Project XIII App is in the ITunes App store!

Project XIII is now available for the iPhone in addition to the Windows phone! You can download it via the iTunes App store.  You will need to tell others your Id to talk to friends. But that's just a matter of an email or telephone call.

The app is free for 60 days, and 99 cents a month thereafter to cover network expenses and new development.  I purchased 12 months of subscription, then added another 12 months to that.  The more cash that flows into Caleb the sooner we get voice over IP functionality like Skype has.  I'd really like to dump Skype soon.

This is a really neat little app, seems to work well, but this is the first release and there's more functionality to come in subsequent updates.

PS: It also seems to work just fine on the iPad according to reports.

Read More

GEAR TURBINE PROJECT

I was sent this in my email tonight.  I am not a turbine engineer so I can't vouch for the design but I thought was interesting in its use of Ying/Yang concepts....  The video is in Spanish. -Bill


On Sep 4, 2013, at 6:30 PM, Carlos Barrera wrote:

GEARTURBINE PROJECT
Atypical InFlow Thermodynamic
Technology Proposal Submission
Novel Fueled Motor Engine Type

*State of the art Innovative concept Top system Higher efficient percent.
Have similar system of the Aeolipile Heron Steam device from Alexandria 10-70 AD.

YouTube; * Atypical New • GEARTURBINE / Retrodynamic = DextroRPM VS LevoInFlow + Ying Yang Thrust Way Type - Non Waste Looses

*8-X/Y Thermodynamic CYCLE - Way Steps:
1)1-Compression / bigger
2)2-Turbo 1 cold
3)2-Turbo 2 cold
4)2-Combustion - circular motion flames / opposites
5)2-Thrust - single turbo & planetary gears / ying yang
6)2-Turbo 2 hot
7)2-Turbo 1 hot
8)1-Turbine / bigger

-New Form-Function Motor-Engine Device. Next Step, Epic Design Change, Broken-Seal Revelation. -Desirable Power-Plant Innovation.

-With Retrodynamic Dextrogiro vs. Levogiro Phenomenon Effect. / Rotor-RPM VS InFlow / front to front; "Collision-Interaction Type" - inflow vs. blades-gear-move. Technical unique dynamic innovative motion mode. [Retrodynamic Reaction = When the inflow have more velocity the rotor have more RPM Acceleration, with high (XY Position) Momentum] Which the internal flow (and rotor) duplicate its speed, when activated being in a rotor (and inflow) with [inverse] opposite Turns. A very strong Novel concept of torque power thrust.

-Non-waste parasitic looses system for cooling, lubrication & combustion.

-Shape-Mass + Rotary-Motion = Inertia-Dynamic / Form-Function Wide [Flat] Cylindrical shape + positive dynamic rotary mass = continue Inertia kinetic positive tendency motion. Like a Flywheel.

-Combustion 2Two continue circular [Rockets] flames. [ying yang] opposite to the other.
-With 2TWO very long distance INFLOW [inside propulsion] CONDUITS.
-4 TURBOS Rotary Total Thrust-Power Regeneration Power System.
-Mechanical direct 2two [Small] Planetary Gears at polar position.
-Like the Ying Yang Symbol/Concept.
-Wide out the Rotor circumference were have much more lever [HIGH Torque] POWER THRUST. -Military benefits; No blade erosion by sand & very low heat target signature profile.
-3 points of power thrust; 1-flow way, 2-gear, 3-turbine.

*Patent; Dic. 1991 IMPI Mexico #197187 All Rights Reserved. Carlos Barrera.

Read More

Boulder Colorado Decides to Take Local Control of Their Power Supply

http://neweracolorado.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/xcel-playbook-textbook-EEI.pdf

Read More

Is The United States Going To Go To War With Syria Over A Natural Gas Pipeline?

Is The United States Going To Go To War With Syria Over A Natural Gas Pipeline?
By Michael Snyder, on September 3rd, 2013
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/is-the-united-states-going-to-go-to-war-with-syria-over-a-natural-gas-pipeline

Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria?  Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won't let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria?  Of course.  Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.  Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been "jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime"?  Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.  On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons.  One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.  Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict.  If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia.  This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.

It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time.  The following is an excerpt from an article from 2009...

Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world's biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).

"We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey," Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. "We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time," he said, according to Turkey's Anatolia news agency.

Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.

"For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all," Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.

Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world's leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.

As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline.  Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route.  The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian...

In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia.  So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people.  In a recent article, Paul McGuire summarized things quite nicely...

The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.

Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said "NO" to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.

Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia!

The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.

But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.

If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that behead mothers and their infants...

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.

Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.

Is this really who we want to be "allied" with?

And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.

If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive.  In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American "boots on the ground"...

The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad.  It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force.  It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets.  Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used.  Four points are worth making about these purposes.  First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict.  Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.).  Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.”  Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”).  Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).

I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described.  Some questions for Congress to ponder:

(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power?  Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.  It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.

(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon?  Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.

Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?

What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out...

