On 2024-08-04, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:

> And if any young gurus have envisioned some new OS with
> much of the Linux goodness/solidity/simplicity - now's the
> time to really get into writing it.

Whatever happened to Plan 9?

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as the
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | first society that wouldn't save
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | itself because it wasn't cost-
/ \ if you read it the right way. | effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

On 2024-08-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> For what its worth Sir David Mackay calculated there was enough fissile
> and fertile material on the earth to keep the existing population on a
> current western lifestyle for 10,000 years

Existing population when? Now? Or... now?

Up until recently, global population was doubling about every 40 years.
This wasn't enough for many politicians, who view a stable population
as a major disaster. In some areas, they've gotten the doubling time
down to 25 years. Nothing we can do will keep up with exponential
growth, and encouraging still more growth will only hasten the coming
of the real disaster.

Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
-- Edward Abbey

And Mackay's calculation assumes that we'll be able to convince the
people who currently want nothing to do with anything NOOK-yoo-lur.
As one hayseed was quoted, "We don't want no damn atoms around here."

> Which should be long enough to make fusion work.

Ah, that beautiful word "should". Someone once pointed out that fusion
has been 10 years away for the past 50 years. Basing plans on it being
available by a given date makes about as much sense as basing your
retirement plans on winning the lottery.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as the
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | first society that wouldn't save
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | itself because it wasn't cost-
/ \ if you read it the right way. | effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 17:10:41 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> On 2024-08-04, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>
> > And if any young gurus have envisioned some new OS with
> > much of the Linux goodness/solidity/simplicity - now's the
> > time to really get into writing it.
>
> Whatever happened to Plan 9?
>
Psurely they'd be up to Plan 119 by now?

http://www.9front.org/releases/2024/04/28/0/

(Seems to be targetting the Raspberry pi)

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Sun, 04 Aug 2024 17:10:41 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> On 2024-08-04, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>
> > And if any young gurus have envisioned some new OS with
> > much of the Linux goodness/solidity/simplicity - now's the
> > time to really get into writing it.
>
> Whatever happened to Plan 9?

Inferno happened to Plan 9 then they both ground to a halt.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On 04/08/2024 14:03, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 13:03:09 +0100
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 04/08/2024 11:16, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> It is socially impossible to build anything like enough nuclear
>>> plants to get off fossil fuels. There are also questions about how long
>>> the available nuclear fuels will last - suffice it to say that
>>> estimates vary even more wildly than those about how long the oil will
>>> last.
>>
>> This is actually not so
>>
>> The total energy consumption of Great Brtiain, *including* indiustrial
>> and transport use of gas an oil, could be covered by somewhere between
>> 100 and 300 medium sized nuclear plants.
>
> The UK is currently constructing one nuclear reactor, five years
> ago it was predicted to go online in 2026 but it is recently reported that
> the project expects a "multiyear delay" and the cost estimate has risen to
> £46B. The decision to build this plant was made in 2016 after three years
> of negotiations. So let's be generous about that multiyear delay and call
> the whole project 15 years to build a plant with a 60 year planned lifespan
> on a site that already holds nuclear plants. There is also talk of emplying
> 25,000 people but I haven't foiund out what they're doing (probably mostly
> building it). At this rate the UK can only build four Hinkley C sized
> plants before it must decomission one.
>
> So pray tell me how on earth do you think it is socially possible to
> go from one plant in fifteen years (for an easy case) maybe to at least two
> plants per year (in order to keep up with the replacements). First thought
> is that if it takes 25,000 peoople ten years to build a plant then there
> would need to be at least half a million people in the nuclear plant
> building industry permanently.
>
> Did you do any sums ?
>
Yup.

The disaster of French engineering and European atomic regulation that
is Hinkley point will never reoccur.

In the 70s the French completed 2-3 reactors every year for a decade.

That EDF reactor has successfully been built on time and on budget
everywhere but in Europe.

4 other vendors walked away from the UK because of the hostile
regulatory environment.

Rolls royce and others are floating SMRs precisely to overcome the
regulatory barriers by getting *type approval* so that they can put the
reactors together on a factory assembly line and kick 10+ standardised
units a year.

the way the renewable industry and the oil industry captured the
government and placed massive barriers in the way of nuclear to prove
it was 'too expensive' and 'took too long' is an utter disgrace.

