... as to be inflicted with this never ending proliferation of idiots with
microphones and rain gear who seem convinced that they alone have made the
profound discovery that high wind, rain, and flood water are components of
hurricanes?
It's gotta be the rarity of the air in LA and New York that causes the
ignorant, condescending arrogance that makes the Teutels' look like brain
surgeons.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05
In article <[email protected]>, Duane Bozarth
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Except nobody has yet figured out a way to actually implement it in
> actuality.
Exactly. Who decides "abilities" and "needs"?
So far, the marketplace seems to be the best way to do that.
--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who
In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Science does, of course, propose theoretical models which then
> need to be tested in the court of Reality. Every single GW model
> propsed so far has been VASTLY wrong in overstating the rate and severity
> of warming. *Not a single one* (thus far) demonstrates unambigious
> statistical correlation between human action and GW which long predates
> human industrialization.
There's a simple graph that eloquently explains global warming here
(scroll down):
<http://www.venganza.org/index.htm>
Fewer pirates, a warmer planet. It's that simple.
djb (touched by his noodly appendage)
--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who
"Guess who" wrote in message
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:24:10 -0500, "Swingman"
wrote:
>
> >... as to be inflicted with this never ending proliferation of idiots
with
> >microphones and rain gear
>
> ...and not the brains nor the sense to realise that this is a
> woodworking conference like it says in the title.
And who the hell held a gun to your head and forced you into reading, and
particpating in, a thread clearly marked "OT" from the get go?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
> Joseph Crowe <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>> Freedom of choice means that we don't get to make
>>our neighbors' decisions and we must respect them. Frankly, I'm
>
>
> If the neighbors' decisions would not affect all of us that seems very
> fine. However energy wasters deplete the resources needed by
> everyone, sending prices and pollution up, and "common sense" seems to
> be no part of the decision why people choose the kind of car they do.
>
Hmmm, I've seen this argument before:
"From each according to their ability,
to each according to their need."
Karl Marx
(Except for air and water) The resources are not "common" they belong to
those who develop them. And while you're busy wagging your finger, take
a good look at the per capita CO2 production in Europe, for instance,
and then look at the US (guess who's being more naughty?).
The "pollution" argument is a chimera - the air is *cleaner* today in most
all the industrial world than it was a hundred years ago. Global Warming
is a vastly overstated threat and there is today no statistically demonstrable
connection between human activity and the very slight observed warming (which
has been going on for 15,000 years or so).
But, all these little illusions make good fodder for promoting the
collectivist/socialist agenda that is at the heart of all Do Gooder
programs that propose to tell all the rest of us what to do. This
is no "common sense", it is a deadly political ideology found at the
heart of the majority of the environmentalists movements, the UN,
and, sadly, EU governance ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Swingman wrote:
> ... as to be inflicted with this never ending proliferation of idiots with
> microphones and rain gear who seem convinced that they alone have made the
> profound discovery that high wind, rain, and flood water are components of
> hurricanes?
>
> It's gotta be the rarity of the air in LA and New York that causes the
> ignorant, condescending arrogance that makes the Teutels' look like brain
> surgeons.
>
People major in "journalism" because they're not smart enough to do
anything useful (engineering, medicine, a trade ...). These "reporters"
are chosen for their looks not journalistic ability. Most of them know
what they "know" about politics, weather, religion, guns, and business
from the Whollyweird movies they watch. The days of Cronkite and Murrow
are long behind us. Long live the cutie-pie news reader.
I've been through multiple earthquakes (small-medium) and many instances
of winds gusting to 100+ mph. My mamma didn't raise a fool - I stayed
*inside* to the degree possible. At no time did I expect reporters to
show up and report my "plight" nor did I expect FEMA to show up and make
the winds die down. This ability to stay indoors was possible because
the people of my hometown - having faced earthquakes and sever storms
over the years - *built accordingly*. For example, there were almost
no brick structures - wooden building sway, but mostly do not break in
an earthquake. Homes were mostly built on high ground to avoid the
losses to tsunami. Pretty much everyone had emergency kits in their
homes for the next "rocker".
While my heart goes out to the people who've suffered these losses, as
someone else here pointed out - they've decided to live and build in a
hurricane zone at or below sea level. There are plenty of places to live
that do not have this ongoing and consistent risk. An "act of God" kind
of disaster is one thing, but constantly placing yourself in harms way
is another. But is it any wonder? A good part of the society spends its
time shooting itself in the foot and then screaming for the rest of us
to pay restitution. I have no ill will and wish no harm upon the people
effected by this storm, but somehow, someday, people in this nation are
going to have to start taking responsibility for their own choices.
P.S Can you imagine the early Amer-Indians, or the settlers pioneering the
Oregon trail, waiting for FEMA to ease their travails?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> "George E. Cawthon" wrote:
>
>>Australopithecus scobis wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:35:15 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>cave creek, az
>>>>
>>>>I don't know where Cave Creek is specifically, but I don't think of
>>>>anywhere in AZ as not in continual drought, at least from a dryland
>>>>farming perspective.
>>>
>>>
>>>AZ ag uses a lot of irrigation. That water has to come from somewhere,
>>>such as the Colorado River. Drought upstream affects the available water
>>>supplies. Hence the Central Arizona Project, dams and reservoirs.
>
>
> That's <not> the question I posed to Charles as I specifically referred
> to arable land and dryland farming...I'm still wondering where he is and
> what he's referring to.
Don't know about that, it was just the statement
that you thought it was continual drought. That's
not true, if the average is 7.5" then 5" or less
is a drought.
>
> AZ certainly irrigates a great deal too much...
Just an opinion.
>>True. People back east tend to have a different
>>perspective.
>
>
> That's true, but I'm not from back east...
Sorry I was thinking you were from New England,
must have gotten mixed up.
>
>
>>...However AZ is arid, it just isn't
>>all desert.
>
>
> That's true, but that's not the question I raised...
Which was?
>
>
>>...From a back east perspective,
>>anything under 25-30" of precip would be called
>>arid by those in the east/midwest. That is why
>>the U.S., west of the Mississippi River is called
>>the arid west. Essentially all important/intense
>>agriculture is irrigated from west of a line about
>>midway through Kansas ...
>
>
> That's overstating...there's a tremendous amount of dryland farming in W
> KS and all through the High Plains from TX to SK. Not that there isn't
> irrigation, but to say essentially all is not true...
Possibly overstated, but the U.S. Government
consider the 17 western states to be "Arid West"
and in need of reclamation when they established
the Bureau of Reclamation. That would put the
line even further east. But I agree that does
include productive land used for grains. But if
you wish move the line to the Kansas/Colorado
border. BTW, I didn't say essentially, I said
"essentially all important/intense agriculture."
>
> Rainfall here is ~18"/yr altho we've only had something like 1" in
> scattered showers since July 1...the milo is hurting, but some is still
> going to make assuming we do get some more moisture before too much
> longer..
When you get the precip is very important to
dryland agriculture. In the "arid west" rainfall
is usually not sufficient because of the timing,
so anything beyond pasture generally requires
storage of runoff from snowmelt.
That still doesn't define drought, since a change
from 60 inches to 30 inches would be a drought
just as much as a change from 10 inches to 6 inches.
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:14:10 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I'll also admit to sitting in a somewhat continuing wonder that metal,
>> although the tolerances are so close, seems a much more forgiving medium
>> to work in than wood.
>
>I do recall one episode where Paul Jr. was beating on a bike with a pretty
>heavy hammer to get something to fit.
You'd think they'd learn not to fit stuff to 0.005" tolerances and
then send it out for powder-coating.
Lee
In article <[email protected]>, Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>
>[...]
>
>>>> The U.S. is attempting to keep people from *entering* our country
>>>> *illegally*.
>>>
>>>So you say the Mexico fence is illegal,
>>
>> What on earth makes you think I'm saying that?
>
>My sentence was an attempt to bring some humour into this thread by
>deliberately stating your sentence in a way that uses the ambiguous
>reference of "illegaly": It can refer to "entering" and to "attempting".
There was no such ambiguity in what I wrote.
>
>> You obviously missed the point completely: the United States has erected a
>> fence to prevent the illegal movement of people into the U.S. The Soviet
> Union
>> erected the Berlin Wall to prevent the legal movement of people out of East
>> Berlin.
>
>Just why is one movement legal and the other not?
The United Nations charter recognizes the right of people to emigrate freely;
the Berlin Wall clearly violated that right.
>
>[...]
>
>> So are you suggesting that nations do not have the right to control
>> *entry* at their borders?
>
>I am not suggesting tat. I am pointing out that there is a
>contradiction between advocating a free labour market on one side and
>controling entry at the border.
In your mind, perhaps...
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Robatoy wrote:
<SNIP>
ond Law.
>
> Photosynthesis is a particularly intriguing equation because CO2
> converts to O2 with C staying behind as a complex fibre for us to stick
> in a lathe or bandsaw. (Don't shoot me for this over-simplification...
> I'm trying to connect with Tim here...:)
No you're not. You're trying to subtly argue some variant of the usual
earth-worshipping nonsense that declares modern technology as regards
to farming (in this case) as inferior to past methods. It is baloney.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "George Max" wrote in message
>
>> beans. Those people are doing a great job of desensitizing people to
>> the times when a real disaster is happening.
>
> It started, to my mind, with the TV reporting of oil spills in gallons
> instead of barrels, progressing to the point that "teacups" will soon be
> required to maintain the impact value. From there we've gone to routinely
> reporting, and accepting without question, current weather temperatures in
> "feels like" terms, which are unquantifiable but certainly more
> sensational.
I recall discussing the "feels like factor" in Physics while in college.
The professor just laughed and we later termed it the "wus factor". Feels
like to who exactly?
Gentlemen....
Before we get going with a real donneybrook, may I suggest a bit of
background. In 1993 and again in 1996, massive flooding was experienced by
good many, in the Ohio, Missouri and Mississippi river valleys.
Charged with controlling the flooding, the Corps of Engineers had produced a
truely astonishing engineering feat. Levees were constructed all along the
mighty Mississippi. The river had been contained, except...
When heavy rains created what would have been a local flood, the water was
contained upstream and, as a result downstream levees had to be raised again
and again to cope with the ever increasing flow. (Not only more water, but
the flow rate was actually increasing due to lack of turbulance from the
smooth levees)
It was becoming a self-defeating problem. Build a levee upstream and then
raise all the levees downstream. New Orleans is about as downstream as you
can get.
A classic unintended consequences situation developed over the decades....
The Corps (along with other Federal agencies and a goodly number of private
sources) began a serious reassessment of the policy. Several small villages
were actually relocated...out of the flood basin. While I know of no levees
that were actually destroyed, (except in a couple of instances in 1996 when
a few levees were breeched in rural areas to relieve pressure on urban
levees downstream), the Corps simply notified people that they would no
longer maintain some levees.
The levees that breeched in New Orleans had been fully maintained. They
just failed.
Had New Orleans actually received the brunt of the eye wall winds and storm
surge, ALL the levees would (probably) have been inadquate by ten, maybe
fifteen feet.
New Orleans sits in a depression. The only possible way to guarantee no
future flooding would be to haul in a few billion cubic yards of dirt.
New Orleans will get hit, again....
Boloxi will get hit, again...
San Francisco will have more earthquakes, some of them serious....
Kansas (Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, etc) will have extremely destructive
tornadoes...
North Dakota will have destructive blizzards....
It doesn't matter who is in the White House, Congress, or the local barber's
chair, for that matter...
Stupid enough that they keep building 'em up and the weather knocks 'em
down. Sure glad our benevolent gov't keep throwing money at stuff like
this..... Geez. I see this is another excuse to raise oil prices too. Damn
rigs will be shutdown for what, 12 hours?
How about this; You live in any kinda tornado, hurricane, volcano alley that
if you home gets demolished by natural causes you get funds for one rebuild,
One! After that your on your own. Start living in grass huts. I don't care
who you are your not gonna beat mudder nachur..
(best Teutel dialect applied)
Knothead
Swingman wrote:
> ... as to be inflicted with this never ending proliferation of idiots with
> microphones and rain gear who seem convinced that they alone have made the
> profound discovery that high wind, rain, and flood water are components of
> hurricanes?
>
> It's gotta be the rarity of the air in LA and New York that causes the
> ignorant, condescending arrogance that makes the Teutels' look like brain
> surgeons.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 8/29/05
Got to agree, but...most of those are local guys, and yesterday evening
there was a doozy from New Orleans: guy driving along in a foot or so
of water, all of a sudden is nose down and sinking. Another guy wades
over and helps him out the car window just as said car disappears.
Driver to news type: "I just didn't see the water."
Is it any wonder that some newspeople figure their audience is made up
of those with less than fully functioning thinking gear?
[email protected] wrote:
> Toss in Atlanta, too. Weather Channel
> meteorologists-standing-out-in-storm yesterday were almost being blown
> away, literally. Totally unnecessary- served only to fill air-time and
> risk lives.
>
Go for Roanoke, VA, too. Yesterday, one of the women (and I use the
adult noun only to eliminate PC yowling) had herself strapped into the
wind tunnel at Virginia Tech up in Blacksburg, and then got the wind
cranked up to 100 MPH.
This is at least the third time I've seen a newsidjit do this kind of
silly thing. I'm not at all sure what it is supposed to prove to anyone
else, as it's not truly dangerous (unless the newsie has an
undiscovered heart defect), and, as this one had the sense to admit,
leaves out certain things like gusting winds, changing direction of
wind, wind being filled with bits and pieces of houses, trees, cars and
anything else lying around loose--or not-so-loose. Not to mention rain
with drops driven at a speed that is enough to skin the paint off most
houses.
But, hey, it sounds impressive. "I was there, in 100 MPH wind." Now, if
she bailed out of an aircraft at 20,000 or more feet during a major
thunderstorm, she might get closer to the real thing.
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > Go for Roanoke, VA, too. Yesterday, one of the women (and I use the
> > adult noun only to eliminate PC yowling) had herself strapped into the
> > wind tunnel at Virginia Tech up in Blacksburg, and then got the wind
> > cranked up to 100 MPH.
> >
> > This is at least the third time I've seen a newsidjit do this kind of
> > silly thing. I'm not at all sure what it is supposed to prove to anyone
> > else,
>
> But if she was wearing a wet T shirt and . . . . . . . . . . .
You couldn't have seen much for the harness she was wearing.
Clint wrote:
> I've been watching a fair amount of the news footage of the hurricane since
> Sunday evening, and I'm trying to put my comments to these posts in fairly
> politically correct format...
>
> ... These people are talking about being
> homeless for months, if not years (how long does it take to build a house
> from the foundations up, especially when there's thousands of other homes in
> the same predicament). The only belongs that will have been saved (if
> they're lucky) will be the ones that fit into the back of their vehicle as
> they fled their houses. Who knows when they'll be able to get back to work,
> and get a real income again.
>
> *just shaking my head, trying to understand the hard-hearted comments*
>
Well, I don't think OP meant to underrate the severity of the
storm, rather it was a criticism of the reporting. The
reporters in the street were commenting on how much it was raining
and how hard the wind was blowing, neither of which was exactly
newsworthy, INSTEAD of giving us hard facts like how large an
area was flooded and inhabitable, how many buildings destroyed,
how many people were now homeless and so on.
Of course the reporters in the field didn't have those facts at
hand because the storm cut them off from communicating with anybody
but their home station and people immediatedly at hand.
--
FF
TomWoodman wrote:
> What really pisses me off is that ALL of our insurance rates are going to go
> up.. AGAIN!.. because of these people who choose to live in the hurricane
> zone. I know, not everyone is there by choice, but most are.
Uh, the "hurricane zone" is the entire East Coast south of Virginia
and the entire Gulf Coast up to maybe 200 miles or so Inland, including
the entire State of Florida.
If people stopped living there we would lose an enourmous part
of our agricultural base and a hell of a lot of our foreign
trade.
New Orleans is one of the larges, if not the largest port city
in the US and could not function as such 200 miles further
up the Missisippi
_How_ people live there, is another matter. Building codes
should take hurricanes into account so that people in
code-compliant buildings can safely stay put during a hurricane
and not need to evacuate. If grade is below sea level then
new construction should be elevated, and so on.
There should be a prohibition on rebuilding any non-expendable
building in flood plains and below sea level when the existing
buildings are demolished, and on new building there.
Same for the flood plains of major rivers, areas prone to
mudslides, volcanic eruptions and so.
Problem is, the 'developers' and builders write the codes and
they make money hand over fist rebuilding devastated areas. The
last thing they want is for those areas to be rebuilt to last.
We certainly have the technology to build hurricane survivable
buildings, and it is not THAT much more expensive.
What pisses me off is that we do not.
--
FF
Knothead wrote:
> ...
> How about this; You live in any kinda tornado, hurricane, volcano alley that
> if you home gets demolished by natural causes you get funds for one rebuild,
> One! ...
I have to ask, just where the hell do you live where there are no
natural disasters?
It's one thing to build in a flood plain, I'll agree that's stupid
but there are a half dozen or more entire (or nearly entire) states
in Tornado Alley, and an equal number of entire states vulnerable to
hurricanes.
Throw in most of the West Coast which is at risk for earthquakes and
volcanic eruptions and what you have left of the US is at risk
for blizzards.
Sheesh.
--
FF
Knothead wrote:
> ...
> How about this; You live in any kinda tornado, hurricane, volcano alley that
> if you home gets demolished by natural causes you get funds for one rebuild,
> One! ...
I have to ask, just where the hell do you live where there are no
natural disasters?
It's one thing to build in a flood plain, I'll agree that's stupid
but there are a half dozen or more entire (or nearly entire) states
in Tornado Alley, and an equal number of entire states vulnerable to
hurricanes.
Throw in most of the West Coast which is at risk for earthquakes and
volcanic eruptions and what you have left of the US is at risk
for blizzards.
Sheesh.
--
FF
Clint wrote:
> But my comments were to the follow up posters, and I mentioned specifically
> "the two previous poster's compassion". They're the ones I don't
> understand. Comments like "When did we become weather wimps?" and
> "They were good for parties afterwards while the gov tried to get the
> electricity back up."
But the question remains: When did we become weather wimps?
This hurricane, and the ones of the last few years since the advent of
24 hour filler posing as news (damn you, Ted Turner), were no less
devastating than those in the more distant past. Difference is that we
are now forced to look at the same flooded streets every 5 minutes
throughout the day. If you are affected by the storm(s), you are
looking at it real time, without the TV running. This "reporting"
doesn't help you. If you have loved ones in the area, I am sure
property damage and death estimates are not what you wish to pass the
time with while you wait for the phone to ring.
Personally, I wish there was still the test pattern after Carson that
lasted until The National Anthem and "High Flight", followed by
cartoons.
As far as the parties after the storm are concerned, what else would
you have a community do? Sit around bemoaning their plight? No.
People are resilient, the community will find ways to bond, rebuild,
and help each other through the devestation.
Living as I currently do, on a little rock in the Pacific prone to
typhoons (2 coming in the next 4 days, one last week), I would have to
say that long term preparedness goes a long way towards developing the
"post storm" attitude. The houses are concrete, hotels and high rises
are angled so as to avoid the brunt of the prevailing wind. I'll go
out in the morning, put the van back upright, and see if my neighbor
has any beef he doesn't want to have to throw away.
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> ...
>
> ...
> > ...If grade is below sea level then
> > new construction should be elevated, and so on.
>
> "And all the children are above average..." :)
>
> Just isn't physically possible nor feasible on the scale at which
> current development has occurred....
In a lot of cases that would simply entail making the buildings at
least two stories and relegating ground level for carports, laundry
rooms and other, more 'expendable' spaces. A lot more doable than
has been done. More expensive than a single story on a cement pad,
certainly but earthquake resistant buildings are more expensive too,
few people argue that expense as justification to eviscerate
the building codes on the west coast.
> ...
>
> In some places, to some extent, perhaps. In general it has been a case
> of just creeping development and in the city of New Orleans in
> particular, existing development.
The levee system in New Orleans is at least three hundred years old
so, yes, the problem crept up on us there. A big part of the problem
has been that without the Mississippi overflowing its banks the
delta has been expanding in length only, not sideways.
Maybe in the long run the best thing to do would be to leave
New Orleans flooded and make it into the Venice of North America.
Won't happen, of course.
--
FF
Swingman wrote:
> "Guess who" wrote in message
> > On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:24:10 -0500, "Swingman"
> wrote:
> >
> > >... as to be inflicted with this never ending proliferation of idiots
> with
> > >microphones and rain gear
> >
> > ...and not the brains nor the sense to realise that this is a
> > woodworking conference like it says in the title.
>
> And who the hell held a gun to your head and forced you into reading, and
> particpating in, a thread clearly marked "OT" from the get go?
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 8/29/05
This kind of discussion is a lot like shop life. Last week, a friend
was in my shop doing some turning--he's better than I am. I was
sharpening some tools--I'm better than he is. We talked about the two
things we were doing, then went on to talk about our families (bitch,
bitch, bitch) and the "new" car he recently picked up, a '72 Dodge
Demon he's restoring. I think we also covered a parts store he used to
run and a couple other items, but we didn't get back to talking
woodworking until the woodworking was done.
>>I have to ask, just where the hell do you live where there are no
>>natural disasters?
It's impossible, I live in snow/tornado country. I'm properly insured, my
home is contructed accordingly. My point is simply personal responsibility.
Without starting a whole new sideways thread, it's clear to me my taxes are
going to pay for this mess. Screw that it's all going to get blown over
again likely before they recover from this one. I know that there's history
there but sometimes you need to cut the loses and walk away.
Knothead
George Max wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:52:09 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote
> >
> >> That's certainly true. OTOH, I have only a limited amount of compassion
> >> (for lack of a better word) for those who knowingly build in a place on
> >> the Gulf Coast below sea level and expect to not have such a result.
> >> While it's a major disaster, most of it is actually self-inflicted if
> >> folks weren't so bent on doing things that really just aren't smart
> >> decisions.
> >>
> >And maybe build houses that can stand some wind. I am no expert, but it
> >seems that the insurance industry should offer discounts to folks who build
> >houses (or at least ROOFS) to a higher standard could get some kind of
> >discounts. They do this sort of thing with cars, why not houses.
> >
> >And build a house that can be easily refurbished after a flood. Good old
> >concrete blocks would work well.
> >
>
> This is something I ponder after every report of a disaster. Some
> disasters seem to have greater survivability than others. For the
> ones with a higher probability of survival of the structure, why
> aren't the structures better built for the environment they stand in?
>
> For example - the fires in Southern California a couple of summers ago
> - I saw a photo of a single house in one of the affected neighborhoods
> that survived. A stucco house with a clay tile roof. All the others
> apparently constructed as a regular frame house with asphalt shingles.
> Why build a house like that in that area?
>
> And in hurricane prone areas, why build close to the shore where you
> *know* storm surge will inundate your structure? And as you mention a
> roof to better resist the wind. Some magazine did a story about a
> house built by the mother of former Attorney General Janet Reno. That
> dwelling did a great job of resisting Hurricane Andrew.
>
> What's wrong with building a dwelling for the climate?
>
> Of couse if the disaster is an earthquake or a direct hit by a
> tornado, maybe not much can be done.
I don't think total safety is possible. We live in a non-earthquake
area that nevertheless has mild quakes from time to time. So far, no
problem. Hurricanes sometimes bring excessive rain here, with major
damage done 20 years ago from flooding. We get the occasional tornado,
though seldom a big or bad one, though a decade or so ago, just about
150 yards south of our house, a "small" tornado ripped a huge swath
through some woods, tearing tops out of many pine trees. If it had been
150 yards further north, this house and several others would have
ceased to exist, except as debris to be carted to the dump.
Yet this is a very safe area, compared to many others.
I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the wealthy who build in
problem prone areas, but around New Orleans, and in areas of southern
Florida, there are many families that cannot afford to up sticks and
move for av ariety of reasons--impossible to sell the house, even if a
job can be found elsewhere, so a 55 year old couple, for example, would
have to walk away from a mostly paid for home (one on which the bank
would insist they complete paying the mortgage), other problems.
These things are unfortunately almost never simple to resolve for the
people who are involved, regardless of what onlookers, naysayers, and
other like to believe.
Lee DeRaud wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:25:17 -0500, George Max
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >For example - the fires in Southern California a couple of summers ago
> >- I saw a photo of a single house in one of the affected neighborhoods
> >that survived. A stucco house with a clay tile roof. All the others
> >apparently constructed as a regular frame house with asphalt shingles.
>
> Uh, what exactly do you think is under the stucco of just about every
> house in Southern California, including (most likely) the one you saw?
> Hint: starts with a "w" and gets discussed occasionally on this NG.
>
> And more than likely, the adjacent homes to the one that survived had
> the same type of roof or something equally "fire-proof". Once a large
> fire gets into an area densely populated enough to be called a
> "neighborhood", the primary factor determining which houses survive
> and which ones burn is called "luck".
>
Even if you're right it was more likely the landscaping that saved
that one house.
--
FF
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> ...transporting the produce fom the agrarian
> >> states where it grows to the populated places where its converted to
> >> waste again...
> >
> > That's a fixed factor independent of the production cost--it's simply a
> > factor of life that city folk can not produce the stuffs they eat.
>
> But if more peopl;e were involved in argarian production and less in
> business consultancy the overall amount of transportation could be
> less, if you had smaller towns (which would also be less hazardous in
> case of hurricanes and other disasters; one would think the SF
> earthquakes, the bombings of Hiroshime, Hamburg, Dresden, the 9/11
> attacks and now the flooding of NO, togheter with stuff like the
> yearly stampedes at Mecca should persuade anyone not to live in huge
> clusters of many people).
>
Historically, that's the model, the ideal. Unfortunately, even agrarian
societies require implements. For an example, the blacksmith is not
going to thrive on a lonely farm somewhere, and farming doesn't allow
time to do the blacksmithing needed to produce, or maintain, various
tools, never mind the time to properly learn the job. Milling works in
a similar manner, as do many other service businesses.
Agrarian societies today, too, seem to operate totally at the whim of
nature--about the only true such societies left are those in Third
World countries. It's probable that's where we're all headed in the
future, a subsistence level existence, but you can bet people will
struggle against it. It seems to produce a locked in tribalism, and a
return to tribalism is not something the developed world really wants.
We've developed our way out of agrarianism as a way of life for, say,
75 or 85% of the population, and replaced it with...well, let's call
them worthwhile jobs in the modern sector. I mean, everyone needs six
financial advisors and three lawyers, right? Or is it the other way
around?
Certainly, firebombing would be less likely to take many lives in
cropland, and if therfe were no immense buildings, suicide bombers
couldn't drive airplanes into them. But we've long been headed in the
direction of centralization, and it seems unlikely the world is going
to pull back from it very vary, though in many areas, central cities
have been falling apart for decades, regardless of attempts to help
them out.
Is there an answer, an overall, simple, easy to implement answer. Quite
possibly. I don't know what it is, if it exists, but you can bet if
someone does develop and publicize such an answer, it won't be used.
There are too many contraries in the human psyche to allow it.
Look around at the gas stations in the U.S. today. Gasoline in the low
cost areas is now over $3 a gallon as price gouging gets endemic, and
is touch twice that in areas such as Atlanta. There's almost a touch of
pride in the TV announcers voices' as they note we're near European
levels of pricing now.
Then look at the lines forming at those stations, people filling up
before the price rises again, angry because they have to wait, but
still driving dual tank dually pick-ups and Hemi powered SUVs and
Suburbans that get 10 MPG. Or less.
Contrary.
But you can gently nudge them in a direction, even if you can't push
them toward a goal.
First, though, we need a goal, and a leader capable of expressing that
goal and doing the nudging.
Charlie Self wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > Often the problem is also compounded by religious
> > > > > proscriptions against any form of population control.
> > >
> >
> > Or not.
> >
> > Assuming these things have not changed over the last five to
> > ten years:
> >
> > The Catholic church prohibits all forms of birth control other than
> > abstinence.
> >
> > Aside from Vatican City itself, Italy has the highest proportion
> > of Catholics of any country today. France is second highest,
> > or nearly so.
> >
> > Again, aside from Vatican City itself. Italy has the lowest
> > birth rate in the world today, France second.
> >
> But how do those birth rates compare to countries such as Mexico,
> virtually all of Central American, in fact, Brazil, et al?
As you know, the birthrates in those other countries are very high.
Since all have a very high proportion of Catholics, it is
apparent that Catholicism is not the deciding factor.
Low birthrate and population growth rate correlates with
low infant mortality, access to education, and access to
birth control, especially for women.
All three of those correlate with a high standard of living.
As to causality, that's another issue. But it is hard to
argue that causality exists when correlation is absent, as
we see in the case of Catholicism vs birthrate. At least
it is not a factor that cannot be overridden by other
factors.
--
FF
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > Often the problem is also compounded by religious
> > > > > proscriptions against any form of population control.
> > >
> >
> > Or not.
> >
> > Assuming these things have not changed over the last five to
> > ten years:
> >
> > The Catholic church prohibits all forms of birth control other than
> > abstinence.
>
> Yes, of course. I figured anyone would follow the intended meaning
> although it was worded loosely, granted. Abstinence is probably even
> more effective, but not practiced much.
Certainly not when there is opportunity to practice the
alternative!
>
> >
> > Aside from Vatican City itself, Italy has the highest proportion
> > of Catholics of any country today. France is second highest,
> > or nearly so.
> > Again, aside from Vatican City itself. Italy has the lowest
> > birth rate in the world today, France second.
>
>
> My understanding is that a sizable fraction of the population of
> child-bearing age in those countries has chosen to ignore the strictures
> is a prime reason for the statistics?
That would be my assumption, although it is not clear that the
Catholics in countries with high birth rates adhere any more
closely to Catholic strictures in general. E.g. one wonders
if the rate of extramarital relations is any different between
the two groupings.
--
FF
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >Duane Bozarth wrote:
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > > Often the problem is also compounded by religious
> >> > > proscriptions against any form of population control.
> >>
> >
> >Or not.
> >
> >Assuming these things have not changed over the last five to
> >ten years:
>
> You're probably right -- they haven't changed. But they never were the way you
> claim, either.
Or I am right and they have changed in the last 5 to ten years.
>
> >The Catholic church prohibits all forms of birth control other than
> >abstinence.
>
> That is not correct: within marriage, the Catholic Church endorses natural
> family planning, which is a form of periodic, but _temporary_, abstinence.
> Outside of marriage, according to Church teaching, _all_ sexual activity is
> sinful regardless of whether birth control is used or not.
Logic isn't your stong suit I see.
Note that _periodic temporary_ abstinence (commonly referred to
as 'the rythim method', see also 'parenthood') is _abstinence_
by defintion and for the nonmarried abstention from extramarital
sexual activity is _also_ abstinence. Unless, of course you can
think of some way to abstain from sexcual relations while
simultaneously engaging in sexual relations. Don;t think too
hard though, 'impure thoughts' are also sinful.
>
> >Aside from Vatican City itself, Italy has the highest proportion
> >of Catholics of any country today. France is second highest,
> >or nearly so
>
> Also not correct. Italy isn't even in the top ten, and France just barely
> makes the top _fifty_.
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/roman-catholics-by-country
>
Here I was WAYYYYY off for France, though I bet the proportion
has gone down substantially in the last 5 - 10 years due to an
increase in the French Muslim population.
Not all Catholics are Roman Catholics. See:
http://www.answers.com/Eastern%20Rite%20Catholic
(for understanding you need to read the details, not just
the definitons at the top of the page). This may help also:
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Sui+iuris&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1
It is not clear from the page you cite page whether the
percentages are for all Catholics or for Roman Catholics only
as it seems to use both terms interchaqngeabbly which they are
not. The former is inclusive of the latter, not vice versa.
Counting only Roman Catholics Italy is eleventh
by percentage only slightly below the others (excpeting
Vatican City of course). There remains the consideration
of Muslim immigration/birthrate in Italy vs. those others,
over the last 5 - 10 years assuming (not necessarily a
good assumption) that the Catholic population is static
everywhere.
If those statistics do not include Eastern rite Catholics
(whom I would suppose to be more common in Italy than in
points further west) that would make a diference too.
At least Vatican City is still at the top.
> >Again, aside from Vatican City itself. Italy has the lowest
> >birth rate in the world today, France second.
>
> Utter nonsense. Austria, Lithuania, and Germany, among others have lower birth
> rates than has Italy, and there are nearly _fifty_ nations whose birth rates
> are lower than France's.
>
> http://www.photius.com/rankings/population/birth_rate_2004_0.html
>
Italy is eight from the bottom with only one (1.01) birth/1000
population differences between it and six of those are tiny.
Hong Kong's re-unification with the PRC during that time was followed
by a large influx of Communist loyalist sent there to stack the
post-transition elections in favor of the Communist party so that
may explain why Hong Kong is at the bottom of the list _today_.
I very much doubt that the birthrate in Hong Kong was nearly as low
prior to unification.
Got a similar tables from ten years ago? I'll still
bet you a dollar I was right about the Italian birth rate
but even so that would be a dismal score of 50%. (Right
about Vatican City on both matters, wrong on France on both,
split on Italy).
Thanks for checking. I'll revise my rants accordingly.
--
FF
Tim Douglass wrote:
>
> Let me re-phrase things so I'm not talking through my hat. *Every*
> vehicle, without exception, uses more *energy* to travel at 65 than at
> 55. Because more energy is required your mileage gets worse as you
> increase speed.
It takes more power to drive at 65 mph than at 55 mph.
But power is energy used per unit *time* whereas mileage is
energy used per unit *distance*. The question is whether or
not you are accumulating *miles* fast enough to make up for
the increased rate at which you are using energy.
I've no objection to the rest of what you say, just wanted
to clarify the above.
--
FF
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 08:39:19 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On my pickup it is even more so, but it is geared low and you have to
>> really work to get it over 60.
>
>My pickup gets a flat 15mpg no matter what speed I drive it. I watch my
>consumption on every fill up. The only thing that really affects my mileage
>is 4WD. You really don't want to know the misery of that story...
Been there, done that.
>> Any big SUV, pickup, van or even mini-van will show considerable
>> improvement as you slow down because of the reduction in wind
>> resistance.
>
>Not any. That's the erroneous part of the discussion. Some... yes, as you
>indicate you experience. My pickup is a Chevy 1500 4WD and it does not
>exhibit the behavior you experience. I'd be interested in knowing what
>motor you have in your van. There's lots more to the matter of mpg at
>speeds than simply the speed.
Let me re-phrase things so I'm not talking through my hat. *Every*
vehicle, without exception, uses more *energy* to travel at 65 than at
55. Because more energy is required your mileage gets worse as you
increase speed. Other factors come into play that can reduce that
difference to something virtually undetectable, but it is still there.
The biggest other factor is in vehicles with large, powerful engines
where so much fuel is wasted at lower speeds that you don't see a
significant reduction as you increase speed. Vehicles with huge
parasitic losses (such as 4WD) are also subject to this. The effect is
generally greatest on vehicles with large frontal area and efficient
engines - that is engines that are sized for "normal" driving. My van,
with a fuel injected 351 is a good example of that category. Curiously
enough the Chevrolet Spectrum I owned years ago was another. It got
about 40-42 mpg around 60 but dropped to about 25 when I pushed it
past 70 on the freeway. In mostly city driving I could still get about
35 or so.
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > >
...
> >
> > My understanding is that a sizable fraction of the population of
> > child-bearing age in those countries has chosen to ignore the strictures
> > is a prime reason for the statistics?
>
> That would be my assumption, although it is not clear that the
> Catholics in countries with high birth rates adhere any more
> closely to Catholic strictures in general. E.g. one wonders
> if the rate of extramarital relations is any different between
> the two groupings.
I think the difference is primarily the inavailability of the
alternatives owing to poverty and ignorance is the prime difference,
combined w/ a more militant clergy as a purely conjectural hypothesis.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> >Duane Bozarth wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> > > Often the problem is also compounded by religious
>> >> > > proscriptions against any form of population control.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Or not.
>> >
>> >Assuming these things have not changed over the last five to
>> >ten years:
>>
>> You're probably right -- they haven't changed. But they never were the way
> you
>> claim, either.
>
>Or I am right and they have changed in the last 5 to ten years.
Catholic doctrine hasn't changed. And the proportion of Catholics in France
hasn't been as high as you claim, either, for perhaps a couple of hundred
years.
>> >The Catholic church prohibits all forms of birth control other than
>> >abstinence.
>>
>> That is not correct: within marriage, the Catholic Church endorses natural
>> family planning, which is a form of periodic, but _temporary_, abstinence.
>> Outside of marriage, according to Church teaching, _all_ sexual activity is
>> sinful regardless of whether birth control is used or not.
>
>Logic isn't your stong suit I see.
That's pretty funny, actually, coming from you, and particularly coming in
response to my having pointed out (again) a bunch of nonsense in one of your
posts.
>
>Note that _periodic temporary_ abstinence (commonly referred to
>as 'the rythim method', see also 'parenthood') is _abstinence_
Refer to your statement above: "The Catholic church prohibits all forms of
birth control other than abstinence." Unqualified, as you stated it, this is
incorrect. Correct is "The Catholic church prohibits all forms of birth
control other than periodic, temporary abstinence."
>by defintion and for the nonmarried abstention from extramarital
>sexual activity is _also_ abstinence.
Well, duh. The point was that the type of birth control used, or not used,
under such circumstances, isn't particularly relevant to the Church.
>
>>
>> >Aside from Vatican City itself, Italy has the highest proportion
>> >of Catholics of any country today. France is second highest,
>> >or nearly so
>>
>> Also not correct. Italy isn't even in the top ten, and France just barely
>> makes the top _fifty_.
>>
>> http://www.answers.com/topic/roman-catholics-by-country
>>
>
>Here I was WAYYYYY off for France, though I bet the proportion
>has gone down substantially in the last 5 - 10 years due to an
>increase in the French Muslim population.
"WAYYYY off" for Italy, too, Fred. You said it was second, behind only the
Vatican; fact is, it's eleventh.
>
>Not all Catholics are Roman Catholics. See:
>
>http://www.answers.com/Eastern%20Rite%20Catholic
Red herring. There just aren't enough Eastern Rite Catholics in Italy, France,
or anywhere else to make up the difference between your wildly erroneous
claims, and the facts.
>
[snip more evasion]
>
>At least Vatican City is still at the top.
That's the only part that you managed to get right.
>
>> >Again, aside from Vatican City itself. Italy has the lowest
>> >birth rate in the world today, France second.
>>
>> Utter nonsense. Austria, Lithuania, and Germany, among others have lower
> birth
>> rates than has Italy, and there are nearly _fifty_ nations whose birth rates
>> are lower than France's.
>>
>> http://www.photius.com/rankings/population/birth_rate_2004_0.html
>>
>
>Italy is eight from the bottom
You said it was *at* the bottom. It isn't.
>with only one (1.01) birth/1000
>population differences between it and six of those are tiny.
Conveniently obscuring the fact that it's almost *two* per thousand higher
than the bottom...
>Hong Kong's re-unification with the PRC during that time was followed
>by a large influx of Communist loyalist sent there to stack the
>post-transition elections in favor of the Communist party so that
>may explain why Hong Kong is at the bottom of the list _today_.
>I very much doubt that the birthrate in Hong Kong was nearly as low
>prior to unification.
Whatever... more bobbing and weaving, as I've come to expect. You're still
wrong.
>Got a similar tables from ten years ago? I'll still
>bet you a dollar I was right about the Italian birth rate
You're on - but you find the tables.
I'm not gonna hold my breath.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> ond Law.
> >
> > Photosynthesis is a particularly intriguing equation because CO2
> > converts to O2 with C staying behind as a complex fibre for us to stick
> > in a lathe or bandsaw. (Don't shoot me for this over-simplification...
> > I'm trying to connect with Tim here...:)
>
> No you're not. You're trying to subtly argue some variant of the usual
> earth-worshipping nonsense that declares modern technology as regards
> to farming (in this case) as inferior to past methods. It is baloney.
>
'Inferior' covers a broad range of considerations.
One consideration is yield per acre. Hand cultivation yields more
per acre than mechanized farming, but the number of farm workers
working by hand needed to equal the product of one mechanized farmer
is staggering, and therfor the cost is prohibitive.
Weeding by hand has advantages over using herbicides, but the smae
argument applies as above.
And so on.
Modern techniques may be considered 'inferior' only in the narrow view
of a couple of criteria. Looking at the big picture tells a different
story.
As for the energy used in farming compared to the energy we get
from the food, well, my body runs a lot better on sugars than
it does on diesel.
Getting back on-topic though, it seems that forest grown woods
for the most part are superior to silviculured wood. Compare
old-growth doug fir to the second grwoth stuff, or pine, or
most of the softwoods and many hardwoods.
Second growth red oak is stronger than old growth though, which
looks better is a matter of aethetics.
--
FF
Bob Martin wrote:
> in 1230019 20050901 094319 "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Look around at the gas stations in the U.S. today. Gasoline in the low
> >cost areas is now over $3 a gallon as price gouging gets endemic, and
> >is touch twice that in areas such as Atlanta. There's almost a touch of
> >pride in the TV announcers voices' as they note we're near European
> >levels of pricing now.
>
> $3 per gallon is about 80 cents per litre
> UK price is about $1.60 (90p) per litre
> so you have quite a way to go yet!
Right now, price spikes are putting gas in some areas of Atlanta at
European levels--six bucks a gallon.
Point being, though, that the retention of gas hog vehicles and keeping
them filled even though prices have increased by over 100% in not much
over a year (with most of that increase very recent, though), is not in
the best interests of anyone that I know (I obvioiusly don't know Dick
Cheney and his oilman buddies). Gas will rise here, and the refiners
and distributors will pocket the extra cash, or pass it on to lobbyists
to hand to legislators and other politicians, while you and most other
Europeans at least see it going as tax money meant for the public good
(one can then argue about just what is the public good, and whether or
not any is provided, but that's the intent, while here it is simply
price gouging to further fill some already lavishly porked out
pockets).
Too, it's not so much the price increase, but the speed of the
increase, that is causing the problems.
Add to that our "just in time" system of truck based delivery of damned
near everything from everywhere, and some of the problems come into
focus, or closer to focus. I don't know what system Europe uses for
delivery of goods over long distances, but here, with 3000 miles from
east to west, and a bit more than half that from north to south, diesel
delivers. And diesel fuel has risen apace. Which means that large
transportation surcharges are going to be added to just about
everything we buy, whether a head of lettuce, or a pair of pants or a
40' extension ladder or the brush and gallon of paint you carry up that
ladder.
As someone said, the Fed is going to have some problems with all of
this, because the economy can easily tank after this debacle, in the
face of rising costs, but if they're not careful with interest rates
and monetary supply, inflation could reach 1980 levels in a
rush...maybe two weeks.
I had predicted three buck a gallon gasoline by Christmas, figuring
that could give the Ali Baba and the rest of the oil thieves (far more
than 40, though)a nice present. I was told I was nuts, that it would
hang just above $2. Ayup. I didn't predict any disaster on this
scale--who could? But my guess is that by this time next year, the U.S.
will be lucky to see regular unleaded gasoline at under five bucks a
gallon. Once the oil thieves get to a price level, it NEVER drops back
for more than a few weeks.
And I hope I'm wrong.
Leon wrote:
> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Leon wrote:
> > ...
> >> I am for as little government intervention as possible but I believe that
> >> the Oil companies, insurance companies, and electric companies should be
> >> limited to the "percent" of profit that they can make.
> >
> > What business are you in? Why should yours be allowed to make whatever
> > profit level you can as opposed to someone else's?
> >
> > What is needed isn't price control but reducing the restrictions on
> > increasing supply...
>
> My business does not affect the economy of the whole country as do the ones
> I mentioned. I am self employed designing and building custom furniture and
> cabinets. Suppose your groceries and house payments go up 50% this year
> like the gasoline you buy has. Let the luxury items go up but basically
> everyone has to have gasoline, insurance, and electricity suppliers and
> those suppliers are well aware it. My customers can choose not to buy my
> products but darn few Americans can choose not to have any thing to do with
> Oil, Electricity, and Insurance.
I'll stand on both sides of this issue. I think we need to carefully
examine current talked about oil sources for the absolutely least
harmful methods of extraction, while also limiting oil and electrical
"utilities" to a reasonable profit level, tied to inflation. When I was
a kid, it was done that way throughout NY State. Now? So-called
utilities have become just another in an evergrowing group of
businesses whose primary aim is to screw the customer out of as much
money as possible. Yes, businesses are there to make a profit. Yes,
making a good profit is the reason for the existence of most
businesses. But at one time, businesses tended to get started as a way
for one or two or however many people to make a living, hopefully a
good one, while also providing a product or service to as broad a
customer base as possible--done by keeping quality up and price down.
That's gone, and it left at higher speed throughout the greedy '80s,
and even the ashes are being sucked out the door by corporate (and
stockholder) greed of the new century.
Someone really needs to acquaint MBAs, including that beady eye asshole
in the White House, with the story of the golden goose, because they
are strangling it, more quickly each week.
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Juergen Hannappel wrote:
> >
> > "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > a kid, it was done that way throughout NY State. Now? So-called
> > > utilities have become just another in an evergrowing group of
> > > businesses whose primary aim is to screw the customer out of as much
> > > money as possible. Yes, businesses are there to make a profit. Yes,
> > > making a good profit is the reason for the existence of most
> > > businesses. But at one time, businesses tended to get started as a way
> > > for one or two or however many people to make a living, hopefully a
> > > good one, while also providing a product or service to as broad a
> > > customer base as possible--done by keeping quality up and price down.
> >
> > Exactly what I think. I call the economic system now in place "greed
> > driven chaos economy", where stuff gets produced because it promises
> > profits and not because it's needed, as can be seen by such enourmous
> > markets for cell phone ring tones, addictive drugs and SUVs.
>
> It's the other way 'round...demand creates the market for those items
> just as it does for oil or bread. If nobody was interested in the
> coolest ring tone for the cell phone, no one would be able to sell
> them. If the teeny-bopper wants to spend his $$ that way, there's no
> reason someone shouldn't supply that ability.
>
> Regarding the drugs, etc., it's been long demonstrated one can't
> legislate morality.
The original complaint/statement was about greed, not foolishness.
Foolishness is a part of being human, so ring tones fit perfectly in
that context, but it's possible to be upset that a guy in the
entertainment industry has a contract that gives him $130 million for a
year's work duing which by ever indicator he failed to properly do his
job. Or by Enron. Or by price gouging by oil distributors. Or by
profiteering by...ah hell, the list is endless. Ring tones are just
teenaged silliness that unfortunately overlaps in those as old as 35,
IME (as does much teenage silliness these days).
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> ...
> > I fundamentally disagree that "we aren't hurting ...". Let's do a thought
> > experiment. Suppose we built a bunch of small regional power generators
> > using, say, the Pebble Bed technology the Chinese are currently pushing
> > (in a huge way). This would have the eventual effect of making
> > electricity so cheap that it would be logically "free" (i.e., So cheap
> > the price wouldn't matter much.) ...
>
> ...
>
> No matter how many you build, they will never be cheap enough to be
> considered "free". Somewhat less expensive than current generation
> LWRs, <maybe>, but "free"--no way. Somewhere the construction and
> operational costs as well as the fuel cycle have to be recovered. I
> don't think there's any way it could possibly be done for less than
> perhaps 2/3-rds the cost of current generation facilities irregardless
> of scale, and I think that estimate optimistic.
>
> I recall when I started school as NE that was the current mantra of the
> old AEC--"too cheap to meter". Didn't happen then, won't happen now or
> in the future. It is simply not possible to create an infrastructure of
> such magnitude at no cost.
The maintenance costs over decades need to be remembered, too, as does
the simple fact that low cost energy always seems to encourage waste,
or at least very careless use, which drives up needs rapidly. When an
infrastructure is built, it must be maintained, something that a great
many people today seem to forget. In many areas, the Interstate system
is in pretty rough shape. Much of it has been in place for nearly 40
years, in heavy use for more than two and a half decades, and has
gotten relatively small amounts of maintenance...and upgrading has not
always been done in a timely manner, nor in the directions actually
required as traffic loads increased.
Just one example. Physical plants do deteriorate, and they do cost
money to repair, even if properly maintained.
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> ...
> > The original complaint/statement was about greed, not foolishness.
> > Foolishness is a part of being human, so ring tones fit perfectly in
> > that context, but it's possible to be upset that a guy in the
> > entertainment industry has a contract that gives him $130 million for a
> > year's work duing which by ever indicator he failed to properly do his
> > job. Or by Enron. Or by price gouging by oil distributors. Or by
> > profiteering by...ah hell, the list is endless. Ring tones are just
> > teenaged silliness that unfortunately overlaps in those as old as 35,
> > IME (as does much teenage silliness these days).
>
> Certainly corruption and willful negligence are not to be condoned. But
> despite the high profile such cases make, they're still more the
> exception than the rule.
>
> As for the entertainment bozo, perhaps there's some event or relatvely
> recent occurrence of which I'm supposed to be aware, but I've no clue as
> to who/what you refer to. If the studio paid, one would assume they
> felt they got their money's worth or they would have taken recourse.
Orvitz? Is that his name? Supposedly the right fit to run Disney and
blew it big time. He had a platinum parachute, and there doesn't seem
to be much that is done when these hotshot execs find themselves riding
the saddle of the Peter Principle. There are hundreds who have gotten
pushed out the door with major millions lining their retirement walls.
Charlie Self wrote:
> ...
>
> Then look at the lines forming at those stations, people filling up
> before the price rises again, angry because they have to wait, but
> still driving dual tank dually pick-ups and Hemi powered SUVs and
> Suburbans that get 10 MPG. Or less.
>
Just a quick note here that hemi's are more fuel efficient
than flat-headed engines making the same power. Penta-heads
are almost as efficient as hemis, but easier to make.
--
FF
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:23:50 +0200, Juergen Hannappel
<[email protected]> wrote:
>After 55 mph the effect of air drag starts to kick in ever more
>significantly, as it goes up rougly like speed to the third power.
Correct.
>So maybe a formula 1 car gets its best MPG at a higher speed due to
>very good aerodynamics and a motor thats designed for speed.
You *do* realize those two statements contradict each other, yes?
FYI, the aerodynamics of a Formula 1 car absolutely *suck* with
respect to fuel mileage. They are optimized for high down-force, not
low drag, and even in a relatively "low-drag" configuration (e.g.
Monza), the Cd of such a car is still *very* high, mostly due to the
large exposed tires.
Lee
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 23:50:30 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>I've been wanting to find to myself. My car has a computer that read the
>instant MPG while driving. Although probably not 100% accurate I want to
>see the difference on the same section of highway at 70 and at 55. Problem
>is, every time I want to slow to 55 it becomes very dangerous.
>
>No matter what the figures, I doubt we can get the US to drive 55 again.
>
I have a computer also and kinda check it from time to time. The
difference between 55 and 75 is trivial (~ 2/10 mpg).
Mix in some city (stop and go) driving and the overal mpg drops.
Running the AC also seems to have 0 impact on mpg (on the highway).
The biggest difference in mpg I see is an approximately 5mpg drop
during the colder months of the year. Probably because the car
doesn't really have time to warm up before I get to work.
Now I'm driving a fairly aerodyanmic, fairly small (but not really an
econobox) vehicle that weighs ~3500#.
The faster than 55 gas mileage loss would seem to no longer apply to
many of the vehicles on the road today, except for SUVs perhaps.
The bigger difference in mpg, logically would be between city and
highway driving due to a variety of factors. For example, such things
as sitting idling at a stop light is garnering one 0 miles for the
amount of gas you're using.
Think about how hybrids work.
Renata
[email protected] wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > Then look at the lines forming at those stations, people filling up
> > before the price rises again, angry because they have to wait, but
> > still driving dual tank dually pick-ups and Hemi powered SUVs and
> > Suburbans that get 10 MPG. Or less.
> >
>
> Just a quick note here that hemi's are more fuel efficient
> than flat-headed engines making the same power. Penta-heads
> are almost as efficient as hemis, but easier to make.
>
True. And every yuppie needs a 380-430 HP engine to haul his or her
sorry ass to work in the morning, using a light truck chassis and
hitting a total weight of 6000 pounds per vehicle.
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Duane Bozarth wrote:
> ...
> > >
> > > My understanding is that a sizable fraction of the population of
> > > child-bearing age in those countries has chosen to ignore the strictures
> > > is a prime reason for the statistics?
> >
> > That would be my assumption, although it is not clear that the
> > Catholics in countries with high birth rates adhere any more
> > closely to Catholic strictures in general. E.g. one wonders
> > if the rate of extramarital relations is any different between
> > the two groupings.
>
> I think the difference is primarily the inavailability of the
> alternatives owing to poverty and ignorance is the prime difference,
> combined w/ a more militant clergy as a purely conjectural hypothesis.
My guess is the more militant clergy is responsible for restricting
access to alternatives, rather than directly affecting the behaviour
of the individuals themselves, that may be what you meant.
Overall though, the cynic in me says that most people worldwide
will ignore the strictures of their respective religions whenever
they find them to be seriously inconvenient. The truly pious are
rare and temptation is ubiquitous. Sir Thomas More recognized
this, he had considered the priesthood but decided against it
because he didn't think he could stand the celibacy.
Hmm, the choping block in the Tower yard was wood, right?
--
FF
Executive Summary: In 1995 Italy was 98% Catholic, second only
to the Vatican City and in 1994 had a birth rate of 11/1000
population, tied with Germany for the lowest in the world,
rounded to the nearest percentage, UNLESS some country that
did not make the top 15 or bottom 10 respectively in 2004,
beat Italy out.
So I feal vindicated about saying that unless things have
changed over the last 5 or ten years .... Italy is second
only to the Vatican City in percentage of Catholica and
second lowest, just above Vatican City in birthrate.
It was true ten years ago and has changed since.
See below:
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Duane Bozarth wrote:
> >> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> > > Often the problem is also compounded by religious
> >> >> > > proscriptions against any form of population control.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> >Or not.
> >> >
> >> >Assuming these things have not changed over the last five to
> >> >ten years:
> >>
> >> You're probably right -- they haven't changed. But they never were the way
> > you
> >> claim, either.
> >
> >Or I am right and they have changed in the last 5 to ten years.
And we see below that they have.
>
> Catholic doctrine hasn't changed.
Agreed.
> And the proportion of Catholics in France
> hasn't been as high as you claim, either, for perhaps a couple of hundred
> years.
>
Oh I agree I was dead wrong on that.
> >> >The Catholic church prohibits all forms of birth control other than
> >> >abstinence.
> >>
> >> That is not correct: within marriage, the Catholic Church endorses natural
> >> family planning, which is a form of periodic, but _temporary_, abstinence.
> >> Outside of marriage, according to Church teaching, _all_ sexual activity is
> >> sinful regardless of whether birth control is used or not.
> >
> >Logic isn't your stong suit I see.
>
> That's pretty funny, actually, coming from you, and particularly coming in
> response to my having pointed out (again) a bunch of nonsense in one of your
> posts.
You showed I was wrong on some facts, not on logic.
> >
> >Note that _periodic temporary_ abstinence (commonly referred to
> >as 'the rythim method', see also 'parenthood') is _abstinence_
>
> Refer to your statement above: "The Catholic church prohibits all forms of
> birth control other than abstinence." Unqualified, as you stated it, this is
> incorrect.
Unqualified, as I stated it, includes all variations of abstinence,
such as punctuated abstinence, e.g the rythm method. It would have
been clearer to say 'an abstinence method' or 'puntuated abstinence.
The rythm method consists of _abstaining_ form sexual relations
during periods of presumed maximum fertility. It is a method
that depends on abstinence. Ansent abstainence itself, there
is no rythm method.
> Correct is "The Catholic church prohibits all forms of birth
> control other than periodic, temporary abstinence."
>
That is also correct. As is "other than abstinence methods".
My argument is that 'abstinence' includes 'periodic temporary
abstinence' the same way that 'pregnant' includes 'a little
bit pregnant.'
> >by defintion and for the nonmarried abstention from extramarital
> >sexual activity is _also_ abstinence.
>
> Well, duh. The point was that the type of birth control used, or not used,
> under such circumstances, isn't particularly relevant to the Church.
No, the point is that abstinence is both a form of birth control,
and mandated by the Catholic Church mandates for unmarried people.
Arguably it is mandated for reasons other than birth control but
that does not change the facts that abstinence is both a form of
birth control and it is mandated by the Catholic Church for the
unmarried.
> >>
> >> >Aside from Vatican City itself, Italy has the highest proportion
> >> >of Catholics of any country today. France is second highest,
> >> >or nearly so
> >>
> >> Also not correct. Italy isn't even in the top ten, and France just barely
> >> makes the top _fifty_.
> >>
> >> http://www.answers.com/topic/roman-catholics-by-country
> >>
> >
> >Here I was WAYYYYY off for France, though I bet the proportion
> >has gone down substantially in the last 5 - 10 years due to an
> >increase in the French Muslim population.
Indeed it has.
>
> "WAYYYY off" for Italy, too, Fred. You said it was second, behind only the
> Vatican; fact is, it's eleventh.
> >
> >Not all Catholics are Roman Catholics. See:
> >
> >http://www.answers.com/Eastern%20Rite%20Catholic
>
> Red herring. There just aren't enough Eastern Rite Catholics in Italy, France,
> or anywhere else to make up the difference between your wildly erroneous
> claims, and the facts.
I'm not so sure about how many non-Roman Cathoics there may
be in Italy but consider it likely that they were grouped
with the Roman Catholics in that table. But considering
refugees/ immigrants from predominantly non-Catholic Bosnia
and Kosovo as well as Muslims from other countries let's
see what percentage of Italians were Catholic ten years
ago:
Looking over the annual tables for Italy at:
http://www.theodora.com/wfb/
We see that annual information provided on the proportion
of Catholics in Italy and other countries is spotty:
2004 through 2001 -- predominately Roman Catholic
with mature Protestant and Jewish communities
and a growing Muslim immigrant community. No
percentages stated.
2000 -- 1996 no information on Religion
1995 -- Roman Catholic 98% other 2%
1994 - no information on Religion.
1991 -- Religion: nominally Roman Catholic almost 100%
So let's use 1995.
Lets check out the 1995 statistics for the 15
countries with the highest percentage of Catholic
population in 2004:
Vatican City N/A but says Religions: Roman Catholic
Italy 98%
Portugal 97%
Luxembourg 97%
Dominican Republic 95%
Ecuador 95%
Costa Rica 95%
Ireland 93%
Argentina 90% ('nominal')
Paraguay 90%
Seychelles 90%
Mexico 89% ('nominal')
Panama 85%
Croatia 76.5 %
East Timor N/A Indonesia 3% but NOT representative
for East Timor
Now, I haven't checked the statistics for the rest of the
world so I cannot say beyond all doubt that Italy was second
only to the Vatican in percentage of Catholics ten years
ago but feel adequately vindicated on that count.
Oh and France in 1995 was 90% Catholic, still not third after
Italy, and probably not in the top ten and not 'or nearly so'
either so I was wrong on France (Damn those French!) but
what a remarkable change over a decade, from 90% to less
than half.
> >
>
> [snip more evasion]
> >
> >At least Vatican City is still at the top.
>
> That's the only part that you managed to get right.
Looks like I was right on Italy too.
> >
> >> >Again, aside from Vatican City itself. Italy has the lowest
> >> >birth rate in the world today, France second.