I'll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he's five years old. We're not talking about war; we're talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, 'Well, what do you think?' He said, 'I think no war.'

Unfortunately, his grandmother and most of our other insane "leaders" in Washington D.C. seem absolutely determined to take us to war.

In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline?

Read More

Dutch secret service has no 'hard evidence' about Syria gas attack

Thanks for the heads up Luc!

Dutch secret service has no 'hard evidence' about Syria gas attack

Wednesday 04 September 2013

Dutch security officials have no hard evidence the Assad regime in Syria carried out a poison gas attack on Damascus last month, MPs leaving a special briefing on Wednesday told reporters.

The two Dutch security services have analysed all the information presented by the US and briefed the various party's foreign affairs spokesmen. The contents of the briefing are secret, Nos television reported.

'I am not allowed to say anything, but I am still not convinced,' ChristenUnie MP Joel Voordewinde told the Nos. Socialist MP Harry van Bommel said he had not heard anything new.

Lessons

Foreign minister Frans Timmermans has said repeatedly the Netherlands must draw its own conclusions about what happened in Syria. 'The past has taught us that we must not automatically accept what other countries tell us,' the minister is quoted as saying.

The minister was referring to claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction made in 2003. They later turned out not to be true.

A final effort first has to be made to persuade the UN security council to take action against Syria, Timmermans said.

- See more at: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/09/dutch_secret_service_has_no_ha.php

Read More

Hackers find ways to hijack car computers and take control

Sloppy security by car makers or deliberate backdoors exploited thru OnStar and Bluetooth wireless ports? Remember all those Toyota's suddenly accelerating on California freeways? They always blame individual hackers for this but its the individual hackers that uncover this kind of crap and negligence...  Its defective software and circuit design and should be treated as such.  Car control systems should be subject to same scrutiny given to life support systems. -Bill

Hackers find ways to hijack car computers and take control
Tom Krisher, Associated Press | 13/09/03 11:28 AM ET
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/09/03/hackers-find-ways-to-hijack-car-computers-and-take-control/?__lsa=8a74-41c1

Hackers were reportedly able to gain access to a car's computers through the OnStar system on a GM vehicle.

DETROIT — As cars become more like PCs on wheels, what’s to stop a hacker from taking over yours?

In recent demonstrations, hackers have shown they can slam a car’s brakes at freeway speeds, jerk the steering wheel and even shut down the engine — all from their laptop computers.

The hackers are publicizing their work to reveal vulnerabilities present in a growing number of car computers. All cars and trucks contain anywhere from 20 to 70 computers. They control everything from the brakes to acceleration to the windows, and are connected to an internal network. A few hackers have recently managed to find their way into these intricate networks.

In one case, a pair of hackers manipulated two cars by plugging a laptop into a port beneath the dashboard where mechanics connect their computers to search for problems. Scarier yet, another group took control of a car’s computers through cellular telephone and Bluetooth connections, the compact disc player and even the tire pressure monitoring system.



To be sure, the “hackers” involved were well-intentioned computer security experts, and it took both groups months to break into the computers. And there have been no real-world cases of a hacker remotely taking over a car. But experts say high-tech hijackings will get easier as automakers give them full Internet access and add computer-controlled safety devices that take over driving duties, such as braking or steering, in emergencies. Another possibility: A tech-savvy thief could unlock the doors and drive off with your vehicle.

“The more technology they add to the vehicle, the more opportunities there are for that to be abused for nefarious purposes,” says Rich Mogull, CEO of Phoenix-based Securosis, a security research firm. “Anything with a computer chip in it is vulnerable, history keeps showing us.”

In the last 25 years, automakers have gradually computerized functions such as steering, braking, accelerating and shifting. Electronic gas pedal position sensors, for instance, are more reliable than the old throttle cables. Electronic parts also reduce weight and help cars use less gasoline.

The networks of little computers inside today’s cars are fertile ground for hackers.

Charlie Miller, a St. Louis-based security engineer for Twitter, and fellow hacker Chris Valasek, director of intelligence at a Pittsburgh computer security consulting firm, manoeuvred their way into the computer systems of a 2010 Toyota Prius and 2010 Ford Escape through a port used by mechanics.

We could have turned the brakes off. We could have killed the engine. We could have engaged the brakes

“We could control steering, braking, acceleration to a certain extent, seat belts, lights, horn, speedometer, gas gauge,” said Valasek. The two used a federal grant to expose the vulnerability of car computers. Even with their expertise, it took them nine months to get in.

Valasek and Miller released a report, including instructions on how to break into the cars’ networks, at a hacker convention in August. They said they did so to draw attention to the problems and get automakers to fix them. The pair say automakers haven't added security to the ports.

Ford wouldn’t comment other than a statement saying it takes security seriously, and that Miller and Valasek needed physical access to the cars to hack in.

Toyota said it has added security and continually tests it to stay ahead of hackers. The company said its computers are programmed to recognize rogue commands and reject them.