Shame on you for believing in them

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 04/08/2024 18:10, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-08-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> For what its worth Sir David Mackay calculated there was enough fissile
>> and fertile material on the earth to keep the existing population on a
>> current western lifestyle for 10,000 years
>
> Existing population when? Now? Or... now?
>
> Up until recently, global population was doubling about every 40 years.
> This wasn't enough for many politicians, who view a stable population
> as a major disaster. In some areas, they've gotten the doubling time
> down to 25 years. Nothing we can do will keep up with exponential
> growth, and encouraging still more growth will only hasten the coming
> of the real disaster.
Global population is falling in many places.

we are not limited by energy, but by agriculture and water resources.

Do9nt be hand-wavey. Look at te facts. This is about as many humans as
the planet can sustain.

>
> Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
> -- Edward Abbey
>
> And Mackay's calculation assumes that we'll be able to convince the
> people who currently want nothing to do with anything NOOK-yoo-lur.
> As one hayseed was quoted, "We don't want no damn atoms around here."

People faced with freezing cold and starvation will huddle round a
nuclear stove if that is all there is.

You in te USA have adeqaute coal oil and gas for another hundred years
or so. In Europe we ran out 50 years ago and in Japan they never had any
to start with.
No one gives a fuck about the USA in terms of energy leadership. Its 50
years behind the rest of th world

>
>> Which should be long enough to make fusion work.
>
> Ah, that beautiful word "should". Someone once pointed out that fusion
> has been 10 years away for the past 50 years. Basing plans on it being
> available by a given date makes about as much sense as basing your
> retirement plans on winning the lottery.
>
Well if we cant get fusion to work in 10,000 years then its back to the
stone age we go.

One might point out that the coal age has lasted about 400 years in
Europe and the oil age less than 100

10,000 years looks pretty good by comparison

--
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

On 04/08/2024 17:36, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>    You define yourself as rationalist and yet you keep up
> Denialist objections to the ongoing conversion to electrical
> vehicles and stoves.

Objection to EVS is not based on emotion, but on rational principles. I
would be delighted to run an EV with a 600 mile range that could be
recharged from sunbeams and unicorn farts in less than 5 minutes.

The problem is I am an electrical/electronic/software engineer and I
understand what that would actually take in terms of hardware and what
it would cost.
If it were indeed possible.

All I have to say to you is:paraphrasing Lennon
"you think your so clever and modern and free
but your still fucking peasants as far as I can see'

You are the ones who want the emotional narrative you have been sold of
EVS and windmills and solar panels to work, but its lipstick on a pig.
It's last century and mediaeval technology dressed up to look
futuristic, like tail fins on a car.

You are the ones in denial. You are the ones standing in the way of
progress. You are the ones endangering the next generation. Not me.

You and the renewable/oil and gas industries desperately trying to
maximise profits at the expense of the consumer.

--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 2024-08-04 12:28 p.m., Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 11:03:24 -0400
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-08-04 9:46 a.m., Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>> On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 09:23:27 -0400
>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>
>>>> into the burning process making sure that gasoline is burned at 100% to
>>>> become not only cleaner but ten times more efficient. Your 28mpg
>>>> vehicle immediately becomes a 280mpg
>>>
>>> If you can make a device that will do that then please do so and
>>> put it on the market. It will probably net you billions and a Nobel.
>>
>> Can I submit a Wikipedia page and win a Nobel prize? I mean, Obama did
>> far less when he won his:
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_internal_combustion_engine_vehicle>
>
> A simple quote from the middle of that article
>
> "The efficiency of a hydrogen combustion engine can be similar to that of a
> traditional combustion engine."
>
> So I don't see any support for your claim of getting ten times the
> efficiency. Also that article talks about engines converted to burn
> hydrogen instead of petrol not some kind of hydrogen injection which is
> what you seemed to be on about.

I found this article
<https://www.autoblog.com/2008/08/29/read-carefully-before-you-retrofit-your-car-with-hydrogen-fuel-i/>
which confirms that at the beginning of the 21st century, they really
thought that adding hydrogen to the burning process was going to
increase efficiency. I remember, at the time, that ten-fold was the
estimate. Apparently, the eventual tests determined that the hypothesis
was wrong. I guess they have to go back to the drawing board.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 2024-08-04 9:46 a.m., Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 09:23:27 -0400
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>
>> into the burning process making sure that gasoline is burned at 100% to
>> become not only cleaner but ten times more efficient. Your 28mpg vehicle
>> immediately becomes a 280mpg
>
> If you can make a device that will do that then please do so and
> put it on the market. It will probably net you billions and a Nobel.

