Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:kill -1 (Score -1) 447

by sillybilly (#47965851) Attached to: Fork of Systemd Leads To Lightweight Uselessd

By the way people are too sensitive to mocking. Though we all prefer not to be mocked, I, unlike a fortune 500 co, have no problem running Lighthouse Puppy 4.1.2rc1 (right before the hijacking started) as my top choice of linux distros even today. It would be nice to have a cool name for it instead of puppy, but that very uncool self mocking name is what allowed it to escape attention so long and become so good, before it came under assault. It's like my main religion, Roman Catholic Christianity is a mocking religion itself, where you get to celebrate the greatness of a different people and their God, with whom Jehovah made a covenant, and who maintain a distinct religion for themselves from the one they give me, and their religion, unlike Islam, does not teach them to hold the other cheek, nor are they born in original sin, guilty before proven innocent by simply entering existence into this world, unlike Christians. Sarah McLachlan has a song titled we are born innocent, maybe she's Jewish, but my religion teaches me differently, because I'm mainly a Roman Catholic Christian. And when the muslims come over from Turkey, and tell me about Islam, how it allows many wives, you get a single easy to comprehend God instead of dealing with the issues of Holy Trinity, how God can be a human and die on the cross, how his mother was a virgin, and Joseph, while with her for years, engaged, never hit that bootay, and when she got pregnant he believed it was from an angel, I'm like year right, and so go most Chinese or or Japanese or sane people around the world, how in Islam I does not teach you to hold the other cheek, which is why Malcolm X was muslim, but most black people are Southern Baptist Christian, (because they think it was Christianity that let white people become so technologically advanced, because they are not born smarter, in general, which may have an element of truth, that science advanced so fast simply to get back at Christianity's mocking, in a cool way, as opposed to the uncool way of what I'm doing now, by crying a river and bitching and moaning about it instead) etc, etc, so I learned, Eastern religion style (hindu and taoist and buddhist) that everything has many aspects to it, and you should not reject something like uselessd or puppy linux simply because it has a mocking name. In fact if on technical merits it proves itself, I'd have absolutely no problem with using uselessd, just like I have no problem being mainly Catholic, which is better than not being Catholic at all, or having no religion at all, or being only Buddhist, taoist and Hindu. When the muslim turks promote their religion I tell them that I like Christianity, because I'm used to it, and what they offer does not show enough improvement to warrant upsetting the ways I'm used to, even if it's progress. I'm used to baby Jesus, the Virgin Mary (that Zrinski prayed to before his final charge), to Jesus suffering, to the idea of carrying a cross through life, the Holy Spirit, and I don't have a problem with monogamy as standard, as opposed to paternalistic many wives, but not many husbands, as it prevails in the muslim world or even in Subsaharan Africa, because I like to treat my women, or even my pets more equally to myself and respected than them. However if she has no problem with sharing me with other girls, as most women are lesbians too anyway, it's okay, but that's usually about sex, getting off, and not about managing a household or raising children, though even there there are relationships where the women are not too territorial and there is a triple household of two women each having equal number of kids by the same husband, or something really complicated like that, which is why muslim or African polygamy is very complicated, and it's easy to descend into can't work your marriage out feuding relationships and a failure even between two monogamous people, let alone where there is a trio, and it's impossible to treat both women equally, and the grudge and political issues that brings about. So the muslim opress their women and many wives to the point of having no issues at all, because of oppression, just like how Saddam oppressed his people and kept absolute order and relative economic prosperity, which without oppression and rule of terror is just an even bigger mess today. But I don't want to live like that with my women. Also, Christianity is not as demanding as Islam on basic religious requirements. In Islam you're required to pray 5 times daily, fairly long, facing Mecca, and you are required to do a pilgrimage to Mecca and participate in the stampedes at least once in your lifetime. In Christianity, by accepting the mocking, I get relative liberty as to how much to pray. The elderly women with one foot in the grave can spend much of their day praying the rosary, and people can visit the holy land, and walk the path of Jesus' crucifixion, but it's not a requirement. And I'm used to it, set in my ways, and only like Buddhism teaches me something completely different from it, a new way of looking at the world, in a religious way, without deities at all, unlike Islam. Buddhism is religion light, joking through Zen koans, and mocking too, and it's an even greater aid to lighten up your mood and fix your psyche from an external assault, than, say praying the rosary. But when push comes to shove, and the universe is an empty and cruel depressing void of hopelessness, it's good to think of a personal God with human attributes that cares about his children. Even Einstein said he cannot conceive of a God, of a top being, that meddles in the affairs of lowly humans as his main preoccupation, but that is what Christianity teaches me, and it's a great psychological aid, it's a great tool of regulating human affairs and behavior, it's a great tool to make people feel guilty when they don't do the right thing to each other, the most important being that there is only one God, and no human, like the Pharaoh, or Caesar, can be added to the list of gods, like in Rome, Greece, or Egypt. Humans constantly fight in hierarchy, but having monotheism is in a sense more the religion of equality between humans because none of them can rise to the status of god-hood, no matter how rich or powerful, unlike in, say, even polytheistic Hindu, where I do not think the situation has yet arisen where anyone tried to get enlisted as one of the Gods. And I'm set in my ways with Christianity, like I'm set in ways of using old school Windows XP and see no worthwhile incentive to move to Vista, 7 or 8, or even Office 2000, with no tangible reason to use 2007, 2010, etc. And with my low power computing devices that economize electric consumption, such as this HP Mini 200 Intel Atom net book with 9 hr battery life, I see no tangible incentive to switch to newer bloated linux from LHP 4.1.2rc1, which is like the Buddhism of windows Christianity, which, sometimes I've used as my main platform, but would not be willing to lose Windows 2000 as the default, that I've god used to, over it. So mocking shmocking, we cry a river over being mocked, or get back at it in a Newton's Pincipia Mathematica way, or even via Galileo's house arrest for the rest of his life for practicing free speech and saying things like inertia and theory of relativity when it comes to motion, no absolute space that even Newton believed in, and the Earth goes round the Sun more than the Sun goes round the Earth, and him being forced to recant on the record his words, unlike Giordano Bruno who got cooked and roasted over it. Even mocking has two sides to it, and there is religion in having your top deity, Jesus, wearing a crown of thorns, whipped, carrying the cross himself, trip and fall along the way. I mean, like come on, that's your top dawg you worship as a God? Yeah. You got a problem with that?

Comment: Re:kill -1 (Score -1) 447

by sillybilly (#47963381) Attached to: Fork of Systemd Leads To Lightweight Uselessd

uselessd is just another mocking name like gnu, gnome, gimp, viewnior, or in puppy linux, which is quite decent and ignorable based on name, then after hijacked now you have lupu, slacko, wary, quirky - do you want to run an operating system named quirky on your fortune 500 servers? - then for slashdot replacement soylentnews (sounding like a mock on silent news, which is like secret, hiding, or unimportat), pipedot (as in what kind of pipe are you smoking), etc. Come on, Slashdot is just such a cool name, and even init and systemd are decent names, but uselessd is a mock. What's in a name, a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet? said Shakespeare. Sometimes even Shakespeare can be wrong, because a rose should not be called angel piss or fairy poop, and managers at fortune 500 cos won't let you run a system named quirky to handle their data. Simple facts of life.

Comment: Re:Freeman Dyson (Score -1) 68

by sillybilly (#47956641) Attached to: The Grassroots Future of Biohacking

So that 24.36 MJ/kg BeO chemical energy density for fuel/oxidizer mixes is the maximum possible, and there is a big gap between it and nuclear materials. You can't really run a nuclear power plant on a rocket to get lift, it's too heavy, too complicated, and unlike in a submarine or navy ship, where infinite cooling capacity is available from seawater, once you go into thin air and vacuum conventional nuclear power plants become terribly inefficient because of the high heat rejection temperature through thermal radiation into outer space vacuum on the order of 600C-1000C red heat-yellow heat - white heat, and to get any kind of heat engine Carnot cycle efficiency, you have to go much above that temperature, and then you're limited by material constraints on thermal and mechanical strength resistance, to where almost nothing is available above 2000C (except electric arc furnace type technologies) and even then the Carnot cycle efficiency numbers are dismal, and even if the nuclear fuel is very energy dense, to get good rate of power out of it you need quite a bit of fuel together at a time, and the radiating cooling systems are heavy, and on top of it comes the mass of material you're gonna use to eject to get impulse, that needs to be carried along then discarded, and you run out of it eventually.

So is there any other way of getting MJ/kg above that 24 for rocket fuel, say 100 MJ/kg, that can function in vacuum or absence of atmospheric oxygen, other than diluting down the high values of nuclear materials? There might be. They used to talk about space solar power arrays beaming down their collected energy through microwave antennas to ground stations, and I think Simcity 9000 or whatever version has a disaster where that beam gets misaligned and fries the city blocks with microwave heat that it's directed at as it gets misaligned. But that can be a source of external power to a rocket, like solar panels can be once you reach LEO, low Earth orbit. The issue becomes the throughput of gigawatts or petawatts of energy or whatever a rocket is burning, if that's possible to capture with microwave antennas, and then also how to keep the antennas focused right on the target 100 km up in the sky. If you ever watch the Challenger disaster video of the Space Shuttles, you can see that even the video cameras have a hard time focusing on the image far up in the sky, then the image is very tiny, plus there is atmospheric haze and optical fluctuation, like you can see mirage and even fata morgana over very hot asphalt. But in theory you could beat the maximum chemical energy densities available, hopefully getting cheaper shipping to low earth orbit through it.
Another option may sound like a tethered fat piece of copper cable that delivers electricity, but that would be prohibitively heavy, especially the higher you go in altitude, compared to a weightless microwave energy transmission link. Also the cable strength itself is an issue, as they used to have discussions about space elevators, and a single crystal or continuous strand carbon nanotube might have the strength for it, so even if you had a nano tube cable of good tensile strength that conducted electricity through embedded potassium ions in it, it might be prohibitively heavy anyway. That makes me thing of a skinny nano tube spider silk, that kind of guides petawatts of electric, obviously as a lightning strike along its surface, and fries up and vaporizes through it, but there may be a way to have plasma, or a lightning strike conduct the power, and that should work both through the atmosphere or in vacuum, just like very long mercury vapor lamps work, conducting electric through a vacuum gas, though plasma control for a length of 100 km (or 62 miles) and loss of it and the rocket falling out of the sky become an issue.