> >>
> >> Utter nonsense. Austria, Lithuania, and Germany, among others have lower
> > birth
> >> rates than has Italy, and there are nearly _fifty_ nations whose birth rates
> >> are lower han France's.
> >>
> >> http://wwwphotius.com/rankings/population/birth_rate_2004_0.html
> >>
> >
> >Italy is eighth from the bottom
>
> You said it was *at* the bottom. It isn't.
Was, isn't anymore. See below:
>
> >with only one (1.01) birth/1000
> >population differences between it and six of those are tiny.
>
> Conveniently obscuring the fact that it's almost *two* per thousand higher
> than the bottom...
Which is Hong Kong, conveniently addressed below which you
conveniently ignored in your statement above.
>
> >Hong Kong's re-unification with the PRC during that time was followed
> >by a large influx of Communist loyalist sent there to stack the
> >post-transition elections in favor of the Communist party so that
> >may explain why Hong Kong is at the bottom of the list _today_.
> >I very much doubt that the birthrate in Hong Kong was nearly as low
> >prior to unification.
>
> Whatever... more bobbing and weaving, as I've come to expect. You're still
> wrong.
>
> >Got similar tables from ten years ago? I'll still
> >bet you a dollar I was right about the Italian birth rate
>
> You're on - but you find the tables.
>
Looking at those that were the ten lowest in the
2004 statistics and using the 1994 statistics reasoning
that those would be the most recent statistics available
ten years ago:
http://www.theodora.com/wfb/1994/wfb_1994.html
Birthrate/10000 population by country
Italy 11
Germany 11
Hong Kong 12 (Quite a drop since then, eh?)
Austria 12
Guersey 13 (WTF?, Guernsy isn't a country!)
Macau 15
Czech Republic N/A Czechoslovakia 14
Lithuania N/A Soviet Union 17
Latvia N/A " "
Slovenia N/A Yugoslavia 14
Note that Italy tied with Germany, at the resolution
of the table which is rounded to nearest 1%
I looked these up first, then went to find the stats on
Catholics. Had I done those first, I could have checked
birthrates for 1995 instead to have both figures from the
same year.
Oh, 1995 birthrate
statistics for Germany and Italy say they are based on 1994
data, and put Italy lower than Germany 10.79 to 11.04
respectively. The stats for 1995 appear to be a finalized
version of the 1994 data, carried out to two decimal points.
But its late, I'm not going to check the rest now.
Arguably I should have looked these up for 1996 (ten years ago)
though I asked "Got a table from ten years ago." which implies
something that was in print as of ten years ago. I tlooks like
the 1996 statistics, where available are from finalized 1995 data.
Which do you want to use?
>
> I'm not gonna hold my breath.
>
No problem.
--
FF
Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:37:44 +0200, Juergen Hannappel
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
...
> >
> >So you say the Mexico fence is illegal,
> >
>
> Umm, there's one teeny little problem here. THERE IS NO @#$%'n FENCE
> BETWEEN THE US AND MEXICO! ...
Well, not the whole way, certainly. There are sections of the border
along which fences have been erected, but even they aren't patrolled
sufficiently to stop much of anything.
[email protected] wrote:
>
...
> My guess is the more militant clergy is responsible for restricting
> access to alternatives, rather than directly affecting the behaviour
> of the individuals themselves, that may be what you meant.
I meant it as I stated it...I think it's a combination many factors of
which those are merely two. I don't think one should underestimate the
effect of such training and doctrine on personal behavior, however.
...
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:37:44 +0200, Juergen Hannappel
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unless the Acme Corp has a gun to Joe's head (which is a criminal act)
>>>> he is free to move elsewhere,
>>>
>>>So I take for granted that you, if standing next to the US border to
>>>Mexico, cry out "Mr. Bush, tear down this fence!".
>>
>> What the hell --???
>>
>> The U.S. is attempting to keep people from *entering* our country
>> *illegally*.
>
>So you say the Mexico fence is illegal,
>
Umm, there's one teeny little problem here. THERE IS NO @#$%'n FENCE
BETWEEN THE US AND MEXICO! There have been calls for erecting a fence, not
as was done in the collectivist states to keep people from leaving, but to
keep out-of-control emmigration from socialist paradises like Mexico from
entering this evil capitalist country, where, apparently these uneducated
beneficiaries of the socialist ideal feel that they have a better chance to
prosper. Problem is, that uncontrolled immigration causes significant
issues. There is nothing at all illegal, immoral, or wrong about a country
protecting its borders and regulating the number of new immigrants it
allows into that country. Certainly the US has been more than open-armed in
its acceptance of people from around the world and continues to do so.
However, there is a process to do this, those crossing the border illegally
are bypassing that process.
>> The Berlin Wall was erected to keep people from *leaving* theirs,
>> *legally*.
>
>while the Berlin Wall was legal? ;-)
>
What kind of (il)logic are you attempting here?
>
>Earnestly: If Tim is in favour of freedom and free markets this would
>include freedom to move elsewhere, and that implies not only freedom
>to go away from one place but also to arrive at another. The labour
>market would according to his beliefs either happily supply all the
>migrants with jobs or make migration sufficiently unatractive not to
>happen. A free labour market produces lots of competition among
>workers, obviuosly.
>
>[...]
>
>>>The money market and interest rates basically mean
>>>that the more desperate you need money the less you get it or are able
>>>to afford it.
>>
>> Non sequitur.
>
>Loan interest rates depend on debtor failure probability, so starting
>a business produces extra expensive loans.
One of the other unintended consequences of your socialist paradise is
the fact that people, by their very nature are very unlikely to perform at
their best when the fruits of their labors are going to be taken from them
and given to others who aren't working so hard. That kind of government
"benevolence" works only once or twice, after that, the productive workers
recognize that there is little benefit in exerting themselves, thus you
wind up "dumbing down" the entire economy as people identify the minimum
level of compliance required to get by. One of the popular phrases in the
communist Soviet Union was, "The government pretends to pay us and we
pretend to work".
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Executive Summary: In 1995 Italy was 98% Catholic, second only
>to the Vatican City and in 1994 had a birth rate of 11/1000
>population, tied with Germany for the lowest in the world,
>rounded to the nearest percentage,
Wrong again.
Birth rates from CIA World Factbook 1995
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/1995/index.html
Germany 10.98
Italy 10.89
Japan 10.66
Monaco 10.66
Greece 10.56
> UNLESS some country that
>did not make the top 15 or bottom 10 respectively in 2004,
>beat Italy out.
Ahhh.... there's the bob-and-weave.
>
>So I feal vindicated about saying that unless things have
>changed over the last 5 or ten years .... Italy is second
>only to the Vatican City in percentage of Catholica and
If that figure is as "accurate" as the birth-rate "statistics" you've provided
so far, there's no reason to put any trust in it.
>second lowest, just above Vatican City in birthrate.
As shown above... wrong again.
>It was true ten years ago and has changed since.
No, nothing has changed: none of what you wrote was true ten years ago, and it
still isn't true.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Patriarch wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1125704902.562903.122160
> @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > True. And every yuppie needs a 380-430 HP engine to haul his or her
> > sorry ass to work in the morning, using a light truck chassis and
> > hitting a total weight of 6000 pounds per vehicle.
> >
>
> I may be wrong here (it happens frequently) but was not the whole 'light
> truck chassis' thing due to federal regulations regarding safety and crash-
> worthyness, which applied to automobiles, but not to light trucks?
>
> Patriarch
Yes. That and gas mileage restrictions for automobiles, which do not
apply to the Yukons and Expeditions of the world.
Prometheus wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:10:47 -0400, Robatoy <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> One would hope that there will be an accounting the future for those
> >> institutions repsonsible for the maintenance of this infrastructure.
> >
> >Look no further than Washington. They didn't do important assessments of
> >the levees' conditions due to federal cut-backs. More cut-backs for 2006.
> >The Army Corps of Engineers had their budgets cut.
> >
> >Now Bush has taken charge of the relief efforts. Just when you thought
> >that things couldn't get any worse.
>
> It's beautiful that they had national guard troops standing by (to go
> to F***ing Iraq) as well. At first, I just didn't like Bush because
> he is a twit- but now I'd like to see him and his cronies formally
> charged with treason and hanged on prime-time TV. There have probably
> been plenty of messes that have been this large, or even larger in
> history- but none that I can recall seeing in my lifetime.
>
> I've been spending all my time lately helping friends and family
> energy-proof thier homes and trying desperately to find used
> woodburning stoves (new ones are out of my family members' price
> range, and I can only afford to buy new for myself) just so we don't
> all freeze to death this winter- they'll let Louisana's residents
> drown, no doubt Wisconsin will ice over just as easily. Nobody I know
> has enough money to pay an additional 5-6x rate increase for heating
> oil- last year was bad enough for most folks, and it's becoming very
> clear that if you don't own a multi-national corporation or two these
> days, you're expendable garbage.
>
> Yeah, yeah. I know, It's not Bush's fault. Except for the fact that
> the SOB seems to be working as hard as he can (when he's not on
> vacation, that is) to bring about hell on Earth for all but his close
> friends- who will no doubt profit enormously as long as there are
> still at least a few victims left to squeeze.
>
> How can anyone still support him? Go ahead and kill-file me if you
> like, but anyone who can't see what the bastard is doing to our
> country is dumber than a f***ing post, and needs to get right up on
> the scaffold with their damned religious right and get their neck
> stretched too. It's the same old saw- your right to swing your fist
> ends where my nose begins, and I'm tired of seeing my country
> destroyed day after day.
>
> Obviously, this tirade isn't aimed at all of you- plenty of the folks
> on this list (some of whom I'm sure I've already alienated) are fine
> and decent folks. The rest of you rednecks know who you are, and
> you're the ones who can go piss up a rope.
For checking out past knowledge of possible Big Easy problems:
www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5
That's from last October. Given the exigencies of magazine publishing,
the concept probably came up and got judged for suitability and
possibilities a year or so earlier, based on preliminary research. A
magazine can figure it out. Bush can't.
By the way, you're wrong in one spot. Bush isn't a twit. He's a twerp.
Amen, My personal favorite was the group Blaming Bush for the Storm for not
Combating Global Warming better, to blame Bush for the lack of funding is
silly as well, Congress has just as much say in that as he dose, along with
that, lets say Bush was Solely Responcable and he GAVE 2x what they asked
for, that money wouldn't have done anything to prevent this, they wouldn't
even be done planning the improvements yet. This may sound bad but OUR
FEDERAL $$$$ are better spent protecting all of us, like how about securing
the border?
if there was a failure anywhare here it was the state readyness plan, to
blame Bush for the Nation Guard not being there ready is honestly silly,
Guards men are under state controll so the question should be why didn't
the governor had the National guard ready? why didn't the local goverment
have a better Evac plan, it's not like it hit out of the blue, they had
over 24 hours to preap, to blame the feds for the local leatership haveing
there heads up there ass is like a 35 year old guy living off his parents
blaming them for him being a dumb ass that can't hold down a job. place the
blame where it belongs
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> While my heart goes out to the people who've suffered these losses, as
>> someone else here pointed out - they've decided to live and build in a
>> hurricane zone at or below sea level. There are plenty of places to live
>> that do not have this ongoing and consistent risk. An "act of God" kind
>> of disaster is one thing, but constantly placing yourself in harms way
>> is another. But is it any wonder? A good part of the society spends its
>> time shooting itself in the foot and then screaming for the rest of us
>> to pay restitution. I have no ill will and wish no harm upon the people
>> effected by this storm, but somehow, someday, people in this nation are
>> going to have to start taking responsibility for their own choices.
>
>
> As I've watched this tragedy unfold, it occurs to me that there is
> a story within the story. Had the levys held and the pumps worked,
> this would still have been a disaster but likely not on the scale
> of what happened with the inundation of water after the levy breaches.
> One would hope that there will be an accounting the future for those
> institutions repsonsible for the maintenance of this infrastructure.
>
> In the mean time, we're already seeing the politcal parasites
> trying to cash in on this. Witness this bit of unbelievable
> yammering:
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/30/230457.shtml
>
>
--
Richard Clements
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:58:05 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:10:47 -0400, Robatoy <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In article <[email protected]>,
> >> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> ... snip
> >>Now Bush has taken charge of the relief efforts. Just when you thought
> >>that things couldn't get any worse.
> >
> ... snip of more of "it's all Bush's fault" rant
> >How can anyone still support him? Go ahead and kill-file me if you
> >like, but anyone who can't see what the bastard is doing to our
> >country is dumber than a f***ing post, and needs to get right up on
> >the scaffold with their damned religious right and get their neck
> >stretched too.
Some people will support Bush right up until Pat Robertson (the
con artist, not the Senator) turns on him, yet more proof that
some people are as dumb as a post.
> It's the same old saw- your right to swing your fist
> >ends where my nose begins, and I'm tired of seeing my country
> >destroyed day after day.
While I agree with you, he had little to do with the instant case
although it appears that FEMA has been at least as slow as everyone
else to mobilize. Now, the president is responsible for the people
who head up the federal agencies so it looks like that particular
choice may not have been the best. But, iMHO that's not a
>
> It's obvious that such visceral, irrational hatred is not something that
> can be addressed easily.
It is not irreational. As OP noted, it is based on observations.
He just didn't go into detail.
> ... Some of the ills you address weren't even started
> during Bush's administration but go back to a previous admin.
For example, as Bush himself has lamented, the USA doesn't
have an energy policy. Thirty years ago we had an energy policy
intended to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That policy
was scrapped around 1981, under a previous administration.
> You are blaming Bush for the future high cost of heating oil?
> Whosem fault is it that no (read that zip, zilch, nada) new
> refineries have been built in the past 30 years?
Since we do not have bona fide fuel shortages and I cannot imagine
the industry refining massive quantitites of fuel oil and setting
it aside for a rainy day I daresay the cost of fuel oil is not
up because of a dearth of refineries.
>
> I'm also sure that you will be able to find some reason that it is also
> Bush's fault that the rescue efforts are being hampered by people shooting
> at the rescue workers. What in the world is up with that?
I haven't heard of anybody shooting at a rescue worker. I have
heard of one police officer (unfortunately) beign shot by a
looter. Stopping looters is very important work, I just
wouldn't call it rescue work.
>
> >
> >Obviously, this tirade isn't aimed at all of you- plenty of the folks
> >on this list (some of whom I'm sure I've already alienated) are fine
> >and decent folks. The rest of you rednecks know who you are, and
> >you're the ones who can go piss up a rope.
>
> Probably not worth responding to someone exhibiting such visceral hatred,
> but just to put a few facts into the discussion so that you can have a more
> rational go at it in your next diatribe.
> 1) For state disasters such as this, it is typically the state governor who
> requests other state National Guard support through the federal government.
> The papers at the federal level had been signed allowing this, all that
> was needed was the Louisianna governor's request for deployment. It didn't
> come until 2 days ago.
> 2) The Louisianna governor was waiting for information from "boots on the
> ground" in New Orleans to inform the governor's office regarding whether
> such a deployment request was necessary. They apparently lost contact with
> those people in New Orleans and didn't realize how bad things were getting.
> [editorial note: when one loses contact with one's surveillance assets,
> one generally assumes that something bad has happened, not that everything
> is peachy-keen and can wait until contact is re-established].
>
Assuming that's true the governor and probably the mayor too
both deserve to be taken out and shot. But this isn't the time.
>
> I'm sure had the government taken the opposite approach, positioning huge
> amounts of personnel and material in place for a large disaster, and had
> the hurricane not turned out to be a major disaster, Bush would have been
> decried for the waste of time and materiel and the impact on the National
> Guard's lives and morale over what turned out to be nothing.
Indeed, that is exactly what he did in Iraq, and he is rightfully
being decried for the waste of time, money, material and lives
that was the inevitable result. Not decried by all, the afor-
mentioned dumb as a post Robertsonites and their ilk still support
him as they have not yet been told to stand down.
But again, this isn't the time. We cannot replace the President,
Head of FEMA, the governer of Lousiana, or the mayor of NO fast
enough to make a difference in the present situation. But lets
go back to addresses those greivences as soon as we can.
Aside from the references to Pat Robertson's followers, there is no
mention of wood here. Do we have the common sense, courtesy and
balls to move it to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?
--
FF
Prometheus wrote:
> ...
>
>
>
> Yes, it needs to be fixed. Normally, the government might help out
> with this, but they are busy killing people for oil and vast sums of
> money, and would rather be eating BBQ and practicing their
> snake-handling if that weren't going on.
>
> In point of fact, it's not just Bush, it's not just Republicans. It's
> every half-wit cowboy-hat wearing, country music listening idiot
> cousin of some guy named Jeb who thinks that their ninth-grade
> education gives them the right to vote for another dropout because
> some wild-eyed SOB's in the NRA and a guy who sings songs about his
> boots told them that if they didn't, somebody might take der gunz so's
> dey cunna shoot no skeet atter der trucks no mo' (get 'er dun). It's
> every slick-shit moron with a BS in "business" who thinks that it's
> all right to cancel a fifty year old man's pension to bump up the
> stock price a little, or cook the books because they know that they
> won't have to do more than six months in the joint if they get caught,
> and all that money will still be in their numbered account when they
> get out. It's the tightwads who don't care to pay an extra $10 a
> month so their kids can learn to read and write, and jump into the
> voting booth and yank that lever down for Bush/Cheney and get that
> $120 a year "savings"- and a trillion dollar corporate tax cut as
> icing on the cake.
Don't forget to blame Pat Robertson (the con man not the Senator)
and his legion of backsliders too.
--
FF
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:38:41 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> ...
>
>
> OK, first he is a deranged cowboy sending troops to Iraq for the glory of
> Haliburton (which, would at least imply a plan, in your conspiracy-laced
> world). Now he is just letting things happen around him with no plan --
> so, which is it? Evil conspiratorial genius or laid-back unthinking stooge
> just letting the world unfold? You really can't have it both ways.
Neither. He is an evil subgenius who makes up for his lack of genius
by playing the role of a laid-back unthinking stooge thus lulling
some of his opposition into making the mistake of misunderestimating
him.
...
> >
>
> There was not a lack of NG troops, the LA governor just failed to request
> them. But then, why let a few facts get in the way of a really good rant.
>
I've read that the La Governor has still refused to put the La
Guard at the disposal of FEMA.
Just now I am listening to Scott McClellan who has been asked why
Bush waited until Thursday to release the National Guard. Mr
McCLellan has not offered your explanation, he just sort of blew
it off. So, what is your source? I'm willing to believe it,
but not if the only source I can find was Rush Limbaugh or the
700 club.
However I took some phone calls during the conference so maybe he
got around to blaming the La governor, though he seemed to be
trying to NOT blame anyone for anything.
> >So in a nutshell, yes, I am going to blame him for the future high
> >cost of heating oil. Actually, that isn't totally fair- I blame him
> >for the company he keeps, and I blame those people for the future high
> >cost of heating oil- as well as mass murder and illegal warfare. If
> >you don't like it, tell it to the judge.
> >
>
> Here is where it gets sticky, in your world, we went into Iraq for oil,
> therefore, we should be getting boatloads of oil from Iraq now so his
> henchmen can be cashing in. Where's that oil?
If Saddam Husein was moderately good at smuggling out Iraqi
oil the flow of oil from Iraq may still be quite a bit lower
than before the invasion. I don't know, but it is interesting
that such matters get so little publicity.
Remember the movie _Goldfinger_? Bond is incredulous at the
plan to knock over Fort Knox, pointing out that Goldfinger
could not possibly remove the gold fast enough to make off
with the lot of it. But that wasn't Goldfinger's plan, his
plan was to use a dirty nuclear bomb to contaminate the gold
at Ft Knox so as to dramatically increase the value of the gold
he already posessed.
I don't know if the Bushes own any of the contracts for Iraqi
oil today, but don't you think they still own the contracts for
the same oil they owned previously? Seen the price of oil
recently?
> The only thing you have to
> show thus far is loss of 25% of US refining capacity due to an act of God.
> Guess what? If the oil refineries aren't pumping out gasoline, heating oil,
> or other petrochemical products, the oil companies aren't making money on
> those products.
No the only thing. The price of oil was way up befor Katrina.
> What's wrong with this picture? Seems like in your world,
> if Bush and his evil henchmen were really looking out for the oil
> companies, they would have poured more boatloads of taxpayer money into
> shoring up the LA and NO levee infrastructure, sparing no expense to
> protect those oil assets.
The oil rigs are mostly offshore. Shoring up the levies and
protecting La and NO would have done nothing to protect them.
As it stands, the oil itself is perfectly safe and more valuable
than ever.
>
> >>
> >> I'm sure had the government taken the opposite approach, positioning huge
> >>amounts of personnel and material in place for a large disaster, and had
> >>the hurricane not turned out to be a major disaster, Bush would have been
> >>decried for the waste of time and materiel and the impact on the National
> >>Guard's lives and morale over what turned out to be nothing.
At Scott McClellan's news conference today one of the reporters
told Mr McClellan that according to one of the relevant Generals,
assets were positioned to move to the Gulf when Katrina crossed
Florida. (Sounds like good preparation on the part of the Bush
administration). However, they were not released by Bush until
Thursday. So, if you can direct us to the information as to why,
that would fill in the gap in the informaiton here.
...
> >Yes, it needs to be fixed. Normally, the government might help out
> >with this, but they are busy killing people for oil and vast sums of
> >money,
>
> ... and again I ask, where is this oil of which you speak and the
> accompanying vast sums of money?
Again, check the price of oil. Restricting the supply to
drive up the price of a comodity is not a new tactic. Heck
that's the basic technique used for agricultural subsidies.
Besides you cannot seriously argue that if Iraq had no natural
resources of interest to the US our policies toward Iraq would
be the same? That resource is oil. Directly or indirectly our
policies in the Middle East are driven by the need for petroleum
and the responsibility to Israel.
> Before you shout, "Haliburton" again,
> remember that those people from Haliburton supporting the troops and
> infrastructure rebuild in Iraq are also "being sent overseas, ... and used
> for suicide bomber target practice".
Uh, not the decision makers.
> ... They couldn't
> possibly have arrived at their position by observation of the opposition,
> examination of the facts and arrived at a different conclusion than
> yourself, Michael Moore or George Soros.
Agreed! ;-)
>
> > It's
> >every slick-shit moron with a BS in "business" who thinks that it's
> >all right to cancel a fifty year old man's pension to bump up the
> >stock price a little,
No, they do that to create a 'surplus' in the retirement fund
so the company can take back money from the pension, use it to
pay bonuses to the company mangers, then declare bankruptcy and
then as part of the reorganization be relieved of their
pension obligations because of inadequate funding.
> or cook the books because they know that they
> >won't have to do more than six months in the joint if they get caught,
>
> Well let's see. Enron? MCI? The crimes came to light during the first
> years of the Bush admin. The crimes were committed during the Clinton, "I
> didn't have sex with that woman", "it depends upon what the meaning of is,
> is" administration when the impression was given that if you were high
> enough in power, the rules really didn't apply to you.
Ah yes. Like various treaties, the UCMJ and the Constitution don't
apply to Bush? Not to mention basic morality and decency?
Fact is that people like Ebers (sp?) etc do NOT need a role model
for wrongdoing, all they need is an opportunity like those who
looted the Savings and Loans and pension plans (i.e. Jones &
Laughlin) after the Reagan-era deregulation.
>
> Seems that Bernie Ebers (sp?) is spending a bit longer than 6 months in
> the joint. Same with a number of the Enron crew. A number of prosecutions
> are still going forward, so the above diatribe doesn't even come close to
> the true nature of the penalties being incurred.
>
Slow in coming, long overdue, and we'll see if it lasts.
> >
> >Most people aren't millionaires playing the stock market. Where I
> >live, most people work in factories, and when one goes to China,
> >everyone suffers- a lot.
>
> Gee, that trend seems to have been around a lot longer than the Bush
> administration.
>
Yes. As you will recall, economic sanctions against China were
vetoed by the Papa Bush administration, though that was hardly
the start of the problem. I'd put that at either the Carter or
the Reagan administration though one coudl blame Nixon for normalizing
relations with China.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> Mark & Juanita wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > There was not a lack of NG troops, the LA governor just failed to request
> > them. But then, why let a few facts get in the way of a really good rant.
> >
>
> I've read that the La Governor has still refused to put the La
> Guard at the disposal of FEMA.
>
> ...
> >
> > >>
> > >> I'm sure had the government taken the opposite approach, positioning huge
> > >>amounts of personnel and material in place for a large disaster, and had
> > >>the hurricane not turned out to be a major disaster, Bush would have been
> > >>decried for the waste of time and materiel and the impact on the National
> > >>Guard's lives and morale over what turned out to be nothing.
>
> At Scott McClellan's news conference today one of the reporters
> told Mr McClellan that according to one of the relevant Generals,
> assets were positioned to move to the Gulf when Katrina crossed
> Florida. (Sounds like good preparation on the part of the Bush
> administration). However, they were not released by Bush until
> Thursday. So, if you can direct us to the information as to why,
> that would fill in the gap in the informaiton here.
>
This poster is way way OT for his newsgroup but has some
interesting things to say on this issue:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers/msg/5f9670d300b8d795?dmode=source&hl=en
--
FF
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Besides you cannot seriously argue that if Iraq had no natural
> >resources of interest to the US our policies toward Iraq would
> >be the same?
>
> Yes, of course that can be seriously argued. See below.
>
> >That resource is oil. Directly or indirectly our
> >policies in the Middle East are driven by the need for petroleum
> >and the responsibility to Israel.
>
> Exactly right.
Odd that you would say that, given that you go on to deny it
below.
> But this is independent of the type, or extent, of Iraq's
> natural resources, and depends rather on the type and extent of its
> armaments, and its intentions for using them. An Iraq armed with, for example,
> nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, would threaten the peace and
> stability (such as they are) of that entire strategically critical region.
Iraq did not have nuclear weapons, was no where near having
nuclear weapons and had no active program for producing it.
The former Iraqi nuclear weapons program was locked down by
the IAEA and we knew it, that is why forged documents were
used to try to make the nuclear case against Iraq all of
the legitimate intelligence pointed the other way.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein had twice attempted to expand at
its neighbors' expense and twice been defeated, once when
allied with the United States and in when using chemical
weapons--that time by a nation that was itself crippled by
international sanctions.
For ten years prior to the 2003 invasion Saddam Hussein did
not even have effective control over the Northern third of
Iraq itself.
So the notion of Iraq being a threat to its neighbors in 2003
or the near future thereafer was completely unfounded.
How would that strategically important region be strategically
critical without petroleum?
> This is independent of whether Iraq itself possesses any petroleum, or not:
> the point is that it would threaten those of its neighbors who *do*.
>
Who do what? Posesss petroleum? OK, then, even if Iraq did
not have petroleum the US might still have invaded and
still motivated by the need for petroluem. Which action
OP succintly summarized as "killing people for oil".
> Again, an Iraq so armed poses a dire threat to the security of the only
> democracy in the Middle East -- independent of what natural resources Iraq may
> or may not possess.
Iraq was no longer even a threat to its immediate neighbors.
Suicide bombers supported by Saddam Hussein _were_ a threat
to Israel, but not to such an extent as to jsutify a US
invasion and occupation of Iraq. Certainly not a dire threat.
Under the US protection as they were, Sadam Hussein was
no longer even a dire threat to the Kurds whom he had gassed
15 years earlier.
Iraq was a chronic, but waning and managemable problem.
Not so anymore.
--
FF
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> >Besides you cannot seriously argue that if Iraq had no natural
> >> >resources of interest to the US our policies toward Iraq would
> >> >be the same?
> >>
> >> Yes, of course that can be seriously argued. See below.
> >>
> >> >That resource is oil. Directly or indirectly our
> >> >policies in the Middle East are driven by the need for petroleum
> >> >and the responsibility to Israel.
> >>
> >> Exactly right.
> >
> >Odd that you would say that, given that you go on to deny it
> >below.
>
> You misspelled "explain".
> >
> >> But this is independent of the type, or extent, of Iraq's
> >> natural resources, and depends rather on the type and extent of its
> >> armaments, and its intentions for using them. An Iraq armed with, for
> > example,
> >> nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, would threaten the peace and
> >> stability (such as they are) of that entire strategically critical region.
> >
> >Iraq did not have nuclear weapons, was no where near having
> >nuclear weapons and had no active program for producing it.
>
> Missed the words "for example" in my post, did you?
> [irrelevantia spawned by this oversight snipped]
>
> >So the notion of Iraq being a threat to its neighbors in 2003
> >or the near future thereafer was completely unfounded.
>
> I didn't say that it was.
No, you said "for example". However the hypothetical
being discussed was Iraq without petroleum. NOT
Iraq with a threatening military.
> >
> >How would that strategically important region be strategically
> >critical without petroleum?
>
> Please read more carefully. I said that the level of threat that Iraq might
> pose is independent of whether *Iraq* possesses petroleum or not. If the
> *region* had no petroleum, of course it wouldn't be terribly important. But
> that's not what I said.
ALmost agree with you. Absent petroleum (and Israel) in the
region we'd have little interst and most of that would center
on the Suez Canal which is much more of a concern to Europe anyhow.
>
> Please read more carefully. You suggested that it cannot be seriously argued
> that our policies toward Iraq would be the same if it had no oil. I'm pointing
> out that it certainly *can* be seriously so argued, because Iraq's location in
> a strategically important region, and any threat that it may or may not pose
> to the stability of that region, depends on Iraq's military resources and its
> penchant for using them -- not on whatever natural resources it does or does
> not have.
No, not any threat it "may or may not pose". Only a threat
it DOES pose would justify it. Clearly a threat Iraq DOES NOT
pose would not. Clearly Iraq does not (and did not in 2003)
pose such a threat.
You are introducing a second change into the hypothetical
that being the existance of an Iraqi military threat to the
region.
Certainly it is possible to invent, out of whole cloth, or
even by drawing exagerrated inferences from scant, doubtful,
and contradictory inforamtion, to come with a DIFFERENT
hypothetical in which the US policies toward Iraq would
be the same. We've actually seen that done quite recently.
You may as well suppose for instance that Iraq was located
next to Kansas.
Your "explanation" is orthogonal to mine. It is all
what you might charaterize as "bobbing and weaving"
were it not your own.
> >
> >> Again, an Iraq so armed poses a dire threat to the security of the only
> >> democracy in the Middle East -- independent of what natural resources Iraq
> > may
> >> or may not possess.
> >
> >Iraq was no longer even a threat to its immediate neighbors.
>
> Missed the words "for example" in my post... and all of the point as well.
Well I could have further qualified my statment by adding,
"unless you postulate some additional factor as inconsistent with
reality as an Iraq without oil." But that hardly seemed necessary.
Hmm. Just now you did not say that Iraq actually did (in 2003 or
since) pose a dire threat to the petroleum supply in the region,
or to Israel.
So, what justification can you see for the invasion and occupation
of Iraq given how Iraq actually was (in 2003) and is today?
--
FF
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Besides you cannot seriously argue that if Iraq had no natural
> >> >> >resources of interest to the US our policies toward Iraq would
> >> >> >be the same?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, of course that can be seriously argued. See below.
> >> >>
> >> >> >That resource is oil. Directly or indirectly our
> >> >> >policies in the Middle East are driven by the need for petroleum
> >> >> >and the responsibility to Israel.
> >> >>
> >> >> Exactly right.
> >> >
> >> >Odd that you would say that, given that you go on to deny it
> >> >below.
> >>
> >> You misspelled "explain".
> >> >
> >> >> But this is independent of the type, or extent, of Iraq's
> >> >> natural resources, and depends rather on the type and extent of its
> >> >> armaments, and its intentions for using them. An Iraq armed with, for
> >> > example,
> >> >> nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, would threaten the peace
> > and
> >> >> stability (such as they are) of that entire strategically critical region.
> >> >
> >> >Iraq did not have nuclear weapons, was no where near having
> >> >nuclear weapons and had no active program for producing it.
> >>
> >> Missed the words "for example" in my post, did you?
> >> [irrelevantia spawned by this oversight snipped]
> >>
> >> >So the notion of Iraq being a threat to its neighbors in 2003
> >> >or the near future thereafer was completely unfounded.
> >>
> >> I didn't say that it was.
> >
> >No, you said "for example". However the hypothetical
> >being discussed was Iraq without petroleum. NOT
> >Iraq with a threatening military.
>
> Exactly so -- because the military threat that Iraq posed to its neighbors is
> not a hypothetical.
In 2003 Iraq did not pose a dire (your adjective) threat to its
neighbors, and we all knew it because UNMOVIC was showing us it
was not
>
> >> >
> >> >How would that strategically important region be strategically
> >> >critical without petroleum?
> >>
> >> Please read more carefully. I said that the level of threat that Iraq might
> >> pose is independent of whether *Iraq* possesses petroleum or not. If the
> >> *region* had no petroleum, of course it wouldn't be terribly important. But
> >> that's not what I said.
> >
> >ALmost agree with you. Absent petroleum (and Israel) in the
> >region we'd have little interst and most of that would center
> >on the Suez Canal which is much more of a concern to Europe anyhow.
>
> Precisely. Keep at it. You're starting to catch on.
As you say the level of the threat posed by Iraq was independent
of the oil it posessed (not really Iraq needed capital to build
its military in the first place). That does not change the
fact that that level was nearer to nonexistant than to "dire".
>
> >Clearly a threat Iraq DOES NOT
> >pose would not. Clearly Iraq does not (and did not in 2003)
> >pose such a threat.
>
> You seem to have forgotten that, in 2002, anyway, it was very clear to nearly
> everyone that it *did*. To refresh your memory, here are a few public
> statements that you appear to have forgotten:
>
> http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php
They were wrong. We started finding out just how strong they were
toward the end of 2002 when UNMOVIC went into Iraq and found the
nuclear and other WMD sites to still be sealed or destroyed just
like they were when UNSCOM left.
Addressing your hypothetical Iraqi nuclear threat, IAEA found
Iraq's reactor fule and yellowcake still under IAEA seal as they
had left it, found no evidence of importation of nuclear materials
or equipment, found the facilities still unuseable and so on.
Thus, an Iraqi nuclear threat in 2003 IS an hypothetical.
In addition, Iraq had insufficient miltary to threaten any
of its neighbors, Saddam Hussein didn't even have control
of the Northern third of his own country.
There could be no serious argument for predicating a
policy on a threat that does not exist.
>
> >You are introducing a second change into the hypothetical
> >that being the existance of an Iraqi military threat to the
> >region.
>
> Ummm, no, that would not be a hypothetical.
A dire Iraqi military threat is certainly is not a 'factual.
It is hypothetical just like an Iraq without oil is hypothetical.
--
FF
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:32:45 +0200, Phil Hansen <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:38:41 -0500, Prometheus
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> ><Major snip>
> >>I'm ashamed to be part of this country.
> >
> >Thank you for speaking out.
> >So there is at least one sane American out there.
> >Goes against the general protracted image that you are all bush bible
> >bashing buddies.
> >Maybe your biased news networks should get some unbiased views of the
> >peoples feelings and not those of those who get paid to say the right
> >things.
>
> If you think our news media is biased towards Bush and his policies, I
> would hate to see a media that was out to have him tossed out of office.
> [hint, our mainstream news media goes out of its way to bash Bush and his
> adminstration.
I agree that the Bush administration does receive criticsm from
the American press and media. But like OP, I agree that it
is not nearly as much as it deserves. One of the games played
by the pro-Bush media is to give 'equal time' to the opposition
by focusing on marginal figures like that mother in Texas.
> The bias in the media is apalling -- all of this paranoia
> regarding how Bush and his cronies would suppress dissent is exactly that,
> a bunch of paranoid hooie]
>
Do you mean, like, protestors at events like the inagural parade
are allowed to intermingle with everyone else along the parade route
and not directed to 'free speech zones'?
I dunno when THAT started, but it was as wrong then as it is now.
--
FF
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2005 11:09:08 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:38:41 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> ...
> >>
> >>
>
> >...
> >> >
> >>
> >> There was not a lack of NG troops, the LA governor just failed to request
> >> them. But then, why let a few facts get in the way of a really good rant.
> >>
> >
> >I've read that the La Governor has still refused to put the La
> >Guard at the disposal of FEMA.
> >
> >Just now I am listening to Scott McClellan who has been asked why
> >Bush waited until Thursday to release the National Guard. Mr
> >McCLellan has not offered your explanation, he just sort of blew
> >it off. So, what is your source? I'm willing to believe it,
> >but not if the only source I can find was Rush Limbaugh or the
> >700 club.
> >
>
> Among other places (none of whom were Rush or 700 club), it was in an AP
> story on FoxNews web page this weekend (I don't save cites, and I've got
> other things to do now). It was couched in a slanted attempt at
> blame-Bush, but read, "traditionally the federal government defers
> deploying the National Guard until requested by the state governor ..."
> Also in several stories were comments regarding the fact that the governor
> had lost contact with her observers in the city, but failed to request the
> Guard until contact could be re-established (sounds like a good plan in an
> unpredictable disaster, doesn't it? "If you don't hear from us, assume
> everything's fine")
Thanks. AFAIK the President has always had the authority to
Federalize and use the NG even over the local governor's objection,
as when the Ohio National Guard was sent to Guatamala (for training)
over the objections of Governor Celeste.
The President can act independently of the State Governors in
disaster relief, using other assets of the Federal Government
in additon to NG, consider the possiblity of the State Governor
being a casualty. But I quite agree that the President should
defer to the Governor leaving it to the local officials to
coordinate relief, barring exceptional circumstances. It
appears that the La Governor was so incompetent that the
situation had become 'exceptional' by the time action finally
was taken.
>
>
> >Remember the movie _Goldfinger_? Bond is incredulous at the
> >plan to knock over Fort Knox, pointing out that Goldfinger
> >could not possibly remove the gold fast enough to make off
> >with the lot of it. But that wasn't Goldfinger's plan, his
> >plan was to use a dirty nuclear bomb to contaminate the gold
> >at Ft Knox so as to dramatically increase the value of the gold
> >he already posessed.
> >
> >I don't know if the Bushes own any of the contracts for Iraqi
> >oil today, but don't you think they still own the contracts for
> >the same oil they owned previously? Seen the price of oil
> >recently?
> >
>
> For a commodity such as oil, that's only a short-term gain. If you are
> in for the long haul, the money is in keeping the oil flowing.
You miss the point. Like gold, the world's oil is not all
owned by one person, one company, or one nation. Goldfinger
wasn;t about to contaminate his own gold, he was spoiling
someone else's.
*Some* oil companies have kept the oil flowing at that
higher price Saudi Arabia has not cutback, indeed has
increased production. I'm sure the Sauds aren't anxious
to see Iraq back in full production.
I don't know, maybe nobody knows how much oil Iraq was exporting,
openly or secretly in violation of the UN sanctions before the
invasion but that stopped when we invaded and it is not clear
how much has resumed since.
>
> ... snip
> >
> >> What's wrong with this picture? Seems like in your world,
> >> if Bush and his evil henchmen were really looking out for the oil
> >> companies, they would have poured more boatloads of taxpayer money into
> >> shoring up the LA and NO levee infrastructure, sparing no expense to
> >> protect those oil assets.
> >
> >The oil rigs are mostly offshore. Shoring up the levies and
> >protecting La and NO would have done nothing to protect them.
> >As it stands, the oil itself is perfectly safe and more valuable
> >than ever.
> >
>
> It's not the oil rigs -- it's the refinineries that have been affected.
> It's 25% of US *refining* capacity -- that *is* on shore.
Both the refineries AND the rigs were affected. If the refineries
were protected, production would still be down until the rigs
were back up to capacity.
But that is beside the point. If Bush and his cronies were
invested in the affected refineries you'd have a good point.
Otherwise, and especially if they are invested in refineries
further inland, or say, in New Jersey, the nutcase conspiracy
theory is not debunked though it remains a nutcase conspiracy
theory.
Still, it would be nice to know where our leaders have there
money invested. Last I heard, the much-maligned Jimmy Carter
was the first and last President to put his personal assetts
into a blind trust when he was president.
> >
> >At Scott McClellan's news conference today one of the reporters
> >told Mr McClellan that according to one of the relevant Generals,
> >assets were positioned to move to the Gulf when Katrina crossed
> >Florida. (Sounds like good preparation on the part of the Bush
> >administration). However, they were not released by Bush until
> >Thursday. So, if you can direct us to the information as to why,
> >that would fill in the gap in the informaiton here.
> >
>
> As I indicated, over the weekend, it appears that the governor of LA
> didn't request the other states' NG troops until 2 days into the disaster.
> Some more comments from that article point out that the fed has mobilized
> NG without state request as during the 9/11 attacks, but that was done as a
> matter of national security, not to interfere in what is essentially a
> state's issue.
>
I quite agree that the La Governor deserves the bulk of the
criticism. However I do not think that Bush is getting more
than he deserves so much because he is Bush, rather he is
getting it more so because he is President. People blame
everything on the President.
--
FF
Al Reid wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > Still, it would be nice to know where our leaders have there
> > money invested. Last I heard, the much-maligned Jimmy Carter
> > was the first and last President to put his personal assets
> > into a blind trust when he was president.
> >
>
> Where did you get that info? I DAGS and it seems that Carter, Reagan, Bush,
> Clinton and Bush all had their investments in blind trusts. I didn't look
> back any farther than that.
>
When Carter was elected President his people made a big deal about
setting a precedent by putting his assets into a blind trust.
Even my former office mate who describes himself as the world's
best Republican opined that Jimmy Carter's biggest flaw was that
he was too honest.
When Reagan was elected the question of putting his assets into
a blind trust was asked at a press conference (maybe it was
a spokesman answering the quwestion, not Reagan himself) and the
answer was no. That was the last I had heard on the subject.
What search terms did you use, "blind trust" and $president?
Very happy to be proven wrong in this one.
--
FF
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >When Carter was elected President his people made a big deal about
> >setting a precedent by putting his assets into a blind trust.
>
> Either you, or they, were misinformed. About it setting a precedent, I mean.
>
> I'm currently in the middle of Dwight Eisenhower's book "Mandate for Change",
> in which he desribes placing his assets into a blind trust in 1952. It's not
> clear whether this took place pre- or post-election, but certainly it was
> before inauguration. [Eisenhower, D.D., "The White House Years: Mandate for
> Change 1953-1956", Doubleday, New York, 1963, pp 111-112]
>
Eisenhower may have been the best president in my lifetime though
I'm not quite old enough to remember him. I may not live long
enough to ever have another one as good.
--
FF
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2005 11:09:08 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:38:41 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> ...
> >>
> >>
>
> >...
> >> >
> >>
> >> There was not a lack of NG troops, the LA governor just failed to request
> >> them. But then, why let a few facts get in the way of a really good rant.
> >>
> >
> >I've read that the La Governor has still refused to put the La
> >Guard at the disposal of FEMA.
> >
> >Just now I am listening to Scott McClellan who has been asked why
> >Bush waited until Thursday to release the National Guard. Mr
> >McCLellan has not offered your explanation, he just sort of blew
> >it off. So, what is your source? I'm willing to believe it,
> >but not if the only source I can find was Rush Limbaugh or the
> >700 club.
> >
>
> Among other places (none of whom were Rush or 700 club), it was in an AP
> story on FoxNews web page this weekend (I don't save cites, and I've got
> other things to do now). It was couched in a slanted attempt at
> blame-Bush, but read, "traditionally the federal government defers
> deploying the National Guard until requested by the state governor ..."
> Also in several stories were comments regarding the fact that the governor
> had lost contact with her observers in the city, but failed to request the
> Guard until contact could be re-established (sounds like a good plan in an
> unpredictable disaster, doesn't it? "If you don't hear from us, assume
> everything's fine")
>
> ...
> As I indicated, over the weekend, it appears that the governor of LA
> didn't request the other states' NG troops until 2 days into the disaster.
> Some more comments from that article point out that the fed has mobilized
> NG without state request as during the 9/11 attacks, but that was done as a
> matter of national security, not to interfere in what is essentially a
> state's issue.
>
>
But she did request Federal Assistance on August 27:
http://www.eyewitnessmuse.com/musings.php?p=143
It appears that while the Governor and President were haggling
over who should have control over the NG, FEMA did nothing
despite the language in the appicable laws stating that
after the President declares an event of National significance
the feds take the initiative.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> Doug Miller wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> > >When Carter was elected President his people made a big deal about
> > >setting a precedent by putting his assets into a blind trust.
> >
> > Either you, or they, were misinformed. About it setting a precedent, I mean.
> >
> > I'm currently in the middle of Dwight Eisenhower's book "Mandate for Change",
> > in which he desribes placing his assets into a blind trust in 1952. It's not
> > clear whether this took place pre- or post-election, but certainly it was
> > before inauguration. [Eisenhower, D.D., "The White House Years: Mandate for
> > Change 1953-1956", Doubleday, New York, 1963, pp 111-112]
> >
>
> Eisenhower may have been the best president in my lifetime though
> I'm not quite old enough to remember him. I may not live long
> enough to ever have another one as good.
>
> --
>
> FF
First saw Ike at the Waldorf Astoria, about 1949 or 1950, as he was
getting ready to assume the presidency of Columbia U. I was too young
to vote when he got elected, but I'd have voted for him. Next time
around, he came into Kaneohe Bay with HMX-1 in 1960, and I got a
glimpse again. By that time, I was old enough to vote, but he was
retiring. In fact, I did vote, for the first time, from Kaneohe in '60.
He was, I believe, the last president we had who truly had the
interests of the country as a guiding light. I'm not sure there are any
politicians left with his vision, ability and courage, though it's
possible that Mark Warner (current governor of VA) comes nearest.
Swingman wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
>
>
>>, but somehow, someday, people in this nation are
>>going to have to start taking responsibility for their own choices.
>
>
> If only it were so ... unfortunately, lawyer's and governments (or more
> succinctly, government where the laws are primarily created by lawyers) will
> insure that never happens.
>
Don't kid yourself, neither lawyers nor 'government' are responsible for
this mess. The sheeple at large have discovered the power of mooching
and do not want to give it up. It is the sheeple who elect politicans
to loot the public treasury to give them what they want no matter how
unreasonable, unethical, or irrational their demands. If you want a good
example, just look at the new "right" to healthcare and drug benefits that
has been invented. People who never bothered to save for their own
retirement needs get to indebt future generations simply by electing the
right mix of professional political pilferers. The battle is not with
government, it is with your neighbors...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Duane Bozarth wrote:
<SNIP>
> The key is still regulation. As noted before the big run-up in cost was
> the cost of the money and the delays not the actual basic plant costs.
> If these aren't controlled nothing else will help much, either.
This sounds all too familiar. I spent a year running a software group
that wrote custom software to track the cyclic inspection of various
nuke plant components (especially snubbers). What I observed was an
industry just *choking* on bureaucracy. The worst of it was *inside* the
plants where people wouldn't/couldn't keep track of their inspection
data in a manner auditable by the NRC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:58:05 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:10:47 -0400, Robatoy <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
... snip
>>Now Bush has taken charge of the relief efforts. Just when you thought
>>that things couldn't get any worse.
>
... snip of more of "it's all Bush's fault" rant
>How can anyone still support him? Go ahead and kill-file me if you
>like, but anyone who can't see what the bastard is doing to our
>country is dumber than a f***ing post, and needs to get right up on
>the scaffold with their damned religious right and get their neck
>stretched too. It's the same old saw- your right to swing your fist
>ends where my nose begins, and I'm tired of seeing my country
>destroyed day after day.
It's obvious that such visceral, irrational hatred is not something that
can be addressed easily. You do need to get a bit of a grip however,
blaming one person or group of persons for all of the ills you see in the
world is not healthy, especially given that some of the ills you are citing
above don't even exist. Some of the ills you address weren't even started
during Bush's administration but go back to a previous admin. At times
like this you further seem to give Bush almost god-like powers, failing to
recognize that there are checks and balances built into the system.
You are blaming Bush for the future high cost of heating oil? Whose
fault is it that no (read that zip, zilch, nada) new refineries have been
built in the past 30 years? Hint: It's not Halliburton out protesting and
trying to find some endangered microbe to prevent the construction of any
proposed building project anywhere in the US. Now the source of 25% of the
US supply of refined products has been hit by a natural disaster and we are
surprised that putting all of our eggs in only a few baskets (because they
were there before the wave of anti-building forces were active) is going to
cause problems?
I'm also sure that you will be able to find some reason that it is also
Bush's fault that the rescue efforts are being hampered by people shooting
at the rescue workers. What in the world is up with that?
>
>Obviously, this tirade isn't aimed at all of you- plenty of the folks
>on this list (some of whom I'm sure I've already alienated) are fine
>and decent folks. The rest of you rednecks know who you are, and
>you're the ones who can go piss up a rope.
Probably not worth responding to someone exhibiting such visceral hatred,
but just to put a few facts into the discussion so that you can have a more
rational go at it in your next diatribe.
1) For state disasters such as this, it is typically the state governor who
requests other state National Guard support through the federal government.
The papers at the federal level had been signed allowing this, all that
was needed was the Louisianna governor's request for deployment. It didn't
come until 2 days ago.
2) The Louisianna governor was waiting for information from "boots on the
ground" in New Orleans to inform the governor's office regarding whether
such a deployment request was necessary. They apparently lost contact with
those people in New Orleans and didn't realize how bad things were getting.
[editorial note: when one loses contact with one's surveillance assets,
one generally assumes that something bad has happened, not that everything
is peachy-keen and can wait until contact is re-established].
I'm sure had the government taken the opposite approach, positioning huge
amounts of personnel and material in place for a large disaster, and had
the hurricane not turned out to be a major disaster, Bush would have been
decried for the waste of time and materiel and the impact on the National
Guard's lives and morale over what turned out to be nothing.
Frankly, the fact that some people seem to view this disaster as more of
an opportunity for further political partisanship and another opportunity
to bash the sitting president rather than seeing it for what it really is,
a significant disaster needing support is really disturbing. One can't
even address what are real failures without bringing politics into play
rather than trying to find the root cause of the problem and go fix that.
Having seen an AP report this morning, I can certainly understand where
some of this rancor comes from, there was absolutely nothing objective in
that report. They were even beating on the federal government for not
activating the Civilian Reserve Air Fleet to help in this.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Why hasn't *that* money been
>>directed to shoring up their own levies? Why should the nation be
>>responsible for this?
>
>
> Because you're all Americans and in this together? Because the
> protection of the population is a federal mandate when it includes large
> infrastructures.
"From each according to his ability to each according to his need."
Uh... this was tried in a big way in the 20th C - Hint: It was responsible
for an immense amount of human oppression and no good thing came of it.
Collectivism kills without exception whether it is called Nazism,
Communism, Socialism, or The New Deal.
>
> People are paying with their lives every day because decisions are made
> on a federal level.
>
> Using your theory, why not use all those tourist dollars to fix what
> just went wrong? Should Biloxi casino revenues got to fix NO? It is so
> easy to step aside and play Whack-A-Mole with 'who is responsible'...
> bottom line is that a disaster of this magnitude was a known risk.
> Plenty of people have pointed out that those levees were dangerous. The
> Army Engineers knew. They wanted more money to rectify a known
> vulnerability. But you got to cut somewhere if you wanna give your
> buddies a tax break. But the carnage was put to good use, the gallon is
> now over 3 bucks.... that oughtta keep some of those buddies happy.
>
>
> Infrastructure is a federal responsibility when it is a federal agency
> which has to bail out the victims of a disaster.
Please cite the relevant portions of the Constitution Of The US that
make it the case that "Infrastructure is a federal responsibility".
I just read the Constitution from cover to cover about 6 weeks ago
and I do not recall any such language.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> "Greed" and market economies are what have given us unprecedented
> lifespan, comfort, free time, gagets, better homes, and and overall
> higher quality of life. The one thing we've apparently utterly failed to
> do is educate people on how economics actually operate and what works
> (and what does not). May I gently suggest the following reading:
>
>
> Economics In One Lesson - Hazlitt
> The Road To Serfdom - F.A. Hayek
Two excellent choices for beginnings...follow up with some of the
works of Ludwig Von Mises and Murray Rothbard's Man, Economy and State.
I would never have expected Hazlitt or Hayek to have been referenced in
rec.woodworking though. Good for you, Tim.
--
Joseph Crowe
Hi Morris, Tim et al,
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Morris Dovey wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk (in [email protected]) said:
>
> | The truth is that most people use energy but very few pay attention
> | to the politics of energy production. In one corner you have the
> | Green Gasbag environmentalists who worship the earth and indulge in
> | fantasy science. In another you have the politicans who want to get
> | paid off before anything moves forward. In another corner, you'll
> | find the irresponsible regulators who pay attention to all the
> | wrong things. This allows genuine environmental atrocities like
> | Love Canal to go unmonitored until it is too late so we have to use
> | tax monies to clean up what should have been paid for by the
> | polluter. In the final corner we have positions like the one
> | above: Let's *inhibit* the energy companies from being too
> | successful and lets blame them for all our miseries. Is it any
> | wonder we have a supply/demand problem with energy today?
>
> In your haste to stereotype you missed a corner: That in which there
> are serious people engaged in the attempt to deliver useful
> alternative solutions through research and careful engineering.
On the contrary, my take on Tim's posting was that serious R&D on
alternative energy sources will flourish without government
interference, especially as prices rise on conventional energy sources.
I think it's well supported by a basic understanding of economics
for which Hazlitt's book, Economics in One Lesson, can shed some light.
Note: Tim did state "the politics of energy production". My
interpretation of his position is that political interference in the
arena of energy production, distribution etc. introduces perturbations
of the market's natural distribution of resources. To drag this back to
rec.woodworking, do you as a purveyor of passive solar heating
technology think that people can homebrew such panels. Further, do you
think that solar generation of electricity given technological advances
can generate enough DC power to run a decent table saw or similar?
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
--
Joseph Crowe
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:27:25 GMT, "Clint" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I've been watching a fair amount of the news footage of the hurricane since
>Sunday evening, and I'm trying to put my comments to these posts in fairly
>politically correct format...
>
>There's a considerable difference between localized flooding caused by a
>small river overflowing and the flooding that they appear to be experiencing
>down south. I don't know how many homes are affected, but when they show
>block upon block of homes flooded to the eaves, I wonder where the previous
>two poster's compassion is.
It is apparent that my remarks are not being properly understood.
My remarks are NOT about a lack of compassion for those affected by
truly major disasters. For those affected by weather events of truly
epic proportions, my heart goes out to them.
My remarks though do apply to the "storm team" forecasters that turn
the most minor weather event into a harbinger of doom. It's the wall
to wall coverage of a snow storm that leaves the ground barely covered
or the "thunderstorm" that hardly leaves my lawn wet that grind my
beans. Those people are doing a great job of desensitizing people to
the times when a real disaster is happening. When every storm is life
threatening, how do you know when the real thing comes along? A real
disaster is not the normal 5" snowfall. The real one is the 20 incher
that paralyzes the city, not the one that makes it inconvenient for
the Dominoes delivery guy. The same could be said for temperatures.
There is a difference, not that you could tell by watching WTMJ or
WISN.
We also know that hurricanes have high winds and prodigious amounts of
rain. Is it necessary, does it add anything to our knowledge to show
a reporter announcing those facts in a live report? For the 10th (or
more) time?
Although I feel bad for those that are losing everything, they also
know they live in a risky area weatherwise. Why live so close to the
shore? Why live in a city where significant amounts of it are below
sea level? Where do they think the water's going to go when the big
hurricane finally comes calling?
And why aren't houses in such areas built a little more sturdily? I
recall stories about the home the mother of former attorney general
Janet Reno built. Apparently when hurricane Andrew came calling
several years ago her home was one that sustained no or minimal
damage.
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>Keep in mind that Manhattan is a barrier island...
>
>
> And used to have farms too. It has since been destroyed from its natural
> beauty.
>
>
And in exchange become an engine for wealth and prosperity for people
on a scale never before seen in human history. This prosperity translates
into better medical care, better day-to-day quality of life, more free time,
longer lifespan, etc. etc. etc. for the many beneficiaries of the business
conducted on the now denuded Manhattan. Good trade, I say ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Australopithecus scobis wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:57:14 -0400, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> another load of ignorant tripe. PLONK
Brilliant Riposte' - your reasoning is inarguable...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > That a disaster could strike an area
> > is not reason to assign federal responsibility to infrastructure.
>
> It should be if the aftermath of a disaster affects the whole nation.
> Case in point being the gas prices.
> If the docks in Long Beach CA were due to collapse for whatever reason,
> the feds would be all over them to make sure they can bring the Chinese
> imports home....
The point I'm holding to is that the levees aren't related to the current
shortage of production. They are a coincidental matter. The gulf spills
over on a regular basis, the Mississippi gets out of control on a regular
basis and levees or no levees, these things have always happened and likely
will continue to happen. New Orleans has some major issues to deal with
since they are essentially a bowl in between two bodies of water. But
that's a New Orleans problem, and it really does not have anything to do
with fuel production. There aren't any refineries within the city limits of
New Orleans and levees would do nothing to prevent disruption of trade up
and down the Mississippi.
>
> My tax dollars are spent in such a way that there will be just enough
> token projects launched in my area for the incumbent to try to get
> his/her ass re-elected.
Ahhh, the nature of politics. Gotta love it. Same thing in my area.
>
> One needs a federal umbrella that handles problems of national
> importance.
Agreed, but my point is that the levees around New Orleans that exist to
protect the low lying areas of the city are unrelated to the issue of
gasoline production. I maintain that those are the responsibility of the
city and all though federal help may be appropriate, blame should not be
placed on the feds for not stepping up with more money.
>
> About Bush. I have been a conservative (with some liberal leanings on a
> few limited issues) all my life. But this asshole has got to go. I
> thought Reagan was Da Man! So my distaste is not from party-lines.
> I'm not even anti-war....unless the reasons are fabricated in order to
> cover up the real reasons. IMHO.. that Bush is whacked enough to toss
> nukes and turn the desert into glass. He is an ill-tempered dry drunk
> and dangerous as hell. There is NO way his re-election was legit. No way
> are THAT many people THAT desensitized to the truth.
Alas, we are something of a kindered spirit on this point.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> And then you wonder why the Big Evil Oil Companies don't want to build
> very costly infrastructure like pipelines and refineries? Here is a
> clue: You cannot interfere with the profit potential for an institution
> AND at the same time demand that they sink more money into longterm
> infrastructure builds.
Close, but no cigar. The original point was to regulate the profits of
critical industries. That model had been in place for decades and indeed,
it was proven to work. The public utilities were and to some extent, still
are regulated. They made the guaranteed profit, they expanded, they
maintained the infrastructure. They prospered and the public was served.
>
> The US has consistently had growing energy needs while at the same time
> reducing or eliminating additional energy *sources* from its
> bag-o-tricks. We haven't built a nuclear plant
The reasons we have not built nuclear plants has more to do with the
environment (or the environmentalists if you choose) than anything else you
are trying to support in your argument. Nuclear plants were and still are
very profitable for the operators. So are hydro plants. We aren't hurting
for electrical energy so there is no push for new facilities.
> or an oil refinery in
> decades. The ANWR just got opened up for drilling even though the will
> and desire to do so has been there for years. And so on and so on and so
> on.
Wait - the oil industry has not been regulated, so how can you argue that
they have not built a new refinery in decades because their profits have
been interfered with?