Can I submit a Wikipedia page and win a Nobel prize? I mean, Obama did
far less when he won his:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_internal_combustion_engine_vehicle>

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 8/4/24 10:10, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-08-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> For what its worth Sir David Mackay calculated there was enough fissile
>> and fertile material on the earth to keep the existing population on a
>> current western lifestyle for 10,000 years
>
> Existing population when? Now? Or... now?

Then as he passed on in 2016 and likely did the calculation
a lot earlier.

>
> Up until recently, global population was doubling about every 40 years.
> This wasn't enough for many politicians, who view a stable population
> as a major disaster. In some areas, they've gotten the doubling time
> down to 25 years. Nothing we can do will keep up with exponential
> growth, and encouraging still more growth will only hasten the coming
> of the real disaster.
>
> Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
> -- Edward Abbey
>
> And Mackay's calculation assumes that we'll be able to convince the
> people who currently want nothing to do with anything NOOK-yoo-lur.
> As one hayseed was quoted, "We don't want no damn atoms around here."

Fusion already works fine on the Sun and we might need
extraterrestrial power stations to get enough of it for AI which
would be a good place to stash those power hungry present day
models.

>
>> Which should be long enough to make fusion work.
>
> Ah, that beautiful word "should". Someone once pointed out that fusion
> has been 10 years away for the past 50 years. Basing plans on it being
> available by a given date makes about as much sense as basing your
> retirement plans on winning the lottery.

20 years away for the last 60 years.
According to some population reseachers the population has
nearly reached peak and should show significant leveling off or
beginning to decline by 2100 if anyone is still alive.

bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com

On 8/4/24 10:10, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-08-04, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>
>> And if any young gurus have envisioned some new OS with
>> much of the Linux goodness/solidity/simplicity - now's the
>> time to really get into writing it.
>
> Whatever happened to Plan 9?
>

Possibly the same that happened to HURD or terrestrial
nuclear fusion but I expect HURD to eventuate. On the other
hand there is the OS for RISC chips, RISC OS waiting to be
ported to other than RISC machines. If you can get a RISC
powered computer you are in like Flynn.

bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com

On 2024-08-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 04/08/2024 18:10, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2024-08-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> For what its worth Sir David Mackay calculated there was enough fissile
>>> and fertile material on the earth to keep the existing population on a
>>> current western lifestyle for 10,000 years
>>
>> Existing population when? Now? Or... now?
>>
>> Up until recently, global population was doubling about every 40 years.
>> This wasn't enough for many politicians, who view a stable population
>> as a major disaster. In some areas, they've gotten the doubling time
>> down to 25 years. Nothing we can do will keep up with exponential
>> growth, and encouraging still more growth will only hasten the coming
>> of the real disaster.
>
> Global population is falling in many places.

s/Global/Local/ - the global population is over 8 billion and rising
fast, despite pockets where it has leveled off. And in those areas
the politicians are having fits and trying to get it rising again.

> we are not limited by energy, but by agriculture and water resources.
>
> Do9nt be hand-wavey. Look at te facts. This is about as many humans as
> the planet can sustain.

That's my point. We have more people than we can reasonably handle
already. No amount of conservation is going to help if population
keeps rising as fast as the ruling classes want it to. It's simple
math - cut per-capita consumption in half while doubling the population
and you're right back where you started.

Nuclear might solve our energy problems - in the near term at least -
but you still need to find food, water, and living space (Lebensraum?)
for the teeming masses.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as the
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | first society that wouldn't save
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | itself because it wasn't cost-
/ \ if you read it the right way. | effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

On 2024-08-04, Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> According to some population reseachers the population has
> nearly reached peak and should show significant leveling off or
> beginning to decline by 2100 if anyone is still alive.