By the way the idea of a space elevator is unsound. In order to have anything be lifted elevator style, you need a fixed point up in the sky, that maintains altitude and can even pull upwards, and in LEO at 100 km height the roundabout speed is so fast that dragging the cable through the atmosphere would burn it up, or just have all kinds of wind drag issues, so you'd need a GSO (geostationary orbit) at 35,000 km (22,000 mile) height, and now you're talking some serious cable length and weight at 35000 km. So to get up into space, at least to LEO, fighting through the atmosphere, you need impulse, mv, of ejected material, and the highest mv per unit mass is limited by the available m.v^2/2 or the energy density, that is, ejection v is limited by the highest available v^2, per unit mass, and to get higher than 24 MJ/kg m.v^2/2 , and a lighter rocket with a greater punch and cheaper freight capability, you'd need to either harness nuclear materials in it somehow, or be able to collect external radiated power at rates of gigawatts of petawatts or whatever a usual freight rocket is burning.

Comment: Re:Freeman Dyson (Score -1) 68

by sillybilly (#47955097) Attached to: The Grassroots Future of Biohacking

I'm only allowed 2 posts per day because my karma is terrible, so I have to make the most of each post, so here you go:

I've thought about it some more. BeO and LiF combinations give the greatest chemical energy per mass, but they cannot be used as such for propulsion, because all you get is a white hot glowing mass of lava from them, and you have to mix in something that generates a gas, and pneumatic pressure to accelerate the propulsion mass to high velocity, high momentum, high impulse, aka mv, or mass x velocity. Mixing in liquid hydrogen to give that gas is the lightest way to get that pneumatic pressure, but then atomizing and dispersing the reactants into a reaction chamber is like a technical difficulty. At first I was thinking some kind of rotor-stator kitchen blender homogenizer type high shear might be able to mix the vaseline-nanoparticle lithium thermal compound paste into a low viscosity mix that's still sufficiently suspended (liq. hydrogen is very low density, 1/14th of water, and everything dense falls out of it very fast, though, luckily lithium is 0.534 that of water, so you're still talking a scenario 1 to 7, something similar to trying to suspend a metal dust in water, it is possible if the particle size is extremely small and shear rate is very high, also lithium hydride density is near 0.8, even worse than the metal as far as dispersing into liquid hydrogen goes, but more on this later), and can be atomized in a spray nozzle to react with the liquid fluorine or oxygen oxidizer which is also atomized as a spray into the reaction chamber. For a while I as thinking that you might be able to mix the lithium with the liquid fluorine or oxygen at cryogenic temperature in a kitchen-blender rotor stator homogenizer style, without reacting at the cryogenic temperature but that is one very very very dangerous game to play. In fact I was thinking just how much gas do you really need to accelerate your energy-mix to high velocity, after all, the gas part is inert, or even if it's energy generating, it's doing it at a lower weight density than the high energy mix mass density wise, so if it's inert, you lose overall, average energy density, and then it's preferable to get as little of it as just necessary to get the full acceleration. I don't know if a mix ratio of 99% LiF+1% H2 can give enough pneumatic action to accelerate the LiF bulk mass to a high mv (the F being most of the m, H almost insignificant in this scenario, other than being a gas powering a pneumatic action, kind of like how much air weight do you need to propel a pneumatic drill with a flywheel to a high velocity? Not that much, as long as the pressure is high, and you get a long expansion to fully milk that pressure in the tool. Also, I had a better idea - instead of atomizing the lithium nanoparticles, maybe lithium could be vaporized, and combusted like that? Lithium boils at 1342 C, not an impossible, and it becomes liquid at 182 C, that itself could be atomized. Beryllium, boron and aluminum are impossible to boil in rocket with present structural materials, but magnesium, the stuff used in photographic flashers in Charlie Chaplin movies, that goes puff in a big white smoke, is another one that boils even lower than lithium, at 1090C, for very fast reaction rates, while melting at 650C, and it's also cheap compared to lithium. But aluminum, a relatively cheap fuel, can be also melted at 660C, and when it comes to liquid oxygen propulsion, as in, who wants to mess with liquid fluorine?, magnesium is way down on the list with oxygen, compared to lithium and aluminum, and boron, but it's on par or even beats aluminum, and it's better than boron when reacting with fluorine. So aluminum and lithium molten and atomized really look like the ideal fuels to react with benign liquid oxygen, and aluminum is much better on cost, and abundance, but boron is also decent on cost and abundance, however it cannot be molten and atomized like any of the other fuels, so it would really need to be very nanoparticulate and long reaction chambers might be needed to allow it to fully react in the solid particle state (kind of like a pulverized coal burner) and combust while already at high velocity during that combustion, and transfer the heat over to the surrounding gas medium. While accelerating, or decelerating, distance requirements change tremendously with speed - the stopping distance of a car going 70 mph is tremendously longer than one going 50 mph, it's like speed is a killer on highways, but it also buys time, and time is money, soo.. boron would have to be extremely fine particles, and then you might be talking very serious cost, unless some Rayney nickel-like method, such as an alloy of AlB aluminum boride reacted with caustic soda that would selectively react only with the Al and leave the B behind as dust? Caustic soda might attack the boron too to form borates, but hydrochloric acid would not, so there you go. Also Raney-boron + liquid oxygen should be very easy to mix and homogenize without danger of reaction, because boron is inert unless at high temperature, and very intimate mixes of oxidizer+fuel could be atomized from a single spray nozzle. I don't know of similar methods to prepare nanoparticulate lithium or aluminum, but one idea is to have a LiAl alloy, and react that with caustic soda-like substance dissolved in some organic solvent that does not react with lithium per se, but it does grab the aluminum out of the alloy, Raney nickel style, but homogenizing nanoparticulate lithium with liquid oxygen has more safety issues of self ignition compared to boron, or even aluminum. How do you make nanoparticulate aluminum powder? Vacuum sputtering? That's a very expensive way to make it, and you lose the low-costness of aluminum, whatever you do has to be cheap. There are probably good cheap ways to make aluminum nanodust, that I might look into later. As I said before, you probably don't need a lot of gas generating material of lightweight hydrogen into your mix, as long as you can get a high pressure out of the little bit, and you really milk it, like a longer gun barrel on a battle ship can get higher projectile speeds, at the cost of gun barrel erosion and loss of aiming accuracy at 10 mile range, which was a normal aiming range back in the days of WWI. So, most present rocket designs seem like there is a short gun barrel at the bottom of the rocket, when in fact they should use the whole length or a lot of the rocket length in a gun barrel way, either going down the center of the rocket, which requires a lot of insulation then, or on the outside of the rocket, which only requires insulation at the contact surface, the structural wall already present anyway providing a major part of that insulation. But the gun barrel ejecting the high speed Li2O or B2O3 or Al2O3, or even LiF or MgF2 salts, should go at least halfway or a third up on the outside length of the rocket, to really milk the pressure out of a 1%H2+99%Salt mix. Of course you could get the pneumatic action out of extra liquid oxygen, but hydrogen does save weight, however if all you need is 1% wt H2 that's like 8%wt O2, and not having to store the H separately might justify such a thing. However that 8% weight is a huge penalty compared to 1%, so in all cases, instead of liquid hydrogen in a separate reservoir, you could include a hydride, LiH, (BeH2), BH3, (MgH2), AlH3, mixed at the right amount, still nanoparticulate (how can you get nanoparticulate hydrides? do they all have solvents where you can form a milky precipitate? Even if only one of the trio (or quintet) has such a solvent, and makes hydride nanoparticles possible, it would be possible to mechanically mix it with any of the others in a vaseline paste, then get the vaseline paste homogenized in the low viscosity liquid oxidizer to be atomized and sprayed into the rocket reaction chamber. But this is where things like nitrogen hydride comes in, ammonia, and of course instead of storing it as a liquid ammonia, you store it as nitrogen hydride oxide, called ammonium nitrate. Nitrogen itself is a gas, of lower molecular weight than excess oxygen, for the pneumatic part (14 vs. 16, it's still something, plus it carries easy to split hydrogen at a higher ratio, NH3 vs. H2O, which decomposes well under 2000C and does not recombine on its own.) It should be easy to get nanoparticulate ammonium nitrate or nitrite, by say, having a solution of it in water precipitated suddenly from supercooling where the whole bulk solution suddenly precipitates from a hammer strike on the vessel. Actually, you'd need the fuel like nanoparticle boron already premixed and homogenized into the ammonium nitrate solution, and then supercooling is not possible because of the high availability of nucleation sites on the boron nanoparticles, but then that very thing could be used to get partial crystallization of the solution just at the right amount to grow ammonium nitrate nanocrystals on the surface of the nanoparticles already present, and then reusing the partially depleted solution. All you need is like 1% wt or 10% wt ammonium nitrate vs. nanoparticle boron. Of course you may not be able to do the same thing with aluminum which may react with even the water in the ammonium nitrate solution, let alone ammonium nitrate itself, or simply get an oxide coating on the nanoparticles, and then the smaller the particle size, the larger the proportion of prereacted, dead waste aluminum oxide surface coating that you'd drag along in your rocket, so whatever way you prepare nanoparticulate aluminum, it has to be a completely oxygen and even water free environment, such as an organic solvent? From aluminum ethoxide with a sodium-ammonia solution mix? That's equivalent to the liquid - liquid reaction of precipitated silica, but to get really fine powder, you need gas phase reaction like carbon black of fumed silica is generated, so you're talking a sublimed AlCl3 gas, reacting with a metal vapor, and potassium or sodium or even magnesium comes to mind, in a fumed silica style reactor, in an argon atmosphere maybe, or even vacuum, to get very fine aluminum powder devoid of surface oxide, which is then mixed into a carrier like vaseline, and kept air tight even in that condition to minimize oxygen diffusion through the vaseline. So how do you get nanoparticulate ammonium nitrate into the vaseline mix? Maybe ammonium nitrate is not ideal with aluminum, and then even things like frozen hydrazine (which carries only 2 hydrogen per nitrogen) or hydroxylamine (which carries 3 H per inert N, the O in it, which will react, is simply irrelevant, it does not matter if it comes from the liquid O2 or prebound lower energy in hydroxylamine at 1% overall rocket fuel concentration ranges) come to mind. Of course you with the salts or solid oxides, you want to be extremely close to the stoichiometric ratio, as too much fuel and not enough O2 is a waste of weight of fuel, and too much, excess, unreacted O2 is also a waste because you want the pneumatic action from the hydrogen by itself, not water or even O2. However if your flame temperature is well over 2000C, (or whatever the dissociation temperature of water is, acetylene flame is above 3000C, and these mixes should be even better in energy density), then the H2 and O2 should be dissociated giving a very high pressure, however with the danger of cooling down the road and giving only water vapor under 2000C, but a very slight excess of O2 may be tolerable, but also a very slight deficiency, but the mix ratio range is extremely narrow, when you mix 99 wt% salt or oxide with 1 wt% gas. Also there may be issues with flame temperature being on the order of 4000C, melting even tungsten or vaporizing graphite (which may be stable in a reducing overall reaction zone, especially safe from the hydrogen too as most hydrocarbons soot and graphitize above 600-800C,) and then you may lower your energy density away from say Li2O to one of the lowers ones on the list, if your graphite starts vaporizing. But yeah, graphite is lightweight, high temperature resistant in a reducing environment (with some local migration from reacting with the oxygen at 4000C to CO, then CO reacting with the Li, B, Al to get the C back and redeposit it, so if you have a turbulent, randomly swirling reaction chamber with a small opening nozzle hole section, then while reacting the carbon randomly gets picked up and redeposited all over the place and does not really deteriorate, compared to an even, smooth flow reactor where it would be picked up in the front, unreacted O2 still available zone, and redeposited at the end, when the O is robbed from the CO, redepositing C.
But yeah, for a good rocket, you need a lot of energy density per weight, and just enough gas to convert that energy density into mv, mass times velocity, momentum, through a long barrel gun, running down the outside length of the rocket, and not under it to save space. I take that back. You can have a really long shotgun barrel in the back, and just a little bit of fuel at the top, and that skinny, rod like configuration is much more aerodynamic than a wide cylinder would be with gun barrels stuck on the outside, instead of under the fuel at the bottom of the rocket. That's why most rockets are so long and skinny, aerodynamics. Of course the gun barrel has to be made of high temperature resistant and lightweight material, and tungsten is out of the question then, because it's very heavy (however the specific strength to weight might beat graphite), but graphite or graphite coatings, reinforced with boron carbide and the like ceramics, is top candidate for the rocket combustion chamber/gun barrel section, of course being mindful of the extreme brittleness and fragility of graphite. So this high temperature coming from the high mass energy density also puts a limit on structural materials, to where regular steel and some fuel, like liq O2 and kerosene that don't melt it, might be the economical choice, even if that means a bigger rocket because you're lifting more weight, even some of the fuel itself needing lifting through a part of the ascent til its turn to combust is time up. But these are the considerations when thinking about rockets going to space, where any dead weight is a make or break it issue..

