or the science of cannibalism extraction... you decide...
[moreonthislater -- retals i ht no erom]
What are you supposed to do when money is given to the government of your country to develop an energy extraction industry that runs power lines or pipelines past your home, providing neither you nor your countrymen any economic or social benefit. The energy is shipped away overhead and your children continue to go hungry.
Is this a socially just application of market penetration and technology adoption?
Is this indemic only to the developing world?
-- my wife and children have left me for my blog --
Friday, April 23, 2004
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
meta mutations: a search for principal equations
The living of science is not possible.
Somewhere a spirit seeks to harmonize with the beginning and the end of things, and never along the path to righteousness is it known when the thread will snap its judgement, forcing past cracked lips no utterance of truth to this world.
In the movement of planets Kepler found bodies reborn from dust. A finite clockwork of aggregation captured in the motion of mathematics, knowable by us only before the infinite lies still in a time beyond our imagining or measure.
Our concentrations orbiting an inward moving nucleus of species survival splinters an embrittled margin with an ever widening gap. Equations govern the motions of the spirited. The mouse takes the cheese.
In the search for a specialty your path creates an apprenticeship to this science with no mentor but an unframed picture of what might be.
Somewhere a spirit seeks to harmonize with the beginning and the end of things, and never along the path to righteousness is it known when the thread will snap its judgement, forcing past cracked lips no utterance of truth to this world.
In the movement of planets Kepler found bodies reborn from dust. A finite clockwork of aggregation captured in the motion of mathematics, knowable by us only before the infinite lies still in a time beyond our imagining or measure.
Our concentrations orbiting an inward moving nucleus of species survival splinters an embrittled margin with an ever widening gap. Equations govern the motions of the spirited. The mouse takes the cheese.
In the search for a specialty your path creates an apprenticeship to this science with no mentor but an unframed picture of what might be.
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
hating oil is passe
No, you read that right... The title DOES read 'hating' NOT 'heating'.
Of course, as we all know, hate is a negative way of expressing one's incapacity to understand, empathize or otherwise find a more constructive and life-affirming way of getting their point across.
So hating oil is passe. It has to be. Thinking otherwise would be tantamount to describing your need for food energy as unnecessary and evil... follow this and you must realize I am saying oil is a necessity of life.
Well it is, isn't it?
It isn't whether you do live without oil that paints you into a corner it is whether you can live without it. Sure, you could make a personal choice to live without oil, but you wouldn't be able to do it. Not even the local health food store goes without relying on oil, or the byproduct of oil, at some point in the chain of inter-nationalized inter-dependency to source product and deliver it to your door.
And no matter what you do about it, you aren't going to make a dent in the foundation upon which you live, even by making a conscious choice about what you buy at the store, put on your table, shade yourself with under the heat of the sun in the summer or heat yourself with in the cold heart of winter. You might as well give up.
Statistics are against you.
Even in the hydrogen economy carbon emissions won't be 100 per cent sequestered. Right now 90 per cent of the hydrogen produced in the world is sourced from reformed fossil fuels. You're still pumping oil out of the ground or releasing natural gas from the crypt of time to extract its precious hydrogen cargo.
The European Union Commission on Sustainable Development has released a draft of its proposed directive governing overall commitments to energy efficiency and energy security. In this draft the EU targets a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by the year 2050.
While this may be good news to some (remember, it takes roughly 80 years for the effects of emissions to dissipate in the 'open' environment) it doesn't mean that oil has been removed from the picture. In fact, there are no specific targets contained in this document that set limits to oil development, procurement or distribution. And nothing in the draft hints that oil companies should now reform existing supplies of refined oil into hydrogen.
The open market dominates. Governments in the industrialized world have all taken a similar tact to the European Union member nations with the caveat that in Canada great consideration is given over to nuclear where nuclear has been implemented already. Private investor ownership greatly guarantees nuclear longevity and the issue is likely to rage on with ferocity for many generations until renewable investments are more attractive than nuclear ones.
Incidentally, nuclear is considered a clean technology by Environment Canada, Industry Canada, Natural Resources Canada, and is an ingrained part of Ontario's electrical generation mix, standing at a whopping 76% of today's base load capacity.
Maybe I should be taken out on the cinder path and punished for my viewpoint on oil. But just who is going to do that? Who is the one person I know that has the right to do that? Maybe a marsupial, but doubtful any human other than a scattered few over there on the dark continent who decided not to join in the agrarian revolution or the following industrial revolution, but seem likely, instead, to develop a footprint in the communications revolutions.