>
> The truth is that most people use energy but very few pay attention to
> the politics of energy production. In one corner you have the Green
> Gasbag environmentalists who worship the earth and indulge in fantasy
> science. In another you have the politicans who want to get paid off
> before anything moves forward. In another corner, you'll find the
> irresponsible regulators who pay attention to all the wrong things. This
> allows genuine environmental atrocities like Love Canal to go
Man, you throw out irrelevant or inappropriate stuff like chaff in the wind.
Love Canal happened long before there was even much knowledge about most of
the hazards. Not to excuse it, or to suggest there was no knowledge, but
that was such a different time/place/circumstance that there isn't even a
hint of relevance.
> unmonitored until it is too late so we have to use tax monies to clean up
> what should have been paid for by the polluter. In the final corner we
> have positions like the one above: Let's *inhibit* the energy companies
> from being too successful and lets blame them for all our miseries. Is
> it any wonder we have a supply/demand problem with energy today?
A wise guy retort would probably suggest something about reading
comprehension. This is such a red herring that it does not even merit
address.
>
> The reality is that, even at $3+ per gallon, the inflation-adjusted
> price for energy today is *lower* than it has been throughout most of
> US history. It is *lower* than the price paid in Europe or Asia on
> the whole.
Go study the price of fuel in the countries you reference. Look at the tax
structures in those countries. An educated opinion serves an argument far
better than a rhetorical cry.
>
> The answer to this problem is to let markets do their job. When crude
> hit $50 a barrel or so, it suddenly became economically rational to
> process Canadian shale reserves. When it hit $60, even the eco-weenies
> started making positive noises about Nuclear. As/when/if crude continues
> rise, there will incentive for alternative/hybrid/yet to be discovered
> ways to harness energy. The absolute *worst* thing we could do
> would be to stick the government's beak into the business and further
> try and regulate desireable outcomes. Meddling by those political
> pilferers will do nothing more or less than drive investment and people
> *out* of the energy business.
On this point we're almost in total agreement. The exception being that I
would go along with a degree of govt involvement in the form of regulation
like we saw in the public utility sector for decades.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:300820050812314093%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> ... as to be inflicted with this never ending proliferation of idiots
>> with
>> microphones and rain gear who seem convinced that they alone have made
>> the
>> profound discovery that high wind, rain, and flood water are components
>> of
>> hurricanes?
>
> ROFL!
>
> About 10 years ago I was in Seattle when a mild earthquake occured. The
> local TV stations went into high-alert mode, with several hours of
> broadcasting that went something like:
>
> "And now, over to Steve near the Sea-Tac Airport. Steve, any damage
> there?"
>
> "Nothing, Ken. Everything is completely normal."
>
> "Okay. We'll be back to Steve in a little while for an update. So far,
> there is absolutely no reported damage... wait, we have a report from
> Connie in downtown Seattle. Connie?"
>
> "Ken, I'm at 'Hair Affair' haiir salon near the market, and as you can
> see behind me, several bottles of hair care products have been shaken
> from their shelves and are laying on the floor."
>
> "Thanks for that update, Connie."
>
> "No problem, Ken."
>
> etc...
>
I was in that earthquake. And I spent it holding a bunch of expensive
electronic equipment up so it wouldn't hit the floor. And the reporting was
particularly lame. I went around and talked to people for a few days
afterwards about their earthquake experiences. I heard a lot of things that
were much better than what got onto the news.
Two interesting stories from that earthquake.
A wine distributor talking about north and south versus east and west. It
turns out that wine put onto shelves oriented in one direction stayed on the
shelves. Wine in the other direction all jumped onto the floor. Hardly
sensational, but an interesting fact and photos. (A sticky mess to clean
up.)
The funniest one was a guy getting a physical. The doc was taking his blood
pressure. The earthquake hit and his blood pressure spiked. The doc
mentions this to his patient. The guy yells that an earthquake is happening.
The doc looks up and says, "Oh, I didn't notice. Maybe we will wait a few
moments and do this again." Now there is a doc who is either really focused
on his work, or oblivous to his environment.
Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>There is *always* less energy
>>out than energy in because perpetual motion is impossible.
>
>
> That law doesn't apply to a farm. There are many sources and drains for
> energy on a farm. It is not a closed system. Thermal air-flows, solar
> radiation, rain, etc.
>
> Cow/pig farts contain valuable gasses. My guess is that a single
> cow-fart will light your lamp for a week.
If you can demonstrate this, there is a Nobel in Physics in it for you.
The net energy out is always <= net energy in - at least as currently
understood thermodynamics works. But ... science does change. I'll
be the first to congratulate you on your discipline-bending work if
you prove otherwise ... (I always wanted to meet a Nobel winner ;)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>And then you wonder why the Big Evil Oil Companies don't want to build
>>very costly infrastructure like pipelines and refineries? Here is a
>>clue: You cannot interfere with the profit potential for an institution
>>AND at the same time demand that they sink more money into longterm
>>infrastructure builds.
>
>
> Close, but no cigar. The original point was to regulate the profits of
> critical industries. That model had been in place for decades and indeed,
By what moral right does the group/mob/tribe have the privilege of
telling the legitimate owner of an asset (say, an oil business) how
to run it, how much money to make, and so forth so long as they
do so without fraud?
> it was proven to work. The public utilities were and to some extent, still
No it did not. I spent over a decade in regulated industries. All
regulation did for the most part was to create a lot of incompetent,
lazy businesses that never had to sing for their supper. Note the
sharp decline in prices for telecommunications and air travel as
examples of what happens when the On The Job Retired have to actually
perform under market conditions.
> are regulated. They made the guaranteed profit, they expanded, they
> maintained the infrastructure. They prospered and the public was served.
>
>
>>The US has consistently had growing energy needs while at the same time
>>reducing or eliminating additional energy *sources* from its
>>bag-o-tricks. We haven't built a nuclear plant
>
>
> The reasons we have not built nuclear plants has more to do with the
> environment (or the environmentalists if you choose) than anything else you
Right - a bunch of badly informed/politically motivated earth-worshippers
managed to terrify the rest of the public about the so-called dangers
of nuclear and no further plants were built
> are trying to support in your argument. Nuclear plants were and still are
> very profitable for the operators. So are hydro plants. We aren't hurting
> for electrical energy so there is no push for new facilities.
I fundamentally disagree that "we aren't hurting ...". Let's do a thought
experiment. Suppose we built a bunch of small regional power generators
using, say, the Pebble Bed technology the Chinese are currently pushing
(in a huge way). This would have the eventual effect of making
electricity so cheap that it would be logically "free" (i.e., So cheap
the price wouldn't matter much.) Think about the effect this would
have:
1) We could build all-electric commuter cars for the short drives that
are the majority of our driving. These would be "refueled" via
complementary outlets at every mall, store, and office.
2) There would be a precipitous decline in hydrocarbon fuel consumption.
The new environmental issue would be reduced to the disposal of the
spent rechargable battries.
3) We could tell the Arab tribalists to Go Scratch, because the oil we
did continue using would be a small enough amount (I suspect) that
we could serve our own oil needs.
4) We could shut down the inarguably polluting coal power generation plants.
All of these benefits accrue only if we can make electricity "so cheap it
almost doesn't matter". THAT's why we should be building nuclear in a
huge way - in small, self-contained systems like Pebble Beds that are
cheaper to build, inherently safer than today's designs, have a simpler
waste disposal model, and are far easier to secure/bury/hide/guard.
>
>
>
>>or an oil refinery in
>>decades. The ANWR just got opened up for drilling even though the will
>>and desire to do so has been there for years. And so on and so on and so
>>on.
>
>
> Wait - the oil industry has not been regulated, so how can you argue that
> they have not built a new refinery in decades because their profits have
> been interfered with?
They haven't been regulated? I dunno what state you live in, but
IIRC most of the states have "gouging" laws intended to insure that
Larry The Loser can buy gas for his 1962 Buick Electra without regard
to market conditions. Moreover, it's not just Federal regulation that
created the environment that discouraged infrastructure development.
The single biggest impediment to building Nukes, Refineries, and the like,
beyond the keeing of the enviros is the "Not In My Back Yard" syndrome.
IIRC, there is a completed nuclear plant somewhere in MA that has never
produced a microwatt of power because the local geniuses don't want
it turned out (I say they should get electricty off the grid last or not
at all). It has been municipal morons that have kept these projects
from moving forward via *local* regulation.
>
>
>>The truth is that most people use energy but very few pay attention to
>>the politics of energy production. In one corner you have the Green
>>Gasbag environmentalists who worship the earth and indulge in fantasy
>>science. In another you have the politicans who want to get paid off
>>before anything moves forward. In another corner, you'll find the
>>irresponsible regulators who pay attention to all the wrong things. This
>>allows genuine environmental atrocities like Love Canal to go
>
>
> Man, you throw out irrelevant or inappropriate stuff like chaff in the wind.
> Love Canal happened long before there was even much knowledge about most of
> the hazards. Not to excuse it, or to suggest there was no knowledge, but
> that was such a different time/place/circumstance that there isn't even a
> hint of relevance.
Oh baloney. Chemistry as a discipline has been around a long time. As I
recall, there was sufficient knowledge of at least some of the hazards,
that when the leaching was discovered there was an attempt to go after
the original polluters legally. The Regulators sit around writing rules
and pay no attention to real threat. We've all seen instances where it
is cheaper to pay the regulatory fines than clean up the mess or source
of pollution. Is this any suprise? Once you take government out of
its intended role (to keep us free) and turn it into a social institution,
no good thing proceeds from this.
Real polluters ought to be held liable without exception. In the case of
corporations, there has happily been an increasing movement to hold
the officers of polluting companies personally liable. The real problem
is getting the environmentalist high-priests out of the way so we can
figure out what constitutes "real pollution" (as opposed to their fantasy
socialist version of it).
>
>
>
>>unmonitored until it is too late so we have to use tax monies to clean up
>>what should have been paid for by the polluter. In the final corner we
>>have positions like the one above: Let's *inhibit* the energy companies
>>from being too successful and lets blame them for all our miseries. Is
>>it any wonder we have a supply/demand problem with energy today?
>
>
> A wise guy retort would probably suggest something about reading
> comprehension. This is such a red herring that it does not even merit
> address.
It's not a red herring. Here's a thought experiment. You control
a Big Bad Evil Oil Company. You're making a killing at $3+ per gallon
for gasoline, but you also know this will not last forever. You'd
like to build another refinery but there are a "few" impediments:
1) You have to make nice with the EPA - a clueless and largely useless
regulatory body.
2) Nobody wants you to build in their neighborhood - but they all
want your gas.
3) The various green theologists have convinced a depressing number
of the Sheeple that "natural" is good and "manmade" is bad.
You have to stroke these idiots if you're going to make any headway.
4) Refineries cost a lot of money, take a long time to build, and
are capital intensive operations. However, the tax laws mitigate
against doing this kind of thing. You and your investor shareholders
get to take all the risk. If you lose money, the downside loses
you can show (at least on a personal basis) is limited to a net of
$3000 per year. But, the government has unlimited access to loot
your upside profits. if you have shareholders, they get punished
by being taxed on the profits made even though the money they invested
was originally taxed.
5) People think you personally make too much money because most of your
compensation is derived from stock options to incent you to grow the
company.
6) People think your Big Bad Evil Oil Company is "too profitable"
and "not serving the public good". (Witness the post that started
this subthread).
7) The Sheeple think you are Public Service Organization and that
you owe everyone in society the result of your hard work and sweat
just because they say so.
8) You're already working 14 hour days.
Now ... you're The Man. What would you do?
>
>
>>The reality is that, even at $3+ per gallon, the inflation-adjusted
>>price for energy today is *lower* than it has been throughout most of
>>US history. It is *lower* than the price paid in Europe or Asia on
>>the whole.
>
>
> Go study the price of fuel in the countries you reference. Look at the tax
> structures in those countries. An educated opinion serves an argument far
> better than a rhetorical cry.
I never stipulated what the causes were, I was making a factual statement.
This is not an "educated opinion" it is observable fact. My point
was that this *fact* mitigates most of the whining about "high gas
prices."
>
>
>>The answer to this problem is to let markets do their job. When crude
>>hit $50 a barrel or so, it suddenly became economically rational to
>>process Canadian shale reserves. When it hit $60, even the eco-weenies
>>started making positive noises about Nuclear. As/when/if crude continues
>>rise, there will incentive for alternative/hybrid/yet to be discovered
>>ways to harness energy. The absolute *worst* thing we could do
>>would be to stick the government's beak into the business and further
>>try and regulate desireable outcomes. Meddling by those political
>>pilferers will do nothing more or less than drive investment and people
>>*out* of the energy business.
>
>
> On this point we're almost in total agreement. The exception being that I
> would go along with a degree of govt involvement in the form of regulation
> like we saw in the public utility sector for decades.
You cannot be half-pregnant. The minute you have government involvement
in private sector matters (beyond the appropriate judicial involvement to
thwart fraud/force/threat) you get a mess. You want more/better energy
delivery in this country - get the regulators Federal and Local out of the
way. Write some environmental *laws* (not regulations) with some teeth
to go after people who take shortcuts, and get out of the way...
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
In article <[email protected]>,
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> ... as to be inflicted with this never ending proliferation of idiots with
> microphones and rain gear who seem convinced that they alone have made the
> profound discovery that high wind, rain, and flood water are components of
> hurricanes?
ROFL!
About 10 years ago I was in Seattle when a mild earthquake occured. The
local TV stations went into high-alert mode, with several hours of
broadcasting that went something like:
"And now, over to Steve near the Sea-Tac Airport. Steve, any damage
there?"
"Nothing, Ken. Everything is completely normal."
"Okay. We'll be back to Steve in a little while for an update. So far,
there is absolutely no reported damage... wait, we have a report from
Connie in downtown Seattle. Connie?"
"Ken, I'm at 'Hair Affair' haiir salon near the market, and as you can
see behind me, several bottles of hair care products have been shaken
from their shelves and are laying on the floor."
"Thanks for that update, Connie."
"No problem, Ken."
etc...
--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who
In article <[email protected]>,
Lee Michaels <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was in that earthquake. And I spent it holding a bunch of expensive
> electronic equipment up so it wouldn't hit the floor. And the reporting was
> particularly lame. I went around and talked to people for a few days
> afterwards about their earthquake experiences. I heard a lot of things that
> were much better than what got onto the news.
I was in a store near the Pike Place Market when it hit, and my first
thought was "logging truck going by" before I realized the odd of a
logging truck in that particular location was slim.
The bottles in the cooler wobbled slightly. I bought a 6-pack and
walked back to the hotel to watch the (non) coverage.
You must have been closer to the epicenter than I.
I remember thinking that I wanted to see "Almost Live" cover it. Now
that would have been funny! The local coverage would have made the
"Lame LIST!"
It would have made a great bit for "Mind Your Manners, with Billy
Kuan"...
--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who
In article <[email protected]>, John B
<[email protected]> wrote:
> A link that just about sums it up regarding reporters and others.
> http://www.illwillpress.com/kat.html
> Thoughts are with you all
Once again, Foamy the Squirrel says what needs to be said.
Thanks for the link.
djb
--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:16:27 -0700, Lee DeRaud
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:25:17 -0500, George Max
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>For example - the fires in Southern California a couple of summers ago
>>- I saw a photo of a single house in one of the affected neighborhoods
>>that survived. A stucco house with a clay tile roof. All the others
>>apparently constructed as a regular frame house with asphalt shingles.
>
>Uh, what exactly do you think is under the stucco of just about every
>house in Southern California, including (most likely) the one you saw?
>Hint: starts with a "w" and gets discussed occasionally on this NG.
>
>And more than likely, the adjacent homes to the one that survived had
>the same type of roof or something equally "fire-proof". Once a large
>fire gets into an area densely populated enough to be called a
>"neighborhood", the primary factor determining which houses survive
>and which ones burn is called "luck".
>
>Lee
I had been in the areas that burned about 2 weeks before it all
started. Lots of roofs that looked like asphalt shingles. Maybe they
were something else, but they sure looked that way to my midwestern
eyes.
Yes, wood under the stucco, but stucco doesn't burn. Hard to start a
fire when the outer shell doesn't support combustion.
I wish I could find that photo again to post here or in the furniture
picture forum. The neighborhood looked like all the rest around the
country. Small hillside lots with houses very near each other. Very
ordinary, very typical.
Luck? Maybe so, but I tend to think other factors are in play when
200 of your neighbors are burned out and you're not. It's obvious
this house stood in the center of a firestorm for a while and lived to
tell the tale.
And this is where I stand - were I to construct a new house in a
particular area, I'm going to want to build with techniques that
improve the chances of survivability. Note that I say "improve my
chances" since it's a certainty that just about any structure can be
destroyed with the right combination of events.
Leon wrote:
> "TomWoodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>What really pisses me off is that ALL of our insurance rates are going to
>>go up.. AGAIN!.. because of these people who choose to live in the
>>hurricane zone. I know, not everyone is there by choice, but most are.
>
>
>
> You know, If every one moved out of the hurricane zone there would not be
> enough room to plant crops or raise cattle.
This is utter nonsense. Approximately 50% of the US population lives
in a coastal area. The overwhelming majority of these are found in major
cities - New York, Miami, Seattle, LA, New Orleans, etc. Most of those
cities are *not* in Hurricane zones. There is more than enough land
for the people who do live in hurricane zones to get away from the problem.
Each year we see *less* land needed for farming, for example,
because farming is becoming incrementally more efficient. This frees up
the land for other uses. About 1/3 of US land is government owned
(mostly as Federal parks so smelly hippies can go hiking and complain
about "the man"). Some of this land could be sold and populated (and
managed far better than BLM ever has).
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 23:40:02 -0600, Richard Clements <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Amen, My personal favorite was the group Blaming Bush for the Storm for not
Blame Kerry and all the Liberal Democrats.
On 3 Sep 2005 15:31:09 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>For example, as Bush himself has lamented, the USA doesn't
>have an energy policy. Thirty years ago we had an energy policy
>intended to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That policy
>was scrapped around 1981, under a previous administration.
I thought we do have an energy policy, and full of pork barrels didn't we?
I bet you, the Oil companies are now laughing all the way to the bank,
just like the oil traders at Enron laughing during California's energy crisis.
Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I stand by my statement - farming today is more efficient and requires
>>less land than ever.
>
>
> less land...such a narrow view..and now uses way more more energy than
> it ever did.
> In many cases, the energy consumed to weed/seed/harvest etc. is greater
> than the energy produced (in calories)
Citation or proof please (you are, in general, wrong about this)
> Many 'factory farm operations' are an environmental disaster. Think
> 'feed-lot and hog-farm'.
Define "environmental disaster" - you mean it offends your sense of
smell or the Beautiful Mother Earth (tm) is being permanently wounded
>
> Never mind smelly hippies, try stinking opportunists. Carlisle Group
> making farm equipment now?
>
> Your ignorance is only overshadowed by your arrogance.
Thanks for playing.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 02:48:57 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>There is so much quality and creativity there, why would you want to pollute
>it with artificially contrived soap operas? Particularly as a discovery
>channel show. They don't do this crap with their other shows.
The s**t part of the whole thing is that pretty much the entire steel
fabrication industry in my area seems to think it is now a god-given
right to act like a bunch of dumb jerks ala OCC. It's almost funny to
see a 90-lb middle manager try to act like Paul Sr, but it gets old
really quick when you try to work in that kind of environment.
>And I just love some of the bikes. My favorite include the fire bike that
>honors the fallen fireman of 9/11, the Dixie bike with the big lawn mower
>engine, the miller electric bike with the little tow behind trailer with a
>miller welder on it and the futuristic, extremely raked bike made for the
>will smith movie, I-Robot.
I liked the commanche one an awful lot... that was a beautiful
machine- though I quit watching that shlock because of the stupidity
of the way they treat each other.
George Max wrote:
> When did we become weather wimps? Snow is not an unusual feature of a
> Milwaukee winter, yet each and ever snowfall, regardless of amount, is
> played as a life threatening disaster on the local stations. I
> suppose all in the name of ratings.
>
> Apparently it is no different elsewhere for whatever the nature of
> their weather. High winds, heavy rain, flooding. Business as usual
> in a hurricane.
I've been wondering about that ever since I came back to CONUS about 20
years ago from Guam. We didn't close the grocery stores until we had
100mph winds. Nobody panicked or did the stupid stuff I see on TV. We
tossed tires onto sheet metal roofs and tied them down to stakes, put
shutters over the windows and collected water. No big deal. We had
tons of little "banana 'phoons". They were good for parties afterwards
while the gov tried to get the electricity back up. Everyday someone on
the street wold open their freezer and the street would have a party.
Next day it was somebody else's turn. Just kept going until we had
power again. No FEMA except for the *really* bad ones. Certainly no
talking heads whining about rain and wind.
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use: daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.patinatools.org
Clint wrote:
>
> I've been watching a fair amount of the news footage of the hurricane since
> Sunday evening, and I'm trying to put my comments to these posts in fairly
> politically correct format...
>
> There's a considerable difference between localized flooding caused by a
> small river overflowing and the flooding that they appear to be experiencing
> down south. I don't know how many homes are affected, but when they show
> block upon block of homes flooded to the eaves, I wonder where the previous
> two poster's compassion is. ...
...
> *just shaking my head, trying to understand the hard-hearted comments*
I suspect two things--one, it's not them and two, there's no way one can
get the actual level of destruction and scale involved in such an area
from all the news footage. And, the difference between the area hit
this time and a place like Guam is the difference between, well, CONUS
and Guam...
> Sure, maybe the talking heads don't have to be on the air, 24/7. ...
That's the OP's point that so much of the "reporting" is nothing but
sensationalism and individual "reporters" essentially showing off trying
to outdo each other in showing off--kinda' like the junior high kids in
front of the school...
> ...But the rebuilding
> process down along the coast is going to go on for a long time. I wouldn't
> wish that on my worst enemy.
That's certainly true. OTOH, I have only a limited amount of compassion
(for lack of a better word) for those who knowingly build in a place on
the Gulf Coast below sea level and expect to not have such a result.
While it's a major disaster, most of it is actually self-inflicted if
folks weren't so bent on doing things that really just aren't smart
decisions.
The moral of the story is that hurricanes <are> going to happen and if
you insist on being where they are going to come ashore, you'd best be
prepared for the result. That a major storm of such size occurs only
every 50 years or so on average means, unfortunately, that most folks
don't recall what happened the last time.
lgb wrote:
...
> So once or twice a summer we have a "thunderstorm" where we hear 3 or 4
> rumbles and that's it. When we (rarely) get one that might make a
> halfway decent "thundershower" in the east, we invariably get a front
> page picture of lightning and a "massive storm" headline :-).
...
That's what I thought in "the east" (while in TN)...headlines would tout
50 mph wind gusts as strong--we think a 50mph wind just a "strong
breeze". :)
I did see some of the most impressive lightning shows there, but most
often the actual storms were pretty routine...
Clint wrote:
>
...
> But my comments were to the follow up posters, and I mentioned specifically
> "the two previous poster's compassion". They're the ones I don't
> understand. Comments like "When did we become weather wimps?" and
> "They were good for parties afterwards while the gov tried to get the
> electricity back up."
...
I think the general public has become "wimps" in many ways besides
weather. That doesn't minimize the effect on those affected, but there
is a rising level of unawareness of what Nature has to offer and an
apparent expectation that the results of poor judgement should be
mitigated by others than those who made the poor decision.
As for the parties afterwards, those could only be true in the aftermath
of something much less destructive than areas in the middle of such a
storm as Katrina. It's a case of thinking one has been through an event
when in fact the actual event is <far> worse than that particular person
can imagine. The difference between 100 mph and 150 mph windspeeds and
being on the actual coast and below the storm surge is absolutely
incomparable to the effects inland and higher elevation.
Same thing as the difference between an F0 little tornado and the
massive F5 that scours absolutely everything down to bare earth--one can
ride out the former w/ reasonable chances of success--the latter is
something else again entirely.
Leon wrote:
>
> "Dave in Fairfax" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I've been wondering about that ever since I came back to CONUS about 20
> > years ago from Guam. We didn't close the grocery stores until we had
> > 100mph winds. Nobody panicked or did the stupid stuff I see on TV. We
> > tossed tires onto sheet metal roofs and tied them down to stakes, put
> > shutters over the windows and collected water. No big deal. We had
> > tons of little "banana 'phoons". They were good for parties afterwards
> > while the gov tried to get the electricity back up. Everyday someone on
> > the street wold open their freezer and the street would have a party.
> > Next day it was somebody else's turn. Just kept going until we had
> > power again. No FEMA except for the *really* bad ones. Certainly no
> > talking heads whining about rain and wind.
> > Dave in Fairfax
>
> You obviously have never been in a storm bad enough that you thought you
> were going to die in. 100 mph winds are wimp winds. It is the sustained
> 150+ mph winds with downward micro blasts that hit the ground and spread out
> at 180 mph that get your attention. Then mix in the tornado's. I became a
> believer on my 3rd hurricane when I was 15.
Precisely...as I noted in a different response, the difference between
100mph and 150mph windspeed is more than one can comprehend unless one
has seen it. For starters, since force is proportional to velocity
squared, the actual effect is something like twice the effect, not
simply 50%. The buildings w/ sheet metal roofs simply would have gone
away, tires and all.
Having seen a sizable number of tornadoes from F0 to F3, the one or two
F4 and F5 monsters are simply not believable unless one has actually
seen the results. Pictures simply do <not> convey the result
adequately.
Leon wrote:
>
> "TomWoodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > What really pisses me off is that ALL of our insurance rates are going to
> > go up.. AGAIN!.. because of these people who choose to live in the
> > hurricane zone. I know, not everyone is there by choice, but most are.
>
> You know, If every one moved out of the hurricane zone there would not be
> enough room to plant crops or raise cattle. How about the fools that live
> in the area of the country where it snows or near rivers, or in tornado
> alley or the earth quake zone, or the ones that live in New York, the
> target, or the mid west, or in the north west where volcano's blow, or near
> Yellowstone. There are damn few places to live in the US that does not
> contribute to the cost of insurance.
I'm just as pleased they're on the coasts away from us...we could only
hope they mostly would blow away and not come back... :)
The problem I have is just the same for those who build in flood plains
along rivers in Missouri or South Dakota--if they choose to do so, let
them underwrite the reconstruction costs themselves. In particular my
complaint is that a major portion of those in these locations are there
simply by choice rather than by necessity and continue to build even
more expensive and fragile settlements in areas that must be considered
expendable.
It's certainly true there are tornadoes here, but they are very isolated
events and very rarely effect more than a small area. Even a massive
tornado (the F5 in Midwest City, OK a couple years ago, for example) has
a damage area of only a few square miles at most.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...
> ... If more people were exposed to nature as it is - for example
> by hunting, fishing, and camping without the benefit of a microwave, RV,
> and satellite TV - they would develop a much finer appreciation of the vast
> power and potential for devistation found in natural processes. Instead,
> we get the earth-worshipping freaks as the only contact many people have
> with real nature.
I think we would simply get more costly rescues required, myself... :(
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...
> Each year we see *less* land needed for farming, for example,
> because farming is becoming incrementally more efficient. This frees up
> the land for other uses. ...
Actually, far more farm land is lost to urban expansion than is taken
out of production owing to more efficient operations. Much of this has
been prime land.
> ...About 1/3 of US land is government owned
> (mostly as Federal parks so smelly hippies can go hiking and complain
> about "the man"). Some of this land could be sold and populated ...
That's the <last> thing we want to do...spread the urbanites around to
pollute up what little open land we have left. The yuppie migration to
Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, etc., is bad enough already.
The other problem in those areas is there isn't enough water to support
current populations in most of them already, what more adding more... :(
Clint wrote:
Lots of snippage:
> *just shaking my head, trying to understand the hard-hearted comments*
The discussion started out about the stupidity of the newcasters and
those who watch them so avidly.
Most of this world has to deal with far worse weather related
destruction on a regular basis. The death and destruction is taken is
stride without the hype by the news people. Take a look at the Pacific
and see what a typhoon is like then compare the results to what happened
with Katrina. I wasn't being hard-hearted, I was pointing out a
different way of dealing with the same phenomenon. If you think it's
hard-hearted, try keeping a store running in 100 mph winds so that
people can buy supplies then closing out the store and driving home in
what are now, far more than 100 mph winds.
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use: daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.patinatools.org
Leon wrote:
> You obviously have never been in a storm bad enough that you thought you
> were going to die in. 100 mph winds are wimp winds. It is the sustained
> 150+ mph winds with downward micro blasts that hit the ground and spread out
> at 180 mph that get your attention. Then mix in the tornado's. I became a
> believer on my 3rd hurricane when I was 15.
Sorry, you're wrong. I've been in super-phoons, and I grew up with
tornados. I've been sandblasted a lot of times and lost roofs. I've
been glad to have a concrete root cellar. I've also done stupid things
like chasing down tornados and watching the suspension on my F-100 from
the underside. As I said earlier in the thread, it's a question of how
this are dealt with.
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use: daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.patinatools.org
Clint wrote:
snip
> But my comments were to the follow up posters, and I mentioned specifically
> "the two previous poster's compassion". They're the ones I don't
> understand. Comments like "When did we become weather wimps?" and
> "They were good for parties afterwards while the gov tried to get the
> electricity back up."
OK, I'll point something else out that you must not have thought of.
Houses with tin roofs don't last long in those winds. W/o electricity
there's no water, or food, or much of anything else. In a large country
you can get lots of help from a bunch of people, on an island you're on
your own. Do a search on typhoon and see what it does to the
Phillipines. Compare that to what happens in the gulf. The parties
were to use the food so that people didn't starve before it rotted.
Last I'm saying on this topic.
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use: daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.patinatools.org
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >>... If more people were exposed to nature as it is - for example
> >>by hunting, fishing, and camping without the benefit of a microwave, RV,
> >>and satellite TV - they would develop a much finer appreciation of the vast
> >>power and potential for devistation found in natural processes. Instead,
> >>we get the earth-worshipping freaks as the only contact many people have
> >>with real nature.
> >
> >
> > I think we would simply get more costly rescues required, myself... :(
>
> That's fine - just make the recipients pay for them. At the very least,
> de-federalize it and make it a state-run thing.
>
My major problem is their stupidity putting others' lives at risk, not
$$$. Although, that too, is somewhat of a sore spot it's a lesser one
than the unnecessary risk....
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >>Each year we see *less* land needed for farming, for example,
> >>because farming is becoming incrementally more efficient. This frees up
> >>the land for other uses. ...
> >
> >
> > Actually, far more farm land is lost to urban expansion than is taken
> > out of production owing to more efficient operations. Much of this has
> > been prime land.
>
> Hang on a second. What you say may be true in some/many cases, but it
> does not negate my point. Even *with* the loss of farm land (for
> all reasons), American farmers continue to produce food in abundance.
> So much so, that some estimate that the American farmer alone produces
> enough food to feed the entire planet at a subsistence level.
> The point is that farm land is being freed up precisely because it
> is *not* needed to feed us.
I disagree on the cause for it and the use of the term "freed up"...that
farming in the US still manages to hang on despite all attacks is a
credit to those of us who continue to provide for the many who don't
have a clue as to where there substinence came from...
...
> But we don't have "little open land". We have LOTS.
Depends on the definition of "open"...desert and mountains accounts for
a <major> fraction of the uninhabited land. Very little is arable and
an even smaller fraction has adequate supplies of potable water.
> ... The problem
> is not a lack of land, the problem is getting people to move somewhere
> where they have to be more-or-less self-sufficient ...
The problem is that which follows, mostly...
> > The other problem in those areas is there isn't enough water to support
> > current populations in most of them already, what more adding more... :(
>
> More specifically, there *is* water, but it is in very deep/expensive
> wells. This is still cheaper than paying to rebuild coastal cities
> every decade or two (I suspect).
That is simply not true in the first place and in the second such
aquifers (such as the Ogallala here) are non-renewing in terms of human
lifespans, so there's absolutely no difference in utilizing them than in
drilling for and pumping oil. It is simply not sustainable.
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>> What, just because prices have started a significant rise in the last
>>several weeks, people are supposed to just rush out and buy rice-burners on
>>a moment's notice?
>
>
> Do you think it's a good idea to waste fuel just because it's cheap?
> Is there any good reason to drive a car with less than 35MPG?
Yes, many: Comfort, convenience, safety, capacity, strength, longevity
(of the vehicle), breadth of covered terrain, flexibility of use ...
That's all I could think of in about 5 seconds. There are probably
more.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Juergen Hannappel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 35MPG cars are available since 20 years and at reasonable prices. They
> are not big, not showy but useful. E.g. my wifes Peugeot 306 is a 10
> year old model, has ample power and transport capacity (it's a model
> probably called station wagon in the US, here it's called "Kombi") and
> goes at 40MPG (although diesel fuel)
>
Ok you absolutely asked it there were any good reason to not be driving a
car with less than 35 MPG?
I in no way shape or form indicated that these cars are not available. I
simply stated the fact that if every one bought one in the next 6 months ths
cost would not be justifyable. In the US the demand for these type
vehicles has been low. Basically if the demand went up 7 to 10 times of
what it is now the prices would go up. Sorta like gasoline.
FYI cars getting 40 mpg with gasoline engines have been available well over
40 years. They were Fiat's.
"Juergen Hannappel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Is there any good reason to drive a car with less than 35MPG?
.
Absolutely. It most likely would not pay off in the long run when
considering the cost of the vehicle vs. the savings and especially if you
present car is working fine. Further, if every one went out in the next 6
months to buy a vehicle that gets that kind of mileage the price of the
vehicle would surely double and again making the purchase would not pay off.
If you do not think that the prices for these minority vehicles would
double, consider the Corvette. The local dealer ship, 1 of probably 10 in
the area has probably 20 Corvettes on the lot and has marked the sticker up
$10,000 and has been no problem turning the inventory.
>
>Charlie Self wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Then look at the lines forming at those stations, people filling up
>> before the price rises again, angry because they have to wait, but
>> still driving dual tank dually pick-ups and Hemi powered SUVs and
>> Suburbans that get 10 MPG. Or less.
>>
>
What, just because prices have started a significant rise in the last
several weeks, people are supposed to just rush out and buy rice-burners on
a moment's notice?
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Tim Douglass (in [email protected]) said:
>
> | Physics 101 was a long time ago :-)
> |
> | IIRC it requires more Force to overcome wind resistance. Force is
> | Mass times Acceleration. Acceleration is the change in Velocity
> | over Time. Energy is, if my memory is still good, required to
> | produce Force, so it should be possible to demonstrate that since
> | more Force is required to move one mile at 65 than at 55 it will
> | necessarily require more energy.
>
> I think you're trying to sneak up on work, which is force applied over
> a distance.
>
No, "force applied over a distance" is SWMBO calling me while traveling out of
town to give me a list of chores that need doing.
P.S. The MKS measure of this is in YesDears/sec ...
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim Douglass (in [email protected]) said:
| Physics 101 was a long time ago :-)
|
| IIRC it requires more Force to overcome wind resistance. Force is
| Mass times Acceleration. Acceleration is the change in Velocity
| over Time. Energy is, if my memory is still good, required to
| produce Force, so it should be possible to demonstrate that since
| more Force is required to move one mile at 65 than at 55 it will
| necessarily require more energy.
I think you're trying to sneak up on work, which is force applied over
a distance.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
On 7 Sep 2005 10:30:12 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Tim Douglass wrote:
>>
>> Let me re-phrase things so I'm not talking through my hat. *Every*
>> vehicle, without exception, uses more *energy* to travel at 65 than at
>> 55. Because more energy is required your mileage gets worse as you
>> increase speed.
>
>It takes more power to drive at 65 mph than at 55 mph.
>
>But power is energy used per unit *time* whereas mileage is
>energy used per unit *distance*. The question is whether or
>not you are accumulating *miles* fast enough to make up for
>the increased rate at which you are using energy.
>
>I've no objection to the rest of what you say, just wanted
>to clarify the above.
Physics 101 was a long time ago :-)
IIRC it requires more Force to overcome wind resistance. Force is Mass
times Acceleration. Acceleration is the change in Velocity over Time.
Energy is, if my memory is still good, required to produce Force, so
it should be possible to demonstrate that since more Force is required
to move one mile at 65 than at 55 it will necessarily require more
energy.
Now that I re-read that it doesn't make a bit of sense except for the
part that it requires more energy to go *one mile* at 65 than at 55
thanks to wind resistance.
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:5mn4v2-
>
> No, "force applied over a distance" is SWMBO calling me while traveling
out of
> town to give me a list of chores that need doing.
Har! Nothing like a graphic example to put things in perspective.
"Leon" <[email protected]> writes:
> "Juergen Hannappel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>
>> Is there any good reason to drive a car with less than 35MPG?
> .
>
> Absolutely. It most likely would not pay off in the long run when
> considering the cost of the vehicle vs. the savings and especially if you
> present car is working fine. Further, if every one went out in the next 6
35MPG cars are available since 20 years and at reasonable prices. They
are not big, not showy but useful. E.g. my wifes Peugeot 306 is a 10
year old model, has ample power and transport capacity (it's a model
probably called station wagon in the US, here it's called "Kombi") and
goes at 40MPG (although diesel fuel)
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> What, just because prices have started a significant rise in the last
> several weeks, people are supposed to just rush out and buy rice-burners on
> a moment's notice?
Do you think it's a good idea to waste fuel just because it's cheap?
Is there any good reason to drive a car with less than 35MPG?
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
jo4hn wrote:
>
> [snip]>
> > This is utter nonsense. Approximately 50% of the US population lives
> > in a coastal area. The overwhelming majority of these are found in major
> > cities - New York, Miami, Seattle, LA, New Orleans, etc. Most of those
> > cities are *not* in Hurricane zones. There is more than enough land
> > for the people who do live in hurricane zones to get away from the problem.
> > Each year we see *less* land needed for farming, for example,
> > because farming is becoming incrementally more efficient. This frees up
> > the land for other uses. About 1/3 of US land is government owned
> > (mostly as Federal parks so smelly hippies can go hiking and complain
> > about "the man"). Some of this land could be sold and populated (and
> > managed far better than BLM ever has).
> >
> >>
> Keep in mind that Manhattan is a barrier island...
But the frequency and most significantly the severity of Nor'easters is
far less than tropical hurricanes. The frequency of tropical hurricanes
making it up the eastern seaboard as anything but some heavy rain totals
is almost non-existent...
Although, actually in Camille, the highest death totals were in VA and
WVA from the flooding of the torrential rains which occurred after the
system essentially stalled over the Blue Ridge/Appalachian Mountains...
[email protected] wrote:
...
> Uh, the "hurricane zone" is the entire East Coast south of Virginia
> and the entire Gulf Coast up to maybe 200 miles or so Inland, including
> the entire State of Florida.
Inland more than 20-30 miles rarely has the widespread destruction that
the coastal areas do, primarily because they don't have the storm
surge...it's that massive 20' wall of solid water that kills and
destroys...
> If people stopped living there we would lose an enourmous part
> of our agricultural base and a hell of a lot of our foreign
> trade.
Agriculture population density is far less than that of cities...the
biggest thing we would lose as currently deployed is the ports (can't
avoid that, no matter what, by definition) and the development of all
the refining and related petrochemical business along the Gulf Coast.
That makes sense and they, in general, are far better prepared than the
average citizen...
What gets my goat most of all is the individuals who choose it simply on
the basis of being on the water and then complain about the (inevitable)
result. Those that a) don't complain, and b) handle the rebuild
themselves...hey, that's their choice.
...
> ...If grade is below sea level then
> new construction should be elevated, and so on.
"And all the children are above average..." :)
Just isn't physically possible nor feasible on the scale at which
current development has occurred....
> There should be a prohibition on rebuilding any non-expendable
> building in flood plains and below sea level when the existing
> buildings are demolished, and on new building there.
> Same for the flood plains of major rivers, areas prone to
> mudslides, volcanic eruptions and so.
>
> Problem is, the 'developers' and builders write the codes and
> they make money hand over fist rebuilding devastated areas. The
> last thing they want is for those areas to be rebuilt to last.
>
> We certainly have the technology to build hurricane survivable
> buildings, and it is not THAT much more expensive.
> What pisses me off is that we do not.
In some places, to some extent, perhaps. In general it has been a case
of just creeping development and in the city of New Orleans in
particular, existing development.
David Sizemore wrote:
>
> Clint wrote:
> > But my comments were to the follow up posters, and I mentioned specifically
> > "the two previous poster's compassion". They're the ones I don't
> > understand. Comments like "When did we become weather wimps?" and
> > "They were good for parties afterwards while the gov tried to get the
> > electricity back up."
>
> But the question remains: When did we become weather wimps?
> This hurricane, and the ones of the last few years ... were no less
> devastating than those in the more distant past. Difference is that we
> are now forced to look at the same flooded streets every 5 minutes
> throughout the day. ...
The biggest real difference in the US is the continued expansion into
the vulnerable areas w/ insufficient preparation for the inevitable.
Thus the amount of damage is bound to be more and the <apparent> (as
opposed to real) severity is exaggerated. Of course, as you note, it
doesn't help that the 24-hr channels "need" events and the public
attention span in the US is now on the order of milliseconds...
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...
> I stand by my statement - farming today is more efficient and requires
> less land than ever.
That part is true.
> And this does indeed make land available for other
> uses. If the farmers still actually needed that land to survive, they'd
> never sell it in the first place to enable urban sprawl.
This part is <not> true in general even though there are instances of
folks selling out voluntarily. There are a myriad of reasons why
farmers are forced to sell even they don't want to. Three of the most
common include
- Zoning being placed in order to force them to cease
- Tax rates being changed from agricultural use to higher rates making
it impossible farm profitably.
- Even imminent domain has been used.
Robatoy wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I stand by my statement - farming today is more efficient and requires
> > less land than ever.
>
> less land...such a narrow view..and now uses way more more energy than
> it ever did.
That isn't true at all. Modern equipment is far more fuel efficient in
terms of acres covered and bushels produced per gallon than your
father's Olds^h^h^h^h err, tractor... :)
> In many cases, the energy consumed to weed/seed/harvest etc. is greater
> than the energy produced (in calories)
Have you specific data to back this up? Some products, such as lettuce
are grown for reasons other than coloric content. Does that mean they
shouldn't be grown?
> Many 'factory farm operations' are an environmental disaster. Think
> 'feed-lot and hog-farm'.
There're are some problems, granted, but for the most part this is a far
overblown problem. That said, I'd like to see a reduction in the size
of hog operations, but it isn't economically feasible any longer, thanks
to the same mindset that drives current consumers to Wally-World to save
a penny.
...
Lee DeRaud wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 09:19:55 +0200, Juergen Hannappel
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Is there any good reason to drive a car with less than 35MPG?
>
> Sure: current car gets less than 35MPG, can't afford to replace it.
>
> Got any other stupid questions you want answered?
>
Alternateivly some people need to routinely haul more sutff than
they can get into that 35 mpg vehicle, and cannot afford the
insurance, let alone the price, for two.
I do not want to give up my van and am seriously considering
a second car, a commuter car, like I used to. Wish Honda still
made the Civic FE, 100,000 + miles with only routine maintenance
and 50 mpg on the highway. I could commute to work for two months
without filling the 12 gallon tank. But, some people can't
get the capital together to do that.
--
FF
Dr. Hannappel,
Interesting that you are unaware of the rest of the world. How do you
propose that I and all ny neighbors get our cattle to market so you may
enjoy the meat on your table? Do we walk them 40 miles to the auction
ring? How do we haul 40 bales of alfalfa to our cattle in winter?
Again, your view of how this world operates is more than a little
naive.
I would wish you would travel some away from the big cities where
children think steaks come from supermarkets that by magic make the
steaks in the back room. I do hope you do not beleive this also.
Bill in New Mexico
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > When you point out a car that gets 35MPG+ that will hold full sheets of
> > plywood, 200 BF of lumber, or, in the case of some of the larger passenger
> > vehicles can haul 6 kids and 2 adults to a school field trip or 6 adults to
> > various functions; let me know.
> >
> > What's more of a waste of natural resources, having one vehicle that
> > solves all of one's transportation needs but that may get a few less miles
>
> *I* know only a very few people how often have such transportation
> needs, most people are perfectly happy with a high MPG car for daily
> use. If some larger or heavier stuff has to be moved a trailer or a
> hired small truck is a resource and money saving alternative.
*I* think you live in a very narrow, constricted universe...
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote:
> When you point out a car that gets 35MPG+ that will hold full sheets of
> plywood, 200 BF of lumber, or, in the case of some of the larger passenger
> vehicles can haul 6 kids and 2 adults to a school field trip or 6 adults
> to
> various functions; let me know.
Okay, not 35+ MPG, but there are vehicles out there that can do similar
sorts of things:
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=7365
EPA is 26/30.
I know having a truck or other large hauler is a luxury rather than a
necessity. For others it's clearly a necessity. Thing is, there are tons
of people out there who drive trucks just for some nebulous "cool" factor.
They've basically driven up the prices of trucks and the like so that people
who really *do* need trucks - farmers, tradesmen, etc. - have a harder time
affording them. These are the same yuppies who 15-20 years ago you couldn't
force to drive a truck if you held a gun on them.
I'm guessing gas at $3.00+ for any extended time will shake a lot of those
posers outta the market pretty quick, though.
As for me, for my next car I'd like to get my hands on a hybrid that has a
diesel for its fossil-fuel motor. Talk about mileage.
Jason
Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
<snip>
> *I* know only a very few people how often have such transportation
> needs, most people are perfectly happy with a high MPG car for daily
> use. If some larger or heavier stuff has to be moved a trailer or a
> hired small truck is a resource and money saving alternative.
>
Households and demographics can vary widely around the world...
Patriarch
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
>>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>> When you point out a car that gets 35MPG+ that will hold full sheets of
>>>plywood, 200 BF of lumber, or, in the case of some of the larger passenger
>>>vehicles can haul 6 kids and 2 adults to a school field trip or 6 adults to
>>>various functions; let me know.
>>>
>>> What's more of a waste of natural resources, having one vehicle that
>>>solves all of one's transportation needs but that may get a few less miles
>>
>>*I* know only a very few people how often have such transportation
>>needs, most people are perfectly happy with a high MPG car for daily
>>use. If some larger or heavier stuff has to be moved a trailer or a
>>hired small truck is a resource and money saving alternative.
>
>
> *I* think you live in a very narrow, constricted universe...
Juergen lives in Germany. I have no idea whether Jeurgen has ever
been to the U.S. but there are different cultural values in effect
here than in Deutschland. Ultimately, we all have our cultural biases
to deal with. Also, ultimately, and luckily, Juergen's opinions will
never have an effect on free individuals in the U.S. The people in
Europe generally have fairly compact cities and the distances involved
in traversing entire countries relatively speaking is small. They have
transportation options that make no sense in the majority of the U.S.
Their wood shops, generally, are much smaller than ours. Countries in
Europe do have their charms. The moral indignation, though, of many
Europeans about the successes of individuals in the U.S. are misplaced
at best and downright absurd at worst. Now back to the debate...
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 09:19:55 +0200, Juergen Hannappel
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Is there any good reason to drive a car with less than 35MPG?
Sure: current car gets less than 35MPG, can't afford to replace it.
Got any other stupid questions you want answered?
Lee
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 09:19:55 +0200, Juergen Hannappel
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>[...]
>
>> What, just because prices have started a significant rise in the last
>> several weeks, people are supposed to just rush out and buy rice-burners on
>> a moment's notice?
>
>Do you think it's a good idea to waste fuel just because it's cheap?
>Is there any good reason to drive a car with less than 35MPG?
When you point out a car that gets 35MPG+ that will hold full sheets of
plywood, 200 BF of lumber, or, in the case of some of the larger passenger
vehicles can haul 6 kids and 2 adults to a school field trip or 6 adults to
various functions; let me know.
What's more of a waste of natural resources, having one vehicle that
solves all of one's transportation needs but that may get a few less miles
per gallon, or having the resources tied up in maintaining two vehicles,
one that gets good gas mileage for daily driving and one that meets the
hauling needs? I can certainly tell you expense-wise which paradigm works
best, I suspect that the resource cost trade would work out pretty much the
same.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 20:19:13 -0500, Patriarch
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1125704902.562903.122160
>@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> True. And every yuppie needs a 380-430 HP engine to haul his or her
>> sorry ass to work in the morning, using a light truck chassis and
>> hitting a total weight of 6000 pounds per vehicle.
>>
>
>I may be wrong here (it happens frequently) but was not the whole 'light
>truck chassis' thing due to federal regulations regarding safety and crash-
>worthyness, which applied to automobiles, but not to light trucks?
>
That and the CAFE standards. The CAFE standards made the production of
station wagons, for which the standards apply, prohibitive because of the
overall effect on product line average miles.
>Patriarch
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 15:42:48 +0200, Juergen Hannappel
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Joseph Crowe <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>[...]
>
>> Freedom of choice means that we don't get to make
>> our neighbors' decisions and we must respect them. Frankly, I'm
>
>If the neighbors' decisions would not affect all of us that seems very
>fine. However energy wasters deplete the resources needed by
>everyone, sending prices and pollution up, and "common sense" seems to
>be no part of the decision why people choose the kind of car they do.
... and with that rationale, I suspect that there is very little that you
would see as not falling in the realm allowing control of your neighbor's
life.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> When you point out a car that gets 35MPG+ that will hold full sheets of
> plywood, 200 BF of lumber, or, in the case of some of the larger passenger
> vehicles can haul 6 kids and 2 adults to a school field trip or 6 adults to
> various functions; let me know.
>
> What's more of a waste of natural resources, having one vehicle that
> solves all of one's transportation needs but that may get a few less miles
*I* know only a very few people how often have such transportation
needs, most people are perfectly happy with a high MPG car for daily
use. If some larger or heavier stuff has to be moved a trailer or a
hired small truck is a resource and money saving alternative.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Swingman wrote:
...
> ... current weather temperatures in
> "feels like" terms, which are unquantifiable but certainly more sensational.
>
Actually the "feels like" factors were developed from data collected in
extensive studies of which a professor at Uni was a major participant
while I was an undergrad. A complete lab was built and volunteers were
paid the princely some of something like $1.50/hr to participate. It
was a pretty popular way to get paid for studying albeit sometimes a
little hard to concentrate... :)
Knothead wrote:
>
> >>I have to ask, just where the hell do you live where there are no
> >>natural disasters?
>
> It's impossible, I live in snow/tornado country. I'm properly insured, my
> home is contructed accordingly. My point is simply personal responsibility.
> Without starting a whole new sideways thread, it's clear to me my taxes are
> going to pay for this mess. Screw that it's all going to get blown over
> again likely before they recover from this one. I know that there's history
> there but sometimes you need to cut the loses and walk away.
To some extent I agree, but...there's no way we can do w/o a major port
at the mouth of the Mississippi. That a major residential area and city
should be below sea level is perhaps a problem. In general, some risks
are necessary, but there should be an incentive now to reconsider how to
better deal w/ them going forward.
Robatoy wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snippage]
> > >
> > > less land...such a narrow view..and now uses way more more energy than
> > > it ever did.
> >
> > That isn't true at all. Modern equipment is far more fuel efficient in
> > terms of acres covered and bushels produced per gallon than your
> > father's Olds^h^h^h^h err, tractor... :)
>
> The equipment is more efficient, yet its role in the process is more
> prominent. So you gain on the gals/HP ratio, but lose it by using it
> more.
No, that isn't true. Modern farming covers <much> more ground per
operational pass than before and also uses fewer operations. If not,
there's no way one could even begin to stay in business w/ >$2 diesel
and <$3 wheat.
As an example, when I was in high school, for milo we planted,
knife-sledded, cultivated and then "laid-by". Depending on the year, we
might also have needed one or two passes for herbicides or pesticides.
This was w/ a 4-row planter and cultivator. Now, we plant and do a
single cultivation w/ a 12-row rig and one herbicide application, so
there is combination of at least two fewer operations plus only
one-third the passes through the field. The net result is larger
consumption/hr but far higher acreage covered/gallon.
> > > In many cases, the energy consumed to weed/seed/harvest etc. is greater
> > > than the energy produced (in calories)
> >
> > Have you specific data to back this up?
>
> I was on your side in my search for proof before. I was provided with a
> whack of footnotes all finding the juxtaposition of 'calories in vs
> calories out'. The argument made sense at 72 cents per litre, I have no
> reason to argue the validity at $ 1.03 per litre. Lettuce hasn't
> inflated 25%.... oh yes.. lettuce. Lettuce supports our craving for
> dressings. It's a symbiotic adventure.
>
> > Some products, such as lettuce
> > are grown for reasons other than coloric content. Does that mean they
> > shouldn't be grown?
>
> That would apply to the growing of flowers as well.
> (A very lucrative business. Those dudes fly their own fleet of
> refrigerated 747's. NY-Amsterdam.... Every day. Flowers for the
> wives/girlfriends of smelly hippies. The ones holding out for their
> partners to move them up from an Aviator to a Navigator. Life is sooo
> complex!)
Exactly...many crops aren't grown for their caloric balance so that was
actually a red herring in the discussion. I threw in the lettuce
example as it is a product of value w/ <no> net caloric input to the
consumer but of value for other reasons--some health-related, some
simply (as your flowers) for the aesthetics.
> > > Many 'factory farm operations' are an environmental disaster. Think
> > > 'feed-lot and hog-farm'.
> >
> > There're are some problems, granted, but for the most part this is a far
> > overblown problem.
>
> I respect you enough (by reading your positions on other threads) not to
> take your stance for granted.
Thanks, I try to be at least <halfway> reasonable... :)
> > That said, I'd like to see a reduction in the size
> > of hog operations, but it isn't economically feasible any longer, thanks
> > to the same mindset that drives current consumers to Wally-World to save
> > a penny.
>
> See above. *G*
>
> Those meat-raising machines produce wicked outflow. The by-product of
> protein enhancement is very efficient. All its by-products are very
> compact/concentrated. Dangerous shit, dude! The crack of effluents.
The major problems imo arise from the location of the earliest large
operations in places like NC where there are both high (human)
population densities as well as a rainy climate and high water tables.
These conditions exacerbate the issues. In arid areas such as here, the
problems are not nearly as difficult to deal with and low population
densities mean one can place facilities (for the most part) away from
areas of occupation.
What I objected to is the phrase "environmental disaster". It's a
sensationalism that is simply not justified any more than much of the
same verbiage used against industrial production. Much of it has been a
ploy by other activists w/ a secondary agenda.
I don't like the advent of the really large operations, but unless one
is able to convince a major segment of the population to quit looking
for the "low-price spread" as in the above comparison to W-M, it is not
going to be able to be substantially changed. It is simply not possible
to raise hogs on a small scale and compete w/ Seaboard economically
except for very small niche markets. And, there is only sufficient
demand to support those markets in/near metropolitan areas which have
the population base and disposable income to support them.
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Tim Douglass wrote:
> ...
> > On the other hand, if you want to reduce your fuel usage there is a
> > real simple step you can take - slow down. Most cars will show a
> > significant improvement in economy being driven at 55 mph rather than
> > 65-70.
>
> And even more at 45 or even 30....but it takes a long time to get
> anywhere which can be related to $$ as well.
>
> Moral--there's a counter cost to everything.
Agreed to that last point but I think only vehicles with
a really big cross section, like busses, get their best mileage
at speeds much below 55.
I'm not sure where my van gets its best but it gets right around
20 mpg on the highway trips and about 18 mpg most of the rest
of the time.
On some roads in West Virginia I can cruise downhill at 60 mph
(~15% grade IIRC) with my foot off the gas pedal entirely.
--
FF
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> Now you just need to find that road that's downhill both directions....
Not likely. It's been long established that those kinds of hills only exist
in the direction of being *uphill* in both directions, and they only existed
in our younger days when we had to walk to school...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Tim Douglass wrote:
...
> On the other hand, if you want to reduce your fuel usage there is a
> real simple step you can take - slow down. Most cars will show a
> significant improvement in economy being driven at 55 mph rather than
> 65-70.
And even more at 45 or even 30....but it takes a long time to get
anywhere which can be related to $$ as well.
Moral--there's a counter cost to everything.
Mike Marlow wrote:
>
...
> This is a one of those all too often quoted falsehoods. Most cars today
> show no significant difference in mileage between any highway speeds.
That's absolute balderdash...
> difference between highway and city driving isn't even really significant in
> most cars today, let alone the difference between 55mph and 65-70mph.
So is this...
> ...EPA
> ratings suggest otherwise, but when was the last time anyone saw a car that
> really performed the way that the EPA ratings suggested?
Never, because that's not what EPA ratings measure...
> ...Standing on it
> from the stop light, and then standing on the brakes at the next stop light
> will give the worst performance you can get, but really - how many people
> drive like that?
Actually, about 90% of those under 25-30, and about 80% of those under
40...
> Don't believe it? Do the test. Drive on the highway at
> 55 for a week and measure your real consumption. Then do the same thing
> driving at 70mph. You won't see any significant difference unless there is
> something really wrong with your car.
Or you're driving on a road that is covered w/ air...
> ...Most of us never really pay enough
> attention to this stuff, or to what may have affected mileage, or we think
> we observed something casually, but we never really look to validate our
> beliefs.
Obviously, you're one of them...
> .... Some things like this sort of become our very own urban legends.
Except some of these things of this sort are acutally true...
See the data on average mileage vs speed on the DOE site at...
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > Tim Douglass wrote:
> > ...
> > > On the other hand, if you want to reduce your fuel usage there is a
> > > real simple step you can take - slow down. Most cars will show a
> > > significant improvement in economy being driven at 55 mph rather than
> > > 65-70.
> >
> > And even more at 45 or even 30....but it takes a long time to get
> > anywhere which can be related to $$ as well.
> >
> > Moral--there's a counter cost to everything.
>
> Agreed to that last point but I think only vehicles with
> a really big cross section, like busses, get their best mileage
> at speeds much below 55.
That's not really true, but their non-aerodynamic cross-section
accentuates the problem in spades, so to speak.
Most vehicles are pretty flat from about 40 or so to about 55 to maybe
60, but after that almost all drop off pretty rapidly. Just can't get
around the fact that reisitive forces are proportional to the square of
the velocity and that number starts to rise pretty rapidly even for
well-design vehicles.
> I'm not sure where my van gets its best but it gets right around
> 20 mpg on the highway trips and about 18 mpg most of the rest
> of the time.
>
> On some roads in West Virginia I can cruise downhill at 60 mph
> (~15% grade IIRC) with my foot off the gas pedal entirely.
Now you just need to find that road that's downhill both directions....
Mike Marlow wrote:
>
> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
...
> >
> > Never, because that's not what EPA ratings measure...
>
> Then what are those silly MPG numbers?
The results of the standardized EPA tests which have, as you noted, very
little to do with actual driving. They are useful only in a comparative
sense between models, not to actual driving conditions. Even using them
for a comparative purpose may over or under-estimate the difference you
will get if you drove the two vehicles depending on how your driving
matches (or doesn't match) the EPA test profile.
Re: DOE data on mileage vs speed. I suspect if one looked in detail one
could find recent studies which indicate what a cross-section of
vehicles actually performed like. The fact is that one can't avoid the
increase in aerodynamic force w/ velocity. That a particular vehicle is
not as bad as that composite or sample graph indicates doesn't negate
the general truth.
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 02:54:13 -0500, "Jason Quick" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The "pollution" argument is a chimera - the air is *cleaner* today in most
>> all the industrial world than it was a hundred years ago.