I hope you're right. Meanwhile, here in British Columbia the
provincial government has ordered our most populous cities to
rezone properties for increased density, or the province will
step in and force it on them.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as the
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | first society that wouldn't save
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | itself because it wasn't cost-
/ \ if you read it the right way. | effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

On 8/4/24 16:53, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-08-04, Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> According to some population reseachers the population has
>> nearly reached peak and should show significant leveling off or
>> beginning to decline by 2100 if anyone is still alive.
>
> I hope you're right. Meanwhile, here in British Columbia the
> provincial government has ordered our most populous cities to
> rezone properties for increased density, or the province will
> step in and force it on them.
>

Same thing in California. Exclusive towns for the horsey set
and gentlemen farmers are strongly resisting. But compromises must
be made to accommodate the oncoming hordes. San Francisco is doing
something to homeless encampments thanks to the SCOUSA decision
against allowing sleeping in public. Less than 300 contacts in the
first week so quality of contacts is up but still no sleeping
in public. So pull the wings of those compromised-by-MBA Boeing
planes and make them sleeping spaces. If any of those homeless
are verging on psychosis this might push them over the edge.
I am insomniac and sleep on an irregular schedule but I get some
sleep and attempt to rest. Not being allowed to sleep is
highly stressful.
Meanwhile the wild fires are adding to the unhoused
a few humdred at a time. One Northern Californian survivor of
two towns burnings, a barber by trade has lost eveything again
for the second time. He had nice lttle businesses that were
burnt to rubble.
Another man lost his house but saved his livinng treasures
of animals and family. Now he has to find shelter for all.

And the Fire is choosey it will burn these two homes on
either side of an undamaged home and it causes the lucky owner
to ask "Why?" These stories have been running multiple times on CBS
and the Fox Local news station. ABC was off in the static last
time I checked and I do not get NBC at my antenna.
bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com

On 8/4/24 6:07 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>>  I'm beginning to agree with 'D' ... that Linux has become
>>  too much of a 'business', that The Vision has been lost.
>>  Soon the Foundation will find a way to just sell it to M$
>>  and that's that.
>
> I would imagine a first step is to limit participation based on
> ideological grouns. I could imagine license requirements, more rules
> etc, and attempts to bend the foundation to the will of one or two
> bigger manufacturers at the expense of the rest.

Every subterfuge will be employed. M$ esp has LOTS
of lawyers ....

> I think everyone here also remembers disasters such as the linux
> foundations goals during corona, as another example of it going to
> pieces.
>
>>  The BSDs may be the last refuge - I think they're mostly
>>  tended by more 'academic' cultured people.
>>
>>  And if any young gurus have envisioned some new OS with
>>  much of the Linux goodness/solidity/simplicity - now's the
>>  time to really get into writing it.
>
> I often wonder if a new genius will emerge for an OS reboot? Was Linus a
> one time thing, or would it be possible for it to happen again?

There were many operating systems floating around in
the 70s-90s. Most went nowhere - but that was not
necessarily because they were bad, just that writers
kind of wanted to concentrate efforts on the leading few.

Ever tried BeOS ? You CAN get an x86 version that is
still maintained and (slowly) growing. It was writ
with the GUI fully in mind - rather than an add-on
feature as with Win/Lin/(Apple). Has a kinda Win-98/2k
feel. Firefox and some other useful stuff has been
ported.

OS9 ... which you can still buy ... was meant for small
CPUs (6809) and microcontrollers. It has a "UNIX-ish",
flavor, but smaller/faster/smarter. Could easily be
upgraded to 32/64 bits. Used it a bit on a CoCo and
it wasn't bad at all.
https://www.microsys.de/en/products/software/os-9/

BOS - 'Business (or "Boss") OS' was fairly popular, esp
on the old Sage 68k boxes (always wanted one !).

In any case, through the 70s-90s there were MANY
experiments. Some were Unix-based, others were
kinda off-the-wall. There are also 'retired' systems
like VMS. This represents a pool of IDEAS today's
wannabe gurus can tap into - what worked well, what
didn't. They don't HAVE to start from scratch.

> Lacking that, I think perhaps that the people who do not like the
> direction of linux might rally behind one of the BSDs. The problem there
> is the HW support, but that could in theory be improved with more money
> and more funded developers.

I don't think the BSDs get much money/helpers. That
COULD change, esp if Linux decomposes like we kinda
expect.

But would the same chain of events happen again ?
Once something becomes prominent, seems profitable,
the same psychologies kick in. One of those
"human things". With Linus as "king" the Linux
kernel and ownership rules, we have remained
fairly consistent to "The Vision" - but how many
LIKE Linus are out there ???

On 8/4/24 1:10 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-08-04, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>
>> And if any young gurus have envisioned some new OS with
>> much of the Linux goodness/solidity/simplicity - now's the
>> time to really get into writing it.
>
> Whatever happened to Plan 9?

P9 is still out there, still works, almost overkill
for single-user boxes/servers. It was really writ
for big clusters/distributed.