Well, I've said my corporate piece and forgotten the one thing that does make a difference. Careful, it's touchy and feely and could get all over you if you aren't careful. Get out your bleeding heart alert because the word of the day is... investment. No, you thought I was going to say 'togetherness', didn't you. Well, private investment is a togetherness of a sort. Investment in conservation is just another form of paying yourself and the other investors who hold a common share in the same endeavor.
The same could be said of community power initiatives. There are, however, two problems. One is that someone else's investment interests may already be in the way, and two, it isn't necessarily fair that given you can invest in a renewable source of energy and be an owner of a corporate entity, that everyone is going to be given the chance to do so. This second point is probably the one that tells you your investment is going to pay off, no matter what else you can do about it.
We are damn lucky right now that the entire spectrum of generation has been opened to the public. This is a bold and risky move. Special interests like oil aren't going to like it, but be honest, just because someone works for a company you don't particularly like, is no reason not to invite them to invest alongside you. You can either tell them to keep it quiet, or invite them out to the meeting. Chances are even if they believe their technology is cleanest the chance they are offered to invest and profit will at least help your renewable initiative off the ground.
So, the people you should be asking to invest aren't the converted. The people you should be asking to invest are the people who work for and already profit in other energy forms like oil and nuclear.
You might be surprise how willing they are to work with you when you are polite.
-- if I had a polite bone in my body I might convince others I am a Canadian --
Of course, as we all know, hate is a negative way of expressing one's incapacity to understand, empathize or otherwise find a more constructive and life-affirming way of getting their point across.
So hating oil is passe. It has to be. Thinking otherwise would be tantamount to describing your need for food energy as unnecessary and evil... follow this and you must realize I am saying oil is a necessity of life.
Well it is, isn't it?
It isn't whether you do live without oil that paints you into a corner it is whether you can live without it. Sure, you could make a personal choice to live without oil, but you wouldn't be able to do it. Not even the local health food store goes without relying on oil, or the byproduct of oil, at some point in the chain of inter-nationalized inter-dependency to source product and deliver it to your door.
And no matter what you do about it, you aren't going to make a dent in the foundation upon which you live, even by making a conscious choice about what you buy at the store, put on your table, shade yourself with under the heat of the sun in the summer or heat yourself with in the cold heart of winter. You might as well give up.
Statistics are against you.
Even in the hydrogen economy carbon emissions won't be 100 per cent sequestered. Right now 90 per cent of the hydrogen produced in the world is sourced from reformed fossil fuels. You're still pumping oil out of the ground or releasing natural gas from the crypt of time to extract its precious hydrogen cargo.
The European Union Commission on Sustainable Development has released a draft of its proposed directive governing overall commitments to energy efficiency and energy security. In this draft the EU targets a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by the year 2050.
While this may be good news to some (remember, it takes roughly 80 years for the effects of emissions to dissipate in the 'open' environment) it doesn't mean that oil has been removed from the picture. In fact, there are no specific targets contained in this document that set limits to oil development, procurement or distribution. And nothing in the draft hints that oil companies should now reform existing supplies of refined oil into hydrogen.
The open market dominates. Governments in the industrialized world have all taken a similar tact to the European Union member nations with the caveat that in Canada great consideration is given over to nuclear where nuclear has been implemented already. Private investor ownership greatly guarantees nuclear longevity and the issue is likely to rage on with ferocity for many generations until renewable investments are more attractive than nuclear ones.
Incidentally, nuclear is considered a clean technology by Environment Canada, Industry Canada, Natural Resources Canada, and is an ingrained part of Ontario's electrical generation mix, standing at a whopping 76% of today's base load capacity.
Maybe I should be taken out on the cinder path and punished for my viewpoint on oil. But just who is going to do that? Who is the one person I know that has the right to do that? Maybe a marsupial, but doubtful any human other than a scattered few over there on the dark continent who decided not to join in the agrarian revolution or the following industrial revolution, but seem likely, instead, to develop a footprint in the communications revolutions.
Well, I've said my corporate piece and forgotten the one thing that does make a difference. Careful, it's touchy and feely and could get all over you if you aren't careful. Get out your bleeding heart alert because the word of the day is... investment. No, you thought I was going to say 'togetherness', didn't you. Well, private investment is a togetherness of a sort. Investment in conservation is just another form of paying yourself and the other investors who hold a common share in the same endeavor.
The same could be said of community power initiatives. There are, however, two problems. One is that someone else's investment interests may already be in the way, and two, it isn't necessarily fair that given you can invest in a renewable source of energy and be an owner of a corporate entity, that everyone is going to be given the chance to do so. This second point is probably the one that tells you your investment is going to pay off, no matter what else you can do about it.