>
>That's really not saying much...100 years ago, during the height of the
>coal-burning Industrial Revolution, the air in industrial areas was
>horrifically polluted.
>
>Though you're generally correct that the air is relatively clean, there's
>certainly a great deal of progress to be made. Anyone who's flown over any
>decent-sized U.S. city on any given day can see the layer of photochemical
>haze hanging over the city.
>
>> Global Warming
>> is a vastly overstated threat
>
>That's a pretty categorical statement, innit? I know of lots and lots of
>scientists (climatologists, mind you) who have concluded the opposite,
>though they agree that the jury's out a bit on who or what is responsible.
>
>> and there is today no statistically demonstrable
>> connection between human activity and the very slight observed warming
>> (which
>> has been going on for 15,000 years or so).
>
>The National Academy of Sciences and the International Panel on Climate
>Change seem to disagree with you.
>
>http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/
>http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/
>
Now, try to find some support for this theory from those without a
political motivation to do so.
>Pressure to find sources of energy other than fossil fuel isn't really a
>Communist plot.
and when cost-effective, economical alternatives and methods are found
and properly marketed, they will be used. That is not the case today, most
alternates that exist are only economically viable because of large tax
incentives that accompany them, while fossil fuel is artificially
disadvantaged by the large taxes associated with its use (ever look into
the amount of tax inherent in a single gallon of gasoline?)
> Conserving energy isn't either. Sure, Communists are among
>its supporters, but I think you'll find lots of people - including
>capitalists - think it's a good idea too.
>
>Jason
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Marlow wrote:
> >
> ...
> > This is a one of those all too often quoted falsehoods. Most cars today
> > show no significant difference in mileage between any highway speeds.
>
> That's absolute balderdash...
Obviously, you've never validated it for yourself.
>
> > difference between highway and city driving isn't even really
significant in
> > most cars today, let alone the difference between 55mph and 65-70mph.
>
> So is this...
Again, obviously...
>
> > ...EPA
> > ratings suggest otherwise, but when was the last time anyone saw a car
that
> > really performed the way that the EPA ratings suggested?
>
> Never, because that's not what EPA ratings measure...
Then what are those silly MPG numbers?
>
> > ...Standing on it
> > from the stop light, and then standing on the brakes at the next stop
light
> > will give the worst performance you can get, but really - how many
people
> > drive like that?
>
> Actually, about 90% of those under 25-30, and about 80% of those under
> 40...
>
> > Don't believe it? Do the test. Drive on the highway at
> > 55 for a week and measure your real consumption. Then do the same thing
> > driving at 70mph. You won't see any significant difference unless there
is
> > something really wrong with your car.
>
> Or you're driving on a road that is covered w/ air...
Yawn. More of the obvious...
>
> > ...Most of us never really pay enough
> > attention to this stuff, or to what may have affected mileage, or we
think
> > we observed something casually, but we never really look to validate our
> > beliefs.
>
> Obviously, you're one of them...
Ugh - no. I have take the time. I tend to make my assertions after
validating my claims - contrary to those who simply write things like
"Balderdash".
>
> > .... Some things like this sort of become our very own urban legends.
>
> Except some of these things of this sort are acutally true...
This not being one of them.
>
> See the data on average mileage vs speed on the DOE site at...
>
> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml
I thought you'd get to this. Sorta proves my point above.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> On the other hand, if you want to reduce your fuel usage there is a
> real simple step you can take - slow down. Most cars will show a
> significant improvement in economy being driven at 55 mph rather than
> 65-70.
>
This is a one of those all too often quoted falsehoods. Most cars today
show no significant difference in mileage between any highway speeds. The
difference between highway and city driving isn't even really significant in
most cars today, let alone the difference between 55mph and 65-70mph. EPA
ratings suggest otherwise, but when was the last time anyone saw a car that
really performed the way that the EPA ratings suggested? Standing on it
from the stop light, and then standing on the brakes at the next stop light
will give the worst performance you can get, but really - how many people
drive like that? Don't believe it? Do the test. Drive on the highway at
55 for a week and measure your real consumption. Then do the same thing
driving at 70mph. You won't see any significant difference unless there is
something really wrong with your car. Most of us never really pay enough
attention to this stuff, or to what may have affected mileage, or we think
we observed something casually, but we never really look to validate our
beliefs. Some things like this sort of become our very own urban legends.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 9/6/2005 7:21 AM Mike Marlow mumbled something about the following:
> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>Now you just need to find that road that's downhill both directions....
>
>
> Not likely. It's been long established that those kinds of hills only exist
> in the direction of being *uphill* in both directions, and they only existed
> in our younger days when we had to walk to school...
>
In the snow
--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> > Not likely. It's been long established that those kinds of hills only exist
> > in the direction of being *uphill* in both directions, and they only existed
> > in our younger days when we had to walk to school...
> >
> In the snow
>
barefoot
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Re: DOE data on mileage vs speed. I suspect if one looked in detail one
> could find recent studies which indicate what a cross-section of
> vehicles actually performed like. The fact is that one can't avoid the
> increase in aerodynamic force w/ velocity. That a particular vehicle is
> not as bad as that composite or sample graph indicates doesn't negate
> the general truth.
I'm quite sure one could find a number of studies and even completely
unbiased data which indicated some relationship between speed and cross
section, but one could also do as I suggested. Take your daily interstate
commute (if yours includes a section of interstate driving), or some other
repeatable highway experience, and compare the actual values. Studies and
data are great for some uses, but they typically are not so absolute as to
replace the data you can derive from your own real world study. Most
everyone here has experienced driving at 70mph on the highway and driving
55mph on the highway. Most will have found that their mileage did not vary
in any significant way at those two different speeds. I spend a lot of time
in my car or in rental cars that are similar to the class of car I drive and
I can say with a certainty that the chart in the link you posted is pure
bull. I've never seen *any* vehicle that dropped off as suggested in that
chart. My pickup truck does not even drop off like that. In fact, my
pickup truck gets a flat 15mpg no matter how I drive it - except when I'm
plowing, then you don't want to know what it gets... ugh!
If you ever rent cars, pay attention to the estimated economy indicator if
the car has one. Many of the newer cars have that built into the cars these
days. After you get past acceleration and into cruise, watch the mileage
estimates at both 55 and a 70. This is a reasonably accurate device and
will serve as a decent indicator. You'll see there is no significant
difference in mileage.
There is just no substitute for experience. It's like woodworking. We can
read all of the published information on woodworking we want, but until we
run a piece of wood through a saw, we really have no idea what woodworking
is about. Nor do we have any skill. Nor do we really know how our saw will
cut through a particular piece of wood. Nor do we know how a joint will
turn out. Gotta do it. Studies and published data are very valuable, but
data is an awfully misused commodity. One has to be very careful how
accepting one is of data interpretations. When data contradicts real world
experience then one either has to question the data or question the real
world experience...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
: This is a one of those all too often quoted falsehoods. Most cars today
: show no significant difference in mileage between any highway speeds. The
: difference between highway and city driving isn't even really significant in
: most cars today, let alone the difference between 55mph and 65-70mph. EPA
: ratings suggest otherwise, but when was the last time anyone saw a car that
: really performed the way that the EPA ratings suggested? Standing on it
: from the stop light, and then standing on the brakes at the next stop light
: will give the worst performance you can get, but really - how many people
: drive like that?
The current issue of Consumer Reports shows that the EPA mileage
numbers for city driving are actually substantially *higher* than
real-world mileage, in some cases close to 50%. Worst examples are SUVs.
-- Andy Barss
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 13:36:15 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>>
>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > When you point out a car that gets 35MPG+ that will hold full sheets of
>> > plywood, 200 BF of lumber, or, in the case of some of the larger passenger
>> > vehicles can haul 6 kids and 2 adults to a school field trip or 6 adults to
>> > various functions; let me know.
>> >
>> > What's more of a waste of natural resources, having one vehicle that
>> > solves all of one's transportation needs but that may get a few less miles
>>
>> *I* know only a very few people how often have such transportation
>> needs, most people are perfectly happy with a high MPG car for daily
>> use. If some larger or heavier stuff has to be moved a trailer or a
>> hired small truck is a resource and money saving alternative.
>
>*I* think you live in a very narrow, constricted universe...
But from such universe, he feels that he has sufficient answers to
dictate to *you and me* what cars we should drive and the economic system
under which we should live. Scary, isn't it?
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On 3 Sep 2005 10:48:01 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Lee DeRaud wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 09:19:55 +0200, Juergen Hannappel
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Is there any good reason to drive a car with less than 35MPG?
>>
>> Sure: current car gets less than 35MPG, can't afford to replace it.
>>
>> Got any other stupid questions you want answered?
>>
>
>Alternateivly some people need to routinely haul more sutff than
>they can get into that 35 mpg vehicle, and cannot afford the
>insurance, let alone the price, for two.
>
>I do not want to give up my van and am seriously considering
>a second car, a commuter car, like I used to. Wish Honda still
>made the Civic FE, 100,000 + miles with only routine maintenance
>and 50 mpg on the highway. I could commute to work for two months
>without filling the 12 gallon tank. But, some people can't
>get the capital together to do that.
I think that becomes the problem for a lot of people. I have a 1 ton,
15 passenger van that gets a moderate amount of use, an old pickup
that gets occasional use (but still has to be licensed and insured)
and a min-van that gets the bulk of the driving - unfortunately, if I
had to eliminate one it would have to be the mini-van because it is
simply not capable of scaling up to the tasks I occasionally have to
do. If I could afford the up-front cost I would add a small,
fuel-efficient car to the mix for when it is just one or two people
going somewhere. That type of vehicle won't work well when I have to
transport my kids because two of the boys are over 6' and I'm 6'+ as
well. I have simply never found a small car that someone my size can
ride in the back seat more than a couple of blocks. For a long time I
drove a Chevrolet Spectrum as a commuter car - 40+ MPG but not useful
for general family transportation because of size.
On the other hand, if you want to reduce your fuel usage there is a
real simple step you can take - slow down. Most cars will show a
significant improvement in economy being driven at 55 mph rather than
65-70.
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
On 9/5/2005 9:08 AM Mike Marlow mumbled something about the following:
> "Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On the other hand, if you want to reduce your fuel usage there is a
>>real simple step you can take - slow down. Most cars will show a
>>significant improvement in economy being driven at 55 mph rather than
>>65-70.
>>
>
>
> This is a one of those all too often quoted falsehoods. Most cars today
> show no significant difference in mileage between any highway speeds. The
> difference between highway and city driving isn't even really significant in
> most cars today, let alone the difference between 55mph and 65-70mph. EPA
> ratings suggest otherwise, but when was the last time anyone saw a car that
> really performed the way that the EPA ratings suggested? Standing on it
> from the stop light, and then standing on the brakes at the next stop light
> will give the worst performance you can get, but really - how many people
> drive like that? Don't believe it? Do the test. Drive on the highway at
> 55 for a week and measure your real consumption. Then do the same thing
> driving at 70mph. You won't see any significant difference unless there is
> something really wrong with your car. Most of us never really pay enough
> attention to this stuff, or to what may have affected mileage, or we think
> we observed something casually, but we never really look to validate our
> beliefs. Some things like this sort of become our very own urban legends.
>
I guess you haven't driven any newer cars then. My 2004 Stratus 2.4
litre gets 30 MPG on the interstate if I keep it below 80 MPH, gets 32
MPG if i keep it below 70 MPH, and 34 MPG if I keep it around 55-60 MPG,
gets 22 MPG in city traffic when city traffic is very heavy, gets 24 MPG
in city traffic when traffic is light, and gets 27 MPG in mixed highway
and city traffic, and it has exhibited this mileage since the day it was
brand new. My 1999 Dodge Ram 1500 truck, OTOH, has less difference in
MPG, but greater percentage difference, from as high as 18 MPG if I keep
it between 55 and 60 on the hiway, 17 MPG if I keep it below 70, 14 MPG
if I keep it below 80, 13 MPG in mixed hiway and city, 11 MPG in light
city and somewhere between 9 and 10 for heavy city traffic.
How do I know all this? I keep VERY accurate records of my mileage on
all my vehicles, even my motorcycle (which can get anywhere between 32
MPG and 50 MPG depending on how I ride it), as any deviations from the
norm can tell me if I need to change a fuel filter or air filter sooner
than normal maintenance schedules.
--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
In article <[email protected]>, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
>The current issue of Consumer Reports shows that the EPA mileage
>numbers for city driving are actually substantially *higher* than
>real-world mileage, in some cases close to 50%. Worst examples are SUVs.
That's not exactly news... anybody who's been paying even a *little* bit of
attention to the EPA numbers over the last twenty-plus years is aware that
they substantially over-estimate what is obtainable in the real world.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
> Robatoy wrote:
> >
...
> > The equipment is more efficient, yet its role in the process is more
> > prominent. So you gain on the gals/HP ratio, but lose it by using it
> > more.
>
> No, that isn't true. Modern farming covers <much> more ground per
> operational pass than before and also uses fewer operations. If not,
> there's no way one could even begin to stay in business w/ >$2 diesel
> and <$3 wheat.
>
> As an example, when I was in high school, for milo we planted,
> knife-sledded, cultivated and then "laid-by". Depending on the year, we
> might also have needed one or two passes for herbicides or pesticides.
> This was w/ a 4-row planter and cultivator. Now, we plant and do a
> single cultivation w/ a 12-row rig and one herbicide application, so
> there is combination of at least two fewer operations plus only
> one-third the passes through the field. The net result is larger
> consumption/hr but far higher acreage covered/gallon.
...
Oh, and I forgot to add in the speed factor...for example, back then I
listed (that's planting) at 3-1/2 to 4 mph tops, cultivated at <maybe>
4-1/2. Now, planters run at 6-7 mph and cultivation at 5+. So, while
not as big a percentage gain as the change from 4 to 12 rows, there's
another factor of something like almost 2 in acreage covered/hour which
negates the (per hour) higher fuel consumption rate--the hours aren't
near what they used to be per acre.
Actually, it's now turned into quite an acrobatic excercise to keep a
rig on line and operate at the speeds one travels...It's quite a
developed art to keep the end of something over 30' wide trailing along
behind some 15' or so within a couple inches of where one wants it and
get it turned around w/o running over a fence or utility pole at the end
of the row... :)
As I think back writing this, I recall at that time there was besides
myself Dad, my brother and at least one full-time hand. Other than Dad
who spent (I'd estimate) roughly half of his time over-seeing and doing
various other taks, the rest of us stayed in the fields essentially
full-time all summer. Now the same acreage is covered by myself w/ only
a part-time hand during harvest and peak planting (if I can find one
capable at the right time). And that isn't a continuous all-summer work
schedule as it used to be--it's long, hard days during operations-time
to get over the necessary ground when it needs to be done, but it's now
an operation and then wait for the next instead of continuously trying
to get caught up. This is owing to both the larger equipment and higher
speeds as well as to the change in farming practices.
HTH...
Leon wrote:
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "George Max" wrote in message
> >
> >> beans. Those people are doing a great job of desensitizing people to
> >> the times when a real disaster is happening.
> >
> > It started, to my mind, with the TV reporting of oil spills in gallons
> > instead of barrels, progressing to the point that "teacups" will soon be
> > required to maintain the impact value. From there we've gone to routinely
> > reporting, and accepting without question, current weather temperatures in
> > "feels like" terms, which are unquantifiable but certainly more
> > sensational.
>
> I recall discussing the "feels like factor" in Physics while in college.
> The professor just laughed and we later termed it the "wus factor". Feels
> like to who exactly?
See above reply...it's a statistical correlation developed from actual
test data on fairly sizable sample populations...
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > To some extent I agree, but...there's no way we can do w/o a major port
> > at the mouth of the Mississippi. That a major residential area and city
>
> Maybe it could be shifted some way inland; consider Hamburg/Germany for
> example where a major port is 100 miles from the sea, although that
> has it's own problems, of course.
The Mississippi R isn't conducive to navigation by large vessels very
far upstream owing to extremely strong currents among other things...
Leon wrote:
>
> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >> I recall discussing the "feels like factor" in Physics while in college.
> >> The professor just laughed and we later termed it the "wus factor".
> >> Feels
> >> like to who exactly?
> >
> > See above reply...it's a statistical correlation developed from actual
> > test data on fairly sizable sample populations...
>
> I did read it. It is basically BS IMHO. Temperature, humidity, and wind
> all have a different effect on individuals. Temperature is absolute.
> "Feels like" is an averaged interpretations which means nothing to any one
> individual.
Well, actually, when one looks at the data, the "feels" like comparative
data aren't spread as widely as you might believe...I don't have the old
data sets any longer (this was only about 40 years ago) but the
correlations had quite respectable correlation--which implies that the
"average Joe" feels pretty much the same way as the other guy at the
same conditions...
Leon wrote:
>
> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Juergen Hannappel wrote:
> >
> > The Mississippi R isn't conducive to navigation by large vessels very
> > far upstream owing to extremely strong currents among other things...
>
> Do you not consider Memphis TN not far up stream?
Barge and reasonably sized, but not really large.
Kevin wrote:
>
> I would include another to your list - death. Father or uncle dies and
> estate taxes chew up so much that the farm's gotta be sold to pay the taxes
> on the thing.
...
Well, as much as I'd like to see the demise of the estate tax (or at
least maintain the higher exemptions) and even though the Farm Bureau
(of which we're members just to be on record) and some other groups are
advocating it on this argument there doesn't appear to be much data that
actually indicates its a very widespread problem.
The other issues of encroachment and unfavorable, even hostile
legislatures that have become totally dominated by large city interests
tend to be the most difficult issues. There's a current movement of
dairies here from CA and AZ owing to restrictions that have been levied
on their operations in those states, for example.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > This part is <not> true in general even though there are instances of
> > folks selling out voluntarily. There are a myriad of reasons why
> > farmers are forced to sell even they don't want to. Three of the most
> > common include
> >
> > - Zoning being placed in order to force them to cease
> > - Tax rates being changed from agricultural use to higher rates making
> > it impossible farm profitably.
> > - Even imminent domain has been used.
>
> Fair enough - these are all, everyone of them, abuses of government
> power and ought never to happen. Then again, I think the ridiculous
> level of farm subsidies are similar abuses of government power and
> ought also to never happen. I would be delighted to join farmers or
> anyone else to stop the wealth redistribution scheme that is our
> government whether by taxation, zoning, emminent domain, or outright
> handouts.
Well, there was another thread only a few days ago wherein I addressed
this issue. The short story is that gov't has mucked w/ ag markets so
much over the last 70+ years there's no way to avoid some effort to
counteract the damage that has been done and the system that has been
created.
As a simple example that you <may> recall, remember the Russian
intervention into Afghanistan and the subsequent export embargoes? That
combined w/ the followup repeats, totally destroyed the small grains
markets and the small grains producers are still feeling the effects.
There's no "free trade" there, sorry.
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
...
>
> You also have to consider the resources used for fertilizer,
> herbi-/pesti-/whatevercides,
Those inputs are factors, yes, but it is those inputs which allow for
the increased production and reduction in other inputs. As I noted in
an almost parallel to this thread some months ago, if my inputs in those
areas rise drastically, my banker will want to know why when he looks at
my request for next year's operating loan...and I'll know already when I
look at the total production cost...
> ...transporting the produce fom the agrarian
> states where it grows to the populated places where its converted to
> waste again...
That's a fixed factor independent of the production cost--it's simply a
factor of life that city folk can not produce the stuffs they eat.
I could grow a smaller amount of grain w/ fewer inputs, but the cost of
taking that to market and more significantly, the retransportation cost
from the local elevator to the miller, then the transfer of the flour to
the baker and the subsequent delivery of the bread to the store are the
same irregardless of the method of production of the original wheat
(except that the quality is probably significantly less owing to the
change in production techniques).
What it costs the urban dweller to go to from the store is also fixed
whether they walk, ride the bus, take a cab, ride the subway, drive
their car, have their chaffuer go get it, or have it delivered.
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> ...
>
> > > Often the problem is also compounded by religious
> > > proscriptions against any form of population control.
>
Or not.
Assuming these things have not changed over the last five to
ten years:
The Catholic church prohibits all forms of birth control other than
abstinence.
Aside from Vatican City itself, Italy has the highest proportion
of Catholics of any country today. France is second highest,
or nearly so.
Again, aside from Vatican City itself. Italy has the lowest
birth rate in the world today, France second.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > > Often the problem is also compounded by religious
> > > > proscriptions against any form of population control.
> >
>
> Or not.
>
> Assuming these things have not changed over the last five to
> ten years:
>
> The Catholic church prohibits all forms of birth control other than
> abstinence.
>
> Aside from Vatican City itself, Italy has the highest proportion
> of Catholics of any country today. France is second highest,
> or nearly so.
>
> Again, aside from Vatican City itself. Italy has the lowest
> birth rate in the world today, France second.
>
But how do those birth rates compare to countries such as Mexico,
virtually all of Central American, in fact, Brazil, et al?
In article <[email protected]>, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:
>But how do those birth rates compare to countries such as Mexico,
>virtually all of Central American, in fact, Brazil, et al?
>
It doesn't matter -- none of his "data" is correct anyway.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> >This is a one of those all too often quoted falsehoods. Most cars today
> >show no significant difference in mileage between any highway speeds.
>
> Well, the difference on my van is 17 mpg @ 55, 15 @ 65, below 12 @ 70.
That may well be true, but it does not represent the "most" that I stated in
my reply.
>
> On my pickup it is even more so, but it is geared low and you have to
> really work to get it over 60.
My pickup gets a flat 15mpg no matter what speed I drive it. I watch my
consumption on every fill up. The only thing that really affects my mileage
is 4WD. You really don't want to know the misery of that story...
>
> Any big SUV, pickup, van or even mini-van will show considerable
> improvement as you slow down because of the reduction in wind
> resistance.
Not any. That's the erroneous part of the discussion. Some... yes, as you
indicate you experience. My pickup is a Chevy 1500 4WD and it does not
exhibit the behavior you experience. I'd be interested in knowing what
motor you have in your van. There's lots more to the matter of mpg at
speeds than simply the speed.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:08:30 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> On the other hand, if you want to reduce your fuel usage there is a
>> real simple step you can take - slow down. Most cars will show a
>> significant improvement in economy being driven at 55 mph rather than
>> 65-70.
>>
>
>This is a one of those all too often quoted falsehoods. Most cars today
>show no significant difference in mileage between any highway speeds.
Well, the difference on my van is 17 mpg @ 55, 15 @ 65, below 12 @ 70.
On my pickup it is even more so, but it is geared low and you have to
really work to get it over 60.
Any big SUV, pickup, van or even mini-van will show considerable
improvement as you slow down because of the reduction in wind
resistance. Wind resistance increases as the square of velocity and it
comprises the vast majority of the work done to get your car down the
road. It might not make much difference if you are driving your
Accord, but it will make a big difference if you are driving an
Expedition.
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > > Often the problem is also compounded by religious
> > > > proscriptions against any form of population control.
> >
>
> Or not.
>
> Assuming these things have not changed over the last five to
> ten years:
>
> The Catholic church prohibits all forms of birth control other than
> abstinence.
Yes, of course. I figured anyone would follow the intended meaning
although it was worded loosely, granted. Abstinence is probably even
more effective, but not practiced much.
>
> Aside from Vatican City itself, Italy has the highest proportion
> of Catholics of any country today. France is second highest,
> or nearly so.
> Again, aside from Vatican City itself. Italy has the lowest
> birth rate in the world today, France second.
My understanding is that a sizable fraction of the population of
child-bearing age in those countries has chosen to ignore the strictures
is a prime reason for the statistics?
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 18:45:13 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 23:22:18 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>FYI cars getting 40 mpg with gasoline engines have been available well over
>>40 years. They were Fiat's.
>
> Well, yeah, if a car doesn't (can't) move but from home to repair shop
>and back, gas mileage is infinite. :-)
Yeah, but you gotta factor in the crappy mileage of the tow truck...
Lee
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Duane Bozarth wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> > > Often the problem is also compounded by religious
>> > > proscriptions against any form of population control.
>>
>
>Or not.
>
>Assuming these things have not changed over the last five to
>ten years:
You're probably right -- they haven't changed. But they never were the way you
claim, either.
>The Catholic church prohibits all forms of birth control other than
>abstinence.
That is not correct: within marriage, the Catholic Church endorses natural
family planning, which is a form of periodic, but _temporary_, abstinence.
Outside of marriage, according to Church teaching, _all_ sexual activity is
sinful regardless of whether birth control is used or not.
>Aside from Vatican City itself, Italy has the highest proportion
>of Catholics of any country today. France is second highest,
>or nearly so.
Also not correct. Italy isn't even in the top ten, and France just barely
makes the top _fifty_.
http://www.answers.com/topic/roman-catholics-by-country
>Again, aside from Vatican City itself. Italy has the lowest
>birth rate in the world today, France second.
Utter nonsense. Austria, Lithuania, and Germany, among others have lower birth
rates than has Italy, and there are nearly _fifty_ nations whose birth rates
are lower than France's.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/population/birth_rate_2004_0.html
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"David Starr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:08:30 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >This is a one of those all too often quoted falsehoods. Most cars today
> >show no significant difference in mileage between any highway speeds.
The
> >difference between highway and city driving isn't even really significant
in
> >most cars today, let alone the difference between 55mph and 65-70mph.
>
> 02 Town car: 17.7mpg purely city, 25.6mpg purely highway.
>
Guilty. I had something else on my mind to say when I wrote that and was
going to make a different point. Got my thoughts crossed and ended up with
that statement. No contest - it's just a wrong statement.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>,
lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is this thread in the running for longest thread?
Naaaa..just a bunch of guys huddlin' together yakking 'bout mileage,
talking heads, choppers (the bike kind) and whatever else comes to mind.
Pretty soon, some of the early threads will expire... won't hit 400.
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 09:08:30 -0400, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>This is a one of those all too often quoted falsehoods. Most cars today
>show no significant difference in mileage between any highway speeds. The
>difference between highway and city driving isn't even really significant in
>most cars today, let alone the difference between 55mph and 65-70mph.
02 Town car: 17.7mpg purely city, 25.6mpg purely highway.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography
Web Page: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
...
> IOW, your statement is true but unremarkable - it applies to *everything* -
> and is thus irrelevant to the debate at hand.
It isn't necessarily true to the systems under discussion because there
are more inputs than outputs. Much of the output energy of ag products
is derived from the sun--ever hear of photosynthesis?
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...
> ...it occurs to me that ... Had the levys held and the pumps worked,
> this would still have been a disaster but likely not on the scale
> of what happened with the inundation of water after the levy breaches.
Well, doh!
If it had come in directly onto or just west of the city instead of
nearer Biloxi, it would have been much worse and there would have been
in all likelihood nearly catastrophic levy failure...
Lee DeRaud wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:14:10 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> I'll also admit to sitting in a somewhat continuing wonder that metal,
> >> although the tolerances are so close, seems a much more forgiving medium
> >> to work in than wood.
> >
> >I do recall one episode where Paul Jr. was beating on a bike with a pretty
> >heavy hammer to get something to fit.
>
> You'd think they'd learn not to fit stuff to 0.005" tolerances and
> then send it out for powder-coating.
But where'ed be the "drama" in that? I don't give a fig for cycles in
general and certainly nothing for these but a SIL is infatuted--what can
I say, he's like an 9th-grader at 30 :( -- he insisted on watching an
episode while I was visiting--20 seconds of yelling at each other was
enough to send me out w/ the granddaughters to the playground across the
street... :)
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>There is *always* less energy
> >>out than energy in because perpetual motion is impossible.
> >
> >
> > That law doesn't apply to a farm. There are many sources and drains for
> > energy on a farm. It is not a closed system. Thermal air-flows, solar
> > radiation, rain, etc.
> >
> > Cow/pig farts contain valuable gasses. My guess is that a single
> > cow-fart will light your lamp for a week.
>
> If you can demonstrate this, there is a Nobel in Physics in it for you.
> The net energy out is always <= net energy in - at least as currently
> understood thermodynamics works. But ... science does change. I'll
> be the first to congratulate you on your discipline-bending work if
> you prove otherwise ... (I always wanted to meet a Nobel winner ;)
>
You have to remember that the sun is a major input into the energy cycle
of growing things...
Leon wrote:
>
> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Well, actually, when one looks at the data, the "feels" like comparative
> > data aren't spread as widely as you might believe...I don't have the old
> > data sets any longer (this was only about 40 years ago) but the
> > correlations had quite respectable correlation--which implies that the
> > "average Joe" feels pretty much the same way as the other guy at the
> > same conditions...
>
> I think the power of a suggested "feels like" is more influential. I bet
> you could put the feels like 1% greater than the actual and the average Joe
> would agree. Since the average Joe could not tell you what and actual temp
> feels like any way, adding the "feels like" has him fooled also. What
> shocks me is that many people think the chill factor of 31 degrees F will
> freeze water when the actual temp may be 40 degrees F.
> Before you know it there will be a Wind "Feels Like" factor. It really
> would fall right in place.
There already is---it's the "feels like" factor and that is termed the
wind chill. It's part of the same correlation. While I'll grant there
are uneducated and ill-informed who misuse it or don't understand, it
has some value for those who do. The wind chill is significant for
personal safety in that it does have a relationship to how much faster
the body is cooled by wind as opposed to still air, which is a real
effect.
"George E. Cawthon" wrote:
>
> Australopithecus scobis wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:35:15 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>cave creek, az
> >>
> >>I don't know where Cave Creek is specifically, but I don't think of
> >>anywhere in AZ as not in continual drought, at least from a dryland
> >>farming perspective.
> >
> >
> > AZ ag uses a lot of irrigation. That water has to come from somewhere,
> > such as the Colorado River. Drought upstream affects the available water
> > supplies. Hence the Central Arizona Project, dams and reservoirs.
That's <not> the question I posed to Charles as I specifically referred
to arable land and dryland farming...I'm still wondering where he is and
what he's referring to.
AZ certainly irrigates a great deal too much...
> > Much of Arizona is indeed arid. Much of it is not.
Little is suitable for dryland farming, too....
>
> True. People back east tend to have a different
> perspective.
That's true, but I'm not from back east...
> ...However AZ is arid, it just isn't
> all desert.
That's true, but that's not the question I raised...
> ...From a back east perspective,
> anything under 25-30" of precip would be called
> arid by those in the east/midwest. That is why
> the U.S., west of the Mississippi River is called
> the arid west. Essentially all important/intense
> agriculture is irrigated from west of a line about
> midway through Kansas ...
That's overstating...there's a tremendous amount of dryland farming in W
KS and all through the High Plains from TX to SK. Not that there isn't
irrigation, but to say essentially all is not true...
Rainfall here is ~18"/yr altho we've only had something like 1" in
scattered showers since July 1...the milo is hurting, but some is still
going to make assuming we do get some more moisture before too much
longer..
> The east coast and midwest generally have no
> concept of 10-11 inches precip per year let alone
> rates around 5 inches. It amuses me that so many
> people think of Seattle as being wet. Yeah it
> drizzles, especially in the winter, but there is
> no rain for a month at a time and some summers
> have had essentially 0 precip for 3 months.
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> ...transporting the produce fom the agrarian
> >> states where it grows to the populated places where its converted to
> >> waste again...
> >
> > That's a fixed factor independent of the production cost--it's simply a
> > factor of life that city folk can not produce the stuffs they eat.
>
> But if more peopl;e were involved in argarian production and less in
> business consultancy the overall amount of transportation could be
> less, if you had smaller towns (which would also be less hazardous in
> case of hurricanes and other disasters; one would think the SF
> earthquakes, the bombings of Hiroshime, Hamburg, Dresden, the 9/11
> attacks and now the flooding of NO, togheter with stuff like the
> yearly stampedes at Mecca should persuade anyone not to live in huge
> clusters of many people).
If pigs had wings....
Robatoy wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > If today's systems and processes
> > are so doggone ineffient/bad/mean to Ma Nature, then why do they work
> > so very well?
>
> Talk about a straw man. I'm not going to chase down every diversionary
> tack you take in this discussion.
>
> I stated that crops yield less calories that the calories required to
> harvest/grow/yield/transport/fertilize them.
> I posted some links and references supporting that position, take the
> time to read them.
Of which crops are you specifically referring and for what purpose?
There are certain individuals/organizations w/ specific agendas which
are propogating misinformation and distorted analyses for their specific
purposes.
DOA/DOE has done some recent studies on the energy returns on bio-fuels
which are available at the DOE site. Recent results are roughly 1.6
out/in.
As noted elsewhere, other crops are grown for purposes other than net
energy. That doesn't negate their value.
Regarding you fallback to irreversible processes, on that basis we might
as well all just stop doing anything since the ultimate source is going
to burn up one day anyway and we can't make more.
Leon wrote:
...
> ...Now we have probably 8 major
> oil companies that have merged into 4 and have shut down 1/2 of their
> refining capacity.
Data?
> ... they
Which proverbial "they" is that?
> ... use the media as a gauge as to how far they can raise the prices. ...
As has been noted ad nauseum, oil and gasoline contract prices are set
on the world commodities markets, the largest of which is the NYMEX (NY
Mercantile).
There is limited production and refining flexibility on the up side
primarily owing to the limitations in ability to site new facilities for
primarily environmental and other activist causes over the last 20
years...
US new exploration is down for similar reasons combined w/ the fact that
until the pretty recent upswing low prices made more expensive sites
uneconomic in small part.
Leon wrote:
...
> I am for as little government intervention as possible but I believe that
> the Oil companies, insurance companies, and electric companies should be
> limited to the "percent" of profit that they can make.
What business are you in? Why should yours be allowed to make whatever
profit level you can as opposed to someone else's?
What is needed isn't price control but reducing the restrictions on
increasing supply...
Leon wrote:
>
> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Leon wrote:
> > ...
> >> I am for as little government intervention as possible but I believe that
> >> the Oil companies, insurance companies, and electric companies should be
> >> limited to the "percent" of profit that they can make.
> >
> > What business are you in? Why should yours be allowed to make whatever
> > profit level you can as opposed to someone else's?
> >
> > What is needed isn't price control but reducing the restrictions on
> > increasing supply...
>
> My business does not affect the economy of the whole country as do the ones
> I mentioned. I am self employed designing and building custom furniture and
> cabinets. Suppose your groceries and house payments go up 50% this year
> like the gasoline you buy has. Let the luxury items go up but basically
> everyone has to have gasoline, insurance, and electricity suppliers and
> those suppliers are well aware it. My customers can choose not to buy my
> products but darn few Americans can choose not to have any thing to do with
> Oil, Electricity, and Insurance.
That's business...
Until the 70's the saw was "1 bu wheat == 1 bbl oil". Now, it's more
like
"20 bu wheat == 1 bbl oil". Needless to say, my margins are no better
than yours.
While harsh, I see no basic justification for price controls in the long
term. There's some justification for trying to get some short term
relief to try to fix results of the current natural disaster and a
little longer term to try to aid the recovery from the last 20 years or
so of shortsighted policy which has been the prime cause of
non-expanding production facilities.
If there were any specific place where I <might> support additional
regulation it would be to add some additional controls over the purely
speculative side of the commodities markets. The problem there is that
the markets serve a purpose and it is often true that fixes cause more
disruptions than they cure.
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > a kid, it was done that way throughout NY State. Now? So-called
> > utilities have become just another in an evergrowing group of
> > businesses whose primary aim is to screw the customer out of as much
> > money as possible. Yes, businesses are there to make a profit. Yes,
> > making a good profit is the reason for the existence of most
> > businesses. But at one time, businesses tended to get started as a way
> > for one or two or however many people to make a living, hopefully a
> > good one, while also providing a product or service to as broad a
> > customer base as possible--done by keeping quality up and price down.
>
> Exactly what I think. I call the economic system now in place "greed
> driven chaos economy", where stuff gets produced because it promises
> profits and not because it's needed, as can be seen by such enourmous
> markets for cell phone ring tones, addictive drugs and SUVs.
It's the other way 'round...demand creates the market for those items
just as it does for oil or bread. If nobody was interested in the
coolest ring tone for the cell phone, no one would be able to sell
them. If the teeny-bopper wants to spend his $$ that way, there's no
reason someone shouldn't supply that ability.
Regarding the drugs, etc., it's been long demonstrated one can't
legislate morality.
jo4hn wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >>markets for cell phone ring tones, addictive drugs and SUVs.
> >
> >
> > It's the other way 'round...demand creates the market for those items
> > just as it does for oil or bread. If nobody was interested in the
> > coolest ring tone for the cell phone, no one would be able to sell
> > them. If the teeny-bopper wants to spend his $$ that way, there's no
> > reason someone shouldn't supply that ability.
> >
> > Regarding the drugs, etc., it's been long demonstrated one can't
> > legislate morality.
>
> Demand is one; advertising is another. Witness prescription drugs,
> toiletries, soup, autos, etc. One could make a case that the latter is
> more powerful than the former.
All that advertising does is (hopefully, successfully :) at least from
the sponsor's viewpoint) is to stimulate/create demand. If it doesn't
succeed, no market. So it all comes back to demand.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...
> Note that at no point have I denigrated the work ethic, importance, and
> honorability of farming.
That's true and I've not said you have. You do exhibit a fair lack of
up-to-date knowledge of current farming techniques and the economics of
much farming colored by a particular political viewpoint. Not that all
don't have viewpoints, I've mine...
> ...All I've argued in this thread is that the
> "barely surviving" argument is at obvious odds with the great and
> increasing success seen in agriculture over the past 5 decades
> especially. I freely admit that *some particular* farmers may be having
> economic problems (just like some dentists, doctors, lawyers, plumbers,
> and carpenters might) but this is hardly grounds for declaring the entire
> industry imperiled.
I think you over-estimate the the claims made by me in particular and
others in the characterization of the "entire industry as perilized".
That said, there's no doubt that farm profitability has taken a severe
hit over particularly the last 20 years.
I think you're equating general farm income and profitablility to that
of the "poster child" individual operations w/ the large subsidy
payments that make the Post headlines and the large commercial pork and
poultry producers.
> ISTM that what is being said here subtly (by you and others)is that
> the *family-owned/small farm* is in trouble. That may well be true.
> Corporations have brought an economy of scale to the agribusiness
> with which the smaller farm may not be able to compete. Again, this
> does not really speak to the industry as a whole.
....
I'm not subtle at all... :)
And I have no idea what you think a typical *family-owned/small farm*
is--I can assure you that the 80 A homestead farm is completely a thing
of the past for other than the hobbyist or "townie" who piddles around a
little on the weekends.
"Corporation farming" has a very specific meaning in farm country. Most
of the major agricultural states have, in fact, legislation which
prevents such operations. There are, otoh, a great many "family farms"
which are set up as corporate entities rather than as sole
proprietorships or partnerships simply for legal and accounting
purposes. Many of these are quite sizable by previous standards and are
every bit as efficient or in many cases more so than your hypothetical
idealized "corporate" farm.
And despite your beliefs, much of the farm economy is is pretty serious
straits as can be observed by shrinking and aging populations, falling
net incomes, failing small towns and infrastructures, etc., etc., etc.
I think the major problem is that your information is dated and supplied
by sources which are not particularly well informed either as well as
perhaps having unspoken agendas.
Charlie Self wrote:
...
> The original complaint/statement was about greed, not foolishness.
> Foolishness is a part of being human, so ring tones fit perfectly in
> that context, but it's possible to be upset that a guy in the
> entertainment industry has a contract that gives him $130 million for a
> year's work duing which by ever indicator he failed to properly do his
> job. Or by Enron. Or by price gouging by oil distributors. Or by
> profiteering by...ah hell, the list is endless. Ring tones are just
> teenaged silliness that unfortunately overlaps in those as old as 35,
> IME (as does much teenage silliness these days).
Certainly corruption and willful negligence are not to be condoned. But
despite the high profile such cases make, they're still more the
exception than the rule.
As for the entertainment bozo, perhaps there's some event or relatvely
recent occurrence of which I'm supposed to be aware, but I've no clue as
to who/what you refer to. If the studio paid, one would assume they
felt they got their money's worth or they would have taken recourse.
Mike Marlow wrote:
...
> ...We aren't hurting
> for electrical energy so there is no push for new facilities.
That is only marginally true...ask the Californians w/ their rolling
brownouts during hot weather with only a small fraction of the available
capacity off for some reason. (And not during the Enron manipulation,
either).
The overall national rolling reserve is approaching critical levels just
as the refinery capacity has been for years until it has now reached
critical proportions.
And the transmission network is also at capacity in some areas that
makes grid-sharing not feasible to offshift local shortfalls.
As an aside, a major slowup of the expansion in wind power here where
there is plenty of raw material is the lack of sufficient transmission
capacity in those places to get it to the places that need it. And,
unfortunately, the energy density isn't sufficient w/ wind to justify at
present the high costs of new transmission lines.
...
> Wait - the oil industry has not been regulated, so how can you argue that
> they have not built a new refinery in decades because their profits have
> been interfered with?
That's been indirect, but you're correct that the more direct
restrictions have been from the same folks who have also stymied
nuclear.
...
Charles Spitzer wrote:
>
> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "George E. Cawthon" wrote:
> >>
> >> Australopithecus scobis wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:35:15 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>>cave creek, az
> >> >>
> >> >>I don't know where Cave Creek is specifically, but I don't think of
> >> >>anywhere in AZ as not in continual drought, at least from a dryland
> >> >>farming perspective.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > AZ ag uses a lot of irrigation. That water has to come from somewhere,
> >> > such as the Colorado River. Drought upstream affects the available
> >> > water
> >> > supplies. Hence the Central Arizona Project, dams and reservoirs.
> >
> > That's <not> the question I posed to Charles as I specifically referred
> > to arable land and dryland farming...I'm still wondering where he is and
> > what he's referring to.
> >
> > AZ certainly irrigates a great deal too much...
> >
> >> > Much of Arizona is indeed arid. Much of it is not.
> >
> > Little is suitable for dryland farming, too....
> >
> >>
> >> True. People back east tend to have a different
> >> perspective.
> >
> > That's true, but I'm not from back east...
> >
> >> ...However AZ is arid, it just isn't
> >> all desert.
> >
> > That's true, but that's not the question I raised...
> >
> >> ...From a back east perspective,
> >> anything under 25-30" of precip would be called
> >> arid by those in the east/midwest. That is why
> >> the U.S., west of the Mississippi River is called
> >> the arid west. Essentially all important/intense
> >> agriculture is irrigated from west of a line about
> >> midway through Kansas ...
> >
> > That's overstating...there's a tremendous amount of dryland farming in W
> > KS and all through the High Plains from TX to SK. Not that there isn't
> > irrigation, but to say essentially all is not true...
> >
> > Rainfall here is ~18"/yr altho we've only had something like 1" in
> > scattered showers since July 1...the milo is hurting, but some is still
> > going to make assuming we do get some more moisture before too much
> > longer..
> >
> >> The east coast and midwest generally have no
> >> concept of 10-11 inches precip per year let alone
> >> rates around 5 inches. It amuses me that so many
> >> people think of Seattle as being wet. Yeah it
> >> drizzles, especially in the winter, but there is
> >> no rain for a month at a time and some summers
> >> have had essentially 0 precip for 3 months.
>
> cave creek is approx 40 miles north of phoenix.
What I figured, thanks...
> annual rainfall averages 7.5". we've been getting about 4.5 for a long time,
> and very little in northern az where it is stored as snowpack. this year
> we've already gotten over the annual average, and in my area, already
> received approx 12". our reservoirs went from about 20% to 95% this year
> because of this, although we're told that the drought isn't really over and
> that wet years in the middle of droughts is historically common.
I'd think that not at all unexpected in such an arid climate and I'd
think hardly count as a "drought" owing to the limited average. In such
places (even here in SW KS, even w/ over twice the average) where most
rainfall is the result of scattered thunderstorms, the concept of
"average" is really statistical at best. Using another statistical
term, I suspect that if one had really long-term records (not just 100
years or so, but long records) "runs" of such length would not be at all
uncommon.
Snowpack, otoh, in the places where it is normal tends to be a much more
nearly uniform process wherein fluctuations about averages aren't such
extremes although again I suspect longer records would bear out similar
previous patterns. I think most of NM and southern CO had at least
reasonably decent snow years this past winter as well.
We've also been in a dry stretch again (this was, of course, the heart
of the Dust Bowl in the '30s and has been a roughly 20 year cycle since)
for the last 5 years although last summer from June to first of
September we had the wettest stretch on record (of course, records here
only go back to the late 1880's so that's not saying a lot). It then
turned dry again and has stayed so all last winter and this summer. Not
quite as bad as two and three years ago, but definitely seriously dry.
Yet, Wichita has set all time records for them for August and the summer
and have a good shot for the year.
> az used to be #3 in citrus production in the US, and had an enormous area
> planted in cotton. these orchards and fields are now long gone, plowed
> under, uprooted, and developed upon because the land simply got more
> valuable as developments with zero lot line single family mcmansions than
> farms.
Owing to the higher cost of irrigation, I suspect many of those would
have gone away anyway as is much of the irrigated corn around here, for
example. Water costs are simply too high.
Anyway, thanks for the info....
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...
> I fundamentally disagree that "we aren't hurting ...". Let's do a thought
> experiment. Suppose we built a bunch of small regional power generators
> using, say, the Pebble Bed technology the Chinese are currently pushing
> (in a huge way). This would have the eventual effect of making
> electricity so cheap that it would be logically "free" (i.e., So cheap
> the price wouldn't matter much.) ...
...
No matter how many you build, they will never be cheap enough to be
considered "free". Somewhat less expensive than current generation
LWRs, <maybe>, but "free"--no way. Somewhere the construction and
operational costs as well as the fuel cycle have to be recovered. I
don't think there's any way it could possibly be done for less than
perhaps 2/3-rds the cost of current generation facilities irregardless
of scale, and I think that estimate optimistic.
I recall when I started school as NE that was the current mantra of the
old AEC--"too cheap to meter". Didn't happen then, won't happen now or
in the future. It is simply not possible to create an infrastructure of
such magnitude at no cost.
Patriarch wrote:
...
> Cars like that are almost completely about ego, anyhow. Completely
> unlike woodworkers and their tools, I'm certain. ;-)
Actually, it would be interesting to me to see some concentrate on
interior design and woodwork as in some of the oldies like the Packard,
etc. Did a couple of restorations for an acquaintance while in TN.
Lots of neat work there.
Charles Spitzer wrote:
>
...
> actually farming water is pretty cheap. one of the largest reservoirs in
> this area was built by the farmers quite a long time ago, is filled by
> snowmelt, and is drawn down and delivered via canal for crop irrigation. we
> also have a canal that the rest of the country built for us that goes from
> the colorado river in the northwestern corner of the state, through phoenix
> to tucson. that is used mostly for drinking water, but some farms (mostly
> indian reservations) siphon from it.
>
I expect that to change...look at Sacramento Valley in CA for the
model...as Phoenix and environs continue to expand, the large
residential populations will overwhelm the rural constituency. Sad, but
unfortunately, so far inexorable...
Charlie Self wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> > ...
> > > I fundamentally disagree that "we aren't hurting ...". Let's do a thought
> > > experiment. Suppose we built a bunch of small regional power generators
> > > using, say, the Pebble Bed technology the Chinese are currently pushing
> > > (in a huge way). This would have the eventual effect of making
> > > electricity so cheap that it would be logically "free" (i.e., So cheap
> > > the price wouldn't matter much.) ...
> >
> > ...
> >
> > No matter how many you build, they will never be cheap enough to be
> > considered "free". Somewhat less expensive than current generation
> > LWRs, <maybe>, but "free"--no way. Somewhere the construction and
> > operational costs as well as the fuel cycle have to be recovered. I
> > don't think there's any way it could possibly be done for less than
> > perhaps 2/3-rds the cost of current generation facilities irregardless
> > of scale, and I think that estimate optimistic.
> >
> > I recall when I started school as NE that was the current mantra of the
> > old AEC--"too cheap to meter". Didn't happen then, won't happen now or
> > in the future. It is simply not possible to create an infrastructure of
> > such magnitude at no cost.
>
> The maintenance costs over decades need to be remembered, too,
I think I covered that w/ "operational costs", Charley... :)
What you're actually driving at I would classify more as a replacement
cost as the lifetime of existing plants was 40 years and most are at or
approaching that rapidly. There are some that have been granted
renewals, at least one that I know of where the costs associated w/
providing sufficient engineering and documentation and known retrofits
was considered excessive so the application was abandoned. I think the
old Rancho Seco plant should be considered for restart myself although
it may have been abandoned in place w/ no maintenance to the point it
would also be totally impractical. But, it has only a few years
operational history and is 800 MWe potential just sitting there... :(
> ... low cost energy always seems to encourage waste,
> or at least very careless use, which drives up needs rapidly.
OTOH, low energy costs drive economic development which "raises all
boats", so to speak so there's a benefit as well. Stable supply and
prices would be the ideal.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
...
> This is an entirely fair and reasonable point. It's why I originally
> said "cheap enough to not matter" and not "free". Take an example from
> the telephone company. I pay a flat $50/mo for unlimited local and
> domestic phone service. It's not "free", but it is so cheap, I don't
> care if someone comes over and spends 4 hours on a long distance call to
> their friends.
Since the rate isn't dependent on use, of course you don't care about
any additional usage...it's a non-issue.
> New (actually not so new) nuclear technologies hold this promise. If
> you've not read about pebble bed reactors, ...
I've been reading about pebble bed reactors for some 30 years or more
(BSNE '68).
I still don't believe there's a chance in h-e-double toothpicks that one
can build and operate 1000 MWe generation in less than something on the
order of the same cost as present. You may get some reduction owing to
scale and some owing to design, but you'll lose even more than you gain
on scale simply in number.
I'm waiting and watching to be shown wrong, but I sincerely doubt it to
be possible to make the kinds of changes that would support the cost
structure you seem to envision.
As I told Charlie, "cheap" isn't necessarily the answer--plentiful and
stable cost is the ideal.
Charles Spitzer wrote:
....
> also have a canal that the rest of the country built for us that goes from
> the colorado river ...
I presume you're aware that Denver has eyes on the western slopes now,
too?
KS has been fighting w/ CO over their penchant for draining the Arkansas
dry before i leaves the state for over 20 years. The case went all the
way to the Supreme Court where KS won all claims. Unfortunately,
enforcement has been problematical at best and we're now in the process
of redress.
CO will take every drop out of the Colorado too if they get half the
chance... :(
"George E. Cawthon" wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > "George E. Cawthon" wrote:
> >
> >>Australopithecus scobis wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:35:15 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>cave creek, az
> >>>>
> >>>>I don't know where Cave Creek is specifically, but I don't think of
> >>>>anywhere in AZ as not in continual drought, at least from a dryland
> >>>>farming perspective.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>AZ ag uses a lot of irrigation. That water has to come from somewhere,
> >>>such as the Colorado River. Drought upstream affects the available water
> >>>supplies. Hence the Central Arizona Project, dams and reservoirs.
> >
> >
> > That's <not> the question I posed to Charles as I specifically referred
> > to arable land and dryland farming...I'm still wondering where he is and
> > what he's referring to.
>
> Don't know about that, it was just the statement
> that you thought it was continual drought. That's
> not true, if the average is 7.5" then 5" or less
> is a drought.
> >
> > AZ certainly irrigates a great deal too much...
>
> Just an opinion.
>
> >>True. People back east tend to have a different
> >>perspective.
>
> >
> >
> > That's true, but I'm not from back east...
>
> Sorry I was thinking you were from New England,
> must have gotten mixed up.
>
> >
> >
> >>...However AZ is arid, it just isn't
> >>all desert.
> >
> >
> > That's true, but that's not the question I raised...
> Which was?
> >
> >
> >>...From a back east perspective,
> >>anything under 25-30" of precip would be called
> >>arid by those in the east/midwest. That is why
> >>the U.S., west of the Mississippi River is called
> >>the arid west. Essentially all important/intense
> >>agriculture is irrigated from west of a line about
> >>midway through Kansas ...
>
> >
> >
> > That's overstating...there's a tremendous amount of dryland farming in W
> > KS and all through the High Plains from TX to SK. Not that there isn't
> > irrigation, but to say essentially all is not true...
>
> Possibly overstated, but the U.S. Government
> consider the 17 western states to be "Arid West"
> and in need of reclamation when they established
> the Bureau of Reclamation. That would put the
> line even further east. But I agree that does
> include productive land used for grains. But if
> you wish move the line to the Kansas/Colorado
> border. BTW, I didn't say essentially, I said
> "essentially all important/intense agriculture."
What I don't agree w/ is that dryland wheat, milo and cattle production
is not important...(and to a lesser degree I don't agree that it isn't
"intense" altho I susppose I know where you're coming from).
There's a major difference between the thought of what the High Plains
are now as opposed to the time of which you reference. When folks left
the East, this looked like desert to them. We now know better. As you
go closer to the eastern slope of the Rockies the rain shield
intensifies and the moisture drops. As a consequence it does turn into
all range land and what farming there is is irrigated.
Being one of those whose grandparents, parents and now third generation
made it through the 30s and continue on all dryland, I am sensitive to
the propensity to simply pump water and dump it on fields. In 20 years
I suspect a significant fraction of the irrigation here well revert to
dryland or minimal irrigation like many areas in the TX Panhandle and
south in the 70s.
> >
> > Rainfall here is ~18"/yr altho we've only had something like 1" in
> > scattered showers since July 1...the milo is hurting, but some is still
> > going to make assuming we do get some more moisture before too much
> > longer..
>
> When you get the precip is very important to
> dryland agriculture.
No kidding! Strike the word "dryland" and you also have an accurate
statement.
The more accurate description is to change "very important" to
"absolutely critical".
> ...In the "arid west" rainfall
> is usually not sufficient because of the timing,
> so anything beyond pasture generally requires
> storage of runoff from snowmelt.
Not only is it "usually" not sufficient in the truly "arid" areas no
matter what the timing, it is "rarely" if ever sufficient. That was my
main point...there is damn little area in AZ, if any, that is viable
dryland farming country which is what I (obviously erroneously after the
followup) thought was being claimed.
> That still doesn't define drought, since a change
> from 60 inches to 30 inches would be a drought
> just as much as a change from 10 inches to 6 inches.
You're assuming some things I didn't <quite> say...or at least didn't
intend as you seem to have read it.
Yes, a drought is a period of below normal rainfall no matter what
"normal" is, and one man's drought would be another's bounty. I lived
in VA and E TN for nearly 30 years so I'm well aware of the
differences. E KS even has averages approaching 40 and 50 inches/year
where twice our annual would be severe drought.
What I was driving at was that in areas such as here and in AZ (out of
the snowbelt in the mountains) where what rainfall is received is almost
all the result of "hit-or-miss" thunderstorms that the propensity for
larger variations in what could be considered "normal" from year to year
is much larger than in areas such as TN where much rain comes from
general weather patterns where it "just settles in and rains" over large
areas.
Thus, while it is a dry year and can be called a drought, my belief is
that in areas such as these it is really just a part of a cycle of
wet/dry years that are just more accentuated in differences as compared
to wetter climes simply because a reduction of 1" in annual
precipitation in an area which only gets 10"/yr is much more of a
reduction than the loss of the same inch in an area that gets 50"/yr.
I believe if there were recorded data from longer than these areas have
been inhabitated these patterns would be observed and in a statistical
sense we could see that these periods are simply normal patterns we call
"droughts" because we want/expect things every year that aren't always
consonant w/ reality.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
...
> > I still don't believe there's a chance in h-e-double toothpicks that one
> > can build and operate 1000 MWe generation in less than something on the
> > order of the same cost as present. You may get some reduction owing to
> > scale and some owing to design, but you'll lose even more than you gain
> > on scale simply in number.
>
> But what if you could build, say a 100MW generation plant relatively
> cheaply? Our approach thus far has been "build great big plants
> that cost $5-6B and then serve a large portion of the grid". I think
> the hope with pbs is that you can build lots of little ones because
> building small is generally easier/cheaper/faster etc.
I didn't say a 1000 MWe <plant>, I said 1000 MWe of <generation>. You
may build a smaller unit for somewhat less, granted, but it takes 10
100MWe units to make the 1000MWe and the balance of plant is the same
for all. A <major> portion of the cost of existing plants was overblown
and mostly <very inefficient> licensing requirements and strategies for
implementing the requirements. The key imo is more in the regulatory
side as opposed to the actual plant itself.
...
> It's been years since I worked in nuke power generation so I have no
> relevant current commentary. If you read the Wired article I cited,
> though, they claim the promise is that you can scale by clustering
> small generation facilities together. Maybe it's not the answer,
> I think it's too early to tell, but doing nothing as we are now
> is certain to fail.
>
> If you're right, and our current nuke model is the only one that
> Plays In Peoria, then all the more reason to get on it immediately.
> The timeline from concept to watts out in a new nuke facility is, what,
> a decade?
I didn't say that, either. I agree there well may be better designs for
commercial nuclear power than the LWR and that these need to be pursued.
There are modifications proposed for LWRs as well that enhance safety
and reduce cost.
The key is still regulation. As noted before the big run-up in cost was
the cost of the money and the delays not the actual basic plant costs.
If these aren't controlled nothing else will help much, either.
I had one basic problem w/ your first claim and that was using the "too
cheap to matter" mantra. That isn't going to happen no matter what
anybody claims.
I agree completely we need to be proceding w/ nuclear generation to
replace aging current units and to retire particularly oil and gas fired
units and to provide new generation. That a large fraction of these may
well be smaller, localized plants is quite possible and has some
advantages but the claim that these will be <greatly> less cost in terms
of on-the-grid MW is simply wishful thinking on the part of the
proponents imo. I look at it as I noted previously as the same sort of
promotional rhetoric the old AEC used in the 50s and early 60s.
Patriarch wrote:
...
> Whatever the reason, in our lifetime, communications has, for most parts
> of the developed world, become virtually free. At least, marginal cost
> approaches 'free'. Think of the venue in which this discussion is
> taking place. Got a marginal cost per minute? What about voice? Does
> your cell phone charge you extra for domestic long distance? What did
> that look like 30 years ago, in the then-current cost context?
There's a fundamental difference between communication technology and
power generation. The former has benefitted imensely from the
"electronics revolution" whereas to date and for the foreseeable future,
there is no such orders-of-magnitude breakthrough for generation.
...
> Once you pay the fixed cost of distribution/maintenance/customer
> service, there are possibilities yet to imagine. Won't happen this
> year, though.
No, and won't happen next 20 years, either in generation. The subject
under discussion is essentially whether 10-100 MWe reactors of any
design can be brought on grid for something so much less than the cost
of a single 1000 MWe unit that the resulting power would be so cheap as
to be essentially free. I don't think it possible w/ any technology
currently at hand or in the foreseeable future (as in 20 years or so).
That does assume that the licensing fiascos of the past are resolved so
that a new generation of LWRs, say, isn't penalized so grossly as they
were previously.
> But we should start thinking and experimenting and looking at the
> potential, shouldn't we?
Oh, of course....I never argued a thing against the basic technology--I
just think Tim and the folks touting the PBRs are delusional in terms of
the actual costs to get actual power on the grid.
I'd be glad to be shown I'm wrong w/ plants on line, but I don't expect
it. ("Free" power, that is, I fully expect some PBRs will be built).
I'll make a note that the most "nearly free" source of significant
generation is wind. The problem is, of course that while free, the fuel
source is pretty diffuse and the locations are for the most part not
very well situated relative the locations of high demand.
