says:

    CDQ – in order to change the temperature by 1°C from the standard 15°C, that’s actually an 0.35% difference in kinetic energy. Over the last century, the CO2 level in the air has changed by maybe 0.01% (0.03% to 0.04%), but I haven’t gone through the calculations yet to see exactly what difference that would make to average pressure at ground level. Moist air is less dense, but evaporated moisture will add to the total atmospheric mass, and so will show an increased pressure at ground level. Pressure changes take a while to propagate, too, as winds don’t normally reach high speeds. It’s probably going to take quite a while to produce an answer to your question, though the gut feeling is that there will be enough to measure given that climatologists tell us temperatures to 0.1°C (and to 0.01°C as well).

    Suspended aerosols are supported by the air they are in, so their mass will add to the total mass of the atmosphere and thus the pressure at ground level. If they are transparent then they won’t change the albedo, but if not then they will probably change the albedo somewhat – could be warmer or cooler because of them, depending on what they are.

    It seems Mars has had its atmosphere pretty-well stripped by the Solar Wind. Maybe it’s going to take longer for the Earth because of the higher gravitational field, but it seems likely that, in time, that will happen to us. Not in our lifetimes, though…. Maybe as long as we keep getting CO2 recycled from the Carbonates that are subducted by tectonic movements and we have green plants to turn that CO2 into Oxygen, we’ll be generally OK. By the time it gets a bit difficult here, I expect we’ll have found other planets we can use instead.

    Maybe the big thing to take away from those papers is that there’s no “tipping point” that can take us to Venusian-type overheating. Also that there’s no downside to emitting more CO2 because it makes very little difference to the actual temperature of the Earth, and the upside is that plants grow better.

    There’s way too much to learn for one person to know it all to any depth, and of course some of what we “know” is wrong as well, so sharing what we think we know that’s relevant is definitely a good thing. Wrong ideas should get exposed that way.

  86. E.M.Smith says:

    It seems to me that given the Universe exists and continues to operate, and given the law of Conservation of Mass & Energy, then the universe itself constitutes a perpetual motion machine. Especially in the case where it does not expand forever but repeatedly condenses and bangs…

  87. Pouncer says:

    A 2011 Ford Pickup Truck cleans California air:

    VERY interesting and carefully done test of some other proposition entirely, but this stood out:

    ” … there were actually fewer hydrocarbons in the Raptor’s exhaust than in the air it — and we — breathed. In the Raptor’s case, the ambient air contained 2.821 ppm of total hydrocarbons, and the amount of total hydrocarbons coming out the Raptor’s tailpipe measured 2.639 ppm.”

  88. jim2 says:

    And now, for something completely different …

    A well-known climate change expert and professor at the University of Minnesota choked and brutally assaulted his fiancée, who told cops she fears he will kill her, according to a criminal complaint.

  89. sabretoothed says:

    Interesting about the Carbon

  90. E.M.Smith says:

    An interesting discussion of comparitive languages (programming) by Dennis M. Ritchie in 2002:

    I’m tempted to install Algol 68 on my Raspberry Pi after that, given he says that it has much in common with C; 8-)

    apt-get install algol68g

    It was my 2nd language (after FORTRAN IV) and seeing as it is still remarkably “modern”….

    Maybe I can translate some of the Climate Model code into it ;-)

  91. jim2 says:

    Fortran IV (i think it was IV) was my very first language also. Loved standing in line to feed in my cards in anticipation of what torture awaits!

  92. Steve C says:

    An interesting little piece wondering how much of the internet is fake (lots …). It makes the installation of a well-set-up PiHole sound even more of a good idea.

  93. sabretoothed says:

    Click to access 5.pdf

    Neurochemical Imbalances and Quinolinic Acid Toxicity

  94. jim2 says:

    To be more precise, fortran 4 was the first programming language I learned. But I never used it after the course. I picked up Applesoft at home. But actually used Visual Basic and later QuickBasic at work to do useful things.

  95. E.M.Smith says:

    From that Sweden link:

    As a Spectator study noted, “Murder is up 40 per cent since 2012; the number of gun homicides has more than doubled in ten years. Compared with Britain, it is five times more common for young men in Sweden to be shot and killed.”

    Grenade attacks, mass torching of vehicles and other crimes are also on the rise.

    Figures released in August found that 58 per cent of convicted rapists and 85 per cent of all convicted assault rapists in Sweden were born outside of Europe.

    In cases where the victim did not know the attacker, the proportion of foreign offenders was more than 80 per cent. Nearly 40 per cent of the convicted rapists are from the Middle East or from Africa.

    I think that’s a Clue Stick…

  96. Pingback: Tips & Notices – January 2019 | Musings from the Chiefio

Comments are closed.