We are damn lucky right now that the entire spectrum of generation has been opened to the public. This is a bold and risky move. Special interests like oil aren't going to like it, but be honest, just because someone works for a company you don't particularly like, is no reason not to invite them to invest alongside you. You can either tell them to keep it quiet, or invite them out to the meeting. Chances are even if they believe their technology is cleanest the chance they are offered to invest and profit will at least help your renewable initiative off the ground.
So, the people you should be asking to invest aren't the converted. The people you should be asking to invest are the people who work for and already profit in other energy forms like oil and nuclear.
You might be surprise how willing they are to work with you when you are polite.
-- if I had a polite bone in my body I might convince others I am a Canadian --
Monday, April 19, 2004
the impiety of trial balloons
A trial balloon is a waste of a good piece of man-made material.
The problem with trial balloons is that the people who release them so they can gauge the reaction of the people watching don't really know where they're going or where they'll land for sure. So much time is spent on the prevailing winds that gusts and blasts are ignored in favor of popular prognostication.
Unless you want to place a secular government in someone else's country.
Next time the news reports the loss of yet another monument to organized religion at public place of institution I am going to remember that its being taken away signifies the intent to evangelize the enforced cooperation of someone who doesn't share those same symbolized beliefs by the removal of something someone else holds dear.
Freedom is an entanglement of various forms of subterfuge. Sometimes you have to sacrifice yourself for someone else. Sometimes it is they who are the sacrifice. The altar is pretty commonly understood to be impermanent, but people on both sides use it anyway.
-- the iconoclast is the iconography of the symbolic future --
The problem with trial balloons is that the people who release them so they can gauge the reaction of the people watching don't really know where they're going or where they'll land for sure. So much time is spent on the prevailing winds that gusts and blasts are ignored in favor of popular prognostication.
Unless you want to place a secular government in someone else's country.
Next time the news reports the loss of yet another monument to organized religion at public place of institution I am going to remember that its being taken away signifies the intent to evangelize the enforced cooperation of someone who doesn't share those same symbolized beliefs by the removal of something someone else holds dear.
Freedom is an entanglement of various forms of subterfuge. Sometimes you have to sacrifice yourself for someone else. Sometimes it is they who are the sacrifice. The altar is pretty commonly understood to be impermanent, but people on both sides use it anyway.
-- the iconoclast is the iconography of the symbolic future --
Sunday, April 18, 2004
the morphology of an unconscious artificial intelligence
Have you analyzed the transformation of the social network from TCP/IP switched HTTP containment and element language constructs to a true relational model based on a fractally inorganic morphology of knowledge/criticality intelligence dependent on human activity?
The person in the machine exist along every path to destination. Bandwidth limits pathway determination. Speed forms new synergies passing the ability to take in all relations. Distributed processing. Distributed accessible identity. Distributed subconscious terms. Collected individual, shared and collectivist (discipline-centric) destinations. Keystones locking the arch of intelligence.
The search engine in the sleep of the 'intelligent' machine knows where the hits are.
-- I swear my head gets bent every time I sit at a terminal keyboard --
The person in the machine exist along every path to destination. Bandwidth limits pathway determination. Speed forms new synergies passing the ability to take in all relations. Distributed processing. Distributed accessible identity. Distributed subconscious terms. Collected individual, shared and collectivist (discipline-centric) destinations. Keystones locking the arch of intelligence.
The search engine in the sleep of the 'intelligent' machine knows where the hits are.
-- I swear my head gets bent every time I sit at a terminal keyboard --
the consumer law of the conservation of energy
I asked this question today of a renewable energy expert:
What are some of the regulatory changes necessary to uphold energy conservation so intrinsic to renewable adoption and how can these economically advantage consumers?
Please send your ideas.
Here is one that may follow the natural capitalism thema:
Privately build apartment buildings must contribute 40 per cent of all energy required by residents and after X number of years of private ownership the 'land' that each apartment represents falls back into public ownership.
Some of the drivers of this idea are that multi-level buildings extrapolate on surface rights ownership principles entrenched in the economy but that there is less economic benefit to the current methods of deriving income from each new surface level than is represented by the impact on the environment.
Another pretext is that economic and political systems are impacted by centralization of freedoms: that is to say that with either system and related sub-systems ultimate freedom would be complete factional control. This is the balance of type that impinges on personal freedoms as well.
The penultimate reason is economic deconstruction. Making new ownership from old. Making public of the private.