But there's not enough interest/$$$ to push it forward
very much or get developers to port newer code.

I'd love to see VMS revived for the 21st century.
It was a really good, versatile, advanced OS that
did 'net' back when 'net' was 110-baud modems.
Alas, so far, VMS is still "owned" - not freeware
or 'abandonedware' like P9.

Oh, DID come a across some pix from a several years ago
celebrating P9 being ported to the big IBM mainframes.
Nothing much seems to have COME from it, but it IS
there for the Big Computing world.

On 8/4/24 6:22 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 8/4/24 10:10, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2024-08-04, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>>
>>>     And if any young gurus have envisioned some new OS with
>>>     much of the Linux goodness/solidity/simplicity - now's the
>>>     time to really get into writing it.
>>
>> Whatever happened to Plan 9?
>>
>
>     Possibly the same that happened to HURD or terrestrial
> nuclear fusion but I expect HURD to eventuate.  On the other
> hand there is the OS for RISC chips, RISC OS waiting to be
> ported to other than RISC machines. If you can get a RISC
> powered computer you are in like Flynn.

As I said to 'D', there are a LOT of systems "out there",
newer or older. Each represents IDEAS ... which can make
something New easier.

RISC-OS is fairly good - tight. I think a big trick
though is ease/security when it comes to interfacing
with storage/vid/net devices. It those are TOO complex
or weird then nobody will bother.

"X" - as is - would never have made it. However it
started a bit more simple and everything evolved along
with it. As a "from scratch" GUI however - nope - too
much work. Wayland, well, it's never really gonna be
ready for prime time, so "X" wins by virtue of
being "grand-fathered".

Hmm ... I remember Linux with "X" ... a very old RH
distro. Took the whole day to get the "x" to show
up on the screen and almost that long to get the
damned mouse to work. Kinda Gnome v0.2 :-)

(MAY still have that CD in The Heap somewhere ...)

On 2024-08-05, Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> On 8/4/24 16:53, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2024-08-04, Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>>> According to some population reseachers the population has
>>> nearly reached peak and should show significant leveling off or
>>> beginning to decline by 2100 if anyone is still alive.
>>
>> I hope you're right. Meanwhile, here in British Columbia the
>> provincial government has ordered our most populous cities to
>> rezone properties for increased density, or the province will
>> step in and force it on them.
>>
>
> Same thing in California. Exclusive towns for the horsey set
> and gentlemen farmers are strongly resisting. But compromises must
> be made to accommodate the oncoming hordes. San Francisco is doing
> something to homeless encampments thanks to the SCOUSA decision
> against allowing sleeping in public. Less than 300 contacts in the
> first week so quality of contacts is up but still no sleeping
> in public. So pull the wings of those compromised-by-MBA Boeing
> planes and make them sleeping spaces. If any of those homeless
> are verging on psychosis this might push them over the edge.

Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in
too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal
that voluntarily does this to himself.
-- Heinlein: The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

I've been seeing a growing amount of psychosis around the world...

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as the
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | first society that wouldn't save
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | itself because it wasn't cost-
/ \ if you read it the right way. | effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 18:05:46 -0400
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

> I found this article
> <https://www.autoblog.com/2008/08/29/read-carefully-before-you-retrofit-your-car-with-hydrogen-fuel-i/
> > which confirms that at the beginning of the 21st century, they really

It was an investment scam just like Brown's gas.

> thought that adding hydrogen to the burning process was going to
> increase efficiency. I remember, at the time, that ten-fold was the
> estimate.

Which should have been an instant red flag - internal combustion
engines are around 40% efficient so a ten-fold improvement would make them
400% efficient which is clearly absurd - even more so than Brown's gas.

> Apparently, the eventual tests determined that the hypothesis
> was wrong.

It was a scam.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On 05/08/2024 00:53, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> Nuclear might solve our energy problems - in the near term at least -
> but you still need to find food, water, and living space (Lebensraum?)
> for the teeming masses.

I have no argument with that. Renewable energy seems to be an attempt to
put the blame for failure to do that on 'climate change' or 'big oil'

So people die of cold and energy poverty, not of famine disease and war,
which is the traditional way.

But population will come down, because it *has* to.

Even with nuclear illuminated hydroponic tanks growing soylent green, it
is going to be hard to feed millennial snowflakes

Water and sewage are crucial issues in many parts of the world.