I just slept some, and I been thinking some more. As Slashdot allows only 2 posts with a terrible karma, I write this up separately, then post it in a megapost, instead of dispersing it into many replies to each other.
Rockets are long and skinny for aerodynamic reasons, the are also cylindrical, because they are shot through a small size opening, even for ICBM missiles, but at superskinny superlong conditions the structural part, the walls, dominate the weight, and you can barely carry any fuel. A dart or an arrow is an aerodynamic missile, and there you don't really care about internal weight distribution, as the whole bulk is mass, but for a bullet or a rocket there is this issue of propellant weight vs. wall weight, and you can only get so skinny, so no guns have needle like bullets, nor are any rockets needle like, like arrows or darts are, but there is this balance between aerodynamic skinniness and bulk storing ability with low wall weight roundness in all bullets and rockets. Still, the ideal rocket or projectile shape is never cylindrical, but mountain fish or shark or even raindrop shaped, like formula one cars used to be cigar shaped before the air control surfaces, and even today the central parts often have remnants of that shape. In a mountain fish shape rocket, the front, bulky part stores the fuel with even wooden cork walls or similar extremely light weight carbon fiber or Kevlar materials if not pressurized, and the reactor at the tail section is graphite or something that melts very high with high strength to weight, being mindful of a reducing and randomly swirling turbulent reaction zone to protect that graphite. Of course the whole thing has to maintain structural integrity against air drag wind forces at the highest (expected speeds squared x whatever air density at that altitude is present) conditions, and cork may not have the structural integrity for that. But with cork you cannot pressurize the fuel chamber, and instead you have to rely on high throughput suction pump, to pump the reactants in the the extremely high
pressure reactor zone, which you need anyway, because it's silly to provide superhigh pressure to the entire fuel chamber, and provide adequate wall strength for that, compared to the weight of a mere pump, and freight rocket sizes.
Most rockets that go to space like putting a TV or communication satellite into geostationary orbit at 35,786 km (22,236 mi altitude) are built like this (and I'm exaggerating a bit, but you get the picture): Suppose you have a 100 kg (222 lb) satellite that needs to go into orbit. For that you need a 1,000,000 kg (or 1000 ton) rocket fuel, in 3 stages, where the first stage is 900,000 kg (900 tons) and it lifts the whole shebang to say 6,371 km (3,959 mi), which is the radius of Earth, so at that double altitude the g force (9.8 m/s2) drops to 1/4 x 9.8, being dependent on radius squared, doubling the altitude from the center of Earth decreases g by 2 squared, tripling the altitude decreases by 3 squared or 9 times, so the higher you go the less and less you weigh, because gravitational forces drop off by the distance squared. So at that height the first stage and it's heavy wall structure is explosively split off, (why should you keep dragging the useless deadweight container once it's empty of fuel, especially if its walls are heavy gauge steel because of pressurized fuel chambers, as opposed to lightweight cork or carbon fiber from unpressurized fuel chamber,) and you're left with the 100,000 kg remainder, where the 2nd stage ignites, and lifts the rest of it to say 15,000 km (or 15,000 x 0.6213 miles), where the 2nd stage is split off, and the remaining 10,000 kg rocket takes the whole thing to the final destination of 35,786 km, where the 1st stage is split off, leaving a hyrazine monopropellant filled fine adjusting delivery section of 1000 kg (1 ton, 2,200 lbs), that accurately places the 100 kg satellite, facing the right way, or this final stage might be just the 100 kg satellite itself, with the monopropellant reserve for slight orbit corrections and adjustments at 100 kg, (220 lbs). The Earth-Moon distance is 384,400 km (238,900 miles), but it does not cost that much more to put someone on the Moon than to put them into geostationary orbit, because Earth's gravity is very low that far away (at GSO g is 9.8 x (6371/35,786)^2=9.8x(0.178)^2=9.8x0.0317, or 3% of g down here, so a 100 lb person at standing still, not orbiting round and round, at GSO weighs 3 lbs downward force toward the Earth at that altitude, but if orbiting, going merry go round the Earth at the speed of rotation of Earth, which is 24 hrs for a complete circle, the weight is zero, there is weightlessness, because the centrifugal outward force of 3 lbs exactly compensates for the downward pull of 3 lbs on a 100 lb person, and it compensates a million lb object into weightlessness too.
Which brings up the question of why would you want to fly straight up with a rocket, unless you're in a hurry, and all you really need with a freight rocket is to make it to Low Earth Orbit, LEO, which is like 100 kms up (the highest mountain on Earth is Mt. Everest at 8,800 meters, or almost 9 km), where the Space Shuttle used to go. Yeah the shuttle never really went that high, unlike the Apollo program that went all the way to the Moon with people. The ISS (international space station) is at a 330 km (220 miles) high altitude orbit, and the Hubble Telescope is at 559 km (347 miles) altitude, is in the range of Space Shuttle visits, far below the 35,000 km (22,000 mile) altitude of TV satellites. In orbit the up and down forces cancel each other and you get weightlessness, your piss floats in the air as perfectly round water droplets and it's difficult to poop, because the turd does not want to fall away from your anus, there is no gravity pulling on it, so astronauts use diapers exclusively, which is why a rotating cylinder artificial gravity space station walking on the inner surface, would be such a blessing for space residents, even at ISS altitudes. Yeah, so did you hear about the restaurant that opened on the Moon? The food is great, but there is no atmosphere. Because of that, you can have a space station or satellites fly 5 meters off the ground above your head and high velocity (or 1 cm above the highest mountain peak it encounters) and still stay in orbit, but down here we have atmospheric drag to where such a really low earth orbit, couple meters of feet above your head satellite would burn up like a shooting star at the required speeds. So for going to anywhere in space, your major hurdle is to clear the atmosphere at relatively low speeds, then achieve orbiting speeds of merry go round centrifugal weightlessness, where your rocket propulsion no longer has to directly sustain the weight it carries, but all the force is used to gain altitude. For example a 10,000 ton space station in weightlessness orbit could be lifted by the power of a mosquito to greater heights, of course it may take forever to gain any altitude, but in principle it does gain altitude from minor amount of force, while while going through the atmosphere, if you supply exactly 10,000 ton lift + a mosquitoes force, you sit standing still at a couple feet in the air, taking years to gain a cm or inch altitude, while you continuously have to supply that 10,000 ton rocket fuel lifting force for that year. Of course even at 100 km (62 mile) altitude you still have some very thin air, and some very minor air drag, to where you need the force of a pigeon instead of a mosquito to illustrate the above principles. But going to the Moon is about going to orbit right above the atmosphere where it's very thin, very fast, in a matter of minutes, then switching gear and taking your time, even up to a year, to make it to the Moon, by pissing around with tiny forces, but maybe getting to the Moon at a cost of $0.01/kg from LEO to the Moon, as opposed to the $20,000/kg going directly, flying up straight and fast. The major cost is putting the freight into LEO, which is still probably well over $5000/kg.
Once in LEO, you can spread your wings, your massive solar panels that are thin films, ultra light weight, and get you free energy, free electricity from sunshine. Once you have free energy, you no longer care about oxidizer/fuel energy densities, and to get a kick, an impulse, mv, any mass, any object, from hydrogen to lead, can be shot out the gun barrel via a coil gun mechanism, or turned into plasma, the positive and negative charges separated magnetohydrodynamic generator style, into individual cyclotrons (synchrophasotrons), where they go round and round a few million times slowly accelerated, which can speed them up to 0.2 c , 20% speed of light or so, before relativistic mass gains throw them out of sync so it's time to eject, but you can get a very high mv impulse out of very little m by giving it a very high v. You can economize your bulk mass this way, when energy is free from the Sun, and your energy density per unit mass is near infinite, through electric field accelerations, and it no longer matters what the substance, lithium, hydrogen, aluminum, or iron or lead or anything. Ideally the substance would be air (oxygen/nitrogen) in LEO, and hydrogen near the Moon or GSO, because even in space you float around in a vacuum that's not absolute vacuum, but it has solar wind at minimum. How to collect propulsion matter from the vacuum of space? That's an interesting question. Possibly sticking a supercold thermos vessel outside into it, way below the temperature of liquid helium, and any hydrogen or helium that wanders into it gets liquefied, and if the boiling pressure is less than that of the vacuum pressure, it stays there. Of course that's not practical and there's gotta be a better way. Hydrogen dissolves in metals like palladium and platinum, even a bit in nickel, or NiMH battery electrode rare earth materials, so perhaps sticking a piece of that metal increases the vacuum pressure from the 10^-13 mmHg that prevails at GSO ( to say 10^-6 torr, from where you can bring the piece of metal in, and heat it to get that hydrogen out, then stick it back out into space. Or better, have a platinum or iridium of whatever membrane that passes hydrogen gas but it will not pass water vapor or HF, with something like bleach or fluorine gas behind it, ready to react with the incoming H atoms on the inner platinum surface, and then you leave these things out for years, and maybe gain a couple grams of hydrogen from outer space that way. For such low quantities of hydrogen, it's worth getting into relativistic mass increase zones, where, after the relativistic mass no longer lets you get millions of free round trips in a synchrophasotron, and you have to switch to a coiled linear accelerator with the right spacings and timings (still in the same magnetic field to get the circular, coiled trajectory), and then your limit is how long you can make your coiled linear accelerator, but with micrograms of hydrogen, getting a mass increase of say 800% through relativistic speed gains might be contemplated, but it does get expensive to build such a long coil, and it's better to ship the hydrogen down from Earth, or from Jupiter, or just simply use vaporized or dusted Moon rock to shoot around and get space propulsion, energy being free from solar panels or a slow speed nuclear reactor (which has coolant issues when floating in free space, so solar panels are much better, but on the Moon's surface it can inject the heat into the Moonrock below from a mobile nuclear platform that walks around to drill new holes at fresh cold sites.)
You can't really use the high energy density of nuclear materials for rocket propulsion, because inevitably you need a micro explosion, and to compress even plutonium or americium and the transuranium elements into a very small bead of critical mass requires a lot of force, such as auxiliary laser equipment that's very heavy, but if you could find a way to get nuclear micro explosions of picogram sizes you could heat a lot of gas with that in a bulk container, and use it as rocket propulsion. The issue here then becomes that you still need that dead weight mass to get impulse, and even at high energy density per mass that means simply super fast ejection speeds, or very high pressures, and the limits are of course structural component strengths/temperature resistances, which you encounter even at the above mentioned chemical energy density fuel mix cases. But 24.36 MJ/kg for beryllium/oxygen mixtures could be improved upon to say 100 MJ/kg, or 1000 MJ/kg, via plutonium or americium micro explosion heatings, in theory, giving you a cheaper and more efficient rocket at the 10,000 ton freight range, and cheaper freight to outer space, at the cost of minor radiation release into the environment, which is probably not more than outer space or other background radiation. I don't know if that's possible. The issue with nuclear things that at normal pressure the critical mass is quite high, and you can't really get a bang much smaller than Hiroshima, and such a bang is too big to contain in mega-mega-football field or city size vessels at decent pressures that do not rupture the container walls, to get propulsion into outer space out of them, plus the amount of radiation release would be huge, but it could possibly lift a whole country of citizens at a time, say 10 million people. And you cannot really go lower than that, as nuclear things won't blow or explode efficiently at much smaller scales.
Yeah all this thinking about how to put millions of monkeys and apes, (and giraffes and elephants) into rotating cylinder space stations, to be safely, physically isolated and away from each other, safe from a nuclear holocaust or global infection outbreak down here.