We currently run systems that bias toward the privatization of, for lack of a better term, the public. Using the word public in some way favors the idea that unowned or ungiven everything is public. You would have to believe that government serves the public in order to support the belief that anything handed to the private by government is public in the first place.
Anyway, semantics and self aggrandized argument aside, land lease/ownership is a great example of how economic deconstruction is outpaced by the ability of land to provide capital that is centrally amassed and that creates unending dependencies on the developments placed on those lands.
Still, it wouldn't serve anyone to usurp control of lands and change rules overnight. But it also doesn't serve the public to allow unscalable capital towers to dominate the economic landscape. Such a system does not entrench altruism where an enterprise is no longer individual or concerned with more than its own survival. Further to this is the theocratic indoctrination of the enterprise in its ownership and development of land. As the eternal, just so long as the lease is paid, the revenue stream lasts forever.
An analysis of various political systems and regulatory environments reveals historical wariness around any talk of adopting any limitations to apparent individual freedom, however, when an incorporation no longer mitigates the behavior or obligations of mere individuals you have a collective whose cause is to serve a singular purpose. Fortunately, for the most part, this specialization works because other collective forces also act simultaneously to balance the cultural bandwagon.
The individual, however, is forced to then politicize the party line to the effect of marketing its virtues whatever the impact of achievement may be. Another characteristic of the this corporate organism is its nuclear oligarchy in competition seeking the destruction or occlusion of other organisms discarding ideology as waste products of victory.
Its monotheism is apparent in its evangelism to subsume that can only be telegraphed as far as its reach.
Anyway, now the argument is taking a turn toward a partisan politic.
In the creation of the private the death of it must also be present to serve the public that expects the nutrient of change on which to subsist. And within change the understanding that some needs exist must tailor the regulatory environment of conduct and ownership.
Even the patenting of life may depend on it.
-- the need for energy can be created but never destroyed --
What are some of the regulatory changes necessary to uphold energy conservation so intrinsic to renewable adoption and how can these economically advantage consumers?
Please send your ideas.
Here is one that may follow the natural capitalism thema:
Privately build apartment buildings must contribute 40 per cent of all energy required by residents and after X number of years of private ownership the 'land' that each apartment represents falls back into public ownership.
Some of the drivers of this idea are that multi-level buildings extrapolate on surface rights ownership principles entrenched in the economy but that there is less economic benefit to the current methods of deriving income from each new surface level than is represented by the impact on the environment.
Another pretext is that economic and political systems are impacted by centralization of freedoms: that is to say that with either system and related sub-systems ultimate freedom would be complete factional control. This is the balance of type that impinges on personal freedoms as well.
The penultimate reason is economic deconstruction. Making new ownership from old. Making public of the private.
We currently run systems that bias toward the privatization of, for lack of a better term, the public. Using the word public in some way favors the idea that unowned or ungiven everything is public. You would have to believe that government serves the public in order to support the belief that anything handed to the private by government is public in the first place.
Anyway, semantics and self aggrandized argument aside, land lease/ownership is a great example of how economic deconstruction is outpaced by the ability of land to provide capital that is centrally amassed and that creates unending dependencies on the developments placed on those lands.
Still, it wouldn't serve anyone to usurp control of lands and change rules overnight. But it also doesn't serve the public to allow unscalable capital towers to dominate the economic landscape. Such a system does not entrench altruism where an enterprise is no longer individual or concerned with more than its own survival. Further to this is the theocratic indoctrination of the enterprise in its ownership and development of land. As the eternal, just so long as the lease is paid, the revenue stream lasts forever.
An analysis of various political systems and regulatory environments reveals historical wariness around any talk of adopting any limitations to apparent individual freedom, however, when an incorporation no longer mitigates the behavior or obligations of mere individuals you have a collective whose cause is to serve a singular purpose. Fortunately, for the most part, this specialization works because other collective forces also act simultaneously to balance the cultural bandwagon.
The individual, however, is forced to then politicize the party line to the effect of marketing its virtues whatever the impact of achievement may be. Another characteristic of the this corporate organism is its nuclear oligarchy in competition seeking the destruction or occlusion of other organisms discarding ideology as waste products of victory.
Its monotheism is apparent in its evangelism to subsume that can only be telegraphed as far as its reach.
Anyway, now the argument is taking a turn toward a partisan politic.
In the creation of the private the death of it must also be present to serve the public that expects the nutrient of change on which to subsist. And within change the understanding that some needs exist must tailor the regulatory environment of conduct and ownership.
Even the patenting of life may depend on it.
-- the need for energy can be created but never destroyed --
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)