Patriarch wrote:
...
> Where the electricity is generated using oil or natural gas, these
> facilities serve to compete for resources which might be used in other
> activities, or for which a reduction in demand might reduce pricing.
> But fuel substitution and/or new technology is generally not immediate,
> or without unintended consequence.
There's been a major unintended consequence particularly w/ NG as the
move to convert from "dirty" coal to "clean" NG has really been a
tactical blunder...
....
> Where you can put a refinery IS highly regulated. At least in MY part
> of the world. And there are at least half a dozen of them within a 20
> minute drive from my home, in one of the most expensive areas of the
> world for real estate.
But most (I'd venture all?) were there <long> before the real estate was
either so regulated nor so expensive...
> The technology is also heavily regulated, as are the characteristics of
> the products. Not all refineries can produce using just any feedstocks.
> (And now we reach the technical boundaries of my understanding of
> refinery technology...)
There's a <MAJOR> piece of the puzzle virtually no one in the general
public has a clue about...
I heard a nationally syndicated talk pundit the other night (and no, it
wasn't elRushbo or even one of that ilk) going on about how the limits
were artificial and all, and in some ways he was reasonably correct.
But one could tell that even he, who is generally pretty level-headed
and has good economic sense and is reasonably well read, had absolutely
no clue about actual production or generation processes.
...
> >> The reality is that, even at $3+ per gallon, the inflation-adjusted
> >> price for energy today is *lower* than it has been throughout most of
> >> US history. It is *lower* than the price paid in Europe or Asia on
> >> the whole.
> >
> > Go study the price of fuel in the countries you reference. Look at
> > the tax structures in those countries. An educated opinion serves an
> > argument far better than a rhetorical cry.
I saw a comment in the "Talk Back" section of the Wichita Eagle the
other day apropos to the above I liked--
"To those folks who comment that a gallon of gas is cheaper than a
gallon of water or that we're paying so much less than those in Europe,
I say my car doesn't run on water and I do not live in Europe." :)
...
>
> We didn't screw this up in a year or two. It isn't one storm, or one
> refinery or platform problem, or one set of regulations, but the
> cummulative effect of years of decisions. We won't fix it in a month or
> two, either.
>
> By the way, thank you all for the reasoned, though completely OT
> discussion. I haven't thought about some of these issues for some time.
> It's been an unusual week, in that regard.
There's an important point there, too. The problem I have is that in
the current environment it seems like the only purpose of those who are
making policy is to "win" for themselves and their party of affiliation,
irrespective of which party that is. That has essentially
short-circuited any constructive solution to any problem not just energy
for going on to 15 years now.
Patriarch wrote:
>
...
> Whatever the reason, in our lifetime, communications has, for most parts
> of the developed world, become virtually free. At least, marginal cost
> approaches 'free'. Think of the venue in which this discussion is
> taking place. Got a marginal cost per minute? What about voice? Does
> your cell phone charge you extra for domestic long distance? What did
> that look like 30 years ago, in the then-current cost context?
...
I ain't got no stinkin' cell phone... :)
I'd simply point out the retrenchment in the communications business
indicates all isn't necessarily well in the cost/business model...
Patriarch wrote:
>
...
> I'm encouraged by the advances in photovoltaic generation and the
> silicon curve. Not for eveywhere, and not for mass-scale replication,
> but for the right application, promising. In California, the payback
> period is promising, without too much tax fiddling, or so it seems.
Niche, yes indeed. Increasing niche, undoubtedly.
> With regard to wind - My grandparents had a windmill since the 50's to
> pump water. In the 70's, they put in a windmill generator, and
> essentially had a zero-price electric bill for 10-12 years. But they
> were on the Mendocino Coast of California, and the wind was pretty
> reliable there.
We had "windcharger" from the time Grandad moved out here or very
shortly thereafter (1915 era)--32 V DC system w/ storage batteries.
Adequate for house lights some appliances, not good for more. Advances
of course make those obsolete and still is again, niche individual
partial solution. Doubt feasible to do for enough to run the farm altho
I've not tried a recalculation w/ current technology.
> Simple answers are often wrong, but if we can get enough folks talking,
> and thinking of alternatives, and recognizing the tradeoffs and risks,
> we might be smart enough to solve some problems. The old ways seem to
> be causing a problem or two, don't they?
Well, there's going to have to be some alternatives for sure. Of
course, nearly abandoning one very practical alternative for central
generation was stupid.
Patriarch wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > Patriarch wrote:
> >>
> > ...
> >> Whatever the reason, in our lifetime, communications has, for most parts
> >> of the developed world, become virtually free. At least, marginal cost
> >> approaches 'free'. Think of the venue in which this discussion is
> >> taking place. Got a marginal cost per minute? What about voice? Does
> >> your cell phone charge you extra for domestic long distance? What did
> >> that look like 30 years ago, in the then-current cost context?
> > ...
> >
> > I ain't got no stinkin' cell phone... :)
>
> Your choice. Some of use prefer to call people, instead of places. Or be
> reached where we are, instead of where our telephone is.
...
And some of prefer to <not> be...I spent too long where it was mandatory
to want anything to do with it now that I don't have to... :)
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
> Joseph Crowe <[email protected]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > Freedom of choice means that we don't get to make
> > our neighbors' decisions and we must respect them. Frankly, I'm
>
> If the neighbors' decisions would not affect all of us that seems very
> fine. ...
But you, of course, know <exactly> what everyone else should be doing
and are more than glad to point it out to them...
Patriarch wrote:
>
> "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in news:YyaSe.49$Ej1.4907
> @news.uswest.net:
...
> > We need to begin unloading the grid and rethinking transport _now_,
> > using the technologies and solutions we have. The solutions we have
> > today will evolve and improve as we go; but if we decide not to do
> > anything until all of that evolution and improvement has been
> > completed, we'll be playing the most dangerous game of brinksmanship
> > ever.
>
> Technological change has almost always incremental, but almost never
> smooth. Maybe social change is similar - I'm not really a qualified
> observer.
And as technology becomes practical (in the view of the user who must
accept it in for it to become widespread) and economically competitive,
that change will begin to occur. Until then, it will remain on the
fringe.
> > One of our biggest problems is that people who have the power to
> > control /anything/ cling to "the way things are", with the fear that
> > if anything changes, they'll lose their ability to shape events as
> > they choose.
>
> One of the more difficult lessons for modern technological man on the
> road from smart to wise is that control is an illusion. We cannot
> control, but rather only influence and react. A lesson those with
> closer ties to agriculture than technology learn early in their
> experience.
But one thing is that the perception of these "people who have the power
to control" don't...the end control is the consumer, economics and the
technology's benefit. Recall the transition to the automobile from
horses. It was not a "top-down" driven decision to get the manure off
the streets although that was recognized as a major problem in large
cities that was the actual driving force behend the paradigm shift. I
don't think the next transition will be, either.
IOW, when you get the "better mousetrap" convenient enough, cheap enough
and implementation painless enough and benefit obvious enough, then and
only then the changeover will occur automagically.
Patriarch wrote:
...
> A major cell phone company had a marketing phrase for a short time: "Work
> is not a place." There's a knife that cuts both ways.
Amen, brother!
I will note that it appears that >99.44% of all cell usage is of
absolutely nothing more than frivolous use and something approaching
probably 90% is annoying to others... :(
And, yeah, I'm a grumpy old man... :)
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> If the neighbors' decisions would not affect all of us that seems very
> >> fine. ...
> >
> > But you, of course, know <exactly> what everyone else should be doing
>
> Not exactly. But I don't want to sit completely idle and watch the
> world collapse.
>
...
But, as I recall, you were the fella' sometime back saying you couldn't
bother to get involved???
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > But, as I recall, you were the fella' sometime back saying you couldn't
> > bother to get involved???
>
> No. I stated that I feel that I can't do anything that really matters,
> and sometimes I feel too depressed and find any action too futile to
> make an effort. Then again I feel it's too early yet to give up and
> die, so it's not a yes or no, but a sometimes more, sometimes less.
No different in the end though, is it?
Morris Dovey wrote:
>
...
> I would guess that the facility we talked about could be improved upon
> using solar furnaces (much of the energy consumption went into
> maintaining silicon in a molten state) and the efficiency of the cells
> significantly improved with the knowledge we've acquired since those
> days (1973-74).
>
> If the cost of production energy were so reduced, the entire economic
> equation would be radically changed...
...
Sounds like time to write a proposal and a business plan and find a
venture capitalist...if it's really doable, <someone> will.
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > Hmmm, I've seen this argument before:
> >
> > "From each according to their ability,
> > to each according to their need."
> >
> > Karl Marx
>
> That is what I think humankind should strive to achieve. The
> alternative ("To each according to his abilities, needs will sort out
> by magic" or "market solution") is not what could be called human.
...
Except nobody has yet figured out a way to actually implement it in
actuality.
As I noted in a recent reply to another of your off-the-wall wishful
thinking proposals--"If pigs could fly.."
IOW, it's an ideal but the only way that has been shown to be practical
on a large scale is based on self-interest. There are a few isolated
cultures still living at or near a bare sustenance level which do
operate more or less on that principle but I don't think you'd be happy
joining them.
Robatoy wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Sounds like time to write a proposal and a business plan and find a
> > venture capitalist...if it's really doable, <someone> will.
>
> errm... as long as there is oil to sell, the Bushistas won't like it if
> you compete with them. The venture capitalists might get a tap on the
> shoulder.
> Or, the proposal might get 'Roved' by having the originator of the
> proposal made out to be a crack-pot.
Right...and the black helicoptors will be right behind w/ the guys in
the white suits... :(
Joseph Crowe wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > Joseph Crowe wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >
> >>Ironically, Toyota took its ECHO out of the U.S. market...it gets
> >>42mpg on the highway at around a sustained 75mph. That's just
> >>dumb IMO.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > I'm sure if it were selling in the US that wouldn't have happened.
>
> I'm uncertain what you mean here. The ECHO was selling in the U.S.
> until the year 2006 models. ...
I mean if it were selling in sufficient numbers as to be a profitable as
opposed to marginal item ....
Patriarch wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote in news:4319B3E8.D6F8DA91
> @swko.dot.net:
>
> <snip>
> > IOW, when you get the "better mousetrap" convenient enough, cheap enough
> > and implementation painless enough and benefit obvious enough, then and
> > only then the changeover will occur automagically.
> >
>
> You mean like cell phones? ;-)
Yep....except, of course, for us grumpy old guys... :)
Patriarch wrote:
...
> One of our most memorable vacations was effectively traveling from
> coverage-free zone to coverage-free zone for two weeks. When we pulled
> into Jackson Hole, Wyoming, the darn thing beeped, and had 14 voice
> messages.
>
> Should have left it unplugged.
Yep. :)
> John Madden said that for him, success was not having to tie his shoes, if
> he didn't want to. Measure yours however you wish.
Yep.
Being able to choose to whom I respond and more importantly, when, is
not the topmost measure of my contentment but certainly well up on the
list.
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > Unless the Acme Corp has a gun to Joe's head (which is a criminal act)
> > he is free to move elsewhere,
>
> So I take for granted that you, if standing next to the US border to
> Mexico, cry out "Mr. Bush, tear down this fence!".
Actually, he pretty much has already... :(
OTOH, the point of the comment was regarding movement within the US of
(presumably) US citizens...
> > start his own company,
>
> Most people cannot do that, either from personal disposition ...
That isn't a "cannot", that is a "choose not" by definition of
"personal".
> ...or from lack of resources. The money market and interest rates basically > mean that the more desperate you need money the less you get it or are able
> to afford it.
Where there's a will, there's a way. At present, interest rates are at
near record lows and help for those starting a new venture in the US is
available in many places and forms from private and government sources.
>
> > or attempt to find a better job locally.
>
> With workers in ample supply the market makes better jobs scarce.
...
There are myriads of jobs going begging that pay better than welfare.
Granted, some of them actually required qetting up off one's duff and
doing something, but...
Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
> Juergen Hannappel wrote:
> >
> > Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >
> > > Unless the Acme Corp has a gun to Joe's head (which is a criminal act)
> > > he is free to move elsewhere,
> >
> > So I take for granted that you, if standing next to the US border to
> > Mexico, cry out "Mr. Bush, tear down this fence!".
>
> Actually, he pretty much has already... :(
>
I should rephrase that to "we" as opposed to "he"--"he" just hasn't done
anything significant to reverse existing practice...
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
...
> Earnestly: If Tim is in favour of freedom and free markets this would
> include freedom to move elsewhere, and that implies not only freedom
> to go away from one place but also to arrive at another. The labour
> market would according to his beliefs either happily supply all the
> migrants with jobs or make migration sufficiently unatractive not to
> happen. A free labour market produces lots of competition among
> workers, obviuosly.
Earnestly--of course, this was meant in the context of established
immigration law and recognized territorial borders.
Some places have more freedom to make moves such as you suggest than
others.
Illegal immigration into the US is primarily the result of significantly
better opportunities here than in the locations from which the emigrants
came. Sometimes this emigration is tacitly condoned or even encouraged
by the governments in these countries.
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > Some places have more freedom to make moves such as you suggest than
> > others.
>
> Obviously you are free to leave poor places but not free to enter rich
> ones. Kind of assymetrical freedom.
Unfortunately, there is no advantage in making every place "equally
poor". Far better is to fix the problems in the poorer economies rather
than tear down the more successful.
> > Illegal immigration into the US is primarily the result of significantly
> > better opportunities here than in the locations from which the emigrants
> > came.
>
> The illegality of this immigration can be viewd as a regulation of the
> labour market in the US, iow a lack of freedom.
It can also be viewed as an attempt by some of the other countries to
solve their problems by unloading them onto somebody else. That there
have to be some boundaries on absolute freedom in order to maintain a
semblance of society is an inevitable limitation of being a societal
species.
> > Sometimes this emigration is tacitly condoned or even encouraged
> > by the governments in these countries.
>
> Otherwise what would be the alternative? Forbidding their citicens
> the right to leave the country? Build "Berlin Walls" around their
> borders?
I believe every country has the right to set policy for emigration and
immigration. I also believe the do have the duty to protect their
borders from illegal immigration in order to provide stability and all
the other advantages of a free society for those who do live an orderly
and law-abiding life therein. I have no problem w/ immigration--it's the
"illegal" part that's the problem.
Ideally, those which are having difficulty in keeping their populations
clothed and fed would solve their own problems. Unfortunately, in most
instances the cause of the problem either is or is heavily influenced by
corruption in that selfsame government and non-capitalistic economic
systems. Often the problem is also compounded by religious
proscriptions against any form of population control.
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > Unfortunately, there is no advantage in making every place "equally
> > poor". Far better is to fix the problems in the poorer economies rather
> > than tear down the more successful.
>
> Very true. But if you impose a market constraint on labour (which an
> immigration limit is) you have in consequence to allow for traffic
> limitations in the form of quotas and tariffs in the poorer economies
> to allow their problem fixing. (Which of course raises the problem of
> limits in the very developped countries...)
There is no "market constraint" on labor. In fact, labor would fare
better in places w/ more demand. The problem "requiring" immigrant
labor in the US is primarily self-created by the development of
generations of persons living off the state in large cities and isolated
from the rest of society more by choice and self-imposed culture than by
necessity. If those people would send their kids to school, ensure they
learned to read and write and work, they would solve both their poverty
problems and the shortage of labor in large part.
> [...]
>
> > It can also be viewed as an attempt by some of the other countries to
> > solve their problems by unloading them onto somebody else. That there
> > have to be some boundaries on absolute freedom in order to maintain a
> > semblance of society is an inevitable limitation of being a societal
> > species.
>
> Yes, I agree with that.
>
> [...]
>
> > the other advantages of a free society for those who do live an orderly
> > and law-abiding life therein. I have no problem w/ immigration--it's the
> > "illegal" part that's the problem.
>
> The "illegal" part comes down to not allowing in those who have
> nothing but themself to offer and no special talents, while those with
> money or skills sought after can get in. The unfavoured could be as
> orderly and law-abiding as the favoured!
They can be, and many are. The problem comes when they skirt the law
and step over the border "illegaly". At that point, I draw the line.
> > Ideally, those which are having difficulty in keeping their populations
> > clothed and fed would solve their own problems. Unfortunately, in most
>
> Ideally. But I don't see how that can happen.
> > instances the cause of the problem either is or is heavily influenced by
> > corruption in that selfsame government
>
> Yes.
>
> > and non-capitalistic economic systems.
>
> No.
Yes.
How the above can happen is by implementing both of the above--it's
worked everywhere it's been tried.
> > Often the problem is also compounded by religious
> > proscriptions against any form of population control.
As well as this one...
> ... which is one of the most evil problems there are, and should be on
> the forefront of action.
...
Well, get off your duff and quit complaining and do something about it.
I just gave you the prescription.
"Leon" wrote in message
> You would think that we learned nothing from the Enron scam when they sold
> energy to California. They bought and sold energy back and forth between
> non existing companies to jack the price up. Now we have probably 8 major
> oil companies that have merged into 4 and have shut down 1/2 of their
> refining capacity. Essentially eliminating 1/2 of the competition. On
top
> of that they use the media as a gauge as to how far they can raise the
> prices. The mere suggestion from the media of prices going up and the oil
> companies follow the news lead "immediately". If the media would report
the
> news and not speculate what may happen perhaps the fuel prices would go
> down. Has any one really seen a shortage? The oil companies have created
> the so called shortage by cutting production.
Absolutely ... despite protestations from the industry and government, the
.25/gallon jump we saw in one afternoon day before yesterday has 'gouging'
written all over it.
The bullshit about justifying the increase due to having to pay more for
replacement is just that. Any increased cost in replacement is passed on the
consumer, post delivery, but the 20,000 gallons in the storage tanks under
those stations on Tuesday morning made for one hell of a profit after sale
that evening.
Not to mention one factor no one ever brings up ... refinery raw stock is
commodity traded and, as such, much of what is being refined is bought on
long term contract at a much lower cost than the current price per barrel.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> No argument from me, Leon. However, the status quo was that the feds
> were handling it...or at least supposed to handle it. They didn't.
> If the NO gov't had no choice but to build up the protection, I have a
> feeling it would have happened.
> I could be wrong...not as if THAT hasn't happened before :)
Status Quo describes the situation exactly. No one wants to take charge of
getting things done and wants to blame some other government entity.
Politics as usual regardless of which side you are on. 4 years ago we had
similar flooding in Houston and the city government looked the other way up
until that point. Houston has always had some flooding with each rain storm
but it took 35 inches of rain one weekend during a tropical storm to open
the city leaders eyes.
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:52:14 -0400, Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Lee Michaels" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Essentially as long as I restrict myself to machinery and the bike itself,
>> it is watchable. Everything else is crap.
>
>I tracked down a cpl of episodes.
>Fabulous bikes, indeed. WAY too much theatrical diatribe bullshit.
>That artificial deadline crap gets reallly stale quick.
Could be worse: try "American Hot Rod". The Teutels are organizational
*geniuses* compared to that megalomaniac Coddington. The funniest bit
is how he is genuinely *surprised* when his best people leave to work
for his competition.
Lee
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Why hasn't *that* money been
> > directed to shoring up their own levies? Why should the nation be
> > responsible for this?
>
> Because you're all Americans and in this together? Because the
> protection of the population is a federal mandate when it includes large
> infrastructures.
No - we pull together when disaster strikes, but to suggest that the New
Orleans levies are a national problem is wrong. Like the idiots that build
houses on mud hills in California in full awareness that they are going to
slide down the hill in a good rain storm, New Orleans knew well what they
were facing. It is not a federal mandate to assume the liability to correct
every bad decision made by a population.
>
> People are paying with their lives every day because decisions are made
> on a federal level.
I love a good rhetorical point, but they seldom really say much. I do love
them though...
>
> Using your theory, why not use all those tourist dollars to fix what
> just went wrong?
Ahhh - that would be the difference between responding to a disaster and
assuming responsibility for all of the infrastructure of an area. Your
point was that the govt was remiss in cutting funding for NO. I don't fully
agree.
> Should Biloxi casino revenues got to fix NO? It is so
> easy to step aside and play Whack-A-Mole with 'who is responsible'...
Which is precisely what I saw you doing in your post that caused me to
reply.
> bottom line is that a disaster of this magnitude was a known risk.
> Plenty of people have pointed out that those levees were dangerous.
Not dangerous. They were designed for Cat 3. It was a design decision
based on a lot of factors. Cat 5 upgrades were being designed but that's no
overnight process. NO was also allowing itself to be too dependent upon the
Corp of Engineers and govt financing. There was a greater role that NO
could have and should have played in protecting themselves.
The
> Army Engineers knew. They wanted more money to rectify a known
> vulnerability. But you got to cut somewhere if you wanna give your
> buddies a tax break.
Or, if money does not grow on trees. Tell me - do you complain at all about
the amount of tax money you pay? Are you disgrunteled at all about the way
that money is spent? Why is it so easy to throw this over the wall to Bush
(don't get me wrong, I'm no supporter of Bush)? Just an easy target?
> But the carnage was put to good use, the gallon is
> now over 3 bucks.... that oughtta keep some of those buddies happy.
Now that's a point we can both agree on in this discussion.
>
>
> Infrastructure is a federal responsibility when it is a federal agency
> which has to bail out the victims of a disaster.
Not all infrastructure is federal responsibility. In every city, every area
of the country, infrastructure is a local responsibility. The feds always
come to the aid of disaster victims. That a disaster could strike an area
is not reason to assign federal responsibility to infrastructure. That
logic could apply to every area of this country.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> One would hope that there will be an accounting the future for those
> institutions repsonsible for the maintenance of this infrastructure.
LOL... Being in Houston we may be seeing more than the rest of the country.
Anyway the Today Show interviewed the Deputy Chief of Emergency Preparedness
in New Orleans Sunday morning. IIRC that was his title. When asked how
they were doing in preparation for the storm, he said every one was getting
out of town just fine. Most of his answers centered around the roads going
out of town. Finally the interviewer bluntly asked if New Orleans was
prepared for a storm this big. His answer was NO, we have just been hoping
that this day would never come. Yeah, that will keep the storms away. Wish
in one hand and Shi_ in the other and see which fill up the fastest.
Actually it looks like the citizens of New Orleans are having to watch their
city fill up the fastest. God help them.
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:45:04 -0500, Patriarch
<[email protected]> wrote:
[American HotRod]
>Without the ffwd on the TiVo, it had become unwatchable. Overhaulin' had
>stolen it's creative thunder, too.
Heh. Given the way Coddington feels about Chip Foose, I wish someone
would tell him that on-air, just so we could watch his head explode.
Lee
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> ...
>
>>... If more people were exposed to nature as it is - for example
>>by hunting, fishing, and camping without the benefit of a microwave, RV,
>>and satellite TV - they would develop a much finer appreciation of the vast
>>power and potential for devistation found in natural processes. Instead,
>>we get the earth-worshipping freaks as the only contact many people have
>>with real nature.
>
>
> I think we would simply get more costly rescues required, myself... :(
That's fine - just make the recipients pay for them. At the very least,
de-federalize it and make it a state-run thing.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:26:04 -0700, Lee DeRaud <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:14:10 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> I'll also admit to sitting in a somewhat continuing wonder that metal,
>>> although the tolerances are so close, seems a much more forgiving medium
>>> to work in than wood.
>>
>>I do recall one episode where Paul Jr. was beating on a bike with a pretty
>>heavy hammer to get something to fit.
>
>You'd think they'd learn not to fit stuff to 0.005" tolerances and
>then send it out for powder-coating.
>
>Lee
Even before the days of powder coating, I remember watching my dad and
granddad replacing some part on the baler. Part wouldn't fit until they
filed the paint off the mating surfaces.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
<SNIP>
> While my heart goes out to the people who've suffered these losses, as
> someone else here pointed out - they've decided to live and build in a
> hurricane zone at or below sea level. There are plenty of places to live
> that do not have this ongoing and consistent risk. An "act of God" kind
> of disaster is one thing, but constantly placing yourself in harms way
> is another. But is it any wonder? A good part of the society spends its
> time shooting itself in the foot and then screaming for the rest of us
> to pay restitution. I have no ill will and wish no harm upon the people
> effected by this storm, but somehow, someday, people in this nation are
> going to have to start taking responsibility for their own choices.
As I've watched this tragedy unfold, it occurs to me that there is
a story within the story. Had the levys held and the pumps worked,
this would still have been a disaster but likely not on the scale
of what happened with the inundation of water after the levy breaches.
One would hope that there will be an accounting the future for those
institutions repsonsible for the maintenance of this infrastructure.
In the mean time, we're already seeing the politcal parasites
trying to cash in on this. Witness this bit of unbelievable
yammering:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/30/230457.shtml
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>Duane Bozarth wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Each year we see *less* land needed for farming, for example,
>>>>because farming is becoming incrementally more efficient. This frees up
>>>>the land for other uses. ...
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, far more farm land is lost to urban expansion than is taken
>>>out of production owing to more efficient operations. Much of this has
>>>been prime land.
>>
>>Hang on a second. What you say may be true in some/many cases, but it
>>does not negate my point. Even *with* the loss of farm land (for
>>all reasons), American farmers continue to produce food in abundance.
>>So much so, that some estimate that the American farmer alone produces
>>enough food to feed the entire planet at a subsistence level.
>>The point is that farm land is being freed up precisely because it
>>is *not* needed to feed us.
>
>
> I disagree on the cause for it and the use of the term "freed up"...that
> farming in the US still manages to hang on despite all attacks is a
> credit to those of us who continue to provide for the many who don't
> have a clue as to where there substinence came from...
I happen to have a number of farmers in my family, though they have not
done so recently. Farming is no different than any other business. It
requires hard work, has risk, and can be very rewarding (personally and
financially). You can also lose it all. But farming in the US is not
just "hanging on". It is a thriving enterprise, the proof being the
enormous amount of food being produced annually as prices remain stable
or even decline in some cases. I tire of the constant whining about the
"plight" of the farmers - a good many of whom feed at the public trough
in the form of obscene Federal farm subsidies.
What is threatened to some degree is private ownership of small farms.
But there is no God-given right to "my family's property" any more than
there is to "my family's drugstore" or "my family's hardware store".
Large corporations are making farming more efficient and cheaper and
that's mostly what all the grumbling is about. This is no different than
Ace hardware killing all the small hardware stores or Home Depot doing
it to the local lumberyard, or Walmart blowing away the local appliance
store. In each of these cases (including farming) the large corp has
brought generally lower prices and better selection to the markets they
serve. If they had not, they would not have prospered. In other words,
the large corporations have brought economies of scale to their markets
(including farming).
Farming is a business, no more no less. It is not special, does not
deserve some kind of holy reverence, and it's practicioners - most all
very hard working I agree - are not entitled to be insulated from the
realities of the marketplace. In no way am I denigrating just how hard
farmers work. They do. But so do fishermen, engineers, doctors, lawyers,
corporate executives, plumbers, policemen, firemen, and electricians.
*Anyone* who has a durable and sucessful profession has to work hard.
However, hard work, in and of itself, simply is not a "get out of jail
free" card to avoid the inevitable forces of market action.
I stand by my statement - farming today is more efficient and requires
less land than ever. And this does indeed make land available for other
uses. If the farmers still actually needed that land to survive, they'd
never sell it in the first place to enable urban sprawl.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Lee DeRaud" wrote in message
> You'd think they'd learn not to fit stuff to 0.005" tolerances and
> then send it out for powder-coating.
Hehe ... now who's gonna clean this damn monitor off?
Now you know what I meant about the initial comparison with "brain
surgeons". LOL
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 02:48:57 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>There is so much quality and creativity there, why would you want to pollute
>it with artificially contrived soap operas? Particularly as a discovery
>channel show. They don't do this crap with their other shows.
What I find interesting, as I've watched American Chopper almost from
the beginning, is that its evolution has been to a point where the
soap opera part was almost intolerable and then has receded a bit to
where Senior is far more human and the "drama" seems almost contrived
as a parody of itself. But the Paulie/Vinnie/Rick dynamic is really
good and I really enjoy watching them fabricate.
On the other hand, the sister show (same channel, same producers)
American HotRod has basically imploded. Although it's just television,
they've managed to make Boyd Coddingtion look like a narcissistic
martinet, driven two of the major characters off the show (and out of
the shop), and temporarily a third, and even yielded a wry,
bitchslapping putdown out of Stacey David on a recent Trucks episode
(I love that show, too). I don't even bother watching it any more.
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
On 6 Sep 2005 11:09:08 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:38:41 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>
>...
>> >
>>
>> There was not a lack of NG troops, the LA governor just failed to request
>> them. But then, why let a few facts get in the way of a really good rant.
>>
>
>I've read that the La Governor has still refused to put the La
>Guard at the disposal of FEMA.
>
>Just now I am listening to Scott McClellan who has been asked why
>Bush waited until Thursday to release the National Guard. Mr
>McCLellan has not offered your explanation, he just sort of blew
>it off. So, what is your source? I'm willing to believe it,
>but not if the only source I can find was Rush Limbaugh or the
>700 club.
>
Among other places (none of whom were Rush or 700 club), it was in an AP
story on FoxNews web page this weekend (I don't save cites, and I've got
other things to do now). It was couched in a slanted attempt at
blame-Bush, but read, "traditionally the federal government defers
deploying the National Guard until requested by the state governor ..."
Also in several stories were comments regarding the fact that the governor
had lost contact with her observers in the city, but failed to request the
Guard until contact could be re-established (sounds like a good plan in an
unpredictable disaster, doesn't it? "If you don't hear from us, assume
everything's fine")
>Remember the movie _Goldfinger_? Bond is incredulous at the
>plan to knock over Fort Knox, pointing out that Goldfinger
>could not possibly remove the gold fast enough to make off
>with the lot of it. But that wasn't Goldfinger's plan, his
>plan was to use a dirty nuclear bomb to contaminate the gold
>at Ft Knox so as to dramatically increase the value of the gold
>he already posessed.
>
>I don't know if the Bushes own any of the contracts for Iraqi
>oil today, but don't you think they still own the contracts for
>the same oil they owned previously? Seen the price of oil
>recently?
>
For a commodity such as oil, that's only a short-term gain. If you are
in for the long haul, the money is in keeping the oil flowing.
... snip
>
>> What's wrong with this picture? Seems like in your world,
>> if Bush and his evil henchmen were really looking out for the oil
>> companies, they would have poured more boatloads of taxpayer money into
>> shoring up the LA and NO levee infrastructure, sparing no expense to
>> protect those oil assets.
>
>The oil rigs are mostly offshore. Shoring up the levies and
>protecting La and NO would have done nothing to protect them.
>As it stands, the oil itself is perfectly safe and more valuable
>than ever.
>
It's not the oil rigs -- it's the refinineries that have been affected.
It's 25% of US *refining* capacity -- that *is* on shore.
>>
>> >>
>> >> I'm sure had the government taken the opposite approach, positioning huge
>> >>amounts of personnel and material in place for a large disaster, and had
>> >>the hurricane not turned out to be a major disaster, Bush would have been
>> >>decried for the waste of time and materiel and the impact on the National
>> >>Guard's lives and morale over what turned out to be nothing.
>
>At Scott McClellan's news conference today one of the reporters
>told Mr McClellan that according to one of the relevant Generals,
>assets were positioned to move to the Gulf when Katrina crossed
>Florida. (Sounds like good preparation on the part of the Bush
>administration). However, they were not released by Bush until
>Thursday. So, if you can direct us to the information as to why,
>that would fill in the gap in the informaiton here.
>
As I indicated, over the weekend, it appears that the governor of LA
didn't request the other states' NG troops until 2 days into the disaster.
Some more comments from that article point out that the fed has mobilized
NG without state request as during the 9/11 attacks, but that was done as a
matter of national security, not to interfere in what is essentially a
state's issue.
... snip
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Leon" wrote in message
> I am for as little government intervention as possible but I believe that
> the Oil companies, insurance companies, and electric companies should be
> limited to the "percent" of profit that they can make.
Texas did that for a long time with the Utilities ... too bad the rural
common sense exhibited by early legislators got polluted by the
carpetbaggers mentality of the 70's and 80's, and the MBA's ability to buy
politicians from the big cities bent on "getting theirs".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>>...transporting the produce fom the agrarian
>>>states where it grows to the populated places where its converted to
>>>waste again...
>>
>>That's a fixed factor independent of the production cost--it's simply a
>>factor of life that city folk can not produce the stuffs they eat.
>
>
> But if more peopl;e were involved in argarian production and less in
> business consultancy the overall amount of transportation could be
> less, if you had smaller towns (which would also be less hazardous in
> case of hurricanes and other disasters; one would think the SF
> earthquakes, the bombings of Hiroshime, Hamburg, Dresden, the 9/11
> attacks and now the flooding of NO, togheter with stuff like the
> yearly stampedes at Mecca should persuade anyone not to live in huge
> clusters of many people).
>
Let's test this theory in the realm of Reality. We have a very long
running example of *exactly* this sort of agrarian centric economy.
Of the 10,000 or so recorded years of human existence, about 9800
of them were primarily agrarian. Let's call those the "A Years".
About 200, give or take, have been industrial. Let's call those
the "I Years". Now, let's compare:
A Years I Years
-----------------------------------------
Everyone farms to eat Specialist farmers feed us all better than ever
Short lifespan Long lifespan
(even shorter for women)
Lots of disease Vastly diminishing disease
Lots of starvation Minimal famine
(Insufficient Food) (Plenty of food - caused by tribal politics)
Grueling work environment Comfortable work environment (mostly)
Many mouths to feed Families only have "replacement" children
(need them to farm)
Filthy environment Overall much cleaner environment
Rotten teeth Great dentistry
No free time Lots of free time
Lots of political oppression An increasing number of Free Peoples
Yeah, that's just what I want to do - go back to an agrarian base for
most people so we can live short, brutish, lives, watch our many children
die or starve, watch our women die at 30, live with filth, disease,
and misery.
Go read a history book.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:design->
> Errrmmm... I didn't know who the Teutels were, so I DAGSed it... and
> found this:
>
> http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/features/occ_visit.html
>
> Guess that means that people will watch anything.
They do build some nifty bikes. One show is OK to watch but the same
chatter (screaming), over and over, gets boring on the second episode. Just
watch the last five minutes to see the end product.
Jason Quick wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote :
>
>
>>Let us inspect just what this very "human" system of yours requires.
>>It is possible for people who are Capitalists to also be criminals.
>>But true Capitalism involves the *voluntary* exchange of goods
>>and services among consenting individuals.
>
>
> Just as "true" Communism (whatever that is) involves the voluntary
> participation of all to make sure that everyone has everything they need,
> blah blah.
Absolutely false. There has never been any sort of Communism
(or for that matter any other kind of collectivism) at any scale
that was not initiated and maintained by *force*. There was nothing
"voluntary" about it for most of its victims.
>
>
>>That is, criminality
>>in commerce is not *innate* to Capitalism - it is simple crime.
>
>
> See, here's the trouble...capitalism is amoral. It's just an economic
And collectivism is moral? Were you asleep during the 20th century?
Capitalism is amoral because it proposes only to create an environment
for voluntary economic cooperation. It does not speak to matters of
personal morality as these are outside its scope. But the various collectivist
schemes are all inherently *immoral* because they require the use of
force and the subjugation of their constituencies.
> system, one that lends itself to criminality as well as any other. Yes,
> communism sucks and involves the use of force to operate. But there's
> violence inherent in capitalism as well - for example, Joe Sixpack is
This is irredeemable nonsense. Hundreds of millions of people demonstrate
daily the ability to engage voluntarily in Capitalist trade and commerce,
substantially without fraud, without force, and without threat.
> "free," if he doesn't like the going rate for widget assembly at Acme Corp.
> But the truth is that if Acme Corp has Joe over a barrel, by being the only
> game in town, he doesn't have a viable choice other than his kids starving.
> If that isn't force, I dunno what is.
>
Unless the Acme Corp has a gun to Joe's head (which is a criminal act)
he is free to move elsewhere, start his own company, or attempt to
find a better job locally. Like all defenders of collectivism, you
confuse the lack of desirable outcomes (by your measure) with force.
The two are not equivalent and never have been. The fact that Joe
does not have the best possible choices does not make him a victim
of force. Now let's examine the collectivist alternative. Every single
option open to Joe in a collectivist system has the muted threat of
force behind it. His work product belongs not to him but to the
collective, and they will rip it out of his hands as they see fit
with complete disregard for his personal circumstances in most cases.
That's why Capitalism led to more good for more people in less time and
why collectivism - in all its ugly forms - did, does, and will always
be a killer of mankind.
> Effiicent allocation of scarce resources - capitalism's goal, AIUI - will
> inevitably lead to some folks being left out in the cold, so to speak. A
And collectivism will lead to almost *all* people being left in the cold.
Collectivist systems are run by elites who benefit at the expens of the
masses. Even the "good" collectivist examples have a significant
population of victims to prop up the system on an ongoing basis.
> society (yes, such a thing exists) then has a choice - assist those who
> cannot provide for themselves, in the interest of maintaining a semblace of
Absent profound physical or mental handicaps, there is no such thing
as an adult that "cannot provide for themselves" unless there's a
collectivist in the woodpile so polluting the economic system of a society
so as to make it unworkable for everyone.
> order, or allow them to suffer, turning what was merely a poor, downtrodden
> underclass into an angry, desperate underclass. Then you get the French
> Revolution and the Reign of Terror.
Emergencies and extraordinary circumstances like war may well require
a brief time of collective action for mutual surivival, but these
are not the norm, nor should they serve as a basis for defining
principle. You might want to read Hayek's "Road To Serfdom" for
a brilliant explication of this very topic.
>
>
>>Collectivism is a deadly, *anti* human ideology with ample historic
>>examples of its innate evils.
>
>
> You've read too much Rand.
And you haven't read enough. I can cite example after example of
collectivist systems that have oppressed their subjects. I can cite
example after example of Capitalist systems that have not. I can
demonstrate 9700 or so years of recorded collectivist action that were
nothing but a misery for mankind and 300 years or so of Capitalism that
have been an immense success for a large and growing number of citizens.
But you apologists for collectivist theories never did like Reality
intruding on your ideation. You much prefer to cook up the phony "Joe is
oppressed by the Acme Corp." examples rather than inspecting observable
Reality for about 5 minutes. See, my ethnic cousins have undergone
generations of oppression at the hands of collectivist butchers. When we
finally made it to the West, we were horrified to discover that the
pointed-headed ideolouges of the Western academy had fallen in love with
the very system that had been killing us for generations. Rand is hardly
a unique voice in her condemnation of collective political systems -
she's just the only one heard much in the West - the rest of them all
died in concentration camps, reeducation farms, and gulags while
American and European professors had cocktails to discuss the virtues of
Marx, Engels, and Stalin.
>
>
>>If the resources were fairly paid for in a consensual act of trade,
>>there is no crime or moral foul.
>
>
> Problem is, someone is often getting hurt along the way, by being deprived
> of a livelihood due to their land being seized, being abused as part of a
> labor force, or screwed in some other way by their own government as part of
> the "consensual act of trade." Then you have to ask if the foreign company
> is being party to a crime in those cases, and if they are, what ought to be
> done about it.
This whole paragraph is incoherent. Theft, without exception, is a
crime. This has nothing to do with Capitalism proper. Moreover, *no*
system can honestly promise that no one will be "hurt along the way". It
is a condition of life that some or all of us will be "hurt" at some
point in our lifetimes. The fact that Capitalism doesn't make this go
away completely doesn't somehow make your collectivist systems better.
In actual fact, Capitalism sees to it that the "hurt" affects fewer
people, is less severe, and doesn't last as long as it might otherwise.
But in you fine collectivist system, there is a *guarantee* of damange
to some or most citizens, inflicted by the system itself as it attempts
to manage outcomes by stealing from the many to benefit the few.
>
> > Even when the initial action is criminal, it is sometimes possible
>
>>to create benefit for the harmed party. The early American settlers
>>were abusive to both the native AmerIndians and African slaves, a
>>clearly immoral act. Yet, today, the descendants of these people
>>living in America benefit immesurably from the resultant system
>>(as do all other inhabitants of the country).
>
>
> Perhaps, though many Native Americans still live in abject poverty and to
> this day are being royally screwed by the US Government. I like Chris
> Rock's analogy that being black in America is like having an uncle pay your
> college tuition after molesting you - there's clearly a benefit, but you're
> gonna feel rather ambivalent about it. And rightly so.
I stipulated that the original acts were immoral. However, it is
similarly immoral to place culpability for those acts on contemporary
people who had nothing whatsover to do with them. Chris Rock is an ass.
He perpetuates a culture of permanent victimhood (as do Sharpton,
Jackson, and all the rest of the race baiters the ideological Left). It
is precisely that conditioning as permanent victim that keeps the
decendents of those originally oppressed peoples poor and miserable. For
a pungent example of what happens when you tell people they are victims
and not responsible for their own actions, note the gunfire directed at
rescue helos in New Orleans or the rape gangs in the Metrodome in
Houston.
No American today can legitimately claim the existence of
institutionalized oppression of the sort seen during slavery or the
Indian genocides. No American today can legitimately claim to be so
oppressed as to have no good choices. No American today can legitimately
deflect their personal responsibilty on the altar of "they were mean to
my forebears".
>
>
>>>DOE claims (for 2000) 20 tons/capita in the US,
>>>something like 10 tons/capita in Germany. So the answer seems clear.
>>
>>That's just Germany. Last I looked (and it may well have changed),
>>Europe as a whole was worse than the US.
>
>
> Eh. According to this page:
>
> http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/top20_2000.gif
>
> the US is at the top of the list, but if you were to combine the EU
> countries they would be much higher. Trick is, the US is highest in both
Compare similar geographies and you get a Europe dumping a lot of
Satanic Gasses (tm) into the air.
> per-capita CO2 emissions *and* percentage of total emissions for the world,
> while the EU countries have much lower total percentages.
> The only counter I personally have to that is that while the US produces
> about 25% of the CO2, we're also a huge economic engine. The reason all
> those developing countries get a pass on Kyoto is that their polluting is
> peanuts when taken as a percentage of the whole.
>
>
>>Science is not about *OPINION* it is about repeatable experiment.
>>
>>See:
>>
>> http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/GW-Aliens-Crichton.html
>> http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html
>
>
> You're citing Crichton in support of...what? Crichton is not a atmospheric
> scientist, nor does he have any scientific credibility when it comes to his
> statements on global warming. "State of Fear" is not a scientific work,
> it's science fiction. His statements are hardly more than opinion
> themselves.
Did you actually read the articles in question? I was specifically
responding the OP's conention that scientists had a consistent opinion
about GW. My point - and Crichton's popular level articles - is that
*opinion* is irrelevant in science. *Consensus* is irrelevant. The
method of science requires peer-level review and indepentent
verification of the results (by duplication of experimental results,
confirmation of calculations, etc.) So far, this has *not* happened in
the GW arena. But he Warming Boosters just love to trot out consensus
argument and those need to be swatted to the curb as the non-scientific
nonsense they are. Chrichton addresses this notion rather well, I
thought.
>
>
>>Science does, of course, propose theoretical models which then
>>need to be tested in the court of Reality. Every single GW model
>>propsed so far has been VASTLY wrong in overstating the rate and severity
>>of warming. *Not a single one* (thus far) demonstrates unambigious
>>statistical correlation between human action and GW which long predates
>>human industrialization.
>
>
> Care to support that with, you know, citations?
Let me help you with elementary logic. I claim *so far* there has been
no unambiguous demonstration that human action causes GW. This allows
for the possibility that such demonstration may occur in the future.
All you have to do to, you know, refute it, is cite one such
demonstration of correlation and causality. I cannot give you a citation
for something that does not exist.
As to the vast overstatement of GW results, there are many examples
from the beginning of climate science and its models (remember when the
Big Bad Wolf was global *cooling*??) In addition to the aforementioned
book by Ballings and Michaels, you'll find lots of references at:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=718860
http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/newsepp.html
http://www.junkscience.com/
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> As always, the Wreck simplifies the inherently complex, while
> complicating the demonstrably simple - and Peer Review is what the guy
> Peeing next to you thinks.
Tom:
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it. "
-- Gene Spafford, 1992
;-)
--
Life. Nature's way of keeping meat fresh. -- Dr. Who
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:54:36 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>Utter nonsense. Austria, Lithuania, and Germany, among others have lower birth
>rates than has Italy, and there are nearly _fifty_ nations whose birth rates
>are lower than France's.
Oh goody. There'll be fewer people around to post this crap in a
woodworking conference.
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:54:36 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
>>Aside from Vatican City itself, Italy has the highest proportion
>>of Catholics of any country today. France is second highest,
>>or nearly so.
>
>Also not correct. Italy isn't even in the top ten, and France just barely
>makes the top _fifty_.
If I may take the term "proportion" as equivalent to "percentage of
total population", and if I may limit my enquiry to Roman Catholics,
the following seems to be correct:
Portugal 94%
Ireland 88.4%
Mexico 88%
Argentina 88%
Italy 87%
France 42%
United State 26%
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Roman-Catholics-by-country#By_country
Now, if we introduce the concept of "Cultural Catholics", as distinct
from "Practicing Catholics", the numbers would be skewed to a
tremendous, although not completely indecipherable degree.
Italy, for instance, has a high percentage of "Cultural Catholics",
while maintaining a birth rate which precludes that entire number from
being countenanced as "Practicing Catholics".
As always, the Wreck simplifies the inherently complex, while
complicating the demonstrably simple - and Peer Review is what the guy
Peeing next to you thinks.
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
> I think the general public has become "wimps" in many ways besides
> weather. That doesn't minimize the effect on those affected, but there
> is a rising level of unawareness of what Nature has to offer and an
> apparent expectation that the results of poor judgement should be
> mitigated by others than those who made the poor decision.
Remember the sawstop discussion a few weeks ago? Who was that masked man
that said:
".... with the proliferation of dumbshits in this country who are a danger
to themselves, lawyers and government will go to great lengths to insure
they don't suffer the consequences of their stupidity so they can continue
to take a dump in the gene pool."
LOL ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05
"Robatoy" wrote in message
> I tracked down a cpl of episodes.
> Fabulous bikes, indeed. WAY too much theatrical diatribe bullshit.
> That artificial deadline crap gets reallly stale quick.
>
> What have we become??
I'll certainly catch it when I have the time for TV, usually while waiting
for supper, and in lieu of local news or tragedy TV.
Who'd a thunk anyone would watch a metal shop soap opera? However, when you
scratch the surface, you soon notice that it has all the characters, and
many of the elements, of a Shakespeare play. From an obvious King Lear,
demanding attention and attempting to exercise unlimited power, to the
buffoon who is more than he appears. (shouldn't be hard to figure out the
cast from that). And while I would knock the Teutles head's together if I
had the chance, you have to appreciate a guy like Vinnie who,
philosophically speaking, represents all the those in the world who actually
get things done despite the bullshit they have to put up with.
I'll also admit to sitting in a somewhat continuing wonder that metal,
although the tolerances are so close, seems a much more forgiving medium to
work in than wood.
My bet is that most wooddorkers watch American Chopper strictly for seeing
the end product emerge from a pile of raw material, which is what we do ...
and you gotta appreciate the parallels of the shop, the tools, and the big
iron.
If nothing else, a study of how you can rationalize what you find
interesting as worthy of your attention, despite the blanket it's wrapped
in.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05
In article <YvTSe.1971$nq.230@lakeread05>, "Jason Quick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>See, here's the trouble...capitalism is amoral. It's just an economic
>system, one that lends itself to criminality as well as any other. Yes,
>communism sucks and involves the use of force to operate.
Do you not see the glaring contradiction inherent between your last two
sentences?
>But there's
>violence inherent in capitalism as well - for example, Joe Sixpack is
>"free," if he doesn't like the going rate for widget assembly at Acme Corp.
>But the truth is that if Acme Corp has Joe over a barrel, by being the only
>game in town, he doesn't have a viable choice other than his kids starving.
Crap. Joe can take a second job. Joe can move to a different city and find
a better job. Or Joe can go to night school, get a college degree, and become
an accountant, or lawyer, or whatever -- just like thousands upon thousands of
other people who wanted to make better lives for themselves and their
families. These opportunities are inherent in a capitalist system, and
inherently absent under Communism.
>If that isn't force, I dunno what is.
Clearly you truly don't know. Suggested reading for you, which may help
increase your understanding of what "force" is, and of the vast gulf
separating Communism from capitalism:
"I Chose Freedom" [Kravchenko, Viktor]
"My Testimony" [Marchenko, Anatoly]
"Fear No Evil" [Sharansky, Natan]
"To Build a Castle" [Bukovsky, Vladimir]
These are all first-person accounts of life under the Soviets. If you have
time to read only one, read "I Chose Freedom".
>Effiicent allocation of scarce resources - capitalism's goal, AIUI -
You do *not* understand it correctly. The goal of capitalism is to improve the
standard of living -- one natural consequence of which is the efficient
allocation of resources. Another natural consequence is increasing the supply
of those resources, so that they are *not* scarce.
>will inevitably lead to some folks being left out in the cold, so to speak.
Some people have greater, or lesser, ability to provide the material comforts
of life for themselves, than do their fellows. IOW, we're not all born with
equal abilities. Deal with it.
>A society (yes, such a thing exists) then has a choice - assist those who
>cannot provide for themselves, in the interest of maintaining a semblace of
>order, or allow them to suffer, turning what was merely a poor, downtrodden
>underclass into an angry, desperate underclass. Then you get the French
>Revolution and the Reign of Terror.
Here you commit the logical fallacy of "false alternatives" by presenting
these two as though they were the only courses available.
>
>> Collectivism is a deadly, *anti* human ideology with ample historic
>> examples of its innate evils.
>
>You've read too much Rand.
And you've not read enough Kravchenko.
Buy yourself a copy of "I Chose Freedom" (eBay or half.com), or see if your
local library has one. Pay particularly close attention to the chapter
entitled "Harvest in Hell".
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Australopithecus scobis wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:35:15 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
>
>>>cave creek, az
>>
>>I don't know where Cave Creek is specifically, but I don't think of
>>anywhere in AZ as not in continual drought, at least from a dryland
>>farming perspective.
>
>
> AZ ag uses a lot of irrigation. That water has to come from somewhere,
> such as the Colorado River. Drought upstream affects the available water
> supplies. Hence the Central Arizona Project, dams and reservoirs.
>
> Much of Arizona is indeed arid. Much of it is not.
>
True. People back east tend to have a different
perspective. However AZ is arid, it just isn't
all desert. From a back east perspective,
anything under 25-30" of precip would be called
arid by those in the east/midwest. That is why
the U.S., west of the Mississippi River is called
the arid west. Essentially all important/intense
agriculture is irrigated from west of a line about
midway through Kansas and that includes
California, Washington, and Oregon.
The east coast and midwest generally have no
concept of 10-11 inches precip per year let alone
rates around 5 inches. It amuses me that so many
people think of Seattle as being wet. Yeah it
drizzles, especially in the winter, but there is
no rain for a month at a time and some summers
have had essentially 0 precip for 3 months.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ... as to be inflicted with this never ending proliferation of idiots with
> microphones and rain gear who seem convinced that they alone have made the
> profound discovery that high wind, rain, and flood water are components of
> hurricanes?
>
> It's gotta be the rarity of the air in LA and New York that causes the
> ignorant, condescending arrogance that makes the Teutels' look like brain
> surgeons.
Yesterday I was watching the weather girl that was stationed in Florida.
Rain pants, Rain/Wind breaker with her head covered. She is reporting that
she is getting sand blasted from all the wind and sand while putting on that
"I am about to be blown away look". The camera man widens the shot to
reveal the local hotel manager standing next to her wearing a button collar
t-shirt. As the shot widens farther we see several people wearing typical
beach attire. The shot widens farther and to reveal pre school kids
playing.
She is on the friggin beach! Was she expecting snow? Wind, sand, water,
whoda thought?
If the clowns really wanted to show what was happening they would have
really been blown away.
Our local news girl stands at the low spot of the curb that is channeling
water from a morning rain wearing similar gear. I know that she cannot help
it but "Treacherous " blurts out of her mouth several times as she points to
the 2" of water that she is standing in.
Prometheus (in [email protected]) said:
| they'll let Louisana's residents drown
No worry - Halliburton will get the contract to put the entire Gulf
Coast area back 'right as rain'.
Er... just as soon as they finish (with) Iraq.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
> No, PBS is commercial no matter what they say. Our CT station was j ust
> noted as an organization dedicated to fund rasing that happens to runs
some
> TV shows. Most shows are not interupted by commercials, but they start
> with five minutes of them, like "Chevy is funding part of TOH" while the
> truck is backing up to the gate, etc.
I quit supporting PBS a few years back when the local station returned my
check for $25 with a note that their minimum donation was $35.
How's that for stupidi... er, shooting yourself in the foot?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05
Mike Marlow wrote:
[snip]>
>>My tax dollars are spent in such a way that there will be just enough
>>token projects launched in my area for the incumbent to try to get
>>his/her ass re-elected.
>
>
> Ahhh, the nature of politics. Gotta love it. Same thing in my area.
>
>
[snip]
I don't get to vote for state legislators or fed congressman in my
locale. CA (and Texas, Pennsylvania(?), others?) politicians got
together and redistricted the whole state into safe election zones.
This means that the Republican party picks a candidate, spends almost
nothing to win the primary, and a bit to win the election. The Dems,
even if they bother to put up a candidate, spend almost nothing. Now
before you get your shorts in a bunch, both major parties do the same
thing. Even our governator, at the height of his popularity, did not
manage to get even one Republican legislator elected. An initiative to
assign redistricting to a panel of retired judges is currently losing in
the polls.
whine,
jo4hn
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >Besides you cannot seriously argue that if Iraq had no natural
>> >resources of interest to the US our policies toward Iraq would
>> >be the same?
>>
>> Yes, of course that can be seriously argued. See below.
>>
>> >That resource is oil. Directly or indirectly our
>> >policies in the Middle East are driven by the need for petroleum
>> >and the responsibility to Israel.
>>
>> Exactly right.
>
>Odd that you would say that, given that you go on to deny it
>below.
You misspelled "explain".
>
>> But this is independent of the type, or extent, of Iraq's
>> natural resources, and depends rather on the type and extent of its
>> armaments, and its intentions for using them. An Iraq armed with, for
> example,
>> nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, would threaten the peace and
>> stability (such as they are) of that entire strategically critical region.
>
>Iraq did not have nuclear weapons, was no where near having
>nuclear weapons and had no active program for producing it.
Missed the words "for example" in my post, did you?
[irrelevantia spawned by this oversight snipped]
>So the notion of Iraq being a threat to its neighbors in 2003
>or the near future thereafer was completely unfounded.
I didn't say that it was.
>
>How would that strategically important region be strategically
>critical without petroleum?
Please read more carefully. I said that the level of threat that Iraq might
pose is independent of whether *Iraq* possesses petroleum or not. If the
*region* had no petroleum, of course it wouldn't be terribly important. But
that's not what I said.
>
>> This is independent of whether Iraq itself possesses any petroleum, or not:
>> the point is that it would threaten those of its neighbors who *do*.
>
>Who do what? Posesss petroleum?
I thought that was pretty clear.
> OK, then, even if Iraq did
>not have petroleum the US might still have invaded and
>still motivated by the need for petroluem. Which action
>OP succintly summarized as "killing people for oil".
Please read more carefully. You suggested that it cannot be seriously argued
that our policies toward Iraq would be the same if it had no oil. I'm pointing
out that it certainly *can* be seriously so argued, because Iraq's location in
a strategically important region, and any threat that it may or may not pose
to the stability of that region, depends on Iraq's military resources and its
penchant for using them -- not on whatever natural resources it does or does
not have.
>
>> Again, an Iraq so armed poses a dire threat to the security of the only
>> democracy in the Middle East -- independent of what natural resources Iraq
> may
>> or may not possess.
>
>Iraq was no longer even a threat to its immediate neighbors.
Missed the words "for example" in my post... and all of the point as well.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
[snip]
>>markets for cell phone ring tones, addictive drugs and SUVs.
>
>
> It's the other way 'round...demand creates the market for those items
> just as it does for oil or bread. If nobody was interested in the
> coolest ring tone for the cell phone, no one would be able to sell
> them. If the teeny-bopper wants to spend his $$ that way, there's no
> reason someone shouldn't supply that ability.
>
> Regarding the drugs, etc., it's been long demonstrated one can't
> legislate morality.
Demand is one; advertising is another. Witness prescription drugs,
toiletries, soup, autos, etc. One could make a case that the latter is
more powerful than the former.
Burma Shave,
jo4hn
Jason Quick wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Global Warming
>>is a vastly overstated threat
>
> That's a pretty categorical statement, innit? I know of lots and lots of
> scientists (climatologists, mind you) who have concluded the opposite,
> though they agree that the jury's out a bit on who or what is responsible.
>
>>and there is today no statistically demonstrable
>>connection between human activity and the very slight observed warming
>>(which
>>has been going on for 15,000 years or so).
>
>
> The National Academy of Sciences and the International Panel on Climate
> Change seem to disagree with you.
>
> http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/
The problem with these organizations is that they are politically
motivated. The interesting thing about the IPCC's position is that it is
based solely on the findings of a study by Mann which received none of
the skeptical review by peers that real science requires. When
questioned by people who have expertise in the areas of algorithms and
data analysis for the types of statistics Mann used, requests for data
and source code were denied for years and years. When Mann finally
released his data and source code it was deemed extremely flawed by
folks who rebutted the "hockey stick" results immediately. The efforts
to dispassionately analyze Mann's work resulted in a lot of ad hominum
but very little in the way of reasoned response. When people question
the legimacy of the power of the "environmental" movement based on
reasonable doubts, that's the common response. This issue illustrates
the need to take politics out of science. Going back a bit we find the
concerns of the "environmental" movement shifting based on whatever the
scare tactics of the decade are. I remember back when the first Earth
Day took place...the scare of the time was the immiment onset of an ice
age.
>
> Pressure to find sources of energy other than fossil fuel isn't really a
> Communist plot. Conserving energy isn't either. Sure, Communists are among
> its supporters, but I think you'll find lots of people - including
> capitalists - think it's a good idea too.
This is true. However, the demand for such sources has to remain an
individual choice, not a coerced one if we want to keep bandying about
the term "Land of the Free". National and international "environmental"
agencies have no interest in the freedom of individuals, but rather
appear to thrive on political power. Certainly such organizations do not
appear to have altruistic motives.
To drag this back to rec.woodworking a bit, I'd love to have a means
of hauling stuff or just commuting that uses a different energy source
than gasoline or diesel. Perhaps a wood burning engine...only kidding.
But, in the end, railing against people who have chosen to buy
suboptimal automobiles seems misguided at best and misplaced hubris in
many cases. If individuals really want to make positive change in a free
environment, the most ethical thing they can do is live by the values
they have and act as an example to others. Proselytizing use of coercion
in such cases is at odds with our concepts of individual freedom.
Free market advocates, at least real ones, are among the folks who
oppose wasting resources on things like the war in Iraq. Such
involvements really waste precious resources. Tim mentioned Economics in
One Lesson in which a very simple exposure to Bastiat's Broken Window
Fallacy appears. I highly recommend it...your library should have it.
The entire book can be read in a couple of hours....now, back to your
regularly scheduled woodworking discussion.
>
> Jason
Respectfully,
Joe Crowe
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Well, actually, when one looks at the data, the "feels" like comparative
> data aren't spread as widely as you might believe...I don't have the old
> data sets any longer (this was only about 40 years ago) but the
> correlations had quite respectable correlation--which implies that the
> "average Joe" feels pretty much the same way as the other guy at the
> same conditions...
I think the power of a suggested "feels like" is more influential. I bet
you could put the feels like 1% greater than the actual and the average Joe
would agree. Since the average Joe could not tell you what and actual temp
feels like any way, adding the "feels like" has him fooled also. What
shocks me is that many people think the chill factor of 31 degrees F will
freeze water when the actual temp may be 40 degrees F.
Before you know it there will be a Wind "Feels Like" factor. It really
would fall right in place.
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> I recall discussing the "feels like factor" in Physics while in college.
>> The professor just laughed and we later termed it the "wus factor".
>> Feels
>> like to who exactly?
>
> See above reply...it's a statistical correlation developed from actual
> test data on fairly sizable sample populations...
I did read it. It is basically BS IMHO. Temperature, humidity, and wind
all have a different effect on individuals. Temperature is absolute.
"Feels like" is an averaged interpretations which means nothing to any one
individual.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:24:10 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >... as to be inflicted with this never ending proliferation of idiots with
> >microphones and rain gear who seem convinced that they alone have made the
> >profound discovery that high wind, rain, and flood water are components of
> >hurricanes?
> >
>
> When did we become weather wimps? Snow is not an unusual feature of a
> Milwaukee winter, yet each and ever snowfall, regardless of amount, is
> played as a life threatening disaster on the local stations. I
> suppose all in the name of ratings.
>
Spokane weather tends to be a bit on the boring side. In 18 years here
there's been one ice storm that was a pain, but that's all. Mt St
Helens did go off a few years before we moved here, but even then all
Spokane got was a lot of ash. A few winters we get a lot of snow, but
the locals take that in stride.
So once or twice a summer we have a "thunderstorm" where we hear 3 or 4
rumbles and that's it. When we (rarely) get one that might make a
halfway decent "thundershower" in the east, we invariably get a front
page picture of lightning and a "massive storm" headline :-).
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> So there is at least one sane American out there.
> Goes against the general protracted image that you are all bush bible
> bashing buddies.
>
There's lots of us out here. We've just gotten tired of arguing with
the Bush bible-thumpers (not bible bashing).
Besides, the way things seem to be going, if we do argue they'll burn us
at the stake :-).
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>Besides you cannot seriously argue that if Iraq had no natural
>resources of interest to the US our policies toward Iraq would
>be the same?
Yes, of course that can be seriously argued. See below.
>That resource is oil. Directly or indirectly our
>policies in the Middle East are driven by the need for petroleum
>and the responsibility to Israel.
Exactly right. But this is independent of the type, or extent, of Iraq's
natural resources, and depends rather on the type and extent of its
armaments, and its intentions for using them. An Iraq armed with, for example,
nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, would threaten the peace and
stability (such as they are) of that entire strategically critical region.
This is independent of whether Iraq itself possesses any petroleum, or not:
the point is that it would threaten those of its neighbors who *do*.
Again, an Iraq so armed poses a dire threat to the security of the only
democracy in the Middle East -- independent of what natural resources Iraq may
or may not possess.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
FEMA better do it damnit!
SteveP.
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <300820050812314093%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > ... as to be inflicted with this never ending proliferation of idiots
>> > with
>> > microphones and rain gear who seem convinced that they alone have made
>> > the
>> > profound discovery that high wind, rain, and flood water are components
>> > of
>> > hurricanes?
>>
>> ROFL!
>>
>> About 10 years ago I was in Seattle when a mild earthquake occured. The
>> local TV stations went into high-alert mode, with several hours of
>> broadcasting that went something like:
>>
>> "And now, over to Steve near the Sea-Tac Airport. Steve, any damage
>> there?"
>>
>> "Nothing, Ken. Everything is completely normal."
>>
>> "Okay. We'll be back to Steve in a little while for an update. So far,
>> there is absolutely no reported damage... wait, we have a report from
>> Connie in downtown Seattle. Connie?"
>>
>> "Ken, I'm at 'Hair Affair' haiir salon near the market, and as you can
>> see behind me, several bottles of hair care products have been shaken
>> from their shelves and are laying on the floor."
>>
>> "Thanks for that update, Connie."
>>
>> "No problem, Ken."
>>
>> etc...
>
> Piss off already... I was taking a drink of juice when I was reading
> your post... now WHO is going to clean up this mess?
who was it that said...
"the rich as well as the poor are free to eat bread and live under
bridges..."
or something like that.
John Emmons
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
> > Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >
> >>Unless the Acme Corp has a gun to Joe's head (which is a criminal act)
> >>he is free to move elsewhere,
> >
> >
> > So I take for granted that you, if standing next to the US border to
> > Mexico, cry out "Mr. Bush, tear down this fence!".
>
> What on earth are you yammering about? There is no fence in said
location.
> The US does not owe ingress to foreigners anymore than any sovereign
> state does. And yes, as a general matter of principle, I approve
> heartily of *managed and controlled* immigration - just like when I
> go to Germany and have to show my passport everywhere I go.
>
> >
> >
> >>start his own company,
> >
> >
> > Most people cannot do that, either from personal disposition or from
> > lack of resources. The money market and interest rates basically mean
> > that the more desperate you need money the less you get it or are able
> > to afford it.
>
> And this proves what? That starting a business is hard? OK, I agree.
> It is *still* not "force" against Joe - it is merely a matter
> of his personal circumstances.
> >
> >
> >>or attempt to find a better job locally.
> >
> >
> > With workers in ample supply the market makes better jobs scarce.
> >
>
> See the above paragraph. This is NOT force...
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Clint" wrote in message
> *just shaking my head, trying to understand the hard-hearted comments*
>
> Sure, maybe the talking heads don't have to be on the air, 24/7. And soon
> enough, they'll stop, and go on to the next story. But the rebuilding
> process down along the coast is going to go on for a long time. I
wouldn't
> wish that on my worst enemy.
You're missing the point and running rabbit trails that have nothing to do
with original comment regarding the pervasive "tragic TV syndrome".
The OP has plenty of "compassion" for those displaced, he lost his home and
a lifetime of possessions to flooding in Tropical Storm Allison in 2001.
DAMHIKT.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Lee Michaels" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Essentially as long as I restrict myself to machinery and the bike
>> itself,
>> it is watchable. Everything else is crap.
>
> I tracked down a cpl of episodes.
> Fabulous bikes, indeed. WAY too much theatrical diatribe bullshit.
> That artificial deadline crap gets reallly stale quick.
>
Word.
There is so much quality and creativity there, why would you want to pollute
it with artificially contrived soap operas? Particularly as a discovery
channel show. They don't do this crap with their other shows.
And I just love some of the bikes. My favorite include the fire bike that
honors the fallen fireman of 9/11, the Dixie bike with the big lawn mower
engine, the miller electric bike with the little tow behind trailer with a
miller welder on it and the futuristic, extremely raked bike made for the
will smith movie, I-Robot.
[email protected] wrote:
> Knothead wrote:
>
>>...
>>How about this; You live in any kinda tornado, hurricane, volcano alley that
>>if you home gets demolished by natural causes you get funds for one rebuild,
>>One! ...
>
>
> I have to ask, just where the hell do you live where there are no
> natural disasters?
Poking my nose into this thread - I live in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
which just happens to be an area in the US where few if any natural
disasters ever occur, at least not to the magnitude one thinks of when
the term "Natural Disaster" is used. We're at 5000' above sea level and
not much of anything happens here with respect to disasterous weather.
John
"Leon" wrote in message
> Our local news girl stands at the low spot of the curb that is channeling
> water from a morning rain wearing similar gear. I know that she cannot
help
> it but "Treacherous " blurts out of her mouth several times as she points
to
> the 2" of water that she is standing in.
ROTFL! ... remember when the streets in Houston were at grade, there was a
ditch in every front yard that drained into a local bayou, and there was NO
flooding, street or otherwise?
So much for the wisdom of sending the spawn of 60's flower children to MIT.
:)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> ...
>> > ...If grade is below sea level then
>> > new construction should be elevated, and so on.
>>
>> "And all the children are above average..." :)
>>
>> Just isn't physically possible nor feasible on the scale at which
>> current development has occurred....
>
> In a lot of cases that would simply entail making the buildings at
> least two stories and relegating ground level for carports, laundry
> rooms and other, more 'expendable' spaces. A lot more doable than
> has been done. More expensive than a single story on a cement pad,
> certainly but earthquake resistant buildings are more expensive too,
> few people argue that expense as justification to eviscerate
> the building codes on the west coast.
>
I saw popular mechanics articles at least 40 years ago that detailed working
models of foating houses. They were regular houses with all connections to
the foundation, wiring, plumbing, etc with "breadaway" fittings. And big
flotation bags all around the base of the house. In case of flood, just
inflate the "house raft". The house would be anchored with chains to keep
it from driftin away.
Of course, we need to work on those pesky "blow away" foofs.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I'll also admit to sitting in a somewhat continuing wonder that metal,
> although the tolerances are so close, seems a much more forgiving medium
> to
> work in than wood.
I do recall one episode where Paul Jr. was beating on a bike with a pretty
heavy hammer to get something to fit.
>
> My bet is that most wooddorkers watch American Chopper strictly for seeing
> the end product emerge from a pile of raw material, which is what we do
> ...
> and you gotta appreciate the parallels of the shop, the tools, and the big
> iron.
It is nice when the finished product comes together. I like Biker Build-off
better. Two shops competing. In a couple of cases, one bike broke down or
did not start on the deadline and the other shop would win by default.
Nope, the guy that could just walk away a winner refused to and in fact
helped his competitor to get going to the finish voting. Proving again that
life is more than having a trophy.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> You know, If every one moved out of the hurricane zone there would not be
> enough room to plant crops or raise cattle. How about the fools that live
> in the area of the country where it snows or near rivers, or in tornado
> alley or the earth quake zone, or the ones that live in New York, the
> target, or the mid west, or in the north west where volcano's blow, or
> near Yellowstone. There are damn few places to live in the US that does
> not contribute to the cost of insurance.
I've been thinking about this the past two days. Do we close New Orleans and
make it an underwater park? Move the people out? What about the fishermen
and orange growers that keep us fed? Maybe we should keep the farms but run
them from a distance.
While I don't see myself building a house 6 feel below sea level and only a
few hundred yards from the sea. it would seem difficult to just close down
some of those areas completely. OTOH, I don't want subsidize either
through taxes or insurance premiums, a beach front multi-million dollar home
because the owner likes the view. Screw him, he is on his own.
Oh, and what do we do about the guys that harvest the cypress trees? (slyly
getting on topic)
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
> There already is---it's the "feels like" factor and that is termed the
> wind chill. It's part of the same correlation. While I'll grant there
> are uneducated and ill-informed who misuse it or don't understand, it
> has some value for those who do. The wind chill is significant for
> personal safety in that it does have a relationship to how much faster
> the body is cooled by wind as opposed to still air, which is a real
> effect.
No I am talking about a future 15 mile per hour wind will "feel like" 45
miles per hour because the humidity is low. It would factor in about the
same as wind chill or feels like.
LRod <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
<snip>
> On the other hand, the sister show (same channel, same producers)
> American HotRod has basically imploded. Although it's just television,
> they've managed to make Boyd Coddingtion look like a narcissistic
> martinet, driven two of the major characters off the show (and out of
> the shop), and temporarily a third, and even yielded a wry,
> bitchslapping putdown out of Stacey David on a recent Trucks episode
> (I love that show, too). I don't even bother watching it any more.
>
It had a new episode scheduled, according to TiVo, and then, it didn't
happen. A 'Monster House' episode showed up in the time slot, and there
are no Amer Hot Rod's on the schedule.
Without the ffwd on the TiVo, it had become unwatchable. Overhaulin' had
stolen it's creative thunder, too.
Patriarch
Lee DeRaud <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:45:04 -0500, Patriarch
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [American HotRod]
>>Without the ffwd on the TiVo, it had become unwatchable. Overhaulin'
>>had stolen it's creative thunder, too.
>
> Heh. Given the way Coddington feels about Chip Foose, I wish someone
> would tell him that on-air, just so we could watch his head explode.
>
> Lee
>
You don't think that the 'defections' have been greased by Discovery
producers? ;-)
Patriarch
Lee DeRaud <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 08:22:29 -0500, Patriarch
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Lee DeRaud <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:45:04 -0500, Patriarch
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> [American HotRod]
>>>>Without the ffwd on the TiVo, it had become unwatchable.
Overhaulin'
>>>>had stolen it's creative thunder, too.
>>>
>>> Heh. Given the way Coddington feels about Chip Foose, I wish someone
>>> would tell him that on-air, just so we could watch his head explode.
>>
>>You don't think that the 'defections' have been greased by Discovery
>>producers? ;-)
>
> Dunno. Overhaulin' is on TLC...is that the same parent company? Let's
> see if the any of the former AHR guys show up on future Overhaulin'
> episodes. But in any case, there's apparently some serious bad blood
> between Coddington and Foose. At least as presented on the respective
> shows, Foose seems to be a nice guy: he's good and he knows he's good,
> but he doesn't beat people over the head with it. Coddington comes
> across as a nearly-complete asshole, and whatever gaps he has in his
> assholitude are filled in nicely by his sidekick Duane.
>
> The stated problem for Charlie (the body-shop guy) was that Coddington
> was more concerned with doing the job "right now" instead of doing the
> job right. He had no real beef with Coddington, he just wanted a
> chance to do the kind of work he thinks he's capable of, not just what
> those artificially insane schedules would allow.
Charlie did the roadster the Foose won the 'Riddler' prize with, shown
on 'Rides'. And he did the black Mustang for the fellow in the
wheelchair on the episode of Overhaulin' that I saw last evening for the
first time.
>
> It would be interesting to know (1) what the customers for those cars
> think about the bullshit that went down during the build and (2) what
> kind of problems the cars had afterwards. (I've noticed several of
> them sitting in the background of the shop during later episodes.)
That may be due to the way the production schedule went. I'm pretty
certain they don't work serially.
Cars like that are almost completely about ego, anyhow. Completely
unlike woodworkers and their tools, I'm certain. ;-)
Patriarch,
with obviously too much time on his hands...
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote in news:43175733.954C0A11
@swko.dot.net:
> Patriarch wrote:
> ...
>> Cars like that are almost completely about ego, anyhow. Completely
>> unlike woodworkers and their tools, I'm certain. ;-)
>
> Actually, it would be interesting to me to see some concentrate on
> interior design and woodwork as in some of the oldies like the Packard,
> etc. Did a couple of restorations for an acquaintance while in TN.
> Lots of neat work there.
>
No question about that. There are all sorts of subspecialties in our
craft, and there are intricacies to learn from masters of each of them. I
caught just a snippet of a piece on DIY network the other evening, where a
master was making a violin bow. I'm going to have to set the TiVo to see
if I can catch another showing of that one.
One of the fellows in my woodworking club has added some nice wood accents
to his Ford Ranger. Teak or mahogany, I think.
Patriarch
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Leon wrote:
> ...
>> I am for as little government intervention as possible but I believe
>> that the Oil companies, insurance companies, and electric companies
>> should be limited to the "percent" of profit that they can make.
>
> What business are you in? Why should yours be allowed to make
> whatever profit level you can as opposed to someone else's?
>
> What is needed isn't price control but reducing the restrictions on
> increasing supply...
In 1981, I was part of a group that did a study for a large regional
producer/distributor of natural gas. They had the technology and the
opportunity to convert various types of coal & tar sands to natural gas.
As long as the produced gas was free of price controls, and able to be
sold on the market at a price pegged to the world oil price, it was a
profitable business, at least on paper.
The leadership was convinced that the various regulators would require
them to sell it under the same terms and conditions as the gas they were
currently harvesting and selling under strict price controls. The
facility was never built.
I presume the resources are still available, but the company has moved
on.
Price controls distort markets. That may not be the worst thing in the
world, but I doubt we, as represented by government or corporations, are
as smart as we think we are.
Patriarch,
aware that there are weasels everywhere, and that the energy industry
seems to have more than their share.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> And then you wonder why the Big Evil Oil Companies don't want to
>> build very costly infrastructure like pipelines and refineries? Here
>> is a clue: You cannot interfere with the profit potential for an
>> institution AND at the same time demand that they sink more money
>> into longterm infrastructure builds.
>
> Close, but no cigar. The original point was to regulate the profits
> of critical industries. That model had been in place for decades and
> indeed, it was proven to work. The public utilities were and to some
> extent, still are regulated. They made the guaranteed profit, they
> expanded, they maintained the infrastructure. They prospered and the
> public was served.
>
For the most part, the 'utilities' are/were 'natural monopolies'.
Natural gas distribution, for the most part, still is. Electrical
power, too, at least at retail. Communications & video programming, not
nearly so much so, technology and politics having managed feasible
alternatives.
>>
>> The US has consistently had growing energy needs while at the same
>> time reducing or eliminating additional energy *sources* from its
>> bag-o-tricks. We haven't built a nuclear plant
>
> The reasons we have not built nuclear plants has more to do with the
> environment (or the environmentalists if you choose) than anything
> else you are trying to support in your argument. Nuclear plants were
> and still are very profitable for the operators. So are hydro plants.
> We aren't hurting for electrical energy so there is no push for new
> facilities.
>
>
Where the electricity is generated using oil or natural gas, these
facilities serve to compete for resources which might be used in other
activities, or for which a reduction in demand might reduce pricing.
But fuel substitution and/or new technology is generally not immediate,
or without unintended consequence.
>> or an oil refinery in
>> decades. The ANWR just got opened up for drilling even though the
>> will and desire to do so has been there for years. And so on and so
>> on and so on.
>
> Wait - the oil industry has not been regulated, so how can you argue
> that they have not built a new refinery in decades because their
> profits have been interfered with?
>
Where you can put a refinery IS highly regulated. At least in MY part
of the world. And there are at least half a dozen of them within a 20
minute drive from my home, in one of the most expensive areas of the
world for real estate.
The technology is also heavily regulated, as are the characteristics of
the products. Not all refineries can produce using just any feedstocks.
(And now we reach the technical boundaries of my understanding of
refinery technology...)
>>
>> The truth is that most people use energy but very few pay attention
>> to the politics of energy production. In one corner you have the
>> Green Gasbag environmentalists who worship the earth and indulge in
>> fantasy science. In another you have the politicans who want to get
>> paid off before anything moves forward. In another corner, you'll
>> find the irresponsible regulators who pay attention to all the wrong
>> things. This allows genuine environmental atrocities like Love Canal
>> to go
>
> Man, you throw out irrelevant or inappropriate stuff like chaff in the
> wind. Love Canal happened long before there was even much knowledge
> about most of the hazards. Not to excuse it, or to suggest there was
> no knowledge, but that was such a different time/place/circumstance
> that there isn't even a hint of relevance.
>
The politics are not irrelevant. Politics are the means whereby society
has the conversations leading to decisions as to what we value, and how,
and over what time horizions. And the process is inefficient, awkward,
noisy, and hard to judge when we're in the middle of the fray. I don't
see an acceptable alternative, however. Central planning certainly
didn't work, did it?
<snip>
>>
>> The reality is that, even at $3+ per gallon, the inflation-adjusted
>> price for energy today is *lower* than it has been throughout most of
>> US history. It is *lower* than the price paid in Europe or Asia on
>> the whole.
>
> Go study the price of fuel in the countries you reference. Look at
> the tax structures in those countries. An educated opinion serves an
> argument far better than a rhetorical cry.
Taxes are a viable means of introducing social or strategic factors into
a market, not just a means of raising revenues. To some degree, they
are means of allowing other generations a vote in the market. Is it a
perfect system? Not from where I sit. Suggest an alternative.
>> The answer to this problem is to let markets do their job. When
>> crude hit $50 a barrel or so, it suddenly became economically
>> rational to process Canadian shale reserves. When it hit $60, even
>> the eco-weenies started making positive noises about Nuclear.
>> As/when/if crude continues rise, there will incentive for
>> alternative/hybrid/yet to be discovered ways to harness energy. The
>> absolute *worst* thing we could do would be to stick the government's
>> beak into the business and further try and regulate desireable
>> outcomes. Meddling by those political pilferers will do nothing
>> more or less than drive investment and people *out* of the energy
>> business.
>
> On this point we're almost in total agreement. The exception being
> that I would go along with a degree of govt involvement in the form of
> regulation like we saw in the public utility sector for decades.
>
And I agree here as well. At some point, we have to communicate with
each other, government, producers, corporations, markets, voters, that a
vision of the future has to go beyond 36 months, or the next quarters'
earnings report,or the next election.
We didn't screw this up in a year or two. It isn't one storm, or one
refinery or platform problem, or one set of regulations, but the
cummulative effect of years of decisions. We won't fix it in a month or
two, either.
By the way, thank you all for the reasoned, though completely OT
discussion. I haven't thought about some of these issues for some time.
It's been an unusual week, in that regard.
Patriarch,
who loaded up a cord of firewood for a member of the family today,
because natural gas will be much more expensive this winter, even in
sunny California.
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> ...
>> I fundamentally disagree that "we aren't hurting ...". Let's do a
>> thought experiment. Suppose we built a bunch of small regional power
>> generators using, say, the Pebble Bed technology the Chinese are
>> currently pushing (in a huge way). This would have the eventual
>> effect of making electricity so cheap that it would be logically
>> "free" (i.e., So cheap the price wouldn't matter much.) ...
>
> ...
>
> No matter how many you build, they will never be cheap enough to be
> considered "free". Somewhat less expensive than current generation
> LWRs, <maybe>, but "free"--no way. Somewhere the construction and
> operational costs as well as the fuel cycle have to be recovered. I
> don't think there's any way it could possibly be done for less than
> perhaps 2/3-rds the cost of current generation facilities irregardless
> of scale, and I think that estimate optimistic.
Whatever the reason, in our lifetime, communications has, for most parts
of the developed world, become virtually free. At least, marginal cost
approaches 'free'. Think of the venue in which this discussion is
taking place. Got a marginal cost per minute? What about voice? Does
your cell phone charge you extra for domestic long distance? What did
that look like 30 years ago, in the then-current cost context?
>
> I recall when I started school as NE that was the current mantra of
> the old AEC--"too cheap to meter". Didn't happen then, won't happen
> now or in the future. It is simply not possible to create an
> infrastructure of such magnitude at no cost.
>
Once you pay the fixed cost of distribution/maintenance/customer
service, there are possibilities yet to imagine. Won't happen this
year, though.
But we should start thinking and experimenting and looking at the
potential, shouldn't we?
Patriarch
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Patriarch wrote:
> ...
>> Whatever the reason, in our lifetime, communications has, for most
>> parts of the developed world, become virtually free. At least,
>> marginal cost approaches 'free'. Think of the venue in which this
>> discussion is taking place. Got a marginal cost per minute? What
>> about voice? Does your cell phone charge you extra for domestic long
>> distance? What did that look like 30 years ago, in the then-current
>> cost context?
>
> There's a fundamental difference between communication technology and
> power generation. The former has benefitted imensely from the
> "electronics revolution" whereas to date and for the foreseeable
> future, there is no such orders-of-magnitude breakthrough for
> generation.
>
<snip>
> I'll make a note that the most "nearly free" source of significant
> generation is wind. The problem is, of course that while free, the
> fuel source is pretty diffuse and the locations are for the most part
> not very well situated relative the locations of high demand.
>
I'm encouraged by the advances in photovoltaic generation and the
silicon curve. Not for eveywhere, and not for mass-scale replication,
but for the right application, promising. In California, the payback
period is promising, without too much tax fiddling, or so it seems.
With regard to wind - My grandparents had a windmill since the 50's to
pump water. In the 70's, they put in a windmill generator, and
essentially had a zero-price electric bill for 10-12 years. But they
were on the Mendocino Coast of California, and the wind was pretty
reliable there.
Simple answers are often wrong, but if we can get enough folks talking,
and thinking of alternatives, and recognizing the tradeoffs and risks,
we might be smart enough to solve some problems. The old ways seem to
be causing a problem or two, don't they?
Patriarch
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Patriarch wrote:
>>
> ...
>> Whatever the reason, in our lifetime, communications has, for most parts
>> of the developed world, become virtually free. At least, marginal cost
>> approaches 'free'. Think of the venue in which this discussion is
>> taking place. Got a marginal cost per minute? What about voice? Does
>> your cell phone charge you extra for domestic long distance? What did
>> that look like 30 years ago, in the then-current cost context?
> ...
>
> I ain't got no stinkin' cell phone... :)
Your choice. Some of use prefer to call people, instead of places. Or be
reached where we are, instead of where our telephone is.
>
> I'd simply point out the retrenchment in the communications business
> indicates all isn't necessarily well in the cost/business model...
>
And still isn't, but it's improving. Regulation (and social engineering
influenced taxation) is still the major cause of distortion in the
economics of telecommunications. However, the flow of technology in that
field is much like the flow of the Mississippi: It can be temporarily
diverted, but that water is going SOMEWHERE.
Patriarch
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1125704902.562903.122160
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> True. And every yuppie needs a 380-430 HP engine to haul his or her
> sorry ass to work in the morning, using a light truck chassis and
> hitting a total weight of 6000 pounds per vehicle.
>
I may be wrong here (it happens frequently) but was not the whole 'light
truck chassis' thing due to federal regulations regarding safety and crash-
worthyness, which applied to automobiles, but not to light trucks?
Patriarch
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in news:YyaSe.49$Ej1.4907
@news.uswest.net:
> Patriarch (in [email protected])
> said:
>
>| I'm encouraged by the advances in photovoltaic generation and the
>| silicon curve. Not for eveywhere, and not for mass-scale
>| replication, but for the right application, promising. In
>| California, the payback period is promising, without too much tax
>| fiddling, or so it seems.
>|
>| With regard to wind - My grandparents had a windmill since the 50's
>| to pump water. In the 70's, they put in a windmill generator, and
>| essentially had a zero-price electric bill for 10-12 years. But
>| they were on the Mendocino Coast of California, and the wind was
>| pretty reliable there.
>|
>| Simple answers are often wrong, but if we can get enough folks
>| talking, and thinking of alternatives, and recognizing the
>| tradeoffs and risks, we might be smart enough to solve some
>| problems. The old ways seem to be causing a problem or two, don't
>| they?
>
> Hmm. To quote one of the smarter folks: "As simple as possible; but
> not simpler."
>
How could one argue with that? ;-)
> It would appear that we need to come to grips with the notion that we
> may need to make use of multiple technologies. I've been focused on
> solar heating and have had many people balk at the notion that they
> should use solar heating in /conjunction/ with their conventional
> heating system. The hard fact is that most conventional structures are
> just too lossy for solar heat alone. It's possible, however, to reduce
> the load on the conventional system substantially. That reduction
> shows up for the user in smaller heating bills and for everyone else
> as lower fuel costs than there'd be without the reduced demand.
>
> The same kind of kind of approach is applies to wind and photovoltaic
> power generation. Employment of these technologies produces a savings
> for the owner in the form of reduced electric bills (or lower cost of
> generation) and for everyone else as lower electricity cost than
> there'd be without this reduced demand.
A most reasonable position.
>
> We need to begin unloading the grid and rethinking transport _now_,
> using the technologies and solutions we have. The solutions we have
> today will evolve and improve as we go; but if we decide not to do
> anything until all of that evolution and improvement has been
> completed, we'll be playing the most dangerous game of brinksmanship
> ever.
Technological change has almost always incremental, but almost never
smooth. Maybe social change is similar - I'm not really a qualified
observer.
>
> One of our biggest problems is that people who have the power to
> control /anything/ cling to "the way things are", with the fear that
> if anything changes, they'll lose their ability to shape events as
> they choose.
One of the more difficult lessons for modern technological man on the
road from smart to wise is that control is an illusion. We cannot
control, but rather only influence and react. A lesson those with
closer ties to agriculture than technology learn early in their
experience.
> Changing the energy paradigm will take a lot of courage
> and effort - precisely because, as you say, "the way things are" isn't
> working as well as our needs require.
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
>
Patriarch
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
<snip>
>> > I ain't got no stinkin' cell phone... :)
>>
>> Your choice. Some of use prefer to call people, instead of places.
>> Or be reached where we are, instead of where our telephone is.
> ...
>
> And some of prefer to <not> be...I spent too long where it was
> mandatory to want anything to do with it now that I don't have to...
> :)
>
A major cell phone company had a marketing phrase for a short time: "Work
is not a place." There's a knife that cuts both ways.
Patriarch
Joseph Crowe <[email protected]> wrote in news:zIudnVijuNtQOYTeRVn-
[email protected]:
> Charlie Self wrote:
>> True. And every yuppie needs a 380-430 HP engine to haul his or her
>> sorry ass to work in the morning, using a light truck chassis and
>> hitting a total weight of 6000 pounds per vehicle.
>
> Not your decision to make, even as you exxagerate. OTOH, I don't
> feel sorry for the folks who fell for the Hummermarketting ploy as
> gasoline soars past $3/gallon on its way tomuch higher. I suspect that a
> lot of heavy SUVs will be coming on the used car market for a very
> low price and soon, while higher milage cars get more expensive.
> Ironically, Toyota took its ECHO out of the U.S. market...it gets
> 42mpg on the highway at around a sustained 75mph. That's just
> dumb IMO.
Drifitng yet further off topic... The Toyota ECHO is a miserable little
car, though. My then not yet daughter-in-law bought one, and now, through
the miracle of "the new car is safer for the kids", it has become my son's
daily driver. Darn thing won't die, though. I'd rather walk.
Patriarch
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote in news:4319B3E8.D6F8DA91
@swko.dot.net:
<snip>
> IOW, when you get the "better mousetrap" convenient enough, cheap enough
> and implementation painless enough and benefit obvious enough, then and
> only then the changeover will occur automagically.
>
You mean like cell phones? ;-)
Patriarch
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Patriarch wrote:
>>
>> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:4319B3E8.D6F8DA91 @swko.dot.net:
>>
>> <snip>
>> > IOW, when you get the "better mousetrap" convenient enough, cheap
>> > enough and implementation painless enough and benefit obvious
>> > enough, then and only then the changeover will occur automagically.
>> >
>>
>> You mean like cell phones? ;-)
>
> Yep....except, of course, for us grumpy old guys... :)
>
One of our most memorable vacations was effectively traveling from
coverage-free zone to coverage-free zone for two weeks. When we pulled
into Jackson Hole, Wyoming, the darn thing beeped, and had 14 voice
messages.
Should have left it unplugged.
John Madden said that for him, success was not having to tie his shoes, if
he didn't want to. Measure yours however you wish.
Patriarch
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote :
> Let us inspect just what this very "human" system of yours requires.
> It is possible for people who are Capitalists to also be criminals.
> But true Capitalism involves the *voluntary* exchange of goods
> and services among consenting individuals.
Just as "true" Communism (whatever that is) involves the voluntary
participation of all to make sure that everyone has everything they need,
blah blah.
> That is, criminality
> in commerce is not *innate* to Capitalism - it is simple crime.
See, here's the trouble...capitalism is amoral. It's just an economic
system, one that lends itself to criminality as well as any other. Yes,
communism sucks and involves the use of force to operate. But there's
violence inherent in capitalism as well - for example, Joe Sixpack is
"free," if he doesn't like the going rate for widget assembly at Acme Corp.
But the truth is that if Acme Corp has Joe over a barrel, by being the only
game in town, he doesn't have a viable choice other than his kids starving.
If that isn't force, I dunno what is.
Effiicent allocation of scarce resources - capitalism's goal, AIUI - will
inevitably lead to some folks being left out in the cold, so to speak. A
society (yes, such a thing exists) then has a choice - assist those who
cannot provide for themselves, in the interest of maintaining a semblace of
order, or allow them to suffer, turning what was merely a poor, downtrodden
underclass into an angry, desperate underclass. Then you get the French
Revolution and the Reign of Terror.
> Collectivism is a deadly, *anti* human ideology with ample historic
> examples of its innate evils.
You've read too much Rand.
> If the resources were fairly paid for in a consensual act of trade,
> there is no crime or moral foul.
Problem is, someone is often getting hurt along the way, by being deprived
of a livelihood due to their land being seized, being abused as part of a
labor force, or screwed in some other way by their own government as part of
the "consensual act of trade." Then you have to ask if the foreign company
is being party to a crime in those cases, and if they are, what ought to be
done about it.
> Even when the initial action is criminal, it is sometimes possible
> to create benefit for the harmed party. The early American settlers
> were abusive to both the native AmerIndians and African slaves, a
> clearly immoral act. Yet, today, the descendants of these people
> living in America benefit immesurably from the resultant system
> (as do all other inhabitants of the country).
Perhaps, though many Native Americans still live in abject poverty and to
this day are being royally screwed by the US Government. I like Chris
Rock's analogy that being black in America is like having an uncle pay your
college tuition after molesting you - there's clearly a benefit, but you're
gonna feel rather ambivalent about it. And rightly so.
>> DOE claims (for 2000) 20 tons/capita in the US,
>> something like 10 tons/capita in Germany. So the answer seems clear.
>
> That's just Germany. Last I looked (and it may well have changed),
> Europe as a whole was worse than the US.
Eh. According to this page:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/top20_2000.gif
the US is at the top of the list, but if you were to combine the EU
countries they would be much higher. Trick is, the US is highest in both
per-capita CO2 emissions *and* percentage of total emissions for the world,
while the EU countries have much lower total percentages.
The only counter I personally have to that is that while the US produces
about 25% of the CO2, we're also a huge economic engine. The reason all
those developing countries get a pass on Kyoto is that their polluting is
peanuts when taken as a percentage of the whole.
> Science is not about *OPINION* it is about repeatable experiment.
>
> See:
>
> http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/GW-Aliens-Crichton.html
> http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html
You're citing Crichton in support of...what? Crichton is not a atmospheric
scientist, nor does he have any scientific credibility when it comes to his
statements on global warming. "State of Fear" is not a scientific work,
it's science fiction. His statements are hardly more than opinion
themselves.
> Science does, of course, propose theoretical models which then
> need to be tested in the court of Reality. Every single GW model
> propsed so far has been VASTLY wrong in overstating the rate and severity
> of warming. *Not a single one* (thus far) demonstrates unambigious
> statistical correlation between human action and GW which long predates
> human industrialization.
Care to support that with, you know, citations?
Jason
Patriarch (in [email protected])
said:
| I'm encouraged by the advances in photovoltaic generation and the
| silicon curve. Not for eveywhere, and not for mass-scale
| replication, but for the right application, promising. In
| California, the payback period is promising, without too much tax
| fiddling, or so it seems.
|
| With regard to wind - My grandparents had a windmill since the 50's
| to pump water. In the 70's, they put in a windmill generator, and
| essentially had a zero-price electric bill for 10-12 years. But
| they were on the Mendocino Coast of California, and the wind was
| pretty reliable there.
|
| Simple answers are often wrong, but if we can get enough folks
| talking, and thinking of alternatives, and recognizing the
| tradeoffs and risks, we might be smart enough to solve some
| problems. The old ways seem to be causing a problem or two, don't
| they?
Hmm. To quote one of the smarter folks: "As simple as possible; but
not simpler."
It would appear that we need to come to grips with the notion that we
may need to make use of multiple technologies. I've been focused on
solar heating and have had many people balk at the notion that they
should use solar heating in /conjunction/ with their conventional
heating system. The hard fact is that most conventional structures are
just too lossy for solar heat alone. It's possible, however, to reduce
the load on the conventional system substantially. That reduction
shows up for the user in smaller heating bills and for everyone else
as lower fuel costs than there'd be without the reduced demand.
The same kind of kind of approach is applies to wind and photovoltaic
power generation. Employment of these technologies produces a savings
for the owner in the form of reduced electric bills (or lower cost of
generation) and for everyone else as lower electricity cost than
there'd be without this reduced demand.
We need to begin unloading the grid and rethinking transport _now_,
using the technologies and solutions we have. The solutions we have
today will evolve and improve as we go; but if we decide not to do
anything until all of that evolution and improvement has been
completed, we'll be playing the most dangerous game of brinksmanship
ever.
One of our biggest problems is that people who have the power to
control /anything/ cling to "the way things are", with the fear that
if anything changes, they'll lose their ability to shape events as
they choose. Changing the energy paradigm will take a lot of courage
and effort - precisely because, as you say, "the way things are" isn't
working as well as our needs require.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Joseph Crowe wrote:
> ...
>
>
>>Ironically, Toyota took its ECHO out of the U.S. market...it gets
>>42mpg on the highway at around a sustained 75mph. That's just
>>dumb IMO.
>
> ...
>
> I'm sure if it were selling in the US that wouldn't have happened.
I'm uncertain what you mean here. The ECHO was selling in the U.S.
until the year 2006 models. It's definitely an econobox but better
than many and fairly durable as well. Unfortunately, it seems that
Toyota has replaced the ECHO with one of the Scion models, the XA
which gets slightly lower milage. My theory is that it was pushing
into the hybrid milage territory so Toyota decided to kill it off
here. In Australia, the ECHO is still sold in more configurations.
Our loss, IMO. It makes for a great commuter car....when all you
want to do is get to work and it's raining so the mortalcycle is
less that optimal, and the pickup is overkill....it's a really nice
niche car...and it's good for up to four people frankly. DAMHIKT but
there was certainly an interesting ECHO experience driving through
San Antonio a couple of years back....
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> >Doug Miller wrote:
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> > [email protected] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Besides you cannot seriously argue that if Iraq had no natural
>> >> >resources of interest to the US our policies toward Iraq would
>> >> >be the same?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, of course that can be seriously argued. See below.
>> >>
>> >> >That resource is oil. Directly or indirectly our
>> >> >policies in the Middle East are driven by the need for petroleum
>> >> >and the responsibility to Israel.
>> >>
>> >> Exactly right.
>> >
>> >Odd that you would say that, given that you go on to deny it
>> >below.
>>
>> You misspelled "explain".
>> >
>> >> But this is independent of the type, or extent, of Iraq's
>> >> natural resources, and depends rather on the type and extent of its
>> >> armaments, and its intentions for using them. An Iraq armed with, for
>> > example,
>> >> nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, would threaten the peace
> and
>> >> stability (such as they are) of that entire strategically critical region.
>> >
>> >Iraq did not have nuclear weapons, was no where near having
>> >nuclear weapons and had no active program for producing it.
>>
>> Missed the words "for example" in my post, did you?
>> [irrelevantia spawned by this oversight snipped]
>>
>> >So the notion of Iraq being a threat to its neighbors in 2003
>> >or the near future thereafer was completely unfounded.
>>
>> I didn't say that it was.
>
>No, you said "for example". However the hypothetical
>being discussed was Iraq without petroleum. NOT
>Iraq with a threatening military.
Exactly so -- because the military threat that Iraq posed to its neighbors is
not a hypothetical.
>> >
>> >How would that strategically important region be strategically
>> >critical without petroleum?
>>
>> Please read more carefully. I said that the level of threat that Iraq might
>> pose is independent of whether *Iraq* possesses petroleum or not. If the
>> *region* had no petroleum, of course it wouldn't be terribly important. But
>> that's not what I said.
>
>ALmost agree with you. Absent petroleum (and Israel) in the
>region we'd have little interst and most of that would center
>on the Suez Canal which is much more of a concern to Europe anyhow.
Precisely. Keep at it. You're starting to catch on.
>> Please read more carefully. You suggested that it cannot be seriously argued
>> that our policies toward Iraq would be the same if it had no oil. I'm pointing
>> out that it certainly *can* be seriously so argued, because Iraq's location in
>> a strategically important region, and any threat that it may or may not pose
>> to the stability of that region, depends on Iraq's military resources and its
>> penchant for using them -- not on whatever natural resources it does or does
>> not have.
>
>No, not any threat it "may or may not pose". Only a threat
>it DOES pose would justify it.
Justify *what*?
You seem to have forgotten what we were discussing, to wit: whether or not US
policy toward Iraq depends on Iraq's possession of oil. I contend that said
policy is influenced primarily by Iraq's location in an oil-producing region
and the extent of its military power and aspirations; you contend that said
policy depends primarily (if not solely) on the extent of Iraq's own oil
reserves. I have explained why, in my view, your contention is erroneous. At
no point have I commented on the wisdom (or lack thereof) of said policy, or
whether it is or is not justified. I'm not interested in having that
discussion with you.
>Clearly a threat Iraq DOES NOT
>pose would not. Clearly Iraq does not (and did not in 2003)
>pose such a threat.
You seem to have forgotten that, in 2002, anyway, it was very clear to nearly
everyone that it *did*. To refresh your memory, here are a few public
statements that you appear to have forgotten:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php
>You are introducing a second change into the hypothetical
>that being the existance of an Iraqi military threat to the
>region.
Ummm, no, that would not be a hypothetical.
>
>Certainly it is possible to invent, out of whole cloth, or
>even by drawing exagerrated inferences from scant, doubtful,
>and contradictory inforamtion, to come with a DIFFERENT
>hypothetical in which the US policies toward Iraq would
>be the same. We've actually seen that done quite recently.
Oh, you mean like your population and birth rate figures for France?
>
>You may as well suppose for instance that Iraq was located
>next to Kansas.
Or I might as well suppose that you have the ability to follow a logical
argument...
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"George Max" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>And build a house that can be easily refurbished after a flood. Good old
>>concrete blocks would work well.
>>
Solid block, yes, but I'd be leary of hollow block getting saturated with
the muck floating around.
>
> This is something I ponder after every report of a disaster. Some
> disasters seem to have greater survivability than others. For the
> ones with a higher probability of survival of the structure, why
> aren't the structures better built for the environment they stand in?
Much of this is now being done. At the New Jersey shore, most communities
have restrictions on what can be on the lower level. The bottom 8 or 10 foot
of concrete can not have any utilities, breaker box, heater, etc.
Gaining in popularity all over, but especially in the south is Insulating
Concrete Forms (ICFs) because they are both energy efficient and withstand
strong winds. www.standardicf.com or www.polysteel.com or
www.integraspec.com
You can see some effects of tornado damage here
http://www.polysteel.com/saferooms.htm as well as information of a safe
room.
Disclaimer: My company molds some of the product for these companies to
cover distribution in the northeast..
in 1230019 20050901 094319 "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Look around at the gas stations in the U.S. today. Gasoline in the low
>cost areas is now over $3 a gallon as price gouging gets endemic, and
>is touch twice that in areas such as Atlanta. There's almost a touch of
>pride in the TV announcers voices' as they note we're near European
>levels of pricing now.
$3 per gallon is about 80 cents per litre
UK price is about $1.60 (90p) per litre
so you have quite a way to go yet!
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8P2Re.2933$j41.1573@trndny05...
>
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:design->
>> Errrmmm... I didn't know who the Teutels were, so I DAGSed it... and
>> found this:
>>
>> http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/features/occ_visit.html
>>
>> Guess that means that people will watch anything.
>
> They do build some nifty bikes. One show is OK to watch but the same
> chatter (screaming), over and over, gets boring on the second episode.
> Just watch the last five minutes to see the end product.
>
I record the show and skip all arguments and "family outings".
I really like to see the creative processes and different kinds of
technology used to make the various parts. And some of the bikes are really
original. Paul Jr does have a definite gift for this sort of thing.
Essentially as long as I restrict myself to machinery and the bike itself,
it is watchable. Everything else is crap.
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote
> That's certainly true. OTOH, I have only a limited amount of compassion
> (for lack of a better word) for those who knowingly build in a place on
> the Gulf Coast below sea level and expect to not have such a result.
> While it's a major disaster, most of it is actually self-inflicted if
> folks weren't so bent on doing things that really just aren't smart
> decisions.
>
And maybe build houses that can stand some wind. I am no expert, but it
seems that the insurance industry should offer discounts to folks who build
houses (or at least ROOFS) to a higher standard could get some kind of
discounts. They do this sort of thing with cars, why not houses.
And build a house that can be easily refurbished after a flood. Good old
concrete blocks would work well.
Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>If you can demonstrate this, there is a Nobel in Physics in it for you.
>>The net energy out is always <= net energy in - at least as currently
>>understood thermodynamics works. But ... science does change. I'll
>>be the first to congratulate you on your discipline-bending work if
>>you prove otherwise ... (I always wanted to meet a Nobel winner ;)
>
>
> With the Euro these days, The Nobel isn't all that it's cracked up to be.
>
> Perpetual motion is unattainable because it is a closed system. If you
> have a generator driving a motor which drives that generator in the
> first place, you will not be able to keep that closed system running due
> to heat-losses, bearing friction etc. Disorder is introduced. The law
> applies, demonstrated by the model. (First law.)
>
> Now hook up a voltaic solar panel to the motor generator model and it
> will keep running (assuming the panel has sufficient power to over
> compensate for the aforementioned losses. It is now an open system,
> allowing energy to be fed into the loop. The model will not demonstrate
> the First Law, but, given enough time, it will demonstrate the Second Law
> as we have introduced entropy and opened up the argument to nebulous
> proportions.
>
> Farms are an open system as one can add energy from a variety of
> sources. It is not expected to supply its own energy and be left with a
> net gain. It is, in fact, hooked up to an outside source of energy.
>
> But if you use 20 cents for fuel (let's say 500 calories worth) in your
> moped to bring a seed to the middle of a field, and that seed turns into
> a tree which has potential biomass/energy. When burnt, that tree could
> yield millions of calories in energy. That energy did not come from your
> moped. Are you starting to see your simpleton errors?
>
> To suggest that I need to re-write the laws of thermodynamics in order
> for your misguided understanding to work, is not only humourless, but
> also puts a magnifying glass on how little understanding you have when
> it comes to matters dealing with energy. Any kind of energy.
> Save your wise-cracking for people who don't see right through you.
>
> Thank you for playing.
My my, how tender and sensitive we are. I completely "get" the idea
of outside energy sources adding net energy to the system. What I don't
get, and what you continue to refuse to demonstrate, is how today's
systems - that demonstrate a net loss of energy - are in any way remarkable.
Any real system will have a *net* loss of energy - even you seem to grasp
this. So what? Here is a simple, observable fact: Today's farms feed
more people, using less land, less labor, and at a lower overall cost
than ever in history. This is not my opinion, it is an observation.
This is an observable fact even in the face of your (apparent and largely
incoherent) argument that today's farms are not as energy efficient
as in the past (utter nonsense for the most part). Even if this were
indisputably true, the fact remains that more people get fed, for less,
using less land, and using less labor than ever before. Once again,
easily observed Reality trumps eco-whining fantasy.
But you wail on wringing your hands about the loss of farm land like there
is some terrible problem on our doorstep because (and I quote):
In many cases, the energy consumed to weed/seed/harvest etc. is greater
than the energy produced (in calories)
It's a strawman argument - designed to invoke sympathetic emotional response.
But it is an argument without relevance or importance. i.e., It is the
same earth-worshiping drivel heard on a regular basis from the eco-weenies
around the world who are long on invective and short on science.
Here is a nice softball question for you. If we are all going to eco-hell
at he moment, then why has virtually every single indicator of human
happiness, success, and achievement (lifespan, environmental cleanliness,
crime rates, leisure time ...) all *improved* over the past hundred years
or so? And not just in the 1st world, it's improving *everywhere* just
not as fast in the undeveloped world. If today's systems and processes
are so doggone ineffient/bad/mean to Ma Nature, then why do they work
so very well?
Thank you for playing indeed...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:07:13 -0500, George Max
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I had been in the areas that burned about 2 weeks before it all
>started. Lots of roofs that looked like asphalt shingles. Maybe they
>were something else, but they sure looked that way to my midwestern
>eyes.
The primary propagation mechanism for fires in a residential
neighborhood is flying embers, to which asphalt shingles are
effectively fireproof.
>Yes, wood under the stucco, but stucco doesn't burn. Hard to start a
>fire when the outer shell doesn't support combustion.
You're missing my point: about 99% of the houses here *have* stucco as
their outer shell. I can count on my thumbs the number of houses I've
seen here that have combustible siding.
Here's the real deal: the reason you even saw the picture of that
house is because it was an anomaly at that location. The single house
that survives (for whatever reasons) gets tons of air time, unlike the
blocks of identical structures that were burned flat *or* survived
unscathed.
But what do I know, I've only lived here 32 years.
Lee
"George Max" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:52:09 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>> That's certainly true. OTOH, I have only a limited amount of compassion
>>> (for lack of a better word) for those who knowingly build in a place on
>>> the Gulf Coast below sea level and expect to not have such a result.
>>> While it's a major disaster, most of it is actually self-inflicted if
>>> folks weren't so bent on doing things that really just aren't smart
>>> decisions.
>>>
>>And maybe build houses that can stand some wind. I am no expert, but it
>>seems that the insurance industry should offer discounts to folks who
>>build
>>houses (or at least ROOFS) to a higher standard could get some kind of
>>discounts. They do this sort of thing with cars, why not houses.
>>
>>And build a house that can be easily refurbished after a flood. Good old
>>concrete blocks would work well.
>>
>
> This is something I ponder after every report of a disaster. Some
> disasters seem to have greater survivability than others. For the
> ones with a higher probability of survival of the structure, why
> aren't the structures better built for the environment they stand in?
>
> For example - the fires in Southern California a couple of summers ago
> - I saw a photo of a single house in one of the affected neighborhoods
> that survived. A stucco house with a clay tile roof. All the others
> apparently constructed as a regular frame house with asphalt shingles.
> Why build a house like that in that area?
>
> And in hurricane prone areas, why build close to the shore where you
> *know* storm surge will inundate your structure? And as you mention a
> roof to better resist the wind. Some magazine did a story about a
> house built by the mother of former Attorney General Janet Reno. That
> dwelling did a great job of resisting Hurricane Andrew.
>
> What's wrong with building a dwelling for the climate?
>
> Of couse if the disaster is an earthquake or a direct hit by a
> tornado, maybe not much can be done.
>
Or good old Domes. Buckminister Fuller (Bucky) designed domes to wistand
arctic blasts. I know that it doesn't fit into traditional styles, but a
manufactured dome would have many advantages. Including a quick build time
with unskilled labor. Build them out of ferro cement. No roof to blow off.
Etc, etc
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ... as to be inflicted with this never ending proliferation of idiots
> with
> microphones and rain gear who seem convinced that they alone have made
> the
> profound discovery that high wind, rain, and flood water are
> components of
> hurricanes?
I've often suspected that the local bozos here in H-town can't wait
to do a spot from the Galveston seawall, standing in front of a wind
machine while a colleague sprays water from a hose on them. The local
NBC affiliate in particular. It's always tonight's "BIG STORY."
--
"New Wave" Dave In Houston
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
> but we didn't get back to talking
> woodworking until the woodworking was done.
Yep ... it can be a pleasure discussing various topics with like minded
folks. You just have to keep reminding yourself that even the new shop
kitten, purr as she does most of the time, will reach out and bite when you
step on her toes.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05
In article <[email protected]>, Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Juergen Hannappel
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unless the Acme Corp has a gun to Joe's head (which is a criminal act)
>>>> he is free to move elsewhere,
>>>
>>>So I take for granted that you, if standing next to the US border to
>>>Mexico, cry out "Mr. Bush, tear down this fence!".
>>
>> What the hell --???
>>
>> The U.S. is attempting to keep people from *entering* our country
>> *illegally*.
>
>So you say the Mexico fence is illegal,
What on earth makes you think I'm saying that?
>
>> The Berlin Wall was erected to keep people from *leaving* theirs,
>> *legally*.
>
>while the Berlin Wall was legal? ;-)
I didn't say it was.
You obviously missed the point completely: the United States has erected a
fence to prevent the illegal movement of people into the U.S. The Soviet Union
erected the Berlin Wall to prevent the legal movement of people out of East
Berlin. For you to suggest that the two are in any way similar shows that your
Weltanschauung is _seriously_ distorted.
>
>Earnestly: If Tim is in favour of freedom and free markets this would
>include freedom to move elsewhere, and that implies not only freedom
>to go away from one place but also to arrive at another.
So are you suggesting that nations do not have the right to control *entry* at
their borders? I suppose you would support the right of Turks to come to
Germany, seeking work, in unlimited numbers?
>The labour
>market would according to his beliefs either happily supply all the
>migrants with jobs or make migration sufficiently unatractive not to
>happen. A free labour market produces lots of competition among
>workers, obviuosly.
Again: does a nation have the right to control immigration, or not?
>[...]
>
>>>The money market and interest rates basically mean
>>>that the more desperate you need money the less you get it or are able
>>>to afford it.
>>
>> Non sequitur.
>
>Loan interest rates depend on debtor failure probability, so starting
>a business produces extra expensive loans.
Not necessarily. If a start-up business is well-capitalized, with a
well-thought-out business plan and a readily marketable product or service,
there is no particular reason to suppose a high failure probability, and
therefore no particular reason to suppose high interest rates either. On the
other hand, a poorly-capitalized business, with no business plan (or a poor
one), not offering a readily marketable product or service, *is* likely to
fail, and thus presents a higher risk.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:10:47 -0400, Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> One would hope that there will be an accounting the future for those
>> institutions repsonsible for the maintenance of this infrastructure.
>
>Look no further than Washington. They didn't do important assessments of
>the levees' conditions due to federal cut-backs. More cut-backs for 2006.
>The Army Corps of Engineers had their budgets cut.
>
>Now Bush has taken charge of the relief efforts. Just when you thought
>that things couldn't get any worse.
It's beautiful that they had national guard troops standing by (to go
to F***ing Iraq) as well. At first, I just didn't like Bush because
he is a twit- but now I'd like to see him and his cronies formally
charged with treason and hanged on prime-time TV. There have probably
been plenty of messes that have been this large, or even larger in
history- but none that I can recall seeing in my lifetime.
I've been spending all my time lately helping friends and family
energy-proof thier homes and trying desperately to find used
woodburning stoves (new ones are out of my family members' price
range, and I can only afford to buy new for myself) just so we don't
all freeze to death this winter- they'll let Louisana's residents
drown, no doubt Wisconsin will ice over just as easily. Nobody I know
has enough money to pay an additional 5-6x rate increase for heating
oil- last year was bad enough for most folks, and it's becoming very
clear that if you don't own a multi-national corporation or two these
days, you're expendable garbage.
Yeah, yeah. I know, It's not Bush's fault. Except for the fact that
the SOB seems to be working as hard as he can (when he's not on
vacation, that is) to bring about hell on Earth for all but his close
friends- who will no doubt profit enormously as long as there are
still at least a few victims left to squeeze.
How can anyone still support him? Go ahead and kill-file me if you
like, but anyone who can't see what the bastard is doing to our
country is dumber than a f***ing post, and needs to get right up on
the scaffold with their damned religious right and get their neck
stretched too. It's the same old saw- your right to swing your fist
ends where my nose begins, and I'm tired of seeing my country
destroyed day after day.
Obviously, this tirade isn't aimed at all of you- plenty of the folks
on this list (some of whom I'm sure I've already alienated) are fine
and decent folks. The rest of you rednecks know who you are, and
you're the ones who can go piss up a rope.
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:01:30 GMT, "Rick M"
<[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
>That's why PBS is having such difficult times ... their charter
>is about education and enlightment, and most people don't want that.
Enlightenment?
I used to be a regular and generous contributor to my local PBS TV
station and even sent money to a PBS radio station in Phoenix, even
though I'm in Tucson. (I liked their jazz better than the local
guys.)
That all came to a screeching halt the night that the Whitewater trial
convictions were handed down, and any news organization worth its salt
was reporting on it.
I can't remember whether it was still "McNeil/Lehrer" or had changed
to "The Newshour" but I distinctly remember that rather than going
with the story of the day, Jim Lehrer did an "interview" with Hillary
Clinton, in which he threw out softball questions, not one of which
ever mentioned Whitewater.
This is not to bash the Clintons, they were doing what they do, but
for an organization as blatantly biased as this to ask me for money
under the guise of "education" and "objectivity" is too much.
I like some of their shows and continue to watch, but whatever tax
money they get is the limit of my contributions.
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>You know, If every one moved out of the hurricane zone there would not be
>>enough room to plant crops or raise cattle. How about the fools that live
>>in the area of the country where it snows or near rivers, or in tornado
>>alley or the earth quake zone, or the ones that live in New York, the
>>target, or the mid west, or in the north west where volcano's blow, or
>>near Yellowstone. There are damn few places to live in the US that does
>>not contribute to the cost of insurance.
>
>
> I've been thinking about this the past two days. Do we close New Orleans and
> make it an underwater park? Move the people out? What about the fishermen
> and orange growers that keep us fed? Maybe we should keep the farms but run
> them from a distance.
>
> While I don't see myself building a house 6 feel below sea level and only a
> few hundred yards from the sea. it would seem difficult to just close down
> some of those areas completely. OTOH, I don't want subsidize either
> through taxes or insurance premiums, a beach front multi-million dollar home
> because the owner likes the view. Screw him, he is on his own.
>
> Oh, and what do we do about the guys that harvest the cypress trees? (slyly
> getting on topic)
>
>
How about a 20 year sunset on FEMA - reduction in budget (inflation adjusted)
of 5% per year. This gives people plenty of time to decide whether they
(and their insurers) wish to take the risk that a major hurricane/earthquake/
mudslides/fires in 20 years is 100% *their* problem. Allow FEMA to
continue excusively for true "emergencies" like one-of-a-kind natural
disasters, terror attacks, and so forth. The natural ebb/flow of the market
would determine whether the risk of running a farm 6 feet below sea level
was worth the reward ....
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 19:20:48 -0500, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Joseph Crowe (in [email protected]) said:
>
>| Further, do you think that solar generation of electricity
>| given technological advances can generate enough DC power to run a
>| decent table saw or similar?
>
>[1] Yes I do. Not too long ago one of the regulars' 12-year old
>(grand?) daughter did her own research and under his watchful eyes
>built a small working demonstration panel for a school science fair.
>If a 12-year old can, then I'd have to believe that determined adults
>can.
I recently judged the Connecticut finals for the annual statewide
"Invention Convention" held at UCONN. I was there as an engineer,
other judges include patent attorneys, manufacturers, etc...
If you saw what some of these kids came up with, you'd believe the
conspiracy theorists who rant about oil companies squashing energy
saving technology. <G>
Some of it was _very_ good... And some of it came from _ELEMENTARY_
school kids!
Barry
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:25:17 -0500, George Max
<[email protected]> wrote:
>For example - the fires in Southern California a couple of summers ago
>- I saw a photo of a single house in one of the affected neighborhoods
>that survived. A stucco house with a clay tile roof. All the others
>apparently constructed as a regular frame house with asphalt shingles.
Uh, what exactly do you think is under the stucco of just about every
house in Southern California, including (most likely) the one you saw?
Hint: starts with a "w" and gets discussed occasionally on this NG.
And more than likely, the adjacent homes to the one that survived had
the same type of roof or something equally "fire-proof". Once a large
fire gets into an area densely populated enough to be called a
"neighborhood", the primary factor determining which houses survive
and which ones burn is called "luck".
Lee
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The "pollution" argument is a chimera - the air is *cleaner* today in most
> all the industrial world than it was a hundred years ago.
That's really not saying much...100 years ago, during the height of the
coal-burning Industrial Revolution, the air in industrial areas was
horrifically polluted.