Comment: Re:Freeman Dyson (Score -1) 68

by sillybilly (#47946489) Attached to: The Grassroots Future of Biohacking

Oh, by the way, a correction is needed. I been thinking about this, hydrogen being the most excellent rocket fuel. Hydrogen has a high energy density on it's own, when atmospheric oxygen is plenty, but in a rocket you don't always have time to collect atmospheric oxygen, and outside the atmosphere it's no longer available, also it's almost not available as you go higher and higher in altitudes, where the air gets thinner and thinner. But for the lower portions of traveling through the atmosphere part, a Blackbird-spy-plane like drive based on light liquid hydrogen fuel + atmospheric oxygen might be justifiable, considering the cost of added complexity and weight compared to just a plain and simple less things to go wrong when it's time to switch propulsion methods to internal oxidizer+fuel mixtures.
With an internal oxidizer, such as liquid oxygen carried on the space shuttle, at an 8:1 liqO2/liqH2 ratio, (so hydrogen itself a mere 1/9 or 11.1% of the fuel mixture weight) hydrogen ranks fairly low amongst other rocket fuel combinations. The list I posted here long time ago on Wikipedia, also, and as you can see, as a mixture of reducer/oxidizer beryllium oxide tops the chart, followed by lithium fluoride, beryllium fluoride, etc. However these top lowest weight oxides per energy gained are all solid, so cannot be used directly as a rocket fuel, all you get during the reaction is just a white hot glowing mass of incandescent lava, that does not explode or generate pressure or want to create mechanical propulsion to fly anywhere. If you notice water is way down the page, and I put it down as a liquid to get a higher number for it, when it's usually combusted to vapor instead, getting a slightly lower number. Which explains the reason for solid rocket boosters for the space shuttle based on ammonal (aluminum/ammonium nitrate or similar perchlorate mixtures) where the aluminum actually generates the energy, and the mechanical carrier gases of that energy, like the evolved nitrogen and water vapor, do the propulsion. Beryllium is very toxic, as are most fluorides, and boron should not be used too much either, unless you deal with space propulsion, where under battle circumstances, you need top performance for military spaceships, and then beryllium and lithium fluoride emitted into the emptiness of space is of no concern. But I don't know. Maybe emitting magnesium fluoride or especially lithium fluoride might be tolerable, so a mix of liquid fluorine + oxygen at the right proportions with cryogenic nanoparticle lithium or lithium hydride (which loses some energy compared to bare metallic lithium) plus liquid hydrogen mixtures might be most efficient, where the lithium selectively seeks out the fluoride, and the hydrogen the oxide, the lithium being the major energy generator, and the hydrogen the major mechanical pressure propulsion generator. The maximum pressure is limited to the boiling point of lithium fluoride, which I'm lazy to look up now, but if it's over 2000C, thats a place where water naturally decomposes into hydrogen and oxygen, and no free energy gain from the reaction with oxygen can be obtained, which is why ammonal, where the nitrogen gas evolved can be heated to any desired temperature almost because of the strength of the nitrogen bond, might be better. But in fact, given enough energy by the aluminum, you don't really care if you're above 2000C, and the water is decomposed to even higher pressure gases of hydrogen and oxygen, getting you even more propulsion. So in effect, hydrogen itself as the propulsion gas may be most efficient, by weight, running off of the heat of beryllium oxide, or lithium fluoride, if you could design such a rocket engine able to combust it. Or even magnesium + liquid fluorine + liquid hydrogen, in a triple nozzle burner, the magnesium or magnesium hydride (which, due to reaction is less efficient than bare magnesium metal) nanoparticles, say suspended in vaseline(petroleum jelly), like cpu heatsink thermal joint compounds, are combusted. But lithium nanoparticles in vaseline + liquid fluorine gas + liquid hydrogen are probably best, with the lithium+fluorine at the proper stoichiometric ratios. Beryllium oxide is just that toxic, compared to lithium. Boron trifluoride is a gas naturally, but lithium, aluminum and magnesium fluorides are not, but the volatility of the salts might somehow come into consideration to where you might be able to get a higher temperature out of one than the other, but most likely that's not a concern, I can't think of a good reason right now.