My thesis has never been that there was no problem, just that energy is
not a problem, It is entirely solvable. Just not with windmills and
sunbeam collectors

--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

In comp.os.linux.advocacy D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: UTF-8, 58 lines --]
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 01/08/2024 20:56, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>> ?But the un-Natural Philospher is just a mindless
>>> repeater of slurs, otherwise he would be paying attention
>>> to real science and demanding more electric cars for the
>>> sake of reducing climate changing emmissions.
>>
>> No. as a true engineer I am aware that electric cars will not reduce
>> emissions one iota, *overall* and that carbon dioxide emissions are a minor
>> problem compared with trying to run a civilisation off windmills and solar
>> panels, as people like you will see if they continue to try and do it.
>
> This is the truth! If anyone here wants to look at the environmental
> impact of EV:s, a pro tip is to look at the entire life cycle from mine to
> parking lot to scrap heap.
>
> Add to that the fact that the source of the electricity is frequently
> ignored, and, that we have no good answer (yet) to large scale battery
> recycling.
>
> Another factor, is more soft, but that is the financial loss due to
> shorter range, longer charging times, and of course the expansion of the
> power grid and generation, if society as a whole would move to electric,
> which in europe (at least) is not feasible at the moment.

Of course the people prescribing a complete switch to EVs know full well
that no country can actually complete a full switch to EVs (let alone
while also switching to solar panels and windmills as the sole source
of power). But they don't really plan to do this. It's just a lie they
allow people to believe in order to prevent them from noticing what the
plan really is, which you seem to already know:

> Eco-fascism is a control tool, which is built like the medieval church
> with the intent of making the population hand over all power to
> eco-priests (politicians and corrupt scientists). Only they will allow you
> to attone for your sins by higher taxes and a medieval lifestyle, while
> they still travel with private jet.

This is the real plan. All Western countries already have bans on ICEs
in place, set to take effect in the distant future so people can be
gradually immiserated instead of thrust into complete poverty all of
a sudden. Obviously, the intent is to get the population to accept their
new lot in life without revolting. By the time life gets bad enough that
people want to revolt, they'll have no way to get to their countries'
capital cities, and they'll be too busy starving and freezing to have
any energy to put into a fight.

Of course, all of this depends on not too many people noticing what
the plan is too far ahead of time. It could be argued that too many
people already know for the plan to work. Let's hope that's the case,
or if it isn't, that enough people learn quickly enough to stop it.

On 2024-08-04 7:53 p.m., Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-08-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 04/08/2024 18:10, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-08-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For what its worth Sir David Mackay calculated there was enough fissile
>>>> and fertile material on the earth to keep the existing population on a
>>>> current western lifestyle for 10,000 years
>>>
>>> Existing population when? Now? Or... now?
>>>
>>> Up until recently, global population was doubling about every 40 years.
>>> This wasn't enough for many politicians, who view a stable population
>>> as a major disaster. In some areas, they've gotten the doubling time
>>> down to 25 years. Nothing we can do will keep up with exponential
>>> growth, and encouraging still more growth will only hasten the coming
>>> of the real disaster.
>>
>> Global population is falling in many places.
>
> s/Global/Local/ - the global population is over 8 billion and rising
> fast, despite pockets where it has leveled off. And in those areas
> the politicians are having fits and trying to get it rising again.

The population of productive people (Whites, Asians) is leveling off.
Their rates of reproduction don't even cover replacement. The
populations that are increasing are those of lifelong parasites who
happen to be black or Muslim. It's not uncommon to see Muslims couples
with four or five children whereas the blacks are likely to have a dozen
children from different fathers.

>> we are not limited by energy, but by agriculture and water resources.
>>
>> Do9nt be hand-wavey. Look at te facts. This is about as many humans as
>> the planet can sustain.
>
> That's my point. We have more people than we can reasonably handle
> already.

No, we don't. We have a ton of disposable people who will never produce
anything but will definitely take part in every riot. Those parasites
need Whites and Asians (the slanted eyes kind) to keep industry running
to feed their stupid asses. Get rid of those people, and overpopulation
is not an issue.

> No amount of conservation is going to help if population
> keeps rising as fast as the ruling classes want it to. It's simple
> math - cut per-capita consumption in half while doubling the population
> and you're right back where you started.
>
> Nuclear might solve our energy problems - in the near term at least -
> but you still need to find food, water, and living space (Lebensraum?)
> for the teeming masses.