Though you're generally correct that the air is relatively clean, there's
certainly a great deal of progress to be made. Anyone who's flown over any
decent-sized U.S. city on any given day can see the layer of photochemical
haze hanging over the city.
> Global Warming
> is a vastly overstated threat
That's a pretty categorical statement, innit? I know of lots and lots of
scientists (climatologists, mind you) who have concluded the opposite,
though they agree that the jury's out a bit on who or what is responsible.
> and there is today no statistically demonstrable
> connection between human activity and the very slight observed warming
> (which
> has been going on for 15,000 years or so).
The National Academy of Sciences and the International Panel on Climate
Change seem to disagree with you.
http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/
Pressure to find sources of energy other than fossil fuel isn't really a
Communist plot. Conserving energy isn't either. Sure, Communists are among
its supporters, but I think you'll find lots of people - including
capitalists - think it's a good idea too.
Jason
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > One would hope that there will be an accounting the future for those
> > institutions repsonsible for the maintenance of this infrastructure.
>
> Look no further than Washington. They didn't do important assessments of
> the levees' conditions due to federal cut-backs. More cut-backs for 2006.
> The Army Corps of Engineers had their budgets cut.
>
> Now Bush has taken charge of the relief efforts. Just when you thought
> that things couldn't get any worse.
I have to take exception with that claim. The levies are a New Orleans,
Biloxi, etc. problem. It's easy to point to Washington for not funding
everything a locale wants in order to live out their chosen life style or
location but in what way is the nation responsible for New Orleans being
located in an area that only guarantees this sort of disaster? New Orleans
hauls in tons of money each year from tourism. Why hasn't *that* money been
directed to shoring up their own levies? Why should the nation be
responsible for this?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"George Max" wrote in message
> beans. Those people are doing a great job of desensitizing people to
> the times when a real disaster is happening.
It started, to my mind, with the TV reporting of oil spills in gallons
instead of barrels, progressing to the point that "teacups" will soon be
required to maintain the impact value. From there we've gone to routinely
reporting, and accepting without question, current weather temperatures in
"feels like" terms, which are unquantifiable but certainly more sensational.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> ...
>
>>... People arguing for the "barely surviving
>>farmer" have no case, and *that* is more-or-less what I was arguing against.
>
>
> Come give it a go then, ...
Nope. As I said, I have family that have "given it a go". It is
unquestionably hard work (as are all successful endevours) but more
importantly, you have to have a passion for it. I don't. I've certainly
spent time on a farm working and I learned pretty quickly it wasn't for
me however much I enjoyed being on a farm (a lot).
Note that at no point have I denigrated the work ethic, importance, and
honorability of farming. All I've argued in this thread is that the
"barely surviving" argument is at obvious odds with the great and
increasing success seen in agriculture over the past 5 decades
especially. I freely admit that *some particular* farmers may be having
economic problems (just like some dentists, doctors, lawyers, plumbers,
and carpenters might) but this is hardly grounds for declaring the entire
industry imperiled.
ISTM that what is being said here subtly (by you and others)is that
the *family-owned/small farm* is in trouble. That may well be true.
Corporations have brought an economy of scale to the agribusiness
with which the smaller farm may not be able to compete. Again, this
does not really speak to the industry as a whole.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
In article <300820050812314093%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > ... as to be inflicted with this never ending proliferation of idiots with
> > microphones and rain gear who seem convinced that they alone have made the
> > profound discovery that high wind, rain, and flood water are components of
> > hurricanes?
>
> ROFL!
>
> About 10 years ago I was in Seattle when a mild earthquake occured. The
> local TV stations went into high-alert mode, with several hours of
> broadcasting that went something like:
>
> "And now, over to Steve near the Sea-Tac Airport. Steve, any damage
> there?"
>
> "Nothing, Ken. Everything is completely normal."
>
> "Okay. We'll be back to Steve in a little while for an update. So far,
> there is absolutely no reported damage... wait, we have a report from
> Connie in downtown Seattle. Connie?"
>
> "Ken, I'm at 'Hair Affair' haiir salon near the market, and as you can
> see behind me, several bottles of hair care products have been shaken
> from their shelves and are laying on the floor."
>
> "Thanks for that update, Connie."
>
> "No problem, Ken."
>
> etc...
Piss off already... I was taking a drink of juice when I was reading
your post... now WHO is going to clean up this mess?
In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> I stand by my statement - farming today is more efficient and requires
> less land than ever.
less land...such a narrow view..and now uses way more more energy than
it ever did.
In many cases, the energy consumed to weed/seed/harvest etc. is greater
than the energy produced (in calories)
Many 'factory farm operations' are an environmental disaster. Think
'feed-lot and hog-farm'.
Never mind smelly hippies, try stinking opportunists. Carlisle Group
making farm equipment now?
Your ignorance is only overshadowed by your arrogance.
In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> I just read the Constitution from cover to cover about 6 weeks ago
> and I do not recall any such language.
Did you high-light any sections where your Patriot Act makes a mockery
of that same Constitution?
In article <[email protected]>,
"Lee Michaels" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Essentially as long as I restrict myself to machinery and the bike itself,
> it is watchable. Everything else is crap.
I tracked down a cpl of episodes.
Fabulous bikes, indeed. WAY too much theatrical diatribe bullshit.
That artificial deadline crap gets reallly stale quick.
What have we become??
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:26:09 -0500, Patriarch
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote in news:43175733.954C0A11
>@swko.dot.net:
>
>> Patriarch wrote:
>> ...
>>> Cars like that are almost completely about ego, anyhow. Completely
>>> unlike woodworkers and their tools, I'm certain. ;-)
>>
>> Actually, it would be interesting to me to see some concentrate on
>> interior design and woodwork as in some of the oldies like the Packard,
>> etc. Did a couple of restorations for an acquaintance while in TN.
>> Lots of neat work there.
>>
>
>No question about that. There are all sorts of subspecialties in our
>craft, and there are intricacies to learn from masters of each of them. I
>caught just a snippet of a piece on DIY network the other evening, where a
>master was making a violin bow. I'm going to have to set the TiVo to see
>if I can catch another showing of that one.
I think thats the "Hand Made Music" series. So far as I know they have
about four or so projects--Lynn Dudenbostel (I think that's his name)
has made a guitar and a mandolin as I recall, and they made a violin
at the Chicago School of Violin Making, where I suspect that bow
episode was done.
DIY usually doesn't do repeat episodes daily like a lot of networks
(irritates the bejeezus out of me), however they do repeat the series
frequently, so you'll see it again in a couple of months or so. I
think that's usually on Sunday evening about 2200 and now that I think
of it, they do repeat that around 0100 Monday.
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
In article <[email protected]>,
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Of which crops are you specifically referring and for what purpose?
>
I wasn't referring to any particular crop. It was of interest to me that
mankind has been converting diesel to Fruit-Loops (or was that
Cocoa-Puffs?) for quite a long time. I had a visual of a horse not being
able to work the land hard enough so that there would be enough fuel to
repeat the same Loop again next year.
The article did specify 'crops in rotation', which to me would suggest
soy, winter wheat, corn, maybe a cycle of hay? Now that would complicate
the model if raising livestock were to be considered 'farming' (In my
mind a Loop like that would have to be in its own category.
> There are certain individuals/organizations w/ specific agendas which
> are propogating misinformation and distorted analyses for their specific
> purposes.
Ahhh, yess.. the data has become form-fitting... Like a gas, it occupies
the space made available to it, regardless of shape.
>
> DOA/DOE has done some recent studies on the energy returns on bio-fuels
> which are available at the DOE site. Recent results are roughly 1.6
> out/in.
I'm aware it's out there (we have a very successful ethanol plant near
here. The 'rewards' to the local corn growers has been virtually
annihilated as a forced Supply Agreement makes the fuel producer buy
their corn from a rotating list, covering as much as 20 counties.
>
> As noted elsewhere, other crops are grown for purposes other than net
> energy. That doesn't negate their value.
See above. Crops are grown for clothing. Y'ole hemp is on its way
back.... in fact it IS back. Man, that stuff is strong. Biodegradable to
boot.
>
> Regarding you fallback to irreversible processes, on that basis we might
> as well all just stop doing anything since the ultimate source is going
> to burn up one day anyway and we can't make more.
Yup... finite resources. Maybe our kids will bail us out? Maybe one will
grab one of us by the scruff of the neck and ask us to our face: "You
did what???"
I'm looking at this from an interesting vantage point. My oldest
daughter works for the power company. She works at a nuke plant.
As an operator. 2000 MegaWatts of noise free, stink free, acid rain-free
blu-glow juiceDUDE!
I was rotated (by the same company as my kid's) through the Operations
section at a Fossil Burner where we pulverized, ignited, and blew into
the atmosphere 73 tons of 6% sulphur coal.... per hour.
My BIL is a manager at a BIG USA construction company. His speciality
deals with rebuilding worn-out refineries. Including a packaged
desulpherisation unit which can be installed a multiple..world-wide.
His son, my nephew, can't "wait for the day they throw the switch on a
'Bomb-in-a-Box' Fusion reactor and have the fucker stay lit."
Interesting games of canasta at my dad's house.... elevated spiritually
by Russian vodka, California brandies... really excellent stuff these
last few years, and a variety of wines and beers.
Like I said: "Interesting vantage point."
In article <[email protected]>,
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Cut backs or not, the New Orleans government should have not let this happen
> even if they had to completely foot the bill on their own.
No argument from me, Leon. However, the status quo was that the feds
were handling it...or at least supposed to handle it. They didn't.
If the NO gov't had no choice but to build up the protection, I have a
feeling it would have happened.
I could be wrong...not as if THAT hasn't happened before :)
In article <[email protected]>,
Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote:
> You also have to consider the resources used for fertilizer,
> herbi-/pesti-/whatevercides, transporting the produce fom the agrarian
> states where it grows to the populated places where its converted to
> waste again...
You are correct. It doesn't just relate to the farm equipment. I should
have been more specific. It's not just the fuel a tractor burns.
In article <[email protected]>,
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sounds like time to write a proposal and a business plan and find a
> venture capitalist...if it's really doable, <someone> will.
errm... as long as there is oil to sell, the Bushistas won't like it if
you compete with them. The venture capitalists might get a tap on the
shoulder.
Or, the proposal might get 'Roved' by having the originator of the
proposal made out to be a crack-pot.
In article <[email protected]>,
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
[snippage]
> >
> > less land...such a narrow view..and now uses way more more energy than
> > it ever did.
>
> That isn't true at all. Modern equipment is far more fuel efficient in
> terms of acres covered and bushels produced per gallon than your
> father's Olds^h^h^h^h err, tractor... :)
The equipment is more efficient, yet its role in the process is more
prominent. So you gain on the gals/HP ratio, but lose it by using it
more.
>
> > In many cases, the energy consumed to weed/seed/harvest etc. is greater
> > than the energy produced (in calories)
>
> Have you specific data to back this up?
I was on your side in my search for proof before. I was provided with a
whack of footnotes all finding the juxtaposition of 'calories in vs
calories out'. The argument made sense at 72 cents per litre, I have no
reason to argue the validity at $ 1.03 per litre. Lettuce hasn't
inflated 25%.... oh yes.. lettuce. Lettuce supports our craving for
dressings. It's a symbiotic adventure.
> Some products, such as lettuce
> are grown for reasons other than coloric content. Does that mean they
> shouldn't be grown?
That would apply to the growing of flowers as well.
(A very lucrative business. Those dudes fly their own fleet of
refrigerated 747's. NY-Amsterdam.... Every day. Flowers for the
wives/girlfriends of smelly hippies. The ones holding out for their
partners to move them up from an Aviator to a Navigator. Life is sooo
complex!)
>
> > Many 'factory farm operations' are an environmental disaster. Think
> > 'feed-lot and hog-farm'.
>
> There're are some problems, granted, but for the most part this is a far
> overblown problem.
I respect you enough (by reading your positions on other threads) not to
take your stance for granted.
> That said, I'd like to see a reduction in the size
> of hog operations, but it isn't economically feasible any longer, thanks
> to the same mindset that drives current consumers to Wally-World to save
> a penny.
See above. *G*
Those meat-raising machines produce wicked outflow. The by-product of
protein enhancement is very efficient. All its by-products are very
compact/concentrated. Dangerous shit, dude! The crack of effluents.
>
> ...
In article <[email protected]>,
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Why hasn't *that* money been
> directed to shoring up their own levies? Why should the nation be
> responsible for this?
Because you're all Americans and in this together? Because the
protection of the population is a federal mandate when it includes large
infrastructures.
People are paying with their lives every day because decisions are made
on a federal level.
Using your theory, why not use all those tourist dollars to fix what
just went wrong? Should Biloxi casino revenues got to fix NO? It is so
easy to step aside and play Whack-A-Mole with 'who is responsible'...
bottom line is that a disaster of this magnitude was a known risk.
Plenty of people have pointed out that those levees were dangerous. The
Army Engineers knew. They wanted more money to rectify a known
vulnerability. But you got to cut somewhere if you wanna give your
buddies a tax break. But the carnage was put to good use, the gallon is
now over 3 bucks.... that oughtta keep some of those buddies happy.
Infrastructure is a federal responsibility when it is a federal agency
which has to bail out the victims of a disaster.
In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> One would hope that there will be an accounting the future for those
> institutions repsonsible for the maintenance of this infrastructure.
Look no further than Washington. They didn't do important assessments of
the levees' conditions due to federal cut-backs. More cut-backs for 2006.
The Army Corps of Engineers had their budgets cut.
Now Bush has taken charge of the relief efforts. Just when you thought
that things couldn't get any worse.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
>
> > > I recall discussing the "feels like factor" in Physics while in college.
> > > The professor just laughed and we later termed it the "wus factor".
> Feels
> > > like to who exactly?
> >
> > See above reply...it's a statistical correlation developed from actual
> > test data on fairly sizable sample populations...
>
> ... and to paraphrase one of my college math professors many years ago:
> "Statisticians are mathematicians hired to prove statistically what they
> can't prove mathematically" ... or words to that effect. :)
Not to forget the ol' chestnut about 9 out of 10 statisticians being
wrong 4 times out of 5.
In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> If today's systems and processes
> are so doggone ineffient/bad/mean to Ma Nature, then why do they work
> so very well?
Talk about a straw man. I'm not going to chase down every diversionary
tack you take in this discussion.
I stated that crops yield less calories that the calories required to
harvest/grow/yield/transport/fertilize them.
I posted some links and references supporting that position, take the
time to read them.
I also don't give a rat's ass whether or not you find my statement
remarkable or not.
Arguing for argument sake is a waste of my time.
Have a nice day.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Prometheus (in [email protected]) said:
>
> | they'll let Louisana's residents drown
>
> No worry - Halliburton will get the contract to put the entire Gulf
> Coast area back 'right as rain'.
>
> Er... just as soon as they finish (with) Iraq.
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
DieBolt already promised Cheny the president's job. So you'll probably
be right about Halliburton cleaning up NO.
Bechtel (of Big Dig fame) is another candidate.
In article <[email protected]>,
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >
> ...
> > IOW, your statement is true but unremarkable - it applies to *everything* -
> > and is thus irrelevant to the debate at hand.
>
> It isn't necessarily true to the systems under discussion because there
> are more inputs than outputs. Much of the output energy of ag products
> is derived from the sun--ever hear of photosynthesis?
LOL..I didn't even dare to go near the energy balances during chemical
conversions, but yes, every time you convert energy from one kind to
another, you will deal with losses. (Entropy) All regulated by the
Second Law.
Photosynthesis is a particularly intriguing equation because CO2
converts to O2 with C staying behind as a complex fibre for us to stick
in a lathe or bandsaw. (Don't shoot me for this over-simplification...
I'm trying to connect with Tim here...:)
In article <[email protected]>,
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote:
> That a disaster could strike an area
> is not reason to assign federal responsibility to infrastructure.
It should be if the aftermath of a disaster affects the whole nation.
Case in point being the gas prices.
If the docks in Long Beach CA were due to collapse for whatever reason,
the feds would be all over them to make sure they can bring the Chinese
imports home....
The houses being built on mudslides in Cali....okay... I agree with you.
ONLY because those clowns don't screw up supply lines and petro-flow.
Sam Kinnison used to do a routine about people running out of food in
the desert. "Don't send them food...send them boxes and UHauls!!!
MOVE!!! There is no FOOOD in the frickin' desert, you morons!!
>Or, if money does not grow on trees. Tell me - do you complain at all
about
>the amount of tax money you pay? Are you disgrunteled at all about the
way
>that money is spent? Why is it so easy to throw this over the wall to
Bush
>(don't get me wrong, I'm no supporter of Bush)? Just an easy target?
My tax dollars are spent in such a way that there will be just enough
token projects launched in my area for the incumbent to try to get
his/her ass re-elected.
One needs a federal umbrella that handles problems of national
importance.
One hopes that the 25 billion damage is not enough to ripple the coffers
too much. A drop in the bucket. Hell..they should hire Bechtel to fix
the levees...they did such a bang-up job in Boston!! (Aside from a 4000%
cost over-run) Or...wait...Halliburton?? They handle money well with
integrity etc.
About Bush. I have been a conservative (with some liberal leanings on a
few limited issues) all my life. But this asshole has got to go. I
thought Reagan was Da Man! So my distaste is not from party-lines.
I'm not even anti-war....unless the reasons are fabricated in order to
cover up the real reasons. IMHO.. that Bush is whacked enough to toss
nukes and turn the desert into glass. He is an ill-tempered dry drunk
and dangerous as hell. There is NO way his re-election was legit. No way
are THAT many people THAT desensitized to the truth.
The Dems are sitting on their hands watching the whole place go for a
shit...not a peep!! Serves the assholes right. To send a Skull & Bones
Yale yuppie after the most vile conniving Skull & Bones incumbent was
just plain stupid.
You know, I seldom talk about politics... but I got mad today when the
press made such a big deal about Bush's fly-over the disaster area,
cutting his vacation short (by two whole whopping days, no less) whilst
I KNOW in my heart of hearts that he doesn't give a shit. Many people
remember the case of Karla Faye Tucker, the born-again pickax-murderess
who showed -- at least by the standard of Christian fundamentalism --
signs of having been rehabilitated. Gov. Bush snuffed her. "Pweeese
don't kill meeee".. does anybody remember that?
Bullies have fragile egos. That's why he won't meet with Cindy. She'd
stand him up. And he would not be able to defend himself. That doesn't
make Cindy strong or right, but Bush is weak.
I'm not a big Cindy fan... she's hurt...I understand....but go home,
Cindy... Casey is not coming back. Don't let the Michael Moore whackos
use you for fodder.
Holy cow...look at the time..
*poof*
In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> There is *always* less energy
> out than energy in because perpetual motion is impossible.
That law doesn't apply to a farm. There are many sources and drains for
energy on a farm. It is not a closed system. Thermal air-flows, solar
radiation, rain, etc.
Cow/pig farts contain valuable gasses. My guess is that a single
cow-fart will light your lamp for a week.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's gotta be the rarity of the air in LA and New York that causes the
> ignorant, condescending arrogance that makes the Teutels' look like brain
> surgeons.
Errrmmm... I didn't know who the Teutels were, so I DAGSed it... and
found this:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/features/occ_visit.html
Guess that means that people will watch anything.
I just turned on the tube...widespread looting...wonderful.
"LEAVE THE DVD PLAYERS!!!!!! GRAB THE BEER!!!"
*shaking my head in absofuckinglute disbelief.*
*Turns tube off*
In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> If you can demonstrate this, there is a Nobel in Physics in it for you.
> The net energy out is always <= net energy in - at least as currently
> understood thermodynamics works. But ... science does change. I'll
> be the first to congratulate you on your discipline-bending work if
> you prove otherwise ... (I always wanted to meet a Nobel winner ;)
With the Euro these days, The Nobel isn't all that it's cracked up to be.
Perpetual motion is unattainable because it is a closed system. If you
have a generator driving a motor which drives that generator in the
first place, you will not be able to keep that closed system running due
to heat-losses, bearing friction etc. Disorder is introduced. The law
applies, demonstrated by the model. (First law.)
Now hook up a voltaic solar panel to the motor generator model and it
will keep running (assuming the panel has sufficient power to over
compensate for the aforementioned losses. It is now an open system,
allowing energy to be fed into the loop. The model will not demonstrate
the First Law, but, given enough time, it will demonstrate the Second Law
as we have introduced entropy and opened up the argument to nebulous
proportions.
Farms are an open system as one can add energy from a variety of
sources. It is not expected to supply its own energy and be left with a
net gain. It is, in fact, hooked up to an outside source of energy.
But if you use 20 cents for fuel (let's say 500 calories worth) in your
moped to bring a seed to the middle of a field, and that seed turns into
a tree which has potential biomass/energy. When burnt, that tree could
yield millions of calories in energy. That energy did not come from your
moped. Are you starting to see your simpleton errors?
To suggest that I need to re-write the laws of thermodynamics in order
for your misguided understanding to work, is not only humourless, but
also puts a magnifying glass on how little understanding you have when
it comes to matters dealing with energy. Any kind of energy.
Save your wise-cracking for people who don't see right through you.
Thank you for playing.
In article <[email protected]>,
Guess who <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:24:10 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >... as to be inflicted with this never ending proliferation of idiots with
> >microphones and rain gear
>
> ...and not the brains nor the sense to realise that this is a
> woodworking conference like it says in the title.
You know that's a crock. Plenty of participants have wood in their blood.
It is the only prerequisite.
We all need a hug sometime...
In article <[email protected]>,
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Have you specific data to back this up? Some products, such as lettuce
> are grown for reasons other than coloric content. Does that mean they
> shouldn't be grown?
Tons.
" It is estimated that the average U.S. farm uses a total of 3 calories
of fossil energy to produce each calorie of food energy."
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/energy/
http://www.jhsph.edu/Environment/CLF_Press/CLF_publications/WhitePaper.ht
ml
(The Johns Hopkins people aren't just a few liberal bloggers..*S*)
A few more references:
1. Energy Information Administration "State Energy Data Report 1999:
Energy Consumption Estimates by Source, Selected Years 1960-1999, United
States" U.S. Department of Energy, 1999.
2. Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) "Clean Energy: Backgrounder: the
sources of energy" UCS February, 2003.
3. Union of Concerned Scientists. "The Hidden Cost of Fossil Fuels"
UCS, 2002.
4. Horrigan, Leo, Robert S. Lawrence, and Polly Walker. "How
Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health
Harms of Industrial Agriculture." Environmental Health Perspectives Vol
110, 5 May 2002.
5. Soil Conservation Council of Canada . "Global Warming and
Agriculture: Fossil Fuel" Factsheet volume 1, #3. January 2001.
6. Horrigan, Leo, Robert S. Lawrence, and Polly Walker. "How
Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health
Harms of Industrial Agriculture." Environmental Health Perspectives Vol
110, 5 May 2002.
7. Norberg-Hodge, Helena , Todd Merrifield, and Steven Gorelick.
Bringing The Food Economy Home: Local Alternatives to Global
Agribusiness. Bloomfield , CT : Kumarian Press. 2002. p.18.
8. Pirog, Rich. "Checking the Food Odometer: Comparing Food Miles for
Local Versus Conventional Produce Sales in Iowa Institutions." Leopold
Center for Sustainable Agriculture. July 2003.
9. Ibid.
10. Norberg-Hodge, Helena , Todd Merrifield, and Steven Gorelick.
Bringing The Food Economy Home: Local Alternatives to Global
Agribusiness. Bloomfield , CT : Kumarian Press. 2002. p.32
11. Pirog, Rich. "Checking the Food Odometer: Comparing Food Miles for
Local Versus Conventional Produce Sales in Iowa Institutions." Leopold
Center for Sustainable Agriculture. July 2003.
12. Soil Conservation Council of Canada . "Global Warming and
Agriculture: Fossil Fuel" Factsheet volume 1, #3. January 2001.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. Norberg-Hodge, Helena , Todd Merrifield, and Steven Gorelick.
Bringing The Food Economy Home: Local Alternatives to Global
Agribusiness. Bloomfield , CT : Kumarian Press. 2002. p.45
16. Marland, G., T.A. Boden, and R.J. Andres. 2003. Global, Regional,
and National CO 2 Emissions. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global
Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
17. Norberg-Hodge, Helena , Todd Merrifield, and Steven Gorelick.
Bringing The Food Economy Home: Local Alternatives to Global
Agribusiness. Bloomfield , CT : Kumarian Press. 2002. p.20
18. Pirog, Rich. "Checking the Food Odometer: Comparing Food Miles for
Local Versus Conventional Produce Sales in Iowa Institutions." Leopold
Center for Sustainable Agriculture. July 2003.
19. Friedmann, Harriet. "Can We Count On Our Food Supply?" The Globe
and Mail June 7, 2004
20. Horrigan, Leo, Robert S. Lawrence, and Polly Walker. "How
Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health
Harms of Industrial Agriculture." Environmental Health Perspectives Vol
110, 5 May 2002.
I would include another to your list - death. Father or uncle dies and
estate taxes chew up so much that the farm's gotta be sold to pay the taxes
on the thing.
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> ...
> > I stand by my statement - farming today is more efficient and requires
> > less land than ever.
>
> That part is true.
>
> > And this does indeed make land available for other
> > uses. If the farmers still actually needed that land to survive, they'd
> > never sell it in the first place to enable urban sprawl.
>
> This part is <not> true in general even though there are instances of
> folks selling out voluntarily. There are a myriad of reasons why
> farmers are forced to sell even they don't want to. Three of the most
> common include
>
> - Zoning being placed in order to force them to cease
> - Tax rates being changed from agricultural use to higher rates making
> it impossible farm profitably.
> - Even imminent domain has been used.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> This part is <not> true in general even though there are instances of
>> folks selling out voluntarily. There are a myriad of reasons why
>> farmers are forced to sell even they don't want to. Three of the most
>> common include
>>
>> - Zoning being placed in order to force them to cease
>> - Tax rates being changed from agricultural use to higher rates making
>> it impossible farm profitably.
>> - Even imminent domain has been used.
>
> Fair enough - these are all, everyone of them, abuses of government
> power and ought never to happen. Then again, I think the ridiculous
> level of farm subsidies are similar abuses of government power and
> ought also to never happen. I would be delighted to join farmers or
> anyone else to stop the wealth redistribution scheme that is our
> government whether by taxation, zoning, emminent domain, or outright
> handouts.
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
the other thing that is occurring in this area is that one farmer sells out
to a developer for an obscene amount of money, houses get built on that
area, new owners don't like the smelly farm next door and raise a stink (so
to speak), and the land becomes more valuable to new developers so that the
farmers want to cash out while the going's good. this leads to a spiral of
selling of farmland, where they don't really want to sell, but feel stupid
for not doing so. throw in our 10 year drought, and a lot of farms
disappear.
regards,
charlie
cave creek, az
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "George E. Cawthon" wrote:
>>
>> Australopithecus scobis wrote:
>> > On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:35:15 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>>cave creek, az
>> >>
>> >>I don't know where Cave Creek is specifically, but I don't think of
>> >>anywhere in AZ as not in continual drought, at least from a dryland
>> >>farming perspective.
>> >
>> >
>> > AZ ag uses a lot of irrigation. That water has to come from somewhere,
>> > such as the Colorado River. Drought upstream affects the available
>> > water
>> > supplies. Hence the Central Arizona Project, dams and reservoirs.
>
> That's <not> the question I posed to Charles as I specifically referred
> to arable land and dryland farming...I'm still wondering where he is and
> what he's referring to.
>
> AZ certainly irrigates a great deal too much...
>
>> > Much of Arizona is indeed arid. Much of it is not.
>
> Little is suitable for dryland farming, too....
>
>>
>> True. People back east tend to have a different
>> perspective.
>
> That's true, but I'm not from back east...
>
>> ...However AZ is arid, it just isn't
>> all desert.
>
> That's true, but that's not the question I raised...
>
>> ...From a back east perspective,
>> anything under 25-30" of precip would be called
>> arid by those in the east/midwest. That is why
>> the U.S., west of the Mississippi River is called
>> the arid west. Essentially all important/intense
>> agriculture is irrigated from west of a line about
>> midway through Kansas ...
>
> That's overstating...there's a tremendous amount of dryland farming in W
> KS and all through the High Plains from TX to SK. Not that there isn't
> irrigation, but to say essentially all is not true...
>
> Rainfall here is ~18"/yr altho we've only had something like 1" in
> scattered showers since July 1...the milo is hurting, but some is still
> going to make assuming we do get some more moisture before too much
> longer..
>
>> The east coast and midwest generally have no
>> concept of 10-11 inches precip per year let alone
>> rates around 5 inches. It amuses me that so many
>> people think of Seattle as being wet. Yeah it
>> drizzles, especially in the winter, but there is
>> no rain for a month at a time and some summers
>> have had essentially 0 precip for 3 months.
cave creek is approx 40 miles north of phoenix.
annual rainfall averages 7.5". we've been getting about 4.5 for a long time,
and very little in northern az where it is stored as snowpack. this year
we've already gotten over the annual average, and in my area, already
received approx 12". our reservoirs went from about 20% to 95% this year
because of this, although we're told that the drought isn't really over and
that wet years in the middle of droughts is historically common.
az used to be #3 in citrus production in the US, and had an enormous area
planted in cotton. these orchards and fields are now long gone, plowed
under, uprooted, and developed upon because the land simply got more
valuable as developments with zero lot line single family mcmansions than
farms.
regards,
charlie
cave creek, az
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Charles Spitzer wrote:
>>
>> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > "George E. Cawthon" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Australopithecus scobis wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:35:15 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>>cave creek, az
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I don't know where Cave Creek is specifically, but I don't think of
>> >> >>anywhere in AZ as not in continual drought, at least from a dryland
>> >> >>farming perspective.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > AZ ag uses a lot of irrigation. That water has to come from
>> >> > somewhere,
>> >> > such as the Colorado River. Drought upstream affects the available
>> >> > water
>> >> > supplies. Hence the Central Arizona Project, dams and reservoirs.
>> >
>> > That's <not> the question I posed to Charles as I specifically referred
>> > to arable land and dryland farming...I'm still wondering where he is
>> > and
>> > what he's referring to.
>> >
>> > AZ certainly irrigates a great deal too much...
>> >
>> >> > Much of Arizona is indeed arid. Much of it is not.
>> >
>> > Little is suitable for dryland farming, too....
>> >
>> >>
>> >> True. People back east tend to have a different
>> >> perspective.
>> >
>> > That's true, but I'm not from back east...
>> >
>> >> ...However AZ is arid, it just isn't
>> >> all desert.
>> >
>> > That's true, but that's not the question I raised...
>> >
>> >> ...From a back east perspective,
>> >> anything under 25-30" of precip would be called
>> >> arid by those in the east/midwest. That is why
>> >> the U.S., west of the Mississippi River is called
>> >> the arid west. Essentially all important/intense
>> >> agriculture is irrigated from west of a line about
>> >> midway through Kansas ...
>> >
>> > That's overstating...there's a tremendous amount of dryland farming in
>> > W
>> > KS and all through the High Plains from TX to SK. Not that there isn't
>> > irrigation, but to say essentially all is not true...
>> >
>> > Rainfall here is ~18"/yr altho we've only had something like 1" in
>> > scattered showers since July 1...the milo is hurting, but some is still
>> > going to make assuming we do get some more moisture before too much
>> > longer..
>> >
>> >> The east coast and midwest generally have no
>> >> concept of 10-11 inches precip per year let alone
>> >> rates around 5 inches. It amuses me that so many
>> >> people think of Seattle as being wet. Yeah it
>> >> drizzles, especially in the winter, but there is
>> >> no rain for a month at a time and some summers
>> >> have had essentially 0 precip for 3 months.
>>
>> cave creek is approx 40 miles north of phoenix.
>
> What I figured, thanks...
>
>> annual rainfall averages 7.5". we've been getting about 4.5 for a long
>> time,
>> and very little in northern az where it is stored as snowpack. this year
>> we've already gotten over the annual average, and in my area, already
>> received approx 12". our reservoirs went from about 20% to 95% this year
>> because of this, although we're told that the drought isn't really over
>> and
>> that wet years in the middle of droughts is historically common.
>
> I'd think that not at all unexpected in such an arid climate and I'd
> think hardly count as a "drought" owing to the limited average. In such
> places (even here in SW KS, even w/ over twice the average) where most
> rainfall is the result of scattered thunderstorms, the concept of
> "average" is really statistical at best. Using another statistical
> term, I suspect that if one had really long-term records (not just 100
> years or so, but long records) "runs" of such length would not be at all
> uncommon.
>
> Snowpack, otoh, in the places where it is normal tends to be a much more
> nearly uniform process wherein fluctuations about averages aren't such
> extremes although again I suspect longer records would bear out similar
> previous patterns. I think most of NM and southern CO had at least
> reasonably decent snow years this past winter as well.
>
> We've also been in a dry stretch again (this was, of course, the heart
> of the Dust Bowl in the '30s and has been a roughly 20 year cycle since)
> for the last 5 years although last summer from June to first of
> September we had the wettest stretch on record (of course, records here
> only go back to the late 1880's so that's not saying a lot). It then
> turned dry again and has stayed so all last winter and this summer. Not
> quite as bad as two and three years ago, but definitely seriously dry.
> Yet, Wichita has set all time records for them for August and the summer
> and have a good shot for the year.
>
>> az used to be #3 in citrus production in the US, and had an enormous area
>> planted in cotton. these orchards and fields are now long gone, plowed
>> under, uprooted, and developed upon because the land simply got more
>> valuable as developments with zero lot line single family mcmansions than
>> farms.
>
> Owing to the higher cost of irrigation, I suspect many of those would
> have gone away anyway as is much of the irrigated corn around here, for
> example. Water costs are simply too high.
actually farming water is pretty cheap. one of the largest reservoirs in
this area was built by the farmers quite a long time ago, is filled by
snowmelt, and is drawn down and delivered via canal for crop irrigation. we
also have a canal that the rest of the country built for us that goes from
the colorado river in the northwestern corner of the state, through phoenix
to tucson. that is used mostly for drinking water, but some farms (mostly
indian reservations) siphon from it.
> Anyway, thanks for the info....
Charles Spitzer <[email protected]> wrote:
: actually farming water is pretty cheap. one of the largest reservoirs in
: this area was built by the farmers quite a long time ago, is filled by
: snowmelt, and is drawn down and delivered via canal for crop irrigation. we
: also have a canal that the rest of the country built for us that goes from
: the colorado river in the northwestern corner of the state, through phoenix
: to tucson. that is used mostly for drinking water, but some farms (mostly
: indian reservations) siphon from it.
And the canal has an open top, so two thirds of the water evaporates before
it gets here. Really smart design.
-- Andy Barss
"George Max" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:16:27 -0700, Lee DeRaud
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:25:17 -0500, George Max
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>For example - the fires in Southern California a couple of summers ago
>>>- I saw a photo of a single house in one of the affected neighborhoods
>>>that survived. A stucco house with a clay tile roof. All the others
>>>apparently constructed as a regular frame house with asphalt shingles.
>>
>>Uh, what exactly do you think is under the stucco of just about every
>>house in Southern California, including (most likely) the one you saw?
>>Hint: starts with a "w" and gets discussed occasionally on this NG.
>>
>>And more than likely, the adjacent homes to the one that survived had
>>the same type of roof or something equally "fire-proof". Once a large
>>fire gets into an area densely populated enough to be called a
>>"neighborhood", the primary factor determining which houses survive
>>and which ones burn is called "luck".
>>
>>Lee
>
> I had been in the areas that burned about 2 weeks before it all
> started. Lots of roofs that looked like asphalt shingles. Maybe they
> were something else, but they sure looked that way to my midwestern
> eyes.
>
> Yes, wood under the stucco, but stucco doesn't burn. Hard to start a
> fire when the outer shell doesn't support combustion.
>
> I wish I could find that photo again to post here or in the furniture
> picture forum. The neighborhood looked like all the rest around the
> country. Small hillside lots with houses very near each other. Very
> ordinary, very typical.
i recall that picture. i also recall that it was due to the fact that the
owner cleared out everything that could burn for a 30-50' radius, and was
the only one to do so in that area.
> Luck? Maybe so, but I tend to think other factors are in play when
> 200 of your neighbors are burned out and you're not. It's obvious
> this house stood in the center of a firestorm for a while and lived to
> tell the tale.
>
> And this is where I stand - were I to construct a new house in a
> particular area, I'm going to want to build with techniques that
> improve the chances of survivability. Note that I say "improve my
> chances" since it's a certainty that just about any structure can be
> destroyed with the right combination of events.
>
Joseph Crowe <[email protected]> wrote:
: Ironically, Toyota took its ECHO out of the U.S. market...it gets
: 42mpg on the highway at around a sustained 75mph. That's just
: dumb IMO.
They replaced it with the Scion xA. Excellent mileage.
-- Andy Barss
[email protected] wrote:
: Thanks. AFAIK the President has always had the authority to
: Federalize and use the NG even over the local governor's objection,
: as when the Ohio National Guard was sent to Guatamala (for training)
: over the objections of Governor Celeste.
: The President can act independently of the State Governors in
: disaster relief, using other assets of the Federal Government
: in additon to NG, consider the possiblity of the State Governor
: being a casualty.
have a look at this, and follow the link to the National Disaster Response
Plan, which ws produced by Homeland Security last winter.
None of which they actually followed in the face of said disaster.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/4/171811/1974
But I quite agree that the President should
: defer to the Governor leaving it to the local officials to
: coordinate relief, barring exceptional circumstances. It
: appears that the La Governor was so incompetent that the
: situation had become 'exceptional' by the time action finally
: was taken.
Why did it take so goddamn long for the Dept of Homeland Security to do
*anything*?
Very illuminating discussions here, particularly the interviews with Brown
and Chertoff (toward the end)::
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/4/171811/1974
-- Andy Barss
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
> The Mississippi R isn't conducive to navigation by large vessels very
> far upstream owing to extremely strong currents among other things...
Do you not consider Memphis TN not far up stream?
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:31:48 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
<[email protected]> wrote:
[re: Boyd Coddington]
>Besides, the guy makes unimaginative copies of very old design hot rods.
>Nothing inspirational or original.
Well, you gotta admit that Impala motorcycle in the latest sequence
was original. Butt-ugliest piece of metal on the planet, but original.
Lee
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:24:10 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>... as to be inflicted with this never ending proliferation of idiots with
>microphones and rain gear
...and not the brains nor the sense to realise that this is a
woodworking conference like it says in the title.
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:08:41 -0700, "TomWoodman"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>What really pisses me off is that ALL of our insurance rates are going to go
>up.. AGAIN!.. because of these people who choose to live in the hurricane
>zone. I know, not everyone is there by choice, but most are.
>
Whoa Woody, so that would be the whole east coast and the gulf states
to boot.
I think most of us choose to live where there are jobs. That would put
us in any number of places that are close to waterways. Been that way
for a long time.
Airplanes into buildings.
Hurricanes.
Typhoons.
Earthquakes
Tornadoes
Floods
Fires
Volcanos
Its a dangerous planet that we live on. I think I will move to a
different one. Which one do you live on Woody?
Tim Daneliuk (in [email protected]) said:
| The truth is that most people use energy but very few pay attention
| to the politics of energy production. In one corner you have the
| Green Gasbag environmentalists who worship the earth and indulge in
| fantasy science. In another you have the politicans who want to get
| paid off before anything moves forward. In another corner, you'll
| find the irresponsible regulators who pay attention to all the
| wrong things. This allows genuine environmental atrocities like
| Love Canal to go unmonitored until it is too late so we have to use
| tax monies to clean up what should have been paid for by the
| polluter. In the final corner we have positions like the one
| above: Let's *inhibit* the energy companies from being too
| successful and lets blame them for all our miseries. Is it any
| wonder we have a supply/demand problem with energy today?
In your haste to stereotype you missed a corner: That in which there
are serious people engaged in the attempt to deliver useful
alternative solutions through research and careful engineering.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I stand by my statement - farming today is more efficient and requires
>>> less land than ever.
>>
>>
>>
>> less land...such a narrow view..and now uses way more more energy than
>> it ever did.
>> In many cases, the energy consumed to weed/seed/harvest etc. is
>> greater than the energy produced (in calories)
>
I just reread your reply and realized you are correct (and my initial
response was quite wrong - my apologies). There is *always* less energy
out than energy in because perpetual motion is impossible. That is,
100% efficiency is impossible by the fundamental rules of physics.
The very nature of converting one kind of mass/energy to another
engenders some losses as measured at the output of the system
(due to friction, heat, evaporation ...).
IOW, your statement is true but unremarkable - it applies to *everything* -
and is thus irrelevant to the debate at hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> ...
>
>>Each year we see *less* land needed for farming, for example,
>>because farming is becoming incrementally more efficient. This frees up
>>the land for other uses. ...
>
>
> Actually, far more farm land is lost to urban expansion than is taken
> out of production owing to more efficient operations. Much of this has
> been prime land.
Hang on a second. What you say may be true in some/many cases, but it
does not negate my point. Even *with* the loss of farm land (for
all reasons), American farmers continue to produce food in abundance.
So much so, that some estimate that the American farmer alone produces
enough food to feed the entire planet at a subsistence level.
The point is that farm land is being freed up precisely because it
is *not* needed to feed us.
>
>
>>...About 1/3 of US land is government owned
>>(mostly as Federal parks so smelly hippies can go hiking and complain
>>about "the man"). Some of this land could be sold and populated ...
>
>
> That's the <last> thing we want to do...spread the urbanites around to
> pollute up what little open land we have left. The yuppie migration to
> Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, etc., is bad enough already.
But we don't have "little open land". We have LOTS. I grew up in
Alaska - a state with 1/3 the land mass of CONUS with only about
1 Million residents. Similar low population densities can be found
in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, N/S Dakota, Northern Minnesota. The problem
is not a lack of land, the problem is getting people to move somewhere
where they have to be more-or-less self-sufficient ...
>
> The other problem in those areas is there isn't enough water to support
> current populations in most of them already, what more adding more... :(
More specifically, there *is* water, but it is in very deep/expensive
wells. This is still cheaper than paying to rebuild coastal cities
every decade or two (I suspect).
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 09:55:08 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:58:05 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:10:47 -0400, Robatoy <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>... snip
>>>Now Bush has taken charge of the relief efforts. Just when you thought
>>>that things couldn't get any worse.
>>
>... snip of more of "it's all Bush's fault" rant
>>How can anyone still support him? Go ahead and kill-file me if you
>>like, but anyone who can't see what the bastard is doing to our
>>country is dumber than a f***ing post, and needs to get right up on
>>the scaffold with their damned religious right and get their neck
>>stretched too. It's the same old saw- your right to swing your fist
>>ends where my nose begins, and I'm tired of seeing my country
>>destroyed day after day.
>
> It's obvious that such visceral, irrational hatred is not something that
>can be addressed easily. You do need to get a bit of a grip however,
>blaming one person or group of persons for all of the ills you see in the
>world is not healthy, especially given that some of the ills you are citing
>above don't even exist. Some of the ills you address weren't even started
>during Bush's administration but go back to a previous admin. At times
>like this you further seem to give Bush almost god-like powers, failing to
>recognize that there are checks and balances built into the system.
Yes, it's getting visceral, and it's really, really becoming hatred.
I don't know how many times I'm supposed to see some freak who can't
seem to work more than a couple of months before going back to his
ranch for a little nappy-poo tell us all to stay the course and take
credit for speaking for God while our way of life is sold for pennies
on the dollar to corporations like Haliburton and our friends and
neighbors are sent to die so that said monkey can score a few more
approval points from the "my country right or wrong" crowd who will
applaud because CNN is giving them a little "shock and awe"
entertainment.
Sure, there are problems that began long ago- in previous
administrations and with different actors. There are also problems
that are right here, right now. Some of you folks hired this
goddamned chimp to do a job- is he doing it? Maybe instead of cutting
up brush back in Crawford, he could be consulting with people other
than the shits on his election team to try and find solutions for some
of the problems we're having instead of wishing and hoping that
somehow Jesus will sort it all out if he just stalls long enough.
> You are blaming Bush for the future high cost of heating oil? Whose
>fault is it that no (read that zip, zilch, nada) new refineries have been
>built in the past 30 years? Hint: It's not Halliburton out protesting and
>trying to find some endangered microbe to prevent the construction of any
>proposed building project anywhere in the US. Now the source of 25% of the
>US supply of refined products has been hit by a natural disaster and we are
>surprised that putting all of our eggs in only a few baskets (because they
>were there before the wave of anti-building forces were active) is going to
>cause problems?
I'm going to blame Bush for taking funds out of the pot that was
supposed to be used for maintainance on those levees. I'm going to
blame him for cutting funds to FEMA. I'm also going to blame him for
each and every life that has been lost in Iraq, both American and
Iraqi. And I'm especially going to blame him for forcing our National
Guard to fight a foreign war so that they are not here when they have
a job to do- in the name of not having to start a draft for his
personal Vietnam.
So in a nutshell, yes, I am going to blame him for the future high
cost of heating oil. Actually, that isn't totally fair- I blame him
for the company he keeps, and I blame those people for the future high
cost of heating oil- as well as mass murder and illegal warfare. If
you don't like it, tell it to the judge.
> I'm also sure that you will be able to find some reason that it is also
>Bush's fault that the rescue efforts are being hampered by people shooting
>at the rescue workers. What in the world is up with that?
No, that isn't his fault. Those people doing that are nuts, too.
> Probably not worth responding to someone exhibiting such visceral hatred,
>but just to put a few facts into the discussion so that you can have a more
>rational go at it in your next diatribe.
>1) For state disasters such as this, it is typically the state governor who
>requests other state National Guard support through the federal government.
>The papers at the federal level had been signed allowing this, all that
>was needed was the Louisianna governor's request for deployment. It didn't
>come until 2 days ago.
Thank you, Mr. Kafka.
>2) The Louisianna governor was waiting for information from "boots on the
>ground" in New Orleans to inform the governor's office regarding whether
>such a deployment request was necessary. They apparently lost contact with
>those people in New Orleans and didn't realize how bad things were getting.
>[editorial note: when one loses contact with one's surveillance assets,
>one generally assumes that something bad has happened, not that everything
>is peachy-keen and can wait until contact is re-established].
>
>
> I'm sure had the government taken the opposite approach, positioning huge
>amounts of personnel and material in place for a large disaster, and had
>the hurricane not turned out to be a major disaster, Bush would have been
>decried for the waste of time and materiel and the impact on the National
>Guard's lives and morale over what turned out to be nothing.
The impact on the National Guardmens' lives? Would being sent to
Lousiana "just in case" for a couple of days really be worse than
being sent overseas and held there for years at a time for suicide
bomber target practice? They didn't sign up for that, and they should
not be there- they *should* be helping the people who are dying in New
Orleans.
> Frankly, the fact that some people seem to view this disaster as more of
>an opportunity for further political partisanship and another opportunity
>to bash the sitting president rather than seeing it for what it really is,
>a significant disaster needing support is really disturbing. One can't
>even address what are real failures without bringing politics into play
>rather than trying to find the root cause of the problem and go fix that.
Yes, it needs to be fixed. Normally, the government might help out
with this, but they are busy killing people for oil and vast sums of
money, and would rather be eating BBQ and practicing their
snake-handling if that weren't going on.
In point of fact, it's not just Bush, it's not just Republicans. It's
every half-wit cowboy-hat wearing, country music listening idiot
cousin of some guy named Jeb who thinks that their ninth-grade
education gives them the right to vote for another dropout because
some wild-eyed SOB's in the NRA and a guy who sings songs about his
boots told them that if they didn't, somebody might take der gunz so's
dey cunna shoot no skeet atter der trucks no mo' (get 'er dun). It's
every slick-shit moron with a BS in "business" who thinks that it's
all right to cancel a fifty year old man's pension to bump up the
stock price a little, or cook the books because they know that they
won't have to do more than six months in the joint if they get caught,
and all that money will still be in their numbered account when they
get out. It's the tightwads who don't care to pay an extra $10 a
month so their kids can learn to read and write, and jump into the
voting booth and yank that lever down for Bush/Cheney and get that
$120 a year "savings"- and a trillion dollar corporate tax cut as
icing on the cake.
Most people aren't millionaires playing the stock market. Where I
live, most people work in factories, and when one goes to China,
everyone suffers- a lot. They end up working for Walmart as part of
the much touted "service economy" (which is where all the money is, I
hear), selling their souls to the company store to get cheap items
that break as soon as they get them home, and struggling to pay their
rent and put food on the table while they watch the prices at the gas
pump go up 10 or 20 cents a day and wonder how they're going to make
it because there is no longer anywhere to work that is within walking
distance- everything has been swallowed by the retail giant on the
edge of town. No busses go to that monstrosity, just highways- that
means you pay what they demand, or you die.
I make enough to weather the storm- barely. I know three trades, and
work extra hours as an independant contractor to make sure everything
comes together. But because of this shit hole of a political system I
have to do even more- not just to support myself and my family, but
also to help all those poor bastards who can't help themselves. I
could lock my doors and pretend that it's not my fault if my brother's
kids freeze because he couldn't pay for heating oil, or shrug when my
parents' roof caves in under the snow some January because the money
that might have gone to pay someone to fix it went in the gas tank. I
could say it's not my concern when the nice old fella next door is
found dead of starvation because they cut his medicare and took away
his social security. But I just can't. Because I AM PART OF THE
GODDAMN REALITY-BASED COMMUNITY, AND JESUS EVIDENTLY DOESN'T GIVE A
FLYING FUCK ABOUT US FOLKS WHO DON'T HAVE A FAT STOCK PORTFOLIO.
> Having seen an AP report this morning, I can certainly understand where
>some of this rancor comes from, there was absolutely nothing objective in
>that report. They were even beating on the federal government for not
>activating the Civilian Reserve Air Fleet to help in this.
Forget about the AP reports. Get up out of your chair, and walk
around the neighborhood and talk to people. Maybe even go a few
blocks over, to where the houses need a little paint and there isn't a
new car in every driveway. The world is different when it is seen
from a perspective that doesn't involve the landscape whizzing past
the windows of your Hummer at 85 miles per hour.
I'm ashamed to be part of this country.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ... as to be inflicted with this never ending proliferation of idiots with
> microphones and rain gear who seem convinced that they alone have made the
> profound discovery that high wind, rain, and flood water are components of
> hurricanes?
>
> It's gotta be the rarity of the air in LA and New York that causes the
> ignorant, condescending arrogance that makes the Teutels' look like brain
> surgeons.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 8/29/05
>
>
Geeeze Swing ... didn't think you had to ask that one. Oh ... retorical
question. Gotcha. Lucky for you, it's my week to answer retorical questions
if I feel like it.
The two items you mentioned (hurricane reporting and Disfunction Junction
... er ... American Chopper) are absolutely related, because that's what
most people watch. When they watch, the advertisers pay a great deal of
money to whoever is producing the show (be it Discovery Channel, The Weather
Channel, CNN or your local television station).
The intent of commercial television is not education or enlightment ... the
intent is to make money, LOTS of money (hence the name commercial
television). That's why PBS is having such difficult times ... their charter
is about education and enlightment, and most people don't want that.
Once you understand this, the rest is pretty obvious. To make more money,
you put on whatever crap is cheap to produce (more profits), requires little
or no scripting (let's not confuse our audience), and laugh all the way to
the bank (while crying how hard this job really is).
The really sad part is that people watch other's misery for enjoyment ...
whether it is having all you own destroyed by a storm, or watching people
having endless arguments ... this is called "drama" by the producers. The
viewers then use this "drama" as a sociatal model and practice what they see
... the endless "in your face" crap that's all around us. The tale of the
Klown Hammer pretty well states it: "an idle meaness ... ".
I don't know what this is called ... and quite frankly I don't care. You can
add in all the "talk" shows, court shows, reality shows and the daily car
chase shown live in LA ... all are about as deep as a a coat of polyurathane
on a piece of stainless steel (and about as useful).
I may just switch my working hours to avoid "prime time television"
completely ... and spend more time in the television-less shop. Now THAT is
a concept I like.
Regards,
Rick
<<It is nice when the finished product comes together. I like Biker
Build-off
better. Two shops competing. In a couple of cases, one bike broke down or
did not start on the deadline and the other shop would win by default.
Nope, the guy that could just walk away a winner refused to and in fact
helped his competitor to get going to the finish voting. Proving again that
life is more than having a trophy.>>
Something similar in terms of sportsmanship took place here in CT at the
Buick Championship golf tournament last weekend. On the first hole of a
sudden death playoff between Brad Faxon and Tjaart Van Der Welt, Faxon hit a
clutch shot from a fairway bunker that landed just a couple of feet from the
hole. Then Van Der Welt hit a shot that clanged off the flagstick and
landed almost as close. Despite the fact that if one of them won the hole
he would win the tournament and eliminate the other, the two competitors
high-fived each other en route to the green.
Lee
--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"
_________________________________
Lee Gordon
http://www.leegordonproductions.com
As long as we're OT and harping on about some of the idiots in the
afflicted Gulf Coast areas, take a gander at this:
http://www.illwillpress.com/
Click on the Hurricane Report in the center of the home page.
Warning: Explicit Language but... It says what most of us, I think,
are thinking as we watch the aftermath of this storm. If a tragedy like
this brings out the best in us, it also brings out the worst as
evidenced in this cartoon which hits the nail on the head.
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 08:22:29 -0500, Patriarch
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Lee DeRaud <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:45:04 -0500, Patriarch
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> [American HotRod]
>>>Without the ffwd on the TiVo, it had become unwatchable. Overhaulin'
>>>had stolen it's creative thunder, too.
>>
>> Heh. Given the way Coddington feels about Chip Foose, I wish someone
>> would tell him that on-air, just so we could watch his head explode.
>
>You don't think that the 'defections' have been greased by Discovery
>producers? ;-)
Dunno. Overhaulin' is on TLC...is that the same parent company? Let's
see if the any of the former AHR guys show up on future Overhaulin'
episodes. But in any case, there's apparently some serious bad blood
between Coddington and Foose. At least as presented on the respective
shows, Foose seems to be a nice guy: he's good and he knows he's good,
but he doesn't beat people over the head with it. Coddington comes
across as a nearly-complete asshole, and whatever gaps he has in his
assholitude are filled in nicely by his sidekick Duane.
The stated problem for Charlie (the body-shop guy) was that Coddington
was more concerned with doing the job "right now" instead of doing the
job right. He had no real beef with Coddington, he just wanted a
chance to do the kind of work he thinks he's capable of, not just what
those artificially insane schedules would allow.
It would be interesting to know (1) what the customers for those cars
think about the bullshit that went down during the build and (2) what
kind of problems the cars had afterwards. (I've noticed several of
them sitting in the background of the shop during later episodes.)
Lee
I've been watching a fair amount of the news footage of the hurricane since
Sunday evening, and I'm trying to put my comments to these posts in fairly
politically correct format...
There's a considerable difference between localized flooding caused by a
small river overflowing and the flooding that they appear to be experiencing
down south. I don't know how many homes are affected, but when they show
block upon block of homes flooded to the eaves, I wonder where the previous
two poster's compassion is. It's not like "Oh, gee, the power's down for a
couple of days, let's take it easy till it comes back, then we'll all go
back to work, and life goes on...". These people are talking about being
homeless for months, if not years (how long does it take to build a house
from the foundations up, especially when there's thousands of other homes in
the same predicament). The only belongs that will have been saved (if
they're lucky) will be the ones that fit into the back of their vehicle as
they fled their houses. Who knows when they'll be able to get back to work,
and get a real income again.
*just shaking my head, trying to understand the hard-hearted comments*
Sure, maybe the talking heads don't have to be on the air, 24/7. And soon
enough, they'll stop, and go on to the next story. But the rebuilding
process down along the coast is going to go on for a long time. I wouldn't
wish that on my worst enemy.
FWIW, up here in Edmonton, they recently experienced a "once in a century"
storm. There was extensive flooding of basements due to the water levels.
I believe it took 18 months to 2 years for some of the people to get their
basements liveable again, due to the number of incidents of flooding that
occurred. And that was incredibly mild, compared to what the people along
the Gulf Coast are experiencing. The number of homes affected up here were
a tiny fraction of the number down there, and the magnitude of the damage
(flooded basements compared to rebuilding houses) was much smaller. Plus
the fact that most people's job's weren't affected, communities immediately
outside the trouble zone weren't affected, so supplies were quick to come
back in stock, etc...
Clint
"Dave in Fairfax" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George Max wrote:
>> When did we become weather wimps? Snow is not an unusual feature of a
>> Milwaukee winter, yet each and ever snowfall, regardless of amount, is
>> played as a life threatening disaster on the local stations. I
>> suppose all in the name of ratings.
>>
>> Apparently it is no different elsewhere for whatever the nature of
>> their weather. High winds, heavy rain, flooding. Business as usual
>> in a hurricane.
>
> I've been wondering about that ever since I came back to CONUS about 20
> years ago from Guam. We didn't close the grocery stores until we had
> 100mph winds. Nobody panicked or did the stupid stuff I see on TV. We
> tossed tires onto sheet metal roofs and tied them down to stakes, put
> shutters over the windows and collected water. No big deal. We had
> tons of little "banana 'phoons". They were good for parties afterwards
> while the gov tried to get the electricity back up. Everyday someone on
> the street wold open their freezer and the street would have a party.
> Next day it was somebody else's turn. Just kept going until we had
> power again. No FEMA except for the *really* bad ones. Certainly no
> talking heads whining about rain and wind.
> Dave in Fairfax
> --
> reply-to doesn't work
> use: daveldr at att dot net
> American Association of Woodturners
> http://www.woodturner.org
> Capital Area Woodturners
> http://www.capwoodturners.org/
> PATINA
> http://www.patinatools.org
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Clint wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>But my comments were to the follow up posters, and I mentioned specifically
>>"the two previous poster's compassion". They're the ones I don't
>>understand. Comments like "When did we become weather wimps?" and
>>"They were good for parties afterwards while the gov tried to get the
>>electricity back up."
>
> ...
>
> I think the general public has become "wimps" in many ways besides
> weather. That doesn't minimize the effect on those affected, but there
> is a rising level of unawareness of what Nature has to offer and an
> apparent expectation that the results of poor judgement should be
> mitigated by others than those who made the poor decision.
That's what happens when the only contact the average citizen has
with nature is among smelly hippies hiking in their local Sierra Club
chapter. If more people were exposed to nature as it is - for example
by hunting, fishing, and camping without the benefit of a microwave, RV,
and satellite TV - they would develop a much finer appreciation of the vast
power and potential for devistation found in natural processes. Instead,
we get the earth-worshipping freaks as the only contact many people have
with real nature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Jason Quick wrote:
<SNIP>
>>Global Warming
>>is a vastly overstated threat
>
>
> That's a pretty categorical statement, innit? I know of lots and lots of
> scientists (climatologists, mind you) who have concluded the opposite,
> though they agree that the jury's out a bit on who or what is responsible.
OK, I'll say it more conservatively: GW is an observable phenomena
whose cause is not understood entirely, for which human interaction/
causality is presently undemonstrable, whose risk is unclear, and
about which all predictions to date have been vastly overstated.
>
>>and there is today no statistically demonstrable
>>connection between human activity and the very slight observed warming
>>(which
>>has been going on for 15,000 years or so).
>
>
> The National Academy of Sciences and the International Panel on Climate
> Change seem to disagree with you.
>
> http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/
But the IPCC in particular is a politically motivated mess. I would
commend Ballings' and Michaels' "The Satanic Gasses" first few
chapters, especially, for a discussion of how "polluted" these so-called
reports actually are. Moreover, if human action is the cause and this
is so clearly demonstrable, why is there no single consensus on the matter
within the scientific community AND why has this never been unambiguously
demonstrated by statistical methods?
>
> Pressure to find sources of energy other than fossil fuel isn't really a
> Communist plot. Conserving energy isn't either. Sure, Communists are among
> its supporters, but I think you'll find lots of people - including
> capitalists - think it's a good idea too.
Where on earth does this come from? Pretty much *everyone* (including me)
thinks these are good things. But they require tradeoffs and I am
unwilling to trade the health, safety, comfort, and so on of modern life
to satisfy some science fiction fantansy about who is causing what.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
But how many people know how many gallons are in a barrel? People can sort
of visualize 100,000 gallons. But say that it's 2380 barrels, it means
nothing to 95% of the population, I'm guessing. At least, it means nothing
to me. Yeah, it's a smaller number, so it's not so sensational. But it's
also more relevant to people's lives.
For that matter, you don't see weather stations broadcasting hot
temperatures in degrees Kelvin, do you? :) Gee, look, its 298 degrees
outside! Or, even better 536 degree Rankine (never heard of that till I
looked up the conversion for Kelvin).
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "George Max" wrote in message
>
>> beans. Those people are doing a great job of desensitizing people to
>> the times when a real disaster is happening.
>
> It started, to my mind, with the TV reporting of oil spills in gallons
> instead of barrels, progressing to the point that "teacups" will soon be
> required to maintain the impact value. From there we've gone to routinely
> reporting, and accepting without question, current weather temperatures in
> "feels like" terms, which are unquantifiable but certainly more
> sensational.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 8/29/05
>
>
>
Tim Douglass (in [email protected]) said:
| On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 19:20:48 -0500, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]>
| wrote:
|
|| [2] Even with the current state of photovoltaics with enough PV
|| panel area and sufficient battery and inverter capacity, it's
|| possible to run even an obscenely large table saw. Having said
|| that, I'll also say that I don't consider it an economical
|| solution to powering stationary tools. PV panel cost is high and
|| efficiency is low. You'd need a lot of panel/battery to power my
|| Unisaw or CNC router.
|
| Last I saw about PV efficiency a couple years ago the real problem
| was that manufacturing them took almost as much energy as the
| *lifetime* output of the resulting cells. I'm sure the ratio has
| improved, but probably not to the point where they can be
| considered effective in reducing energy consumption.
I had in interesting conversation about this issue with Dr Royal
Haskell(sp?) at IBM. Royal had come up with a breakthrough method for
"pulling" silicon ribbons at high speed. IBM patented the process,
which wasn't considered useful for anything but photovoltaics - and by
now the patent (even if extended) has expired.
Anyway, I asked if, given an initial supply of the ribbon, it would be
possible to build a PV "farm" in, say, Arizona that would supply all
the power needed for a production facility to turn out the ribbons and
fabricate solar panels in consumer quantities. We kicked that around
enough to determine that the idea was, indeed, feasible.
Predictably, IBM had no interest in producing or marketing PV panels
or materials (Why should they - they were making and selling
multi-million dollar computers at capacity) and so, to the best of my
knowledge, nothing was ever done outside Royal's lab.
I would guess that the facility we talked about could be improved upon
using solar furnaces (much of the energy consumption went into
maintaining silicon in a molten state) and the efficiency of the cells
significantly improved with the knowledge we've acquired since those
days (1973-74).
If the cost of production energy were so reduced, the entire economic
equation would be radically changed...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
On 3 Sep 2005 03:02:03 -0700, "Charlie Self" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>For checking out past knowledge of possible Big Easy problems:
>www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5
>
>That's from last October. Given the exigencies of magazine publishing,
>the concept probably came up and got judged for suitability and
>possibilities a year or so earlier, based on preliminary research. A
>magazine can figure it out. Bush can't.
>
>By the way, you're wrong in one spot. Bush isn't a twit. He's a twerp.
AH.... Perhaps you're right. Mea Culpa.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> >Doug Miller wrote:
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> > [email protected] wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Doug Miller wrote:
>> >> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> > [email protected] wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Besides you cannot seriously argue that if Iraq had no natural
>> >> >> >resources of interest to the US our policies toward Iraq would
>> >> >> >be the same?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, of course that can be seriously argued. See below.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >That resource is oil. Directly or indirectly our
>> >> >> >policies in the Middle East are driven by the need for petroleum
>> >> >> >and the responsibility to Israel.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Exactly right.
>> >> >
>> >> >Odd that you would say that, given that you go on to deny it
>> >> >below.
>> >>
>> >> You misspelled "explain".
>> >> >
>> >> >> But this is independent of the type, or extent, of Iraq's
>> >> >> natural resources, and depends rather on the type and extent of its
>> >> >> armaments, and its intentions for using them. An Iraq armed with, for
>> >> > example,
>> >> >> nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, would threaten the peace
>> > and
>> >> >> stability (such as they are) of that entire strategically critical
> region.
>> >> >
>> >> >Iraq did not have nuclear weapons, was no where near having
>> >> >nuclear weapons and had no active program for producing it.
>> >>
>> >> Missed the words "for example" in my post, did you?
>> >> [irrelevantia spawned by this oversight snipped]
>> >>
>> >> >So the notion of Iraq being a threat to its neighbors in 2003
>> >> >or the near future thereafer was completely unfounded.
>> >>
>> >> I didn't say that it was.
>> >
>> >No, you said "for example". However the hypothetical
>> >being discussed was Iraq without petroleum. NOT
>> >Iraq with a threatening military.
>>
>> Exactly so -- because the military threat that Iraq posed to its neighbors is
>> not a hypothetical.
>
>In 2003 Iraq did not pose a dire (your adjective) threat to its
>neighbors, and we all knew it because UNMOVIC was showing us it
>was not
>
>>
>> >> >
>> >> >How would that strategically important region be strategically
>> >> >critical without petroleum?
>> >>
>> >> Please read more carefully. I said that the level of threat that Iraq
> might
>> >> pose is independent of whether *Iraq* possesses petroleum or not. If the
>> >> *region* had no petroleum, of course it wouldn't be terribly important.
> But
>> >> that's not what I said.
>> >
>> >ALmost agree with you. Absent petroleum (and Israel) in the
>> >region we'd have little interst and most of that would center
>> >on the Suez Canal which is much more of a concern to Europe anyhow.
>>
>> Precisely. Keep at it. You're starting to catch on.
>
>As you say the level of the threat posed by Iraq was independent
>of the oil it posessed (not really Iraq needed capital to build
>its military in the first place). That does not change the
>fact that that level was nearer to nonexistant than to "dire".
That may or may not be. But that's not what we were talking about.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
<SNIP>
> reports actually are. Moreover, if human action is the cause and this
> is so clearly demonstrable, why is there no single consensus on the matter
> within the scientific community AND why has this never been unambiguously
> demonstrated by statistical methods?
One point of clarification is in order here. "Consensus" is irrelevant
as a matter of demonstrating the validity of proposed science. The
science itself must be demonstrated by independent verificaton. However,
the *lack* of consensus in the scientific community is a certain sign
that the science in question is incomplete, immature, or just flat
wrong. IOW, good science leads to consensus (not the other way around).
The absence of consensus means the science needs work. That's where
we are today on the "What cause Global Warming and how bad is it?"
question. We just don't know yet and there are a variety of competing
theories - as yet unverified - to answer this question.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Swingman wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
>
>
>>, but somehow, someday, people in this nation are
>>going to have to start taking responsibility for their own choices.
>
>
> If only it were so ... unfortunately, lawyer's and governments (or more
> succinctly, government where the laws are primarily created by lawyers) will
> insure that never happens.
>
On the other hand, our local code here in the SoCal mountains, requires
that new housing be built to withstand a four foot snow load at the time
of an 8.0 earthquake. Overkill? Perhaps, but this last winter when we
had close to 30 feet of snow over the winter with 12 feet on the ground
at one time, I felt differently. A LOT of decks and many homes
collapsed under those loads, even without an earthquake. Maggy figures
that the snow will leave the roof when the ground starts to shake. :-)
It'll be 85dF today,
jo4hn
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Look no further than Washington. They didn't do important assessments of
> the levees' conditions due to federal cut-backs. More cut-backs for 2006.
> The Army Corps of Engineers had their budgets cut.
>
> Now Bush has taken charge of the relief efforts. Just when you thought
> that things couldn't get any worse.
I cannot quite agree with you here. If some one threatens to shoot you,
read that as you have a lake next to your city and it will spill into your
city if you do not maintain the barrier or build it high enough. Are you
going to rely or wait for the federal government to tell you to go ahead and
defend your self? Read that as make certain that the barrier is strong
enough. Over building the barrier for the price of $1,000,000,000.00 would
have been far cheaper. Blaming the federal government for not making sure
you wipe good after going to the bath room is not going to cut it.
Cut backs or not, the New Orleans government should have not let this happen
even if they had to completely foot the bill on their own.
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 23:40:02 -0600, Richard Clements
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Amen, My personal favorite was the group Blaming Bush for the Storm for not
>Combating Global Warming better, to blame Bush for the lack of funding is
>silly as well, Congress has just as much say in that as he dose
-snip-
recently - what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain:
2004:
Army Corps request: $11 million
Bush request: $3 million
Approved by Congress: $5.5 million
2005:
Army Corps request: $22.5 million
Bush request: $3.9 million
Approved by Congress: $5.7 million
2006:
Bush request: $2.9 million
"TomWoodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What really pisses me off is that ALL of our insurance rates are going to
> go up.. AGAIN!.. because of these people who choose to live in the
> hurricane zone. I know, not everyone is there by choice, but most are.
You know, If every one moved out of the hurricane zone there would not be
enough room to plant crops or raise cattle. How about the fools that live
in the area of the country where it snows or near rivers, or in tornado
alley or the earth quake zone, or the ones that live in New York, the
target, or the mid west, or in the north west where volcano's blow, or near
Yellowstone. There are damn few places to live in the US that does not
contribute to the cost of insurance.
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>
> ...
>
> > The "pollution" argument is a chimera - the air is *cleaner* today in most
> > all the industrial world than it was a hundred years ago.
>
> True.
>
> > Global Warming is a vastly overstated threat and there is today no
> > statistically demonstrable connection between human activity and the
> > very slight observed warming (which has been going on for 15,000
> > years or so).
1) The Mauna Loa data (the cornerstone of global warming theory
if you will) is difficult to explain other than by human
interaction, in particular, the burning of fossil fuels.
However, if you have an alternative explanation, please
tell us.
>
> This is an opinion different from that of most scientists, as you
> should be aware of.
As I am sure you know, most scientists do not work in the field
of climatology at all and therefor, like Mr Daneliuk, and myself,
and probably you as well, do not have a basis on which to form
an opinion in the first place.
That said, I think you will find that the overwhelming number of
climatologists who have studied the issue agree as to global warming
and differ only in their estimations of the rates. As always
the majority may be wrong, but I'll accept the majority opinion
unless I actually have a basis on which to form one of my own.
At least that opinion is consistent with the most powerful natural
law I do know something about, the conservation of energy.
> Also if we really did not know for sure if it's
> true then just doing nothing is like driving your car in the fog at
> full speed (always accelerating, and that even progressively) with the
> lame exuse that there are no visible obstacles. When you see tha wall
> at last *no* amount of braking will save you.
>
Hmmm.
--
FF
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Absolutely ... despite protestations from the industry and government, the
> .25/gallon jump we saw in one afternoon day before yesterday has 'gouging'
> written all over it.
>
> The bullshit about justifying the increase due to having to pay more for
> replacement is just that. Any increased cost in replacement is passed on
> the
> consumer, post delivery, but the 20,000 gallons in the storage tanks under
> those stations on Tuesday morning made for one hell of a profit after sale
> that evening.
>
> Not to mention one factor no one ever brings up ... refinery raw stock is
> commodity traded and, as such, much of what is being refined is bought on
> long term contract at a much lower cost than the current price per barrel.
I am for as little government intervention as possible but I believe that
the Oil companies, insurance companies, and electric companies should be
limited to the "percent" of profit that they can make.
Earlier this year I heard that Exxon had made 10 times the profit as the
year before. How can they make 10 times the profit if sales have not gone
up proportionally? Uh huh, price gouging and the media sets us up for it
the day before.
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>Hmmm, I've seen this argument before:
>>
>> "From each according to their ability,
>> to each according to their need."
>>
>> Karl Marx
>
>
> That is what I think humankind should strive to achieve. The
> alternative ("To each according to his abilities, needs will sort out
> by magic" or "market solution") is not what could be called human.
Let us inspect just what this very "human" system of yours requires.
It is possible for people who are Capitalists to also be criminals.
But true Capitalism involves the *voluntary* exchange of goods
and services among consenting individuals. That is, criminality
in commerce is not *innate* to Capitalism - it is simple crime.
But collectivist systems like the one you love so much *require
violence* to succeed. It is obvious even to the most ardent
collectivist that not everyone is equally able, talented, successful,
and indeed, not equally "needy". Therefore collectivism uses the
force of government (the tribe/the group/the mob/the gang) to *make*
people with more give it to people with less ... based on some magic
formula that determines need. This is not "human" it is *criminal* -
force in response to anything other than threat or attack initiated
by another is always criminal. So, your oh so "human" system innately
requires crime to succeed.
And that analysis is purely one the collectivist ideology, never mind it's
historic practice. In actual fact, collectivist systems - whether they
were called Communism, Nazism, Facsim, Socialist, Tribalism - *all of them,
involved the abuse of some to the benenfit of other.
Collectivism is a deadly, *anti* human ideology with ample historic
examples of its innate evils.
>
>
>>(Except for air and water) The resources are not "common" they belong to
>>those who develop them.
>
>
> Interesting. In other words the stuff around us belongs to him who
> grabs it? Why should the share in natures riches not be evenly
> distributed amoung the people? So you say if in some poor country a
Why should they be? Trees grow on almost every continent (I dunno about
Antarctica). If I cut a tree into timber and build a house, why
am I obligated to "evenly distribute nature riches" to the vile
African tribesman too busy murdering rival tribesman to stop and build
a house? Value from raw materials is created by the addition of
human labor (mental or physical). We humans are have a natural right
to control our lives and bodies so long as we do not harm the rights
of others to similarly run their own lives. When you insist that I
"share" the results of my labor (again, at the point of a gun - i.e. By
criminal force) you are insisting that I give my life away to other people
just because you said so. This is not noble, it is debauched.
> company moves in to "develop" the resources (i.e. take them out of
> that country) the inhabitants have no claim to the profits because the
> do not contribute to the "development"?
If the resources were removed by force - say the European colonization
of African - this is in itself criminal.
If the resources were fairly paid for in a consensual act of trade,
there is no crime or moral foul.
Even when the initial action is criminal, it is sometimes possible
to create benefit for the harmed party. The early American settlers
were abusive to both the native AmerIndians and African slaves, a
clearly immoral act. Yet, today, the descendants of these people
living in America benefit immesurably from the resultant system
(as do all other inhabitants of the country).
>
>>And while you're busy wagging your finger, take
>>a good look at the per capita CO2 production in Europe, for instance,
>>and then look at the US (guess who's being more naughty?).
>
>
> DOE claims (for 2000) 20 tons/capita in the US,
> something like 10 tons/capita in Germany. So the answer seems clear.
That's just Germany. Last I looked (and it may well have changed),
Europe as a whole was worse than the US.
>
>
>>The "pollution" argument is a chimera - the air is *cleaner* today in most
>>all the industrial world than it was a hundred years ago.
>
>
> True.
>
>
>>Global Warming is a vastly overstated threat and there is today no
>>statistically demonstrable connection between human activity and the
>>very slight observed warming (which has been going on for 15,000
>>years or so).
>
>
> This is an opinion different from that of most scientists, as you
> should be aware of. Also if we really did not know for sure if it's
Science is not about *OPINION* it is about repeatable experiment.
See:
http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/GW-Aliens-Crichton.html
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote05.html
Science does, of course, propose theoretical models which then
need to be tested in the court of Reality. Every single GW model
propsed so far has been VASTLY wrong in overstating the rate and severity
of warming. *Not a single one* (thus far) demonstrates unambigious
statistical correlation between human action and GW which long predates
human industrialization.
> true then just doing nothing is like driving your car in the fog at
> full speed (always accelerating, and that even progressively) with the
> lame exuse that there are no visible obstacles. When you see tha wall
> at last *no* amount of braking will save you.
This is an absurd metaphor. In the absence of any clear statistical
evidence, it is just as possible that human action is causing
*positive* change to the planet or even none at all. Ballings and
Michaels ("The Satanic Gasses") point out that the geophysical record
shows a time of *far* greater CO2 loading than today and the plant
flourished with plants and healthy life.
In the mean time, you and your ilk would have us compromise a system
of trade and governance that has yielded more good for more people in
only 300 or so of the 10,000 recorded years of history. You want us all
to embrace collectivist systems that are demonstrably criminal and have
failed every single time they have been tried on any real scale. You want
us to do this because you're worried that we *may* just be affecting something
that's been going on for the better part of 15 millenia, and which, to date,
cannot be demonstrated to have done any actual harm, AND even if it were
true, the worst thing that would happen would be a polar warming,
ultimately resulting in some rise of average ocean level over a period
of several decades. What is really pathetic is that when reasonable
alternatives are offered - nuclear power generation, trading energy
credits, trading pollution credits ... - it is the Green Gasbags that
fight *against* these very good things.
Environmentalism of the sort practiced in most of Western Europe and
a depressingly large portion of the US is anti-human, anti-science,
and anti-survival. It is an Earth-worshipping religion with very little
connection to Reality or sane thinking. It is motivated by criminal
collectivist ideology and it utterly without merit for the most part.
>
>
>>But, all these little illusions make good fodder for promoting the
>>collectivist/socialist agenda that is at the heart of all Do Gooder
>>programs that propose to tell all the rest of us what to do. This
>
>
> I am well aware that many people who start out to do good end up
> bringing great evils about, which is why every decision should be very
> well weighted and as many sapects considered as possible.
>
>
>
>>is no "common sense", it is a deadly political ideology found at the
>>heart of the majority of the environmentalists movements, the UN,
>>and, sadly, EU governance ...
>
>
> The capitalist ideology is no less deadly, and in EU governance there
> seems to my mind much too less collectivist/socialist agenda.
>
And this is exactly why Europe - at least the EU portions of it -
continue to lead in unemployment (as compared to the rest of the
developed world), continue to lag in economic growth, and have an
unfunded retirement problem that makes the US problem look like a
walk in the park. Today's EU, left to its current course, will watch
Eastern Europe, India and China eclipse it in less than two generations
in my estimation. If/when this happens, the same Collectivist Europeans
who shot themselves in the foot repeatedly will scream loudly that it
hurts. Perhaps if they all go hug a tree they will feel better.
P.S. I lived for 8 years in Germany and grew up speaking/writing the language.
I married into a Germanic family. Don't bother replying with the
usual "You dumb Americans don't know anything about Europe" argument.
Been There Done That...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
> , but somehow, someday, people in this nation are
> going to have to start taking responsibility for their own choices.
If only it were so ... unfortunately, lawyer's and governments (or more
succinctly, government where the laws are primarily created by lawyers) will
insure that never happens.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
> ...
>> I am for as little government intervention as possible but I believe that
>> the Oil companies, insurance companies, and electric companies should be
>> limited to the "percent" of profit that they can make.
>
> What business are you in? Why should yours be allowed to make whatever
> profit level you can as opposed to someone else's?
>
> What is needed isn't price control but reducing the restrictions on
> increasing supply...
My business does not affect the economy of the whole country as do the ones
I mentioned. I am self employed designing and building custom furniture and
cabinets. Suppose your groceries and house payments go up 50% this year
like the gasoline you buy has. Let the luxury items go up but basically
everyone has to have gasoline, insurance, and electricity suppliers and
those suppliers are well aware it. My customers can choose not to buy my
products but darn few Americans can choose not to have any thing to do with
Oil, Electricity, and Insurance.
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>This is an entirely fair and reasonable point. It's why I originally
>>said "cheap enough to not matter" and not "free". Take an example from
>>the telephone company. I pay a flat $50/mo for unlimited local and
>>domestic phone service. It's not "free", but it is so cheap, I don't
>>care if someone comes over and spends 4 hours on a long distance call to
>>their friends.
>
>
> Since the rate isn't dependent on use, of course you don't care about
> any additional usage...it's a non-issue.
>
>
>>New (actually not so new) nuclear technologies hold this promise. If
>>you've not read about pebble bed reactors, ...
>
>
> I've been reading about pebble bed reactors for some 30 years or more
> (BSNE '68).
>
> I still don't believe there's a chance in h-e-double toothpicks that one
> can build and operate 1000 MWe generation in less than something on the
> order of the same cost as present. You may get some reduction owing to
> scale and some owing to design, but you'll lose even more than you gain
> on scale simply in number.
But what if you could build, say a 100MW generation plant relatively
cheaply? Our approach thus far has been "build great big plants
that cost $5-6B and then serve a large portion of the grid". I think
the hope with pbs is that you can build lots of little ones because
building small is generally easier/cheaper/faster etc.
>
> I'm waiting and watching to be shown wrong, but I sincerely doubt it to
> be possible to make the kinds of changes that would support the cost
> structure you seem to envision.
>
> As I told Charlie, "cheap" isn't necessarily the answer--plentiful and
> stable cost is the ideal.
It's been years since I worked in nuke power generation so I have no
relevant current commentary. If you read the Wired article I cited,
though, they claim the promise is that you can scale by clustering
small generation facilities together. Maybe it's not the answer,
I think it's too early to tell, but doing nothing as we are now
is certain to fail.
If you're right, and our current nuke model is the only one that
Plays In Peoria, then all the more reason to get on it immediately.
The timeline from concept to watts out in a new nuke facility is, what,
a decade?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Morris Dovey wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk (in [email protected]) said:
>
> | The truth is that most people use energy but very few pay attention
> | to the politics of energy production. In one corner you have the
> | Green Gasbag environmentalists who worship the earth and indulge in
> | fantasy science. In another you have the politicans who want to get
> | paid off before anything moves forward. In another corner, you'll
> | find the irresponsible regulators who pay attention to all the
> | wrong things. This allows genuine environmental atrocities like
> | Love Canal to go unmonitored until it is too late so we have to use
> | tax monies to clean up what should have been paid for by the
> | polluter. In the final corner we have positions like the one
> | above: Let's *inhibit* the energy companies from being too
> | successful and lets blame them for all our miseries. Is it any
> | wonder we have a supply/demand problem with energy today?
>
> In your haste to stereotype you missed a corner: That in which there
> are serious people engaged in the attempt to deliver useful
> alternative solutions through research and careful engineering.
>
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
>
>
Please note that I specifically limited my "stereotyping" to the
"politics of energy production". This was in no way a slap at
the legitimate work being done in alternative energy research.
But you and your colleagues are no part of the cabal to which I
referred, so you don't get a corner...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>Unless the Acme Corp has a gun to Joe's head (which is a criminal act)
>>he is free to move elsewhere,
>
>
> So I take for granted that you, if standing next to the US border to
> Mexico, cry out "Mr. Bush, tear down this fence!".
What on earth are you yammering about? There is no fence in said location.
The US does not owe ingress to foreigners anymore than any sovereign
state does. And yes, as a general matter of principle, I approve
heartily of *managed and controlled* immigration - just like when I
go to Germany and have to show my passport everywhere I go.
>
>
>>start his own company,
>
>
> Most people cannot do that, either from personal disposition or from
> lack of resources. The money market and interest rates basically mean
> that the more desperate you need money the less you get it or are able
> to afford it.
And this proves what? That starting a business is hard? OK, I agree.
It is *still* not "force" against Joe - it is merely a matter
of his personal circumstances.
>
>
>>or attempt to find a better job locally.
>
>
> With workers in ample supply the market makes better jobs scarce.
>
See the above paragraph. This is NOT force...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 30 Aug 2005 13:36:58 -0700, "David Sizemore" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Personally, I wish there was still the test pattern after Carson that
>lasted until The National Anthem and "High Flight", followed by
>cartoons.
Ahh, that takes me back. I loved the shot of the F104 doing a roll.
That's also my favorite poem.
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:38:41 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 09:55:08 -0700, Mark & Juanita
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 01:58:05 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:10:47 -0400, Robatoy <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>... snip
>>>>Now Bush has taken charge of the relief efforts. Just when you thought
>>>>that things couldn't get any worse.
>>>
>>... snip of more of "it's all Bush's fault" rant
>>>How can anyone still support him? Go ahead and kill-file me if you
>>>like, but anyone who can't see what the bastard is doing to our
>>>country is dumber than a f***ing post, and needs to get right up on
>>>the scaffold with their damned religious right and get their neck
>>>stretched too. It's the same old saw- your right to swing your fist
>>>ends where my nose begins, and I'm tired of seeing my country
>>>destroyed day after day.
>>
>> It's obvious that such visceral, irrational hatred is not something that
>>can be addressed easily. You do need to get a bit of a grip however,
>>blaming one person or group of persons for all of the ills you see in the
>>world is not healthy, especially given that some of the ills you are citing
>>above don't even exist. Some of the ills you address weren't even started
>>during Bush's administration but go back to a previous admin. At times
>>like this you further seem to give Bush almost god-like powers, failing to
>>recognize that there are checks and balances built into the system.
>
>Yes, it's getting visceral, and it's really, really becoming hatred.
>I don't know how many times I'm supposed to see some freak who can't
>seem to work more than a couple of months before going back to his
>ranch for a little nappy-poo
Every president in recent history has taken regular breaks from the White
House. Clinton just went to more elite digs. Do you really think Bush is
ignoring what is going on while at Crawford?
> tell us all to stay the course and take
>credit for speaking for God while our way of life is sold for pennies
>on the dollar to corporations like Haliburton
... you and Michael Moore just can't let any discussion go by without
throwing Haliburton into the mix.
> and our friends and
>neighbors are sent to die so that said monkey can score a few more
>approval points from the "my country right or wrong" crowd who will
>applaud because CNN is giving them a little "shock and awe"
>entertainment.
... those fellow citizens of yours couldn't have arrived at a different
conclusion regarding national interest and policy through rational thought,
could they? Nah, I didn't think so.
>
>Sure, there are problems that began long ago- in previous
>administrations and with different actors. There are also problems
>that are right here, right now. Some of you folks hired this
>goddamned chimp to do a job- is he doing it? Maybe instead of cutting
>up brush back in Crawford, he could be consulting with people other
>than the shits on his election team
... and what exactly, is he running for? In case you had forgotten, he
is in his last 4 year term.
> to try and find solutions for some
>of the problems we're having instead of wishing and hoping that
>somehow Jesus will sort it all out if he just stalls long enough.
>
OK, first he is a deranged cowboy sending troops to Iraq for the glory of
Haliburton (which, would at least imply a plan, in your conspiracy-laced
world). Now he is just letting things happen around him with no plan --
so, which is it? Evil conspiratorial genius or laid-back unthinking stooge
just letting the world unfold? You really can't have it both ways.
>> You are blaming Bush for the future high cost of heating oil? Whose
>>fault is it that no (read that zip, zilch, nada) new refineries have been
>>built in the past 30 years? Hint: It's not Halliburton out protesting and
>>trying to find some endangered microbe to prevent the construction of any
>>proposed building project anywhere in the US. Now the source of 25% of the
>>US supply of refined products has been hit by a natural disaster and we are
>>surprised that putting all of our eggs in only a few baskets (because they
>>were there before the wave of anti-building forces were active) is going to
>>cause problems?
>
>I'm going to blame Bush for taking funds out of the pot that was
>supposed to be used for maintainance on those levees.
Better wait until all the facts get sorted out on that one. Congress
passed the spending bills that essentially traded environmental concerns
(building for cat 5 hurricane would have caused undesirable environmental
impacts on the surrounding swamps), costs, and effectivity to negotiate a
cat 3 protection standard. [This was expressed today by a former Lousianna
Senator]
> I'm going to
>blame him for cutting funds to FEMA.
... and you can show this?
> I'm also going to blame him for
>each and every life that has been lost in Iraq, both American and
>Iraqi. And I'm especially going to blame him for forcing our National
>Guard to fight a foreign war so that they are not here when they have
>a job to do- in the name of not having to start a draft for his
>personal Vietnam.
>
There was not a lack of NG troops, the LA governor just failed to request
them. But then, why let a few facts get in the way of a really good rant.
>So in a nutshell, yes, I am going to blame him for the future high
>cost of heating oil. Actually, that isn't totally fair- I blame him
>for the company he keeps, and I blame those people for the future high
>cost of heating oil- as well as mass murder and illegal warfare. If
>you don't like it, tell it to the judge.
>
Here is where it gets sticky, in your world, we went into Iraq for oil,
therefore, we should be getting boatloads of oil from Iraq now so his
henchmen can be cashing in. Where's that oil? The only thing you have to
show thus far is loss of 25% of US refining capacity due to an act of God.
Guess what? If the oil refineries aren't pumping out gasoline, heating oil,
or other petrochemical products, the oil companies aren't making money on
those products. What's wrong with this picture? Seems like in your world,
if Bush and his evil henchmen were really looking out for the oil
companies, they would have poured more boatloads of taxpayer money into
shoring up the LA and NO levee infrastructure, sparing no expense to
protect those oil assets. Then of course, you would have decried the use
of taxpayer money to protect corporate oil interests. Guess you really can
have it both ways.
>> I'm also sure that you will be able to find some reason that it is also
>>Bush's fault that the rescue efforts are being hampered by people shooting
>>at the rescue workers. What in the world is up with that?
>
>No, that isn't his fault. Those people doing that are nuts, too.
>
>> Probably not worth responding to someone exhibiting such visceral hatred,
>>but just to put a few facts into the discussion so that you can have a more
>>rational go at it in your next diatribe.
>>1) For state disasters such as this, it is typically the state governor who
>>requests other state National Guard support through the federal government.
>>The papers at the federal level had been signed allowing this, all that
>>was needed was the Louisianna governor's request for deployment. It didn't
>>come until 2 days ago.
>
>Thank you, Mr. Kafka.
>
Yep, can't let those pesky facts get in the way. A little ad hominem is
always a good response to those.
>>2) The Louisianna governor was waiting for information from "boots on the
>>ground" in New Orleans to inform the governor's office regarding whether
>>such a deployment request was necessary. They apparently lost contact with
>>those people in New Orleans and didn't realize how bad things were getting.
>>[editorial note: when one loses contact with one's surveillance assets,
>>one generally assumes that something bad has happened, not that everything
>>is peachy-keen and can wait until contact is re-established].
>>
No response to this?
>>
>> I'm sure had the government taken the opposite approach, positioning huge
>>amounts of personnel and material in place for a large disaster, and had
>>the hurricane not turned out to be a major disaster, Bush would have been
>>decried for the waste of time and materiel and the impact on the National
>>Guard's lives and morale over what turned out to be nothing.
>
>The impact on the National Guardmens' lives? Would being sent to
>Lousiana "just in case" for a couple of days really be worse than
>being sent overseas and held there for years at a time for suicide
>bomber target practice? They didn't sign up for that, and they should
>not be there- they *should* be helping the people who are dying in New
>Orleans.
>
>> Frankly, the fact that some people seem to view this disaster as more of
>>an opportunity for further political partisanship and another opportunity
>>to bash the sitting president rather than seeing it for what it really is,
>>a significant disaster needing support is really disturbing. One can't
>>even address what are real failures without bringing politics into play
>>rather than trying to find the root cause of the problem and go fix that.
>
>Yes, it needs to be fixed. Normally, the government might help out
>with this, but they are busy killing people for oil and vast sums of
>money,
... and again I ask, where is this oil of which you speak and the
accompanying vast sums of money? Before you shout, "Haliburton" again,
remember that those people from Haliburton supporting the troops and
infrastructure rebuild in Iraq are also "being sent overseas, ... and used
for suicide bomber target practice".
> and would rather be eating BBQ and practicing their
>snake-handling if that weren't going on.
>
Yep, demonizing those with whom you disagree helps fan the hatred.
>In point of fact, it's not just Bush, it's not just Republicans. It's
>every half-wit cowboy-hat wearing, country music listening idiot
>cousin of some guy named Jeb who thinks that their ninth-grade
>education gives them the right to vote for another dropout because
>some wild-eyed SOB's in the NRA and a guy who sings songs about his
>boots told them that if they didn't, somebody might take der gunz so's
>dey cunna shoot no skeet atter der trucks no mo' (get 'er dun).
Can't stop with the ad hominems can you? Somebody disagrees with your
worldview, obviously they are just dumb, inbred hill folk who've been
brainwashed by the slick-talking, well-spoken George Bush. They couldn't
possibly have arrived at their position by observation of the opposition,
examination of the facts and arrived at a different conclusion than
yourself, Michael Moore or George Soros.
> It's
>every slick-shit moron with a BS in "business" who thinks that it's
>all right to cancel a fifty year old man's pension to bump up the
>stock price a little, or cook the books because they know that they
>won't have to do more than six months in the joint if they get caught,
Well let's see. Enron? MCI? The crimes came to light during the first
years of the Bush admin. The crimes were committed during the Clinton, "I
didn't have sex with that woman", "it depends upon what the meaning of is,
is" administration when the impression was given that if you were high
enough in power, the rules really didn't apply to you.
Seems that Bernie Ebers (sp?) is spending a bit longer than 6 months in
the joint. Same with a number of the Enron crew. A number of prosecutions
are still going forward, so the above diatribe doesn't even come close to
the true nature of the penalties being incurred.
>and all that money will still be in their numbered account when they
>get out. It's the tightwads who don't care to pay an extra $10 a
>month so their kids can learn to read and write, and jump into the
>voting booth and yank that lever down for Bush/Cheney and get that
>$120 a year "savings"- and a trillion dollar corporate tax cut as
>icing on the cake.
... and all the trillions of "just a few more dollars a
month/paycheck/year, etc" poured into the public education system, welfare,
and other social engineering projects in the past 65 years+ have done
exactly what? Funny how when it comes to increasing taxes, it's always
only just a little more, nobody will miss it, and "for the children". When
someone recognizes that government sometimes *is* the problem and that by
overtaxing the citizens, the government is actually impeding economic
progress, even a few dollars causes such howls of anguish, you would think
the end was upon us.
>
>Most people aren't millionaires playing the stock market. Where I
>live, most people work in factories, and when one goes to China,
>everyone suffers- a lot.
Gee, that trend seems to have been around a lot longer than the Bush
administration.
> They end up working for Walmart as part of
>the much touted "service economy" (which is where all the money is, I
>hear), selling their souls to the company store to get cheap items
>that break as soon as they get them home, and struggling to pay their
>rent and put food on the table while they watch the prices at the gas
>pump go up 10 or 20 cents a day and wonder how they're going to make
>it because there is no longer anywhere to work that is within walking
>distance- everything has been swallowed by the retail giant on the
>edge of town. No busses go to that monstrosity, just highways- that
>means you pay what they demand, or you die.
>
>I make enough to weather the storm- barely. I know three trades, and
>work extra hours as an independant contractor to make sure everything
>comes together. But because of this shit hole of a political system I
>have to do even more- not just to support myself and my family, but
>also to help all those poor bastards who can't help themselves. I
>could lock my doors and pretend that it's not my fault if my brother's
>kids freeze because he couldn't pay for heating oil, or shrug when my
>parents' roof caves in under the snow some January because the money
>that might have gone to pay someone to fix it went in the gas tank. I
>could say it's not my concern when the nice old fella next door is
>found dead of starvation because they cut his medicare and took away
>his social security.
Please provide a credible reference for anyone, anywhere who as a) had
his social security cut, or b) had his medicare taken away. Just in case
you hadn't noticed, Bush had the largest increase in entitlements since the
Johnson administration passed in the Prescription Drug Benefit.
> But I just can't. Because I AM PART OF THE
>GODDAMN REALITY-BASED COMMUNITY, AND JESUS EVIDENTLY DOESN'T GIVE A
>FLYING FUCK ABOUT US FOLKS WHO DON'T HAVE A FAT STOCK PORTFOLIO.
>
You have really gone off the deep end here. Look around you (as you
instruct me to do below). Look at the outpouring of funds and volunteerism
to help the victims of Katrina. If those folks were taxed to the extent
you apparently want people to be taxed at, they couldn't do that as they
would be living in misery as well.
>> Having seen an AP report this morning, I can certainly understand where
>>some of this rancor comes from, there was absolutely nothing objective in
>>that report. They were even beating on the federal government for not
>>activating the Civilian Reserve Air Fleet to help in this.
>
>Forget about the AP reports. Get up out of your chair, and walk
>around the neighborhood and talk to people. Maybe even go a few
>blocks over, to where the houses need a little paint and there isn't a
>new car in every driveway. The world is different when it is seen
>from a perspective that doesn't involve the landscape whizzing past
>the windows of your Hummer at 85 miles per hour.
>
You have no idea what kind of neighborhood I live in, the background from
which I have come, the kinds of people with whom I am involved, nor the
kinds of charities to which I contribute. Yet you presume to lecture me
that I am unaware of problems or other issues. Let me give you a hint --
there may be problems in our world and our country, but taking everything
some people have at the point of a gun to give it to others, many of whom
are in the conditions in which they are in because of poor choices made
early on, in order to make everyone equally miserable is not going to
solve any problems.
>I'm ashamed to be part of this country.
Then I recommend you find another country that will provide the
opportunities, allow you the freedoms, and still cater to everyone's whims.
I'm done with this. You definitely are more consumed by hatred than
logic. You see evil at every corner rather than good. That's a shame,
because there is a lot of good being done and people are being helped by
many of those to whom you are attributing more evil than good. Are there
problems in this country? Sure, we are a nation of people, people who do
good, people who do evil. We live in a sinful world, but that doesn't mean
we just see evil in everything around us. This is not a soup-line America.
There are opportunities. Why do you think people are flooding the border
to get *in* to America?
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 19:20:48 -0500, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>[2] Even with the current state of photovoltaics with enough PV panel
>area and sufficient battery and inverter capacity, it's possible to
>run even an obscenely large table saw. Having said that, I'll also say
>that I don't consider it an economical solution to powering stationary
>tools. PV panel cost is high and efficiency is low. You'd need a lot
>of panel/battery to power my Unisaw or CNC router.
Last I saw about PV efficiency a couple years ago the real problem was
that manufacturing them took almost as much energy as the *lifetime*
output of the resulting cells. I'm sure the ratio has improved, but
probably not to the point where they can be considered effective in
reducing energy consumption.
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is *always* less energy
>>>>out than energy in because perpetual motion is impossible.
>>>
>>>
>>>That law doesn't apply to a farm. There are many sources and drains for
>>>energy on a farm. It is not a closed system. Thermal air-flows, solar
>>>radiation, rain, etc.
>>>
>>>Cow/pig farts contain valuable gasses. My guess is that a single
>>>cow-fart will light your lamp for a week.
>>
>>If you can demonstrate this, there is a Nobel in Physics in it for you.
>>The net energy out is always <= net energy in - at least as currently
>>understood thermodynamics works. But ... science does change. I'll
>>be the first to congratulate you on your discipline-bending work if
>>you prove otherwise ... (I always wanted to meet a Nobel winner ;)
>>
>
>
> You have to remember that the sun is a major input into the energy cycle
> of growing things...
And your point? The point to which I replied argued that newer forms of
farming had a net loss of energy. I agree - all real systems do when
comparing net output to net input *which includes the input of the sun*.
This is unremarkable as I said and I don't see the relevance of the
point to this discussion. The fact remains that todays farms produce
more product, with less land, for less cost, for more people than at any
point in history. This is not my opinion, it is observable fact. Whether
the energy comes from the sun, moon, and stars, or the effuvia of cows
is ultimately not the issue. People arguing for the "barely surviving
farmer" have no case, and *that* is more-or-less what I was arguing against.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Andrew Barss wrote:
> Joseph Crowe <[email protected]> wrote:
> : Ironically, Toyota took its ECHO out of the U.S. market...it gets
> : 42mpg on the highway at around a sustained 75mph. That's just
> : dumb IMO.
>
>
> They replaced it with the Scion xA. Excellent mileage.
Not exactly. The ECHO was designed as a "world" car. It's still
sold in other places. The ECHO was rated at, and got, 42mpg at highway
speeds. The Scion XA is rated at 38mpg and costs significantly more.
>
> -- Andy Barss
That said, it looks like the XA might be able to haul some bigger
stuff like more boards....due to its hatchback like design..but damn
is it ever tiny.
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:38:41 -0500, Prometheus
<[email protected]> wrote:
<Major snip>
>I'm ashamed to be part of this country.
Thank you for speaking out.
So there is at least one sane American out there.
Goes against the general protracted image that you are all bush bible
bashing buddies.
Maybe your biased news networks should get some unbiased views of the
peoples feelings and not those of those who get paid to say the right
things.
>
"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
> > I recall discussing the "feels like factor" in Physics while in college.
> > The professor just laughed and we later termed it the "wus factor".
Feels
> > like to who exactly?
>
> See above reply...it's a statistical correlation developed from actual
> test data on fairly sizable sample populations...
... and to paraphrase one of my college math professors many years ago:
"Statisticians are mathematicians hired to prove statistically what they
can't prove mathematically" ... or words to that effect. :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05
Charlie Self wrote:
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
>>Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>...
>>
>>>I fundamentally disagree that "we aren't hurting ...". Let's do a thought
>>>experiment. Suppose we built a bunch of small regional power generators
>>>using, say, the Pebble Bed technology the Chinese are currently pushing
>>>(in a huge way). This would have the eventual effect of making
>>>electricity so cheap that it would be logically "free" (i.e., So cheap
>>>the price wouldn't matter much.) ...
>>
>>...
>>
>>No matter how many you build, they will never be cheap enough to be
>>considered "free". Somewhat less expensive than current generation
>>LWRs, <maybe>, but "free"--no way. Somewhere the construction and
>>operational costs as well as the fuel cycle have to be recovered. I
>>don't think there's any way it could possibly be done for less than
>>perhaps 2/3-rds the cost of current generation facilities irregardless
>>of scale, and I think that estimate optimistic.
>>
>>I recall when I started school as NE that was the current mantra of the
>>old AEC--"too cheap to meter". Didn't happen then, won't happen now or
>>in the future. It is simply not possible to create an infrastructure of
>>such magnitude at no cost.
>
>
> The maintenance costs over decades need to be remembered, too, as does
> the simple fact that low cost energy always seems to encourage waste,
> or at least very careless use, which drives up needs rapidly. When an
> infrastructure is built, it must be maintained, something that a great
> many people today seem to forget. In many areas, the Interstate system
> is in pretty rough shape. Much of it has been in place for nearly 40
> years, in heavy use for more than two and a half decades, and has
> gotten relatively small amounts of maintenance...and upgrading has not
> always been done in a timely manner, nor in the directions actually
> required as traffic loads increased.
>
> Just one example. Physical plants do deteriorate, and they do cost
> money to repair, even if properly maintained.
>
This is an entirely fair and reasonable point. It's why I originally
said "cheap enough to not matter" and not "free". Take an example from
the telephone company. I pay a flat $50/mo for unlimited local and
domestic phone service. It's not "free", but it is so cheap, I don't
care if someone comes over and spends 4 hours on a long distance call to
their friends.
New (actually not so new) nuclear technologies hold this promise. If
you've not read about pebble bed reactors, I heartily encourage you to
do so. For example, see:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html
This kind of stuff holds immense promise on the *generation* and waste
disposal side of the equation. The much larger problem is the
*distribution* side - the "grid". The grid grew irrationally, has not
been well maintained, did not transition well from a regulated
environment to a free market, and is IMHO a ticking time bomb. But here
too, pebble beds offer hope. By building lots and lots of *small local*
generation sites (something done in other nations and long advocated by
people like Freeman Dyson, a Nobel lauriate physicist), we can begin to
make "the grid" a more local and scalable phenomenon. Who needs a
national grid when every state in the country can have a small,
safe, clean nuke, that's easy to secure, can be locally funded and
maintained, and has a minimal waste disposal problem? It's not a
perfect solution, but it's certainly better than today's trajectory
(no new nukes, lots of coal, Arab oil, and all the rest).
The larger point is that so long as we listen to the irrational
environmentalists (as opposed to the thoughtful ones), as long as we
keep trying to hark back to the days of quasi-socialist regulation, so
long as we play the Not In My Back Yard game, we are effectively
fiddling while Rome burns. These technologies are going to take several
decades to be implemented and debugged. If we don't start now, we are
NEVER going to catch up and China and the rest of the emerging
undeveloped world are going to eclipse the West as the dominant economic
and world power. We don't need more government programs to do this. We
need to let markets do their work AND allow the people/companies who
take the risks to benefit from their bets without exgregious taxation,
unreasonable regulation, and social stigma. So long as an institution
produces wealth without resorting to fraud, force, or threat, in my view
they can never be "too profitable" nor ought we to hold them to the
"serving the larger society" nonsense. I want a world where we don't
have to say Mother May I to the Arabic penninsula or end up begging
energy from the Chinese. This can only happen with free markets and the
legal protection of the profits made thereby.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Go for Roanoke, VA, too. Yesterday, one of the women (and I use the
> adult noun only to eliminate PC yowling) had herself strapped into the
> wind tunnel at Virginia Tech up in Blacksburg, and then got the wind
> cranked up to 100 MPH.
>
> This is at least the third time I've seen a newsidjit do this kind of
> silly thing. I'm not at all sure what it is supposed to prove to anyone
> else,
But if she was wearing a wet T shirt and . . . . . . . . . . .
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 17:52:09 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> That's certainly true. OTOH, I have only a limited amount of compassion
>> (for lack of a better word) for those who knowingly build in a place on
>> the Gulf Coast below sea level and expect to not have such a result.
>> While it's a major disaster, most of it is actually self-inflicted if
>> folks weren't so bent on doing things that really just aren't smart
>> decisions.
>>
>And maybe build houses that can stand some wind. I am no expert, but it
>seems that the insurance industry should offer discounts to folks who build
>houses (or at least ROOFS) to a higher standard could get some kind of
>discounts. They do this sort of thing with cars, why not houses.
>
>And build a house that can be easily refurbished after a flood. Good old
>concrete blocks would work well.
>
This is something I ponder after every report of a disaster. Some
disasters seem to have greater survivability than others. For the
ones with a higher probability of survival of the structure, why
aren't the structures better built for the environment they stand in?
For example - the fires in Southern California a couple of summers ago
- I saw a photo of a single house in one of the affected neighborhoods
that survived. A stucco house with a clay tile roof. All the others
apparently constructed as a regular frame house with asphalt shingles.
Why build a house like that in that area?
And in hurricane prone areas, why build close to the shore where you
*know* storm surge will inundate your structure? And as you mention a
roof to better resist the wind. Some magazine did a story about a
house built by the mother of former Attorney General Janet Reno. That
dwelling did a great job of resisting Hurricane Andrew.
What's wrong with building a dwelling for the climate?
Of couse if the disaster is an earthquake or a direct hit by a
tornado, maybe not much can be done.
"jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>>
> Keep in mind that Manhattan is a barrier island...
And used to have farms too. It has since been destroyed from its natural
beauty.
"Bob Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in 1230019 20050901 094319 "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Look around at the gas stations in the U.S. today. Gasoline in the low
>>cost areas is now over $3 a gallon as price gouging gets endemic, and
>>is touch twice that in areas such as Atlanta. There's almost a touch of
>>pride in the TV announcers voices' as they note we're near European
>>levels of pricing now.
>
> $3 per gallon is about 80 cents per litre
> UK price is about $1.60 (90p) per litre
> so you have quite a way to go yet!
You would think that we learned nothing from the Enron scam when they sold
energy to California. They bought and sold energy back and forth between
non existing companies to jack the price up. Now we have probably 8 major
oil companies that have merged into 4 and have shut down 1/2 of their
refining capacity. Essentially eliminating 1/2 of the competition. On top
of that they use the media as a gauge as to how far they can raise the
prices. The mere suggestion from the media of prices going up and the oil
companies follow the news lead "immediately". If the media would report the
news and not speculate what may happen perhaps the fuel prices would go
down. Has any one really seen a shortage? The oil companies have created
the so called shortage by cutting production.
Lee DeRaud wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 22:15:34 -0500, Duane Bozarth
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Patriarch wrote:
> >>
> >> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> news:[email protected]:
> >>
> >> > I ain't got no stinkin' cell phone... :)
> >>
> >> Your choice. Some of use prefer to call people, instead of places. Or be
> >> reached where we are, instead of where our telephone is.
> >
> >And some of prefer to <not> be...I spent too long where it was mandatory
> >to want anything to do with it now that I don't have to... :)
>
> Did they start making cell phones without "off" buttons and forget to
> send me the memo?
>
If _having a cell phone was mandatory_ then I guess leaving it
off was not acceptible.
However, given that cell phones haven't even been around at all
for that long spending 'too long where it was mandatory' implies
a rather rapdid burn out.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Lee DeRaud wrote:
> > On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 22:15:34 -0500, Duane Bozarth
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >Patriarch wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote in
> > >> news:[email protected]:
> > >>
> > >> > I ain't got no stinkin' cell phone... :)
> > >>
> > >> Your choice. Some of use prefer to call people, instead of places. Or be
> > >> reached where we are, instead of where our telephone is.
> > >
> > >And some of prefer to <not> be...I spent too long where it was mandatory
> > >to want anything to do with it now that I don't have to... :)
> >
> > Did they start making cell phones without "off" buttons and forget to
> > send me the memo?
> >
>
> If _having a cell phone was mandatory_ then I guess leaving it
> off was not acceptible.
>
> However, given that cell phones haven't even been around at all
> for that long spending 'too long where it was mandatory' implies
> a rather rapdid burn out.
Yep...it was mobiles before the cell and required call in if out of
range on a schedule. Not my idea of a way to continue.
And to the other question--if I had one and simply left it in the 'off'
position that would seem a somewhat funny use of resources it seems to
me.
The wife has hers and if we're on travel can use it for emergency and
the absolutely required "check-in" w/ the kids--otherwise, if I'm not
in, I'm "not in" and I intend to keep it that way... :)
In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Bit on the paranoid side there, aren't we?
> >
> >
> > Hardly... the oil interests stop at nothing. Nothing.
>
> Especially when compared to those paragons of the restraint,
> the Collectivist Left. Over 50 percent of the US Federal budget
> is allocated for various drooling do-gooder programs inflicted upon
> us by a bunch of self-annointed saviors of mankind,
You mean self-anointed saviours (spelled right this time) like Bush.
Lord Bush, The Saviour of the poor people of Iraq?
Is that the federal budget you're talking about?
> but you have
> the gall to talk about the lack of self restraint in the private
> sector of an industry that actually serves us all pretty well.
It requires no gall at all to point out that big-winded, brainwashed
advocates of true evil, like yourself, are all hat and no cattle.
We now know you support dictatorships, run by oil interests. I hope
you're not trying to sell me on the morality and freedoms these people
are so willing to flush down the shitter so that the next campaign
donations will be there just in time to pay off the corrupt 'election
machinery' so they can steal yet another election. Do not try to
persuade me. That's an impossible task. I'm participating in this thread
in the hope that some other readers may not be swayed by your bullshit.
> Tragic, but not remarkable "thinking" that is all too common in
> your degenerate end of the political spectrum (noting also that
> the Right isn't much better).
You, sir, have no clue what my political experience/orientation is. All
I am pointing out that you're a self-serving windbag, and would likely
be regardless of what your persuasion would be this week. Nothing more
than an opportunist in the hope that some of your bullshit might
actually rub off on yourself in order to get something for
free....either that or you're overcompensating for a very small penis.
Either way,
have a nice day.
In article <[email protected]>,
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bit on the paranoid side there, aren't we?
Hardly... the oil interests stop at nothing. Nothing.
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 14:27:33 -0400, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Sounds like time to write a proposal and a business plan and find a
>> venture capitalist...if it's really doable, <someone> will.
>
>errm... as long as there is oil to sell, the Bushistas won't like it if
>you compete with them. The venture capitalists might get a tap on the
>shoulder.
Bit on the paranoid side there, aren't we?
>Or, the proposal might get 'Roved' by having the originator of the
>proposal made out to be a crack-pot.
Have no idea where this is coming from.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 22:15:34 -0500, Duane Bozarth
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Patriarch wrote:
>>
>> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > I ain't got no stinkin' cell phone... :)
>>
>> Your choice. Some of use prefer to call people, instead of places. Or be
>> reached where we are, instead of where our telephone is.
>
>And some of prefer to <not> be...I spent too long where it was mandatory
>to want anything to do with it now that I don't have to... :)
Did they start making cell phones without "off" buttons and forget to
send me the memo?
Lee
Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Bit on the paranoid side there, aren't we?
>
>
> Hardly... the oil interests stop at nothing. Nothing.
Especially when compared to those paragons of the restraint,
the Collectivist Left. Over 50 percent of the US Federal budget
is allocated for various drooling do-gooder programs inflicted upon
us by a bunch of self-annointed saviors of mankind, but you have
the gall to talk about the lack of self restraint in the private
sector of an industry that actually serves us all pretty well.
Tragic, but not remarkable "thinking" that is all too common in
your degenerate end of the political spectrum (noting also that
the Right isn't much better).
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bit on the paranoid side there, aren't we?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hardly... the oil interests stop at nothing. Nothing.
>>
>>
>> Especially when compared to those paragons of the restraint,
>> the Collectivist Left. Over 50 percent of the US Federal budget
>> is allocated for various drooling do-gooder programs inflicted upon
>> us by a bunch of self-annointed saviors of mankind,
>
>
>
> You mean self-anointed saviours (spelled right this time) like Bush.
> Lord Bush, The Saviour of the poor people of Iraq? Is that the federal
> budget you're talking about?
Of course. The so-called Right is just as bad at peddling their
ideology and spreading around Other People's Money. It's just
that the ideological Left has been in power for so much longer -
most of the time since FDR forward has seen power in the
hands of the Left in the US (and for that matter a good part
of the rest of the Western world). Today's budgetary problems,
unfunded retirement programs and so forth were *born* by the
Idiot Left and excacerbated by the Phony Right.
>
>
>> but you have
>> the gall to talk about the lack of self restraint in the private
>> sector of an industry that actually serves us all pretty well.
>
>
>
> It requires no gall at all to point out that big-winded, brainwashed
> advocates of true evil, like yourself, are all hat and no cattle. We
> now know you support dictatorships, run by oil interests. I hope
I would hope they are thus all shut down so that their eeeevvvviiil oil
products will not be available to you. This would be true justice.
Then you and your fellows could enage in your favorite economic
fanstasies in creating the People's Oil Company. Since today's
system is so evil, why don't you get off your self-declared moral
pedestal and start *your own* oil company that is sufficiently
PC to suit you. You likely have neither the ability or work ethic
to pull it off. Talk about "big hat no cattle" ...
> you're not trying to sell me on the morality and freedoms these people
> are so willing to flush down the shitter so that the next campaign
> donations will be there just in time to pay off the corrupt 'election
> machinery' so they can steal yet another election. Do not try to
> persuade me. That's an impossible task. I'm participating in this
> thread in the hope that some other readers may not be swayed by your
> bullshit.
I hope you are taking regular deep breaths so as not to choke on your
own bile. You Left apologists got your butts handed to you not once,
but *twice*. Stings doesn't it? This happened because you think
you know what's good for everyone, that you're smarter, more educated,
and just generally better suited to run things. 'Problem is that lots
of us don't see it that way. I haven't voted for a Republican in decades,
but I did in the last election. You know why? Just to put you smarmy,
self-important little political pustules in your place.
In actual fact, there is little or no difference between a Left or Right
government any more. But I just love seeing the Leftie fleabags
screaming in agony. After decades of mismananging the nation, corrupting
the political process, defiling personal property, you finally managed
to offend pretty much everyone. Now you've effectively handed power to
the Right - not something to be very proud of. The political Left is
dishonest, dishonorable, craven, and contemptible. Listening to you
scream is like a Mozart Symphony to my ears. You deserve your continued
loss of power until you come to grips with the idea that freedom trumps
your agenda for everyone around you.
>
>
>> Tragic, but not remarkable "thinking" that is all too common in
>> your degenerate end of the political spectrum (noting also that
>> the Right isn't much better).
>
>
>
> You, sir, have no clue what my political experience/orientation is. All
Sure I do. You're a dyed-in-the-wool collectivist whatever title you give it.
> I am pointing out that you're a self-serving windbag, and would likely
> be regardless of what your persuasion would be this week. Nothing more
> than an opportunist in the hope that some of your bullshit might
> actually rub off on yourself in order to get something for
I cannot imagine what that might be. Mostly I want to be free of the
intrusions into my life and wallet by sanctimonious do-gooders like you.
I much prefer the predation of the Big Eeeevvvviiiiillll Oil Companies
than advice from (logically) smelly hippies who do nothing, have no
ideas of merit, and whose only accomplishment in life is telling
everyone else what to do. You people need to sober up, take a bath, read
history, learn economics, earn your own keep, and most importantly,
leave the rest of us alone.
> free....either that or you're overcompensating for a very small penis.
When a response degrades to the level of discussing genitalia, it is
certain that the responder no longer as a coherent argument or position.
(Either that or your interest in this area transcends politcs. In that
case, I certainly have no interest.) Wipe the foam of your lips. You and
your ilk are going to continue to lose prestige, power, and influence.
The tragedy is that it will not go to freedom loving people, it will go
to the Right whose excesses in other areas are just as bad. But, we have
to eliminate parasites from the body politic, one at a time.
> Either way,
> have a nice day.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:35:15 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:
>> cave creek, az
>
> I don't know where Cave Creek is specifically, but I don't think of
> anywhere in AZ as not in continual drought, at least from a dryland
> farming perspective.
AZ ag uses a lot of irrigation. That water has to come from somewhere,
such as the Colorado River. Drought upstream affects the available water
supplies. Hence the Central Arizona Project, dams and reservoirs.
Much of Arizona is indeed arid. Much of it is not.
--
"Keep your ass behind you"
vladimir a t mad {dot} scientist {dot} com
Leon wrote:
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Absolutely ... despite protestations from the industry and government, the
>>.25/gallon jump we saw in one afternoon day before yesterday has 'gouging'
>>written all over it.
>>
>>The bullshit about justifying the increase due to having to pay more for
>>replacement is just that. Any increased cost in replacement is passed on
>>the
>>consumer, post delivery, but the 20,000 gallons in the storage tanks under
>>those stations on Tuesday morning made for one hell of a profit after sale
>>that evening.
>>
>>Not to mention one factor no one ever brings up ... refinery raw stock is
>>commodity traded and, as such, much of what is being refined is bought on
>>long term contract at a much lower cost than the current price per barrel.
>
>
>
> I am for as little government intervention as possible but I believe that
> the Oil companies, insurance companies, and electric companies should be
> limited to the "percent" of profit that they can make.
> Earlier this year I heard that Exxon had made 10 times the profit as the
> year before. How can they make 10 times the profit if sales have not gone
> up proportionally? Uh huh, price gouging and the media sets us up for it
> the day before.
>
>
And then you wonder why the Big Evil Oil Companies don't want to build
very costly infrastructure like pipelines and refineries? Here is