Comment: Re:Jews (Score 0) 85

by sillybilly (#47944633) Attached to: Europeans Came From Three Ancestry Groupings

Being a Jew is not about having semitic genes, though it usually originates as an intermarriage. It's about being in the gang.
Jews will seek out to blend with people that are "good", "healthy", even if they look different. Especially, they like to keep every single one of their members married and reproduced, but the ones that are, say, "weaker", with say really skinny legs, hereditary diseases that require constant medication, etc, they are the most likely candidates for an interracial or outside of gang marriage, to someone with good muscles, good immune system, no hereditary diseases, and even good intelligence - though that's really hard to measure sometimes -, to improve bloodlines, so to speak, like horses are bred or like any other farm animal, they breed themselves, to where you get semitic Jews that look aryan Greek, or black African, and recently, a really difficult quest, to look asian. Jews are present in every population and control the world, and without them you get issues like you did with the Roman Empire. The citizen's of Rome's main daily preoccupation was the gladiator and lion fights at the Colosseum, like people talk sports today, and they were often very cruel to the people they conquered, which is true of almost anyone who gains power - see the Stanford prison experiment, that inevitably affects any human being, and it needs active training against, - true they had excellent engineers that built roads, aqueducts, and officials that controlled foreign policy of cities and states they conquered without getting much involved in the internal affairs of the people, in a Pontius Pilate style, give the people what they want, even to the point of failing to defend an innocent man within themselves, Jesus, and being under Roman protectorate also meant safety as nobody dare attack you compared to feuding cities and states before. However it leads to issues where perversions that did interfere with essential, core internal issues of a people, such as mandatory introduction of the statue of Caligula the Caesar as a God to be worshiped in all the polytheistic temples around the empire, including the monotheistic temple of Jerusalem, which of course was something that could not be tolerated. The Romans also had a lot of maffiozo gansta style murders in their senate and their leadership, even during the democracy before crossing of the Rubicon and the first Caesar, Augustus. Often these murdered senators would be left on the steps of the public buildings, for weeks, and rotting, and would not be properly buried. What kind of people don't bury their dead? Even the Native Americans take special care of such things, but maybe not their enemies' bodies. So after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem by the Romans, the ruins of which are still used as the most important prayer site in Jerusalem, the Jews sort of conquered Rome through Pope Leo that talked Attila out of sacking Rome, and created the Vatican there, and cathedrals to the Jewish one and only God, and have maintained control, so to speak, or much of the European world, except some aberrations here and there, such as Karl Wojtila's, (aka. John Paul the 2nd.) open field Sunday masses in the first metropolis the commies built purposely without a church. That got him to be the first non French or Italian pope ever, Italian popes being exclusive for like the last 500 years before him. Since him being a Polish pope, we had a German Pope, Benedict, and now an Argentinian one, Francis, though they are all Eurasian descent, and then you can debate the degree of European, middle eastern and even far eastern in their genetic makeup. As Europe used to dominate the world, including India and China through colonies and trade, world control was simple, but these days it's becoming difficult with China being the most populous country with the highest GDP, and even India rising, and neither follows Abrahamic Monotheisms, though India suffered greatly, so to speak, being split into 3 under Mahatma Gandhi, as a practical solution, into India per se, and muslim Pakistan and muslim Bangladesh, with a lot of fast breeding muslims still in India per se, that may take over that country longterm anyway. But China is different, and a very difficult nut to crack. They are the last communist stronghold, communist in a sense being anti-religion to the point of chasing the Dalai Lama to India or Nepal from Tibet, instead of protecting him as a cultural heritage, and even Japan, but Japan is very vulnerable due to lack of basic resources and totally dependent on external trade or fishing, too many mountains and not enough rice-fields, and heavily populated (see plus porn is rampant to the point of being able to buy used, teen pussy soiled panties right out of a vending machine on the streets there), the the Philippines if fully Catholic, so there is an example that's successful with mongoloid breed people. In order to control China you'd need Jews that look Chinese, mongoloid, or at least a mix, wouldn't you? Else you might get another Pearl Harbor, this time from China, and from the way the Japanese treated their Korean subjects when they started expanding in the early 1900's before WWI, sheds light on what could happen to the rest of the world. Though the most Catholic people in the world ever (including the Spanish Inquisitions being a lot stronger than the Italian ones that burned Giordano Bruno publicly at the stake, for saying the Earth was going around the Sun, and not the center of the Universe, against Catholic church doctrine and dogma), the Spanish conquistadors in the Andes were not that much better to the natives there than the Japanese were to the Koreans. You also have other aberrations like, in Norway for instance, the Church is no the center of the village or a city, but a democratic/socialist political gathering and discussion center is, and they are also not part of the EU, just like Switzerland is not either, see and also, view NATO, the military organization of the EU, US, Canada and Greenland, to which Turkey also belongs and also Norway, and Ukraine is aspiring, which has a lot to do with its present territorial loss to Russia, a very high price to pay to join NATO, but Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, Finland and Ireland are absent. Of course the former Yugoslavians got their own little issues to work out before anything can happen there, but they are expected in the end not to be on the side of Russians. Maybe. Yugoslavia has always been like a Russian/Slavic protectorate. The Germans, which the Romans have never succeeded in conquering even after many battles, and who are the most fervent promoters of a united Europe, even under Christianity, being the Holy Roman Empire, were always troublemakers, and were kept in highly divided fiefdoms under feudalism, with Otto von Bismarck finally unifying them, but they started issues like Luther and Calvin, protestantism, after King Henry the VIII started Anglicanism, especially when his first born son heirs kept getting murdered, so he left the throne to Elizabeth, a daughter, and the whole US pretty much were founded by protestant runaways, instead of the proper decree by the pope which granted the West Indies, the newly discovered lands fully to the Spanish and Portuguese, as a reward for being such faithful Catholics compared the the rest of Europe where Protestantism (as in protesting the abuses of power by the Pope and his clergy) ran rampant. So even under Christianity, which is the Jewish religion given to the Europeans and other people around the world, the Jews keeping their own religion separate (unlike, say, Buddhism where you don't get a separate religion from the chosen people of that religion, you get to fully join), so even under Christianity there was this constant subtle rebellion, that flourished especially under science rebellion against established religious truths set into stone, such as dogmas that settled on Aristotle's world view, including Kepler's laws and Copernicus heliocentric theory, and Galileo's "theory of relativity" and theory of friction, as opposed to Aristotle's theory of "impetus," which led to Giordano Bruno's burning, also the theory of Newton's Principia Mathematica, and much of the major revolutions of science, which does not accept dogmas but every scientific truth is temporary, a principle that was fully formulated by Einstein (who was hard core and even racist as a Jew, and could not really deal with his Serbian wife, but lived a happy life marrying his cousin), where his theory is expected to be shown incorrect under certain circumstances, by a new theory that obeys the correspondence principle to it under "classical" circumstances, or to Newton's theory under "classical classical" circumstances. The Catholic church, including my present priest personally himself, who is Catholic, to this day has not gotten over the science revolution and loss of dogmas, or even the spread of Protestantism, which is why a lot of things in the US are labeled in Spanish too, unfortunately, English is the richest of all languages in the world, where too people are racially mixes between indigenous Celts, Picts, with Romans, Saxons, and finally Normans, who, so far, were the last successful land invaders of England, in 1066, right after the heavy battles between the residents and Norse invader armies went down to near a stalemate where the residents successfully defended, but were exhausted to where it was a piece of cake for the Normans to pick up a victory, but they did mix the dominant Germanic Saxon language with latin French. So on the one hand hispanics in the US are exclusively Catholic, however Spanish, though a great language, is not an ideal one, compared to English, (which, has by far the most words including most dead words in its vocabulary of any language, and it is a lot more efficient in expressions and even such things as sex-less grammar for objects such as a table or a house, who wants to remember whether a house, casa, is feminine or masculine in conjugation, but you do get amigos and amigas, and loba and lobo, to where in English you have to say he-wolf or she-wolf, but calling an object like a table, chair, bicycle, headphones, masculine or feminine? that's too much,) as a world language. But the Jews feel special attraction to Spanish, as a semitic culture, because Spain was a country that was semitic for a long time, after the conquest of the landing at Gibr Al Tariq's, who burnt his ships when he landed, and made a speech to his soldiers about the beauty of the Greek maidens awaiting them in this new land. A lot of Jews take it on themselves to learn Spanish to be able to read Don Quiote de La Mancha in native tongue. So Spanish is not as efficient as first protestant Henry the VIII's English, which is presently the dominant world language, but that may change regardless over such issues as highlighted.

