What conservatives understand - in the economic sphere government can only be an oppressor.
What liberals understand - in the personal sphere government can only be an oppressor.
Each has faith in half a government. Where I differ from them is that I have faith in none of it.
Polywell In The Strangest Places
Just to help establish things, I don't think of Mike Huckabee as a conservative, and I don't think that Bill Buckley would have, either.
It's always good to remember that Reaganite conservatives (Goldwater, too) look at conservatism as having three legs to the philosophical "stool": strong defense (friends can depend on us, enemies are scared to death of us); small government (as small as we can function with, not as large as we can get away with); and, Western ethical and moral values.
You have to balance all three to ensure that any one isn't perverted to harm the national interest or the rights of individuals.
Using government coercion to force those values on others was considered to be a bit rude by conservatives, given the history of the Twentieth Century.
So-called "social conservatives" are anything but conservative: they brought us Prohibition, which was actually a Progressivist experiment that produced ... the Mafia.
Today's "National Review" (Rich Lowry et al) only vaguely resembles Buckley's original magazine; you might find it useful to look at what he wrote, since he helped to define modern conservatism about as much as Goldwater and Reagan did.
And, just to help you understand what I'm saying, neither President Bushes were conservatives, despite their protestations; there is no such thing as "compassionate conservatism" when it comes to growing and maintaining Big Government programs.
Essentially, any time a religious Progressive wants the gubmint to "do something", my "Spidey sense" goes off. A government that can exercise its power to get people to do what I think is right is one election from being used to do the opposite.
There is a difference here; I hope you understand at least what I'm trying to say a bit better.
As to the difference between libertarians and Buckley/Reagan/Goldwater conservatives, I heard an accurate and humorous description once: a libertarian is a conservative who wants grass made legal, and that many people associated with libertarianism want grass made legal and the rest of it is window-dressing for them.
I know it's not that simple, but I did find that description pretty funny.
It's always good to remember that Reaganite conservatives (Goldwater, too) look at conservatism as having three legs to the philosophical "stool": strong defense (friends can depend on us, enemies are scared to death of us); small government (as small as we can function with, not as large as we can get away with); and, Western ethical and moral values.
You have to balance all three to ensure that any one isn't perverted to harm the national interest or the rights of individuals.
Using government coercion to force those values on others was considered to be a bit rude by conservatives, given the history of the Twentieth Century.
So-called "social conservatives" are anything but conservative: they brought us Prohibition, which was actually a Progressivist experiment that produced ... the Mafia.
Today's "National Review" (Rich Lowry et al) only vaguely resembles Buckley's original magazine; you might find it useful to look at what he wrote, since he helped to define modern conservatism about as much as Goldwater and Reagan did.
And, just to help you understand what I'm saying, neither President Bushes were conservatives, despite their protestations; there is no such thing as "compassionate conservatism" when it comes to growing and maintaining Big Government programs.
Essentially, any time a religious Progressive wants the gubmint to "do something", my "Spidey sense" goes off. A government that can exercise its power to get people to do what I think is right is one election from being used to do the opposite.
There is a difference here; I hope you understand at least what I'm trying to say a bit better.
As to the difference between libertarians and Buckley/Reagan/Goldwater conservatives, I heard an accurate and humorous description once: a libertarian is a conservative who wants grass made legal, and that many people associated with libertarianism want grass made legal and the rest of it is window-dressing for them.
I know it's not that simple, but I did find that description pretty funny.
The cost of the government "fix" to what is perceived as self destructive behavior by adults is staggering. We have created a police state to do it and the side effect is to create a huge criminal enterprise. What a massive tragic mess, with nothing to point to as a net benefit. But this is throughly ruminated old ground. Oh, by the way happy new year.
Looks like the blue bloods will get Obama elected again. Maybe after losing to the worst president in history, maybe they will decide to go away. 4 more years of 1984 will be one more massive tragedy.
Looks like the blue bloods will get Obama elected again. Maybe after losing to the worst president in history, maybe they will decide to go away. 4 more years of 1984 will be one more massive tragedy.
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
Hiya!
I'm Maylar, the original poster of that thread on Republican Operative, where I am also a moderator. I've been meaning to make an account here for some time but somehow never got around to actually doing so. Old thread is old, but I do keep it updated now and then whenever I see any new info, but alas as we know things have been pretty quiet.
A part of me actually wanted to submit a FOIA request to get a bit more detail on how progress is going, but I recalled somebody else tried the same thing and got somewhere between nowhere and oblivion.
I'm Maylar, the original poster of that thread on Republican Operative, where I am also a moderator. I've been meaning to make an account here for some time but somehow never got around to actually doing so. Old thread is old, but I do keep it updated now and then whenever I see any new info, but alas as we know things have been pretty quiet.
A part of me actually wanted to submit a FOIA request to get a bit more detail on how progress is going, but I recalled somebody else tried the same thing and got somewhere between nowhere and oblivion.
I think I commented on that first thread, glad to see you over here.Maylar wrote:Hiya!
I'm Maylar, the original poster of that thread on Republican Operative, where I am also a moderator. I've been meaning to make an account here for some time but somehow never got around to actually doing so. Old thread is old, but I do keep it updated now and then whenever I see any new info, but alas as we know things have been pretty quiet.
A part of me actually wanted to submit a FOIA request to get a bit more detail on how progress is going, but I recalled somebody else tried the same thing and got somewhere between nowhere and oblivion.
Note on the FIOA, thats for government documents, since EMC2 is a corp and claims they own the docs, FOIA doesnt apply.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.
I would say we know a measure more now than we did when the FIOA flew. Not that sparse at all once you fit it all together.
Basic summary:
EMC2 progresses, slower than planned, but progressing. Funding has improved, and understanding has improved.
I have been curious of late as to the focus to the 'smaller' machine testing, especially when Bussard argued fairly well that smaller machines had distinct testing limits due to the physics. Issues encountered in the smaller versions were predicted, electron injection for one, (it would seem accurately), and they were seen by Bussard to be self correcting in larger breakeven scale devices due to the physics involved when going to full scale.
In any event, I remain optimistic.
Basic summary:
EMC2 progresses, slower than planned, but progressing. Funding has improved, and understanding has improved.
I have been curious of late as to the focus to the 'smaller' machine testing, especially when Bussard argued fairly well that smaller machines had distinct testing limits due to the physics. Issues encountered in the smaller versions were predicted, electron injection for one, (it would seem accurately), and they were seen by Bussard to be self correcting in larger breakeven scale devices due to the physics involved when going to full scale.
In any event, I remain optimistic.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Ladajo,
It would seem that Navy money has been pinched and before moving to a larger machine a fully characterized small machine using superior instrumentation was desired. To do that, it sounds like EMC2 has had to solve the small machine size issues to do it. Maybe in the long run there will be benefit, but I can't help but think if Dr. Bussard was still kicking, we might have seen a larger machine by now (not to say Dr. Park and Dr. Nebel are not as capable). Just some thoughts, even though they may be off base.
It would seem that Navy money has been pinched and before moving to a larger machine a fully characterized small machine using superior instrumentation was desired. To do that, it sounds like EMC2 has had to solve the small machine size issues to do it. Maybe in the long run there will be benefit, but I can't help but think if Dr. Bussard was still kicking, we might have seen a larger machine by now (not to say Dr. Park and Dr. Nebel are not as capable). Just some thoughts, even though they may be off base.
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
You did in fact comment on the thread here in 2009: http://www.republicanoperative.com/foru ... post193433Roger wrote:I think I commented on that first thread, glad to see you over here.
Note on the FIOA, thats for government documents, since EMC2 is a corp and claims they own the docs, FOIA doesnt apply.
Also, aye to the FIOA details. I know now more than I did a few years ago on the subject. What I don't know is a good way to get info in the case of public funding being used on private corp interests. This is actually a sore point with me, because it means that the public is funding something that they only know by what is volunteered to them. In my own view, if you're going to be using public funding, you should be open to more transparency because the public has the right to know if its money is being spent wisely.
With that said, I also am still optimistic that the Polywell is going to work out.
I am happy they are gaining better understanding. But also I wonder if they sometimes get lost in the trees, and forget the forest. But I guess that is determinate on sponsor funding. If the sponsor says to examine a tree, you examine a tree.mvanwink5 wrote:Ladajo,
It would seem that Navy money has been pinched and before moving to a larger machine a fully characterized small machine using superior instrumentation was desired. To do that, it sounds like EMC2 has had to solve the small machine size issues to do it. Maybe in the long run there will be benefit, but I can't help but think if Dr. Bussard was still kicking, we might have seen a larger machine by now (not to say Dr. Park and Dr. Nebel are not as capable). Just some thoughts, even though they may be off base.
Give a read to the IAC paper and you will see what I mean about Bussard's arguments to press for full scale tests. I also re-read (again) the annealing bit, and now get it better than I did before. Maybe time does help.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)