Two years ago, researchers at the University of Washington and University of California, San Diego did more extensive work, hacking their way into a 2009 midsize car through its cellular, Bluetooth and other wireless connections — even the CD player.

Stefan Savage, a UCSD computer science professor, said he and other researchers could control nearly everything but the car’s steering. “We could have turned the brakes off. We could have killed the engine. We could have engaged the brakes,” he said.

Savage wouldn’t identify which manufacturer made the car they hacked into. But two people with knowledge of the work said the car was from General Motors and the researchers compromised the OnStar safety system, best known for using cellular technology to check on customers and call for help in a crash. The people didn’t want to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

GM wouldn’t comment on the research, but the company issued a statement saying it takes security seriously and is putting strategies in place to reduce risk.

One of the people said GM engineers initially dismissed the researchers’ work, but after reading the report, quickly moved to close holes that allowed access to the car’s computers.

Savage doesn’t think common criminals will be able to electronically seize control of cars anytime soon. Currently it would take too much time, expertise, money and hard work to hack into the multitude of computer systems.

“You’re talking about a rarefied group who has the resources and wherewithal,” he said.

Instead, he believes basic theft is a more likely consequence of computerization, with criminals being able to unlock doors remotely and then start and drive the car by hacking through the diagnostic port. Remote door unlocking could also lead to theft of packages, phones and other items that are stored in a car.

The Associated Press

Read More

Microsoft buys Nokia mobile business for $7.2 billion

Microsoft buys Nokia mobile business for $7.2 billion
Published time: September 03, 2013 09:38
http://rt.com/business/microsoft-nokia-mobile-business-341/

Nokia chief executive Stephen Elop (left) welcomes Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer (file photo) (Reuters / Luke MacGregor)Nokia chief executive Stephen Elop (left) welcomes Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer (file photo) (Reuters / Luke MacGregor)

Microsoft is buying Nokia's smartphone business and a portfolio of patents and services in an attempt to improve its position in the mobile market and compete with Apple and Google at a time when more people pursue their lives on mobile devices.

The $7.2 billion deal announced late on Monday marks a major step in Microsoft's push to transform itself from a software maker focused on operating systems and applications for desktop and laptop computers into a  more versatile and nimble company that delivers services on any kind of internet gadget, the Associated Press reports.

The acquisition will represent the second most expensive deal in Microsoft's 38-year history, ranking behind an $8.5 billion purchase of internet telephony and video conferencing service Skype. [who would have thought they'd pay more for Skype than Nokia? Or did they get a subsidy from the gov't to fund that purchase? -Bill]

The deal sent Nokia's Helsinki-listed shares higher by as much as 48 percent on Tuesday, which was ranked by Bloomberg as a record advance. Microsoft's shares fell around 1 percent in pre-market activity.



Microsoft, which has dominated the PC software market for the past 30 years, is now under increasing pressure. More people are shifting to smartphones and tablet computers, causing the demand for PCs to shrivel.

As Microsoft weakened, Apple, the maker of the trend-setting iPhone and iPad, as well as Google, which is behind world's most popular mobile operating system, Android have been gaining pace.

Finland – based Nokia and the US tech giant Microsoft first tried to cooperate in the smartphone market in 2011. Under the alliance, Nokia's Lumia smartphones have run Microsoft's Windows software, though the devices have not been as popular as the iPhone or an array of Android-powered devices spearheaded by Samsung Electronics' smartphones and tablets.

Microsoft is betting it will have a better chance of narrowing the gap if it seizes complete control of how the mobile devices work with its Windows software.

The deal is expected to be completed early next year. If that timetable pans out, about 32,000 Nokia employees will transfer to Microsoft, which currently has about 99,000 workers.

Microsoft expansion into mobile devices hasn't fared well. Last year, the company began selling a line of tablets called Surface in the hope of competing with Apple's iPad. The version of Surface running on a revamped version of Microsoft's Windows operating system fared so poorly that the company absorbed a $900 million charge in its last quarter to account for the flop.

Nokia plans to hold a news conference in Finland on Tuesday morning to outline the deal. Microsoft executives will elaborate on their rationale for the deal shortly after Nokia wraps up its presentation.

Microsoft transition
The acquisition is being made at a  time when  Microsoft is looking for a new leader. Just 10 days ago, Steve Ballmer, 57, announced he will step down as the company’s CEO within a year. Many analysts took the step as Microsoft's tacit admission that the company needed an infusion of fresh blood to revitalize itself.

The deal could fuel speculation that Nokia's CEO, former Microsoft executive Stephon Elop, will emerge as a top candidate to succeed Ballmer. Elop will step aside as Nokia's President and CEO to become executive vice president of Nokia devices and services in preparation for joining Microsoft once the acquisition closes. Chairman Risto Siilasmaa will stay in his current role and assume the duties of interim CEO.

Tony Bates the ex-boss of Skype, is also regarded as a potential successor to Ballmer.

The money to buy Nokia's smartphones and patents will be drawn from the nearly $70 billion Microsoft holds in overseas accounts as of June 30

Read More