Comment: Re:Not always (Score -1) 191

by sillybilly (#47937019) Attached to: Sci-Fi Authors and Scientists Predict an Optimistic Future

It's like this: what's more important to the government? Me staying alive, or cutting the grass on my lot. Cut my grass, and draft my bank account into the minus, where it has never been before, with your forced automated payments. I will make that to be the last charge against it before I die. Suicide verbal terrorist. I'm not gonna hurt nobody else. But the government gets to choose.

It's like things got way out of hand to force me on welfare - forced infections, gassing to sleep, x-ray radiaton from the neighbors, so you can't do a job, and your only option is either welfare or death. Fuck all you.

Comment: Re:Not always (Score -1) 191

by sillybilly (#47932829) Attached to: Sci-Fi Authors and Scientists Predict an Optimistic Future

I'm an activist these days. Defender of wildlife. Bugs, butterflies. Google image search beautiful butterfly to see what I'm talking about. When was it the last time you saw one around your home? I could only see 4 friggin butterflies in entire Lakewood. That's sad, but I understand the congestion requires much lawn mowing, and does not allow much wilderness jungle to be present. But even there some people do find a way to create a jungle with flowers.

I stick up against lawn mowing. I especially stick up against the government doing it on my lot, and charging me for it. That's bullshit. I want to create a wildlife sanctuary, with whatever weeds show up, with whatever bugs show up, and whatever other animals. When you mow it to 1 inch long, it's a green desert. Uniform, lacks genetic variability. It only supports a few kinds of bugs, like crickets and grasshoppers, that chirp under the cover of darkness when they are safe from bird hearing and vision threats, but even they hate their grass cut so low. Also global warming is enhanced by simply not allowing a thick vegetation as a carbon store where ever people proliferate. Excessive lawn mowing, short grass is a killer of our planet. I mean I understand you like to mow the lawn right near the house, to keep it kinda safe from snakes, wolves, bears, lynx/bobcats, whatever might hide in thick grass, but you don't have to mow the whole fucking lot. And on a lot without a house there is no point to mow at all. I'd like to have animals like snakes, birds, possums nest and hide in a thick grass on my lot, which is not possible when it constantly gets attacked by the government, and a humongous fee put on my tax bill over it. Fuck the government. I could give that money to church, but they are robbing me from it with their idiotic bullshit attacks against my private property. It needs to be kept in order. I think when it has wildlife on it, it's kept in order. In effect I'm more pissed at them mowing it than demolishing my house on it, over building code violations, because there is no way you can tell me you can find anything wrong with wilderness and nature. Your arguments are all unsound, based on beauty. I could agree to go and pick up trash that people litter every two weeks or so, to keep it in order, but not cut the wilderness down on it. Especially the 1 inch grass leaves no room for most flowering plants. A whole lot of ecosystem and genetic variability depends on flowers.

I owe it to all the grasshoppers I killed back in the day while mountain fishing. I mean I could have used bread, but every time I did, it would either fall off the hook, or the well fed fish simply ignore it, but they still would jump out of the water after a dragonfly that decided to take a drink. That's how I came up with the idea of bugs. Plus we did not have that much bread or other food to throw around, so you had to find something in nature, in your environment, that fish would bite for. What do fish eat? Worms? I always hated putting a worm on the hook, it looks like meat, like flesh, and it obviously hates being put on the hook, it wraps around your fingers, plus it lets out some oozy substance as a defense, and there is something genetic telling me not to touch slime like that too much. Comparatively, a grasshopper looks like a metal robot, with sensors and a computer, that does not have feelings, does not look like meat or flesh, and it oozes some kind of nonslimy, crystal clear green liquid when put on the hook. And there is a million of them around, in the knee high or waist high grass, kinda like the biblical locust plague sent on the Pharaoh by Moses, during the Exodus (see http://www.topical-bible-studi...). There is a million of them around and they are easy to catch and keep in a large matchbox with holes for air, you don't have to dig for them like you do for earthworms, nor lift all kinds of river rocks for sand crusted white larvae of who knows what creature, to see if you can find any. I know it's not a good excuse, I should have found something else the fish like to eat, but what else can you find in nature, around you? Small dead fish or frog tadpoles that are just as worse as worms, and they even have eyes looking at you, unlike the compound robotic eyes of a grasshopper. I guess you can call me a specieist - find the most distant relative to you to kill. Specieism. You are responsible for yourself, then for your children, then for your family, then your near relatives, then your distant relatives, in a blood is thicker than water way, however sometimes close friends come way before anyone related to you, even close relatives, it's complicated. But then you are responsible for your own country to defend against an invader, as opposed to being responsible for the other side, or even equally responsible for both, then you are responsible for your race, to maintain your own example of genetic diversity, and not let it go extinct, even among humans, but then again some interracial friends you might even marry are closer than other close relatives, it's complicated, then you are responsible for people in general before you are responsible for other lifeforms, and even with lifeforms, you are responsible for all of them, but, for instance, when doing drug testing, monkeys are a last stage before trials on humans proceed, and we value monkeys higher, closer to being human, than rats, or even fish, or even grasshoppers. I don't know, I'm trying to come up with excuses, I killed a lot of grasshoppers while fishing, and I did not have high tech kosher means such as freeze them to a quick death or numbness with a dentist's ethyl chloride spray, back in those days. And I did not have good plastic artificial bait of the right texture, and even if I did have some plastic bait, the fish just ignored it, more than they ignored bread. In fact a favorite activity of mine was to have a half of slice of bread saved from the morning breakfast, when the fish are most hungry, and there was this old mini-railroad train wagon stationed right next to the deepest spot anywhere nearby the river, where you would be distant enough for the fish to ignore you, but it was up high, and you could roll these 1/8th inch balls of bread, and toss them in the water and wash the fish jump and fight over it. They kept unafraid, but they would not bite it on a hook, because you had to approach closer, and they got scared, and you could not swing it out of the train wagon from a distance, plus the overhead tree cover was in the way. But that was the spot I caught two larger fish in sequence, that same day, during the morning hours, with grasshopper bait. All my other fish were small even if I lucked out catching them, but most days I ended up empty handed, even with grasshopper bait that was plenty, economical, easy to catch, and the most chases after by the fish of all baits I could find. So sorry. But I owe them grasshoppers something, and I know they are not dependent on flowers, like butterflies are, but they too hate the constant grass cutting with loud blades whirring above their heads and little food left.

Even with grasshoppers it was really difficult to catch the mountain fish. They are the smartest and most strategically enabled fish in the world, they are the most muscular, all have long elongated bodies with strong tails, to fight shallow water at high speeds, the trout and the like fish, they all look like salmon in body shape and agility. They have to be, the water is constantly moving, they cannot sit still for a long time, but have to constantly keep swimming. (Unless they find a tornado like downward swirl in a large bay area, and they can allow themselves to ride in circles for a while, and if the funnel, the downdraft at the center of the cyclone is not too strong, they can even float with their internal air bubbles through it. But they get bored easily like that, and like to keep on the move.) And fishing in a river never gets boring, unlike in a lake that might have not so agile carp, or even round bass, that just sits in one spot, stalking, waiting for something to happen, or even the seahorses in the sea, that could absolutely not make it in a river. River fish are lazy, in a kind of wisdom, where they spend most of their time in the deep and wide bays where the water velocity is much decreased, and the depth allows them to quickly jet and dive out of sight in case of danger. They spend most of their time at the entrance part of such a deep and wide depression in the riverbed, right in front of a mini waterfall of 2 inches high of incoming, rippling water, to be the first ones to catch any floating food that arrives. And when one jets for a piece of food debris carried by the water, like a dead bug, or dead tadpole or whatever, the other fish instinctively jet to the same location, and they fight over the food. Into any still water location, with no surface ripples therefore not shallow or high speed, you can even toss a tiny piece of 1/8th or 1/16th inch rock, and like 20 fish all at once jump at the water surface impact site, with beautiful flashes of their silvery scales, when otherwise their dark backs that camouflage them against the brown sand on the riverbed makes them near invisible to you and to birds. In fact you can sit and just watch these fish, in a Schubert "Die Froelle" style, and once in a while you see one of them suddenly jet, and all the other fish instinctively react and jet to the same location, as if he found food or something, but it's a prank, a false alarm, in a ha ha, I got you! way. What a great sense of humor, or the illusion of it. Like the Zen koan about two monks talking: One says, look how the trout are enjoying themselves in the water. The other: How do you know they are enjoying themselves, you are not fish. To which the other: By the same argument, how do you know I don't, you are not me. Trying to understand fish and how they think, or if they think at all. They have to think, and solve difficult strategy and tactical problems. Sometimes the river water is extremely clean, not hazy, and you can see to the very bottom easily, especially after a long absence of rain upstream, and lack of mud carried down from the mountain slopes into the river. Right after a rain the water level rises 10 fold, and it's all milk chocolate colored, and there is like a half an inch visibility in it, but I've seen others catch trouts during those times, with a really stinky nightcrawler, I never caught any trout or even seen them while watching fish, they must have been more upriver, into the even shallower water areas, down where I hanged out the river speed and size was medium, and I always played around with the chubs (squalius cephalus, like these ones as they were plenty, and playful, unlike the more boring and slower moving, always on the bottom stone loaches (like these, but those were even too easy to catch with actual earthworms, as long as you set the hook and sinker to drag on the river floor, where sometimes you'd get false alarms from the hook getting caught on a piece of rock, anchor style. And they almost never went for the grasshoppers, but near the surface swimming chubs that were more plenty, did, and as I said, I've seen local residents catch trouts, in their water buckets during a chocolate milk muddy river rain storm when the river almost overflowed, but I've never seen them at all, I think they got confused in the mud and got drifted downriver too much. Or they are just that elusive, but different type of fish hanging out in pools near the surface water is kinda difficult, both jetting at the same piece of food or jumping at the overhead flying bugs, each like has their own territory, except the bottom feeding stone loaches and surface feeding chubs, but the trouts can go up higher and not have to compete with the other fish for food there, where they are all alone, just like salmon, including safer homes for their offsprings not getting eaten by the other species of fish, and they of course don't eat their own kind, that would be silly. Near the edge of the river, in the 1/4" to 3/4" depths near the shallow riverbank, where the water flow is extremely slow to almost still, other than some wave splashing, it was always full of thousands of baby fish, 1/8" length.

You always have to fish going upstream, even if on the downward portion of the river from your campsite, you have to first walk down the asphalt road, if there is one, or through the forest, and then descend into the river gorge, and make it upstream, hopping from rock to rock, or walking in shallow water in rubber slippers, or even tennis shoes are better, because they are easier to make hops from large rock to large rock over deep waters, unless their sole is slippery, where you land on that target mossy rock and your feet go flying up in the air, and let alone all your clothes get wet, but you hit yourself during the fall on sharp river rocks, and hurt from it. Going upriver is always a puzzle, of trying to not get your clothes wet, because it sucks fishing in wet clothes, but sometimes, in certain circumstances, the least worst option is to allow your clothes to get all wet, and then suffer for like 2-3 hrs before they dry on you, if the weather is really hot in the summer, and there is no chance of catching a cold. Sometimes going upriver you get stuck, find an impassable portion, but then you figure out a trick, to pass it, only to later come up on an even greater impassable difficulty, to where you have to turn back, crap, and pass that difficult point with say a risky jump, in the reverse, and ascend out of the gorge into the forest, and find a descending spot further up, ahead of the impassable portion. You constantly have to be on the move. You recognize fish congregation sites from the distance by the relative stillness of the water surface, lack of major ripples, and even when there are no absolutely still places, the ones that are most still is where the fish from the nearby area spend most of their time, in a simple economize your food energy way and not swim senselessly against high velocity water. Sometimes you even see the fish in the still water area, from a distance, with their back sticking out of the water, or the playful surface swirls they make whipping their tails. Sometimes you see them jump out after bugs. You always have to sneak up on the fish from behind, because they focus their attention forward, to the incoming water carried food. Even with this sleazy, dishonest, unprincipled way of sneaking up on their backs, you barely ever catch any fish. They are so smart. They got to be. You only get one throw of your hook, plumb and float into any area, and they instinctively jump after it without thinking, but that's it, once they get a chance to think, and realize something is not kosher, they dive deep and hide away. Even if the water is very clear, and you can float the grasshopper bait right before their nostrils, even bumping it into their nostrils, they refuse to bite, when they see you, unlike other times when they simply cannot resist a grasshopper. That's what you call self control. And you know it's time to move on. Or wait 20 minutes, come back to the same spot later, by which time they should have relaxed, and start playing and hunting again. Sometimes though they jump even after the plumb while it's flying overhead, and carry the float under, but when you jerk the fishing rod to make a catch, there is nothing on the hook. Even when they do catch the hook, and are sinking the float, there is a limited amount of time window to make the reverse jerk, not too early, not too late. Too early and the bait was just tasted, or even teased with the float coming back up, not swallowed, and too late and the fish realized there was a stiff metal hook and a plastic line, and regurgitated it outside of its mouth. And you cannot make the hook much smaller, or it won't properly hold a grasshopper, or will be too difficult to get out from the fish's stomach with tweezers, and who wants to do that kind of digging or torture. So you do need a hook of a size that the prevailing fish will take into their mouths, but not pass it through their throats, and because of that, a limited time window.
Sometimes, coming up on fish from behind, you get this creepy feeling like they know you are coming, and know they are being watched, and even when you throw the hook, line and sinker, and float, they completely ignore it. And if you approach even closer, they slowly dive away, not in a scared way, just a very balanced I regulate my depth based on how close you are, if you go further I come up, if you come closer, I go down, and there is like no hysteresis time of 20 minutes, after a scare. Creepy. You have no chance with such fish, it's like God is controlling them, it's like they are above your intellect, and they know what you're gonna think next before you even think it. Creepy. Better move to a different spot. Sometimes you get lucky though, and they have no clue you're approaching, especially if you keep your fishing rod tip and your head low, to where the Bragg angle is still at total internal reflection for them, because they are in a higher index of refraction medium, so they cannot see you, but you can see them, true, in a very distorted and difficult way.

So I killed a lot of grasshoppers back in the day, as that's what was available, and I did not have dentist ethyl chloride spray to quickly freeze them to death or at least numb them. I still care about grasshoppers, and want them to live well, and it's like I owe it to them, or their kind, to stand up against senseless expansion of gas wasting, time wasting, biodiversity and genetic variability and native species wasting indiscriminate lawn mowing carried to extreme. Live in harmony with wilderness, please. And especially don't attack my private property lot when I want it to be a wildlife sanctuary. As in any plant or animal that shows up, I want to let them live there, and would please beg the government to leave my lot alone. I can pick up human trash, on a biweekly basis, if I start getting charges over that, in a way of you have to maintain your property, but even if you paid me $20 per mowing to let you cut my grass, I would say no, let alone me pay for the astronomical amounts. I could use that money in a million different ways, such as giving it to church, and you're taking it from me. I think wild nature is never ugly. Even if you think it is, you're wrong, dead wrong. And I'm taking a stand against you.

Comment: Re:Not always (Score -1) 191

by sillybilly (#47925087) Attached to: Sci-Fi Authors and Scientists Predict an Optimistic Future

By the way, females alone without males, without the fast mutation and genetic adaptation brought on by sexual reproduction and various gene combinations are doomed as a species, to extinction disease plagues, similar to a banana which lack a sex life, and it's terribly vulnerable to extinction. Google sex life of banana, or

Btw, I cannot post on here much under my user name anymore, because I got assaulted from excellent or good karma to bad and terrible within 2 days. See But I do post as Anonymous Coward, and sign it at the end with this user ID.

Comment: Re:Not always (Score -1, Offtopic) 191

by sillybilly (#47914385) Attached to: Sci-Fi Authors and Scientists Predict an Optimistic Future

Wow, and I just found this quote on that page:

Here at least We shall be free
Whom thunder hath made greater? Here at least We shall be free; the Almighty hath not built Here for his envy, will not drive us hence: Here we may reign secure; and, in my choice, To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell: Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

That's like nonsense, gibberish, but for a genetically "queen" being, the concept of "serve" others instead of reigning over others yourself, may indeed be strange. After all, that's like cuckolds in porn, go ahead please, let me be second, and disappear. It's complicated. You can have brotherly love between men, not gay, or homosexual, just love where they push each other forward. But then again, the ones that sort of "cheat the system" and assert themselves at the expense of others, in such a social environment, will proliferate. Kinda like people having a ton of kids on welfare, they don't serve others, they serve themselves first and foremost. Ultimately, the breeding capacity of any healthy life form is infinite, and only the external world, the external resource constraint is what sets a limit on what an adequate size of population is. For most lifeforms it's a limiting nutrient. With the limit lifted, such as infinite cat food, or phosphate detergents for algae, you get a bloom and inharmonious upset of the ecosystem from a population explosion.

Comment: Re:Not always (Score -1, Redundant) 191

by sillybilly (#47914349) Attached to: Sci-Fi Authors and Scientists Predict an Optimistic Future

Yeah and the government spends your precious money on welfare for the poor that breed out of control on unlimited food supply, instead of science research. I knew an elderly man, who was over 100 years old, and he was too old to take care of his cats, he fed them food all the time, but too old to clean up after them. On unlimited food he must have ended up with like 200 cats, and cat poop all over the house. Something not right with that picture.

As far as the future goes, space stations are the future, and spaceships. But also the fast breeders, the really perverted can't control themselves fuckers, but they also have to be very intelligent under warfare scenario. You'll might have things like tails for humans again, simply because that retro mutation is gonna be perverse, long tongues like 15 inches sticking out of your mouth, super sexy eyes and lips, and constant fucking. Unfortunately religion is difficult to stick to even for the most religious, and sex dominates the world, because those who fuck all the time, usually have more babies, and drown out in population those who abstain. Everything is gonna degenerate into super cool appearances and fetish.
In 3 billion years, Alien is what a human is gonna look like - 6 fingers, long tail, super long brain to pretend she's smart. Maybe males may have been lost under dire circumstances, and female only reproduction takes over, like earthworms can reproduce in absence of a partner. The females are still gonna be insanely horny, and they can get each other off. Under lack of males, and sexual reproduction, the species will no longer be able to adapt to new diseases, and you'll get diseases that eat people, or whatever you wanna call them in 3 billion years, up from the inside out.
Air filtration may be mandatory, as in CPAP, for everyone, to keep diseases away, yet everyone will be infected anyway. This of course would not happen if people lived in a sort of natural way, in the jungle, immersed among other life, and naturally selected to resist diseases. That's how you and I are here, a long process of selection. Our immune system can fight off gazillions of viruses and bacteria, or at least keep them in check and make them live in harmony inside you, which, as soon as you die, decompose your body, unless immersed in formalin. Each of those microorganisms living inside you is potentially deadly, but it's not, because you're genetically adapted to dealing with them. Of course such natural selection also means massive die-offs of those unadapted, potentially the loss of the entire species, but as long as a few make it, you have maybe a new species and a new adaptation. For instance a malaria adaptation is sickle cell disease, deformed hemoglobin. But such a cost, risking losing the human species, is too high, therefore technology will be applied, instead of allowing genetics through natural selection, and instead of allowing only the sickle cell diseased ones to make it, and be the only ones in face of malaria, technology will be applied, including drugs, air filtration, sterilization of utensils, and, as an end result, everyone will be genetically weak to properly fight diseases, especially if the males of the species are lost somewhere in time through history, 3 billion years from now, just like how some ants lack males. Ants have a much longer evolution than humans, and, because under warfare scenarios, cooperation is important, and in cooperation, hierarchy, you may end up with massive social structures just like ants and bees do, together with reproductive specialization genetically inscribed into individuals. The Alien queen, with external eggs and genetically engineered ovipositors, may be the future of highly social, warfare tested social structures of whatever animal becomes of humans 3 billion years from now. When I saw this page, at first I thought it's a distant world in another galaxy, then I thought, no, it is the very far future. Of course regular humans may still be around, just like crocodiles and sharks are still around, but in a sense, humans have descended from crocodiles, by sequences of mutations, while crocodiles that stayed the same are still like crocodiles like they were hundreds of millions of years ago. In this sense regular humans will no longer be the stop species, but whatever Alien queen evolves of them will be, who will use regular humans as ovipositor material, or any other lifeforms, and not really give much shit about ethics, except survival, pushing life, popping babies. As time goes on the suicide genes get selected out, and it will become more and more difficult for some members not to ignore survival as the only thing to ever think about, and make it near impossible to commit suicide. Suicide is a social phenomenon, just like cellular apoptosis in a multicellular organism, like a human, where ethics matters, and the whole makes it by its members adhering to its inner ethical rules, the organism makes it when individual cells follow the command of the haphazard, but encoded into the genes, ethics that has been selected to prevail through the ages. However in human society there is constant ethical breakdown, and those who don't follow it drown out those who do, so suicide is going to be a thing of the past, and by her time, 3 billion years from now, Alien will find suicide impossible and incomprehensible to her. The longer life lasts, the harder it will be to be free, and not be a horned up on raging reproductive hormones slave to the demands of survival, but instead engage in things like science. With fast breeders taking over the world, and raging hormones of always sex on the mind, there will be some science, enough to upkeep a good enough life that keeps the fast breeders in dominance, but they will lament the days when people were more free, or more like had harsher lives where sex drives and hormones were not the only thing that mattered in who makes it, but ability to innovate technology such as weapons. With the advent of nukes, there is no longer all out warfare that's possible to defend against with correct strategy, or correct fortifications, and it pretty much puts an end to the need to be technologically creative. I mean you'll still have some robot planes and such, but then warfare talent and even innovative talent is transferred over to but a mere 2 or 3 out of billions of people, who invent it for everyone else, and everyone else feeds off of it, but the general population will not be skilled, unlike in the old days when people used to hack each other down with swords, with hand to hand combat on a battlefield, or even with guns, before the advent of machine guns that does a horrible and wasteful butchering job. So even machine guns are too much, and now you got nukes, so that puts an end to an all out warfare world. And if it does not, then everyone might die. The ability to create weapons and the power to destruct even these days is mind boggling. But even worse than nuclear bombs are biotech lab genetically engineered diseases, developed as a bio weapon, which inevitably escapes the lab, and everyone is infected, unless on an isolated space ship or space station. Like computer viruses, who can guarantee that some stupid bio-hackers are not gonna create things like they create computer viruses and kill every life form on this planet, and the only ones to survive are those few we sent up to live on isolated, infection and nuclear radiation free space station? Space is vast and very empty, and under such emptiness and vastness you have to maintain survival, which in 3 billion years will be very hard to near impossible to go against, as in suicide, and there is joy, sexual perversion joy of constant fucking for days on and on, trying not to catch diseases and stay out of gun shights, but other than that everything is very pessimistic, disease, lack of new technology, lack of genetic adaptation, vast emptiness of space and absolute lack of resources - even U235 that could fuel life will have decayed a lot by then, though the U238 and Th232 may still be used, having mind every piece of rock far from a star, or even close to any star, with population exploding to where such space rocks and even entire planets are harvested for their nuclear fuel content, and all that's left is a nearby star to live on, because, unlike in star treks dilitihium power source, similar fusion power may not be around ever, due to lack of innovation and technology, because of preexisting technology that makes easy life possible. Easy, because of preexisting technology, but difficult, because of overpopulation, disease, total lack of resources that have been consumed under and available under a preexisting technology that's forever stuck at its then present state. Diseases, stupidity, pessimism and depression, and sex especially are gonna dominate the world, especially in absence of a religion.

Btw, I got those images from here: http://urania-josegalisifilho....
It's missing the images that look like there are snakes or worms growing under those long huge skulls, animal parasites, and that's how those skulls expand so long, not because of brainsize, but it makes it appear to others, who are not of the nobility, that the nobles with expanded elongated skulls are truly smarter. And that diesease is a killer too, and it can hurt, but any animal disease, any multicellular disease is easy to get rid of by iodine containing hormone overdoses specific to that organism, especially if some of the iodine in the molecules are replaced with radioactive Astatine, then it's devastating.
Alien may breed traditional humans with less sex drive, to invent technology, kept in an incubator, and living in a dream world, without using them for eggs. But she'll grow frustrated when they don't produce tangible results, like how to do quick intergalactic travel, which could only be done through physics, and instead these fuckers in stasis only care about chemistry, and in that not about complex biochemistry to fight diseases (because they don't like the experimental part of bio 101 which is dissecting live animals and infecting them to try something that might work), but just pissing around kind, simple inorganic chemistry, and simple minded things, like going to bars, dancing, watching tv, but no math, no physics, no biotech chemistry.
But, one time, that page made me feel like there are problems and people like me are needed, and made me get up and go. It's like it's hard to live for yourself, but living for others, even if they are ovipositor egg laying aliens, is easy. Such a thing, living for others, is incomprehensible to her, except when it's about her own offsprings, not strangers.

Comment: Re:Renewable (Score 1) 82

by sillybilly (#47905509) Attached to: Solar Powered Technology Enhances Oil Recovery

Because renewable energy lacks a good carrier - such as gasoline, diesel, propane, sugar, fat, li-ion battery. Usually the way they get the energy required to pump oil out of the ground, is by burning some oil to run the equipment, and you talk about the concept of net energy gain. In case it takes 90% of a barrel of oil worth of pumping to squeeze out 100% of one barrel from the ground, your net energy gain is 10%, and it may not be worth it. However, with renewables, which are kinda like free in the desert, and you don't have a good way to transport it away from there, but you can use them exclusively to run your equipment and do the net energy of extraction at 100%.

Renewable energy would be great if you had a good carrier for it. They talk about the hydrogen economy, but it's not gonna fly far. I talk about the ammonia economy - tag the hydrogen onto nitrogen, that's plentiful, easy to come by, unlike the only 0.03% CO2 in the atmosphere, from which to extract the carbon and turn it to hydrocarbon - you have to process a humongous amount of air to get any carbon out of it, that you could turn into hydrocarbons as the renewable energy carrier.

By the way my karma instantly went bad, things that were modded +3 Funny, got modded -1 offtopic or -1 troll, so they only let me post 10 posts per day under this ID, and I'd have to go Anonymous Coward for more. I like to have people that read one of my postings, dig through my other postings too.

Comment: Re:OY (Score 1) 124

It would take me a whole year to just read through them 450,000 patent titles, let alone comprehend their meaning, let alone read their text, let alone comprehend their intent, let alone debate in my mind of the validity of any claims. Anything you do in this world might infringe on someone's patent, in fact they can submarine patents under that flood of patents, it's easy to hide something new that wasn't there before, pretending it was issued years ago, right when you do something brand new that has never been done before, and they wanna come harass you to stop doing it. Even if their patent does not apply, they can take you to court and then it's a game of who's got the deeper pockets to fight a patent battle, not a game of who's right who's wrong. I say fuck patents completely, abolish the patent system, it has degenerated into absolute waste of everybody's time and money. Go back to the nomadic intellectual property ways of 1500, and keep trade secrets if you feel like you need to. Which you can do even today anyway, with patents.

Comment: Re:Ask the US Postal Service (Score 1) 124

I bought that stupid house at a public auction. It was good enough for me, even if the city thinks it's not appropriate for me, and knocked it down for me, it did not live up to their standards of luxury. If anybody had a problem with me buying it at too low a price, they were welcome to show up at the auction and pay more, but other than that I care not about level of luxury as long as it's a roof over my head that keeps the rain out, and my most important luxury item is keeping my own bank account balance above zero, unlike the government that has run rampant with destruction, dragging other people into debt by charging them for that destruction, and unable to keep their own bank account balance above zero. Fuck the government, take the money from one guy, kill him with it, give it to another welfare recipient to breed out of control and vote you down at elections. Time for some tea bagger party motherfuckers that cut the government cancer out of everyday people's life.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz