 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / December 2008"green" idiots (power .neq. energy)
Quote on a TV program about the "green" revolution, including wind farms and research toward achieving one-hour conversion of biomass to petroleum, on digital channel 7-2 just tonight: (in a regarding a server farm in San Francisco, which has many racks of computers plus air conditionning to keep the computers from overheating:) "The power used for just one rack could power fifteen homes for a year." Do all of you see the problem? Power used for a rack, or for fifteen homes, is a quantity of *power*, i.e. rate of energy consumption per unit time. But fifteen homes for a year isn't power, it's *energy*, i.e. power multiplied by time. It makes no sense whatsoever to compare a power rate with a quantity of energy. How could the newscaster be so stupid to recite such stupid lines from a script without realizing that mistake? (And who was the double idiot who wrote that script in the first place?) Note: I've heard similar mistakes other places, such as equating miles with miles per hour, so the idiots on KGO-TV aren't the only idiots in the media who can't tell one physical unit from another of a completely different type. OT: By the way, the digital program info showed Annie Hall starting on channel 9 at 10 PM, but in fact the Humphrey Bogart movie that preceded it was still airing until more than ten minutes later, so for more than ten minutes the "current" program info was wrong. Apparently the program-guide info is completely independent of the actual program that is airing on ATSC. On Dec 28, 4:42 am, seeWebInst...@teh.intarweb.org (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote: > How could the newscaster be so stupid to recite such stupid lines > from a script without realizing that mistake? (And who was the > double idiot who wrote that script in the first place?) Lessee. When were you born? Yesterday perhaps? Fell asleep under a tree and slept through the fall of American journalism I presume. Here's a quick update. Journalists have NEVER been there to report the truth. Even back in the "good old days" they were only there to report a "good story". They are actually much smarter than they appear in their stories, but they are not paid to be either smart or accurate. Quite frankly I've NEVER seen a news story, in which I was personally involved where the reporters got all the facts right. NEVER! And I'm not alone. This same question was asked at a press luncheon in Washington DC. and not one of the reporters there could recall a story where all the facts were correct either! At times when I've been interviewed it got so bad that I would FORCE reporters to repeat the facts of the story to me to be sure they actually had them correct. And do you know what? They'd write the story as half lies anyway! Hey, it sounds better and who will check on them anyway? If anyone complains THEY control the editorial page and can censor any criticism! But that was then and this is now. Today it's gone WAY beyond a "good story" as they like to call it. Media has become an arm of propaganda. Lies are simply repeated over and over for political "re-education" of the masses. You see constant repetition of lies like CO2 causes global warming or a gun in the home makes you 40 times more likely to be killed "by" a gun! Pure lies. Pure political propaganda. And why not? If they step out of line and start reporting truth, they get fired. If they toe the party line and use their word-skills to bend truth the way the editors and owners want, then they magically advance their careers! Oh sure, Rosie O'Donnell is a talented wonderful human being! That's the reason she always seems to get a new job after losing the last one! Her political propaganda has NOTHING to do with it. But ALL the people are not asleep. They have begun to notice that all the talk about "trust" that reporters always spew about themselves is pure bullshit. Polls show that journalists are now viewed by the public as somewhere down with politicians and used car salesmen. Sure maybe Jay Leno and David Letterman can still fool the public into believing that OJ "did it" or to vote for Obama ( 568 slams against republicans 87 against democrats), but otherwise, the blatant propaganda that now passes for "news" has not gone unnoticed by most of the American public. And it's time you noticed it too! [...] > Lessee. When were you born? Yesterday perhaps? Fell asleep under a > tree and slept through the fall of American journalism I presume. > Here's a quick update. [...familiar material snipped. But, hey! One can't hear a good story too often...] > Polls show that journalists are now viewed by the > public as somewhere down with politicians and used car salesmen. "Now?" What was that bit again about having fallen asleep under a tree? [...more judicious, totally unbiased, and impeccably objective material snipped...]  SignatureMike (life--I think--member, NUJ). Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t filted: >Quote on a TV program about the "green" revolution, including wind >farms and research toward achieving one-hour conversion of biomass [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >from a script without realizing that mistake? (And who was the >double idiot who wrote that script in the first place?) If the quote is as you say, they needed a verb, and no decent editor would let the story go out saying "could energize fifteen homes for a year".... >Note: I've heard similar mistakes other places, such as equating >miles with miles per hour, so the idiots on KGO-TV aren't the only >idiots in the media who can't tell one physical unit from another >of a completely different type. Did I ever tell you about the time I made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs?...r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t filted: >> Quote on a TV program about the "green" revolution, including wind [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > If the quote is as you say, they needed a verb, and no decent editor would let > the story go out saying "could energize fifteen homes for a year".... Changing the verb from "power" to "energize" doesn't correct the fundamental error of comparing energy/time with energy. > > Robert Maas,http://tinyurl.com/uh3tfilted: > >> Quote on a TV program about the "green" revolution, including wind [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Changing the verb from "power" to "energize" doesn't correct the > fundamental error of comparing energy/time with energy. This one made me laugh. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/browse_frm/thread/21346bbff1cd58d4?hl=en# On Dec 8, 1:49 am, americans.for.cha...@gmail.com wrote: > [Stephen Moore] Wind and solar are not the great green technologies > that they are advertised to be. It is because they take up so much > land. Let's say that you wanted to provide enough electricity to light > up Manhattan and keep Manhattan lighted up at night and you wanted to > do that with wind power. To do that you would have to convert the > entire state of Connecticut - the entire land area of Connecticut land = wind power = energy There are working windmills that are 250 years old. A small prop wound e-silly generate enough powah to burn down the entire state of Connecticut, New Amsterdam and everyone living there. I also hear Amerotards refer to a hydrobill talking about electricity. Sounds to me like a gatesbill, a clintonbill or a run for the hillbill! But the best one out of all time has to be the Mileage. I'm sure this defines how much you age per mile. It makes lots of sense. Now for the sad part. It's not a journalist thing, scientists are just as guilty. For example: Say the distance to our destination is 10 km. Here one would obviously want to know how long it takes to travel 10 km. But if we look at the science the km/hr offers us the means to calculate how much km we travel per unit of time (hours). It would be far more practical to measure speed in hr/km. Then one woudn't need a calculator to get an idea how far the time is from a given moment. There are no real world examples where one wants to know distance per time. You are all potential terrorists! _______________ http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics >> > Robert Maas,http://tinyurl.com/uh3tfilted: >> >> Quote on a TV program about the "green" revolution, including wind [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >travel per unit of time (hours). It would be far more practical to >measure speed in hr/km. It wouldn't be speed then. You'd need a new unit for reciprocal speed. >Then one woudn't need a calculator to get an >idea how far the time is from a given moment. Let's try your system. Assume you are traveling 37 km/hr. In our system this would be .027 hr/km (call 'em "deeps"). How long will it take you to travel 167 km at .027 deeps? Would you need a calculator? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * Hatunen filted: >>Say the distance to our destination is 10 km. Here one would obviously >>want to know how long it takes to travel 10 km. But if we look at the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >it take you to travel 167 km at .027 deeps? Would you need a >calculator? I'd like to propose the name "retardance" for the property being measured by these "reciprocal speed" units....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" On Dec 28, 4:42 am, seeWebInst...@teh.intarweb.org (Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote: > Quote on a TV program about the "green" revolution, including wind > farms and research toward achieving one-hour conversion of biomass [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Apparently the program-guide info is completely independent of the > actual program that is airing on ATSC. "The Emperor has no brains!!!" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientific-illiteracy-all-the-rage-amo ng-the-glitterati-1212406.html Tom Davidson Richmond, VA [scientific illiteracy] > "The Emperor has no brains!!!" > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientific-illiteracy-all-the-rage-amo ng-the-glitterati-1212406.html Sometimes he just pretends to have no brains, to lull our suspicions. I was moved by the stinging rebuttal offered in the linked article to Delia Smith (for claiming that "it is possible to eliminate sugar from the diet") by the British Nutrition Foundation ( "sugars are part of a balanced diet"; thought I'd heard that before, somewhere) to google the BNF. According to its website, "The British Nutrition Foundation is a registered charity. It promotes the wellbeing of society through the impartial interpretation and effective dissemination of scientifically based knowledge and advice on the relationship between diet, physical activity and health." According to Wikip, which I would still trust farther than almost any food lobbyist, the BNF's membership includes "Coca Cola Company, Mc Donald's, Pepsico, Kraft Foods, Nestle and Unilever". Mission accomplished! High-fructose glucose is a big part of almost everybody's diet. CDB filted: >I was moved by the stinging rebuttal offered in the linked article to >Delia Smith (for claiming that "it is possible to eliminate sugar from >the diet") by the British Nutrition Foundation ( "sugars are part of a >balanced diet"; thought I'd heard that before, somewhere) to google >the BNF. It *is* possible to eliminate sugar from the diet.... ...and die of malnutrition....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > R H Draney wrote >CDB filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >...and die of malnutrition....r Yabbut, that doesn't mean you actually have to *add* white refined sugar to bought food or in your cooking, which I suspect we'd find is what Delia said. DC -- > CDB filted: >> I was moved by the stinging rebuttal offered in the linked article >> to Delia Smith (for claiming that "it is possible to eliminate >> sugar from the diet") by the British Nutrition Foundation ( >> "sugars are part of a balanced diet"; thought I'd heard that >> before, somewhere) to google the BNF. > It *is* possible to eliminate sugar from the diet.... > ...and die of malnutrition....r I don't think I agree. Boredom, maybe. But, subject to correction, I don't believe you need even glucose in your diet: the body will make what it needs from other carbohydrates or even from protein or fat. But the BNF are demonstrably right, and even relevant, if you ignore that little "s" they added. They just don't contradict what Smith said. > CDB wrote >[scientific illiteracy] > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Pepsico, Kraft Foods, Nestle and Unilever". Mission accomplished! >High-fructose glucose is a big part of almost everybody's diet. Like the tedious Plain English Awards, there seems an awful lot of barrel-scraping going on here. It looks as though the people who compiled this list - 'Sense about Science'? - have gone out looking for examples of mind-boggling, Earth-Shattering stupidity, but only been able to find a little mild foolishness together with some vapid remarks by b-list celebs. DC -- >> CDB wrote > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > mind-boggling, Earth-Shattering stupidity, but only been able to find a > little mild foolishness together with some vapid remarks by b-list celebs. Delia a B-lister? Say it ain't so! SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > Roland Hutchinson wrote >> Like the tedious Plain English Awards, there seems an awful lot of >> barrel-scraping going on here. It looks as though the people who compiled [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Delia a B-lister? Say it ain't so! It ain't so. (See my post to CBD). DC -- >> Roland Hutchinson wrote > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It ain't so. (See my post to CBD). For this relief, much thanks. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. Robert Maas, wrote: > OT: By the way, the digital program info showed Annie Hall starting > on channel 9 at 10 PM, but in fact the Humphrey Bogart movie that > preceded it was still airing until more than ten minutes later, so > for more than ten minutes the "current" program info was wrong. > Apparently the program-guide info is completely independent of the > actual program that is airing on ATSC. You've got it. The program schedule is loaded down from your cable provider to your cable box many days in advance. Its displaying is totally time dependent and has no relation to delays that might happen, especially when games of unknown length are involved. SignatureSkitt (AmE) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.