You can help stop overpopulation by refusing to send any kind of aid to
the continent of Africa. Most of its inhabitants can barely take care of
themselves but don't mind multiplying themselves a dozen times. They
won't take care of their children anyway because that's the White man's
responsibility, and they will gladly send their offspring to the West to
force that point.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 2024-08-04 7:53 p.m., Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-08-04, Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> According to some population reseachers the population has
>> nearly reached peak and should show significant leveling off or
>> beginning to decline by 2100 if anyone is still alive.
>
> I hope you're right. Meanwhile, here in British Columbia the
> provincial government has ordered our most populous cities to
> rezone properties for increased density, or the province will
> step in and force it on them.

What did you brain-damaged hippies think was going to happen by voting
for Liberals, Greens and the NDP?

The British Columbian way: vote for the Communist, and if he doesn't do
a good job, vote for the other Communist. If that fails, there's another
Communist we can vote for!

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 2024-08-04 10:43 p.m., Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-08-05, Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/4/24 16:53, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-08-04, Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> According to some population reseachers the population has
>>>> nearly reached peak and should show significant leveling off or
>>>> beginning to decline by 2100 if anyone is still alive.
>>>
>>> I hope you're right. Meanwhile, here in British Columbia the
>>> provincial government has ordered our most populous cities to
>>> rezone properties for increased density, or the province will
>>> step in and force it on them.
>>>
>>
>> Same thing in California. Exclusive towns for the horsey set
>> and gentlemen farmers are strongly resisting. But compromises must
>> be made to accommodate the oncoming hordes. San Francisco is doing
>> something to homeless encampments thanks to the SCOUSA decision
>> against allowing sleeping in public. Less than 300 contacts in the
>> first week so quality of contacts is up but still no sleeping
>> in public. So pull the wings of those compromised-by-MBA Boeing
>> planes and make them sleeping spaces. If any of those homeless
>> are verging on psychosis this might push them over the edge.
>
> Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in
> too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal
> that voluntarily does this to himself.
> -- Heinlein: The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
>
> I've been seeing a growing amount of psychosis around the world...

Homo sapiens do it because their jobs are often located in a city's core
and no desirable properties are available anywhere near there at an
affordable price. The choice therefore becomes to buy a beautiful, large
home with lots of land in a rural area where the kind of job you want is
not available or to take the job downtown and live like a rat.

If the people living in this way were all productive members of society,
there would be no issue. However, the parasites of society also need a
place to live since they refuse even the simplest work and they insist
on being in the city, near where the welfare office is. Therefore, not
only are you living like a rat, but you live among actual rats who will
rob, rape and kill you.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 2024-08-04 10:43 p.m., Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-08-05, Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/4/24 16:53, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-08-04, Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> According to some population reseachers the population has
>>>> nearly reached peak and should show significant leveling off or
>>>> beginning to decline by 2100 if anyone is still alive.
>>>
>>> I hope you're right. Meanwhile, here in British Columbia the
>>> provincial government has ordered our most populous cities to
>>> rezone properties for increased density, or the province will
>>> step in and force it on them.
>>>
>>
>> Same thing in California. Exclusive towns for the horsey set
>> and gentlemen farmers are strongly resisting. But compromises must
>> be made to accommodate the oncoming hordes. San Francisco is doing
>> something to homeless encampments thanks to the SCOUSA decision
>> against allowing sleeping in public. Less than 300 contacts in the
>> first week so quality of contacts is up but still no sleeping
>> in public. So pull the wings of those compromised-by-MBA Boeing
>> planes and make them sleeping spaces. If any of those homeless
>> are verging on psychosis this might push them over the edge.
>
> Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in
> too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal
> that voluntarily does this to himself.
> -- Heinlein: The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
>
> I've been seeing a growing amount of psychosis around the world...

Homo sapiens do it because their jobs are often located in a city's core
and no desirable properties are available anywhere near there at an
affordable price. The choice therefore becomes to buy a beautiful, large
home with lots of land in a rural area where the kind of job you want is
not available or to take the job downtown and live like a rat.

If the people living in this way were all productive members of society,
there would be no issue. However, the parasites of society also need a
place to live since they refuse even the simplest work and they insist
on being in the city, near where the welfare office is. Therefore, not
only are you living like a rat, but you live among actual rats who will
rob, rape and kill you. Oh, and remember: these demons are all the same
race as you are... nothing distinguishes you from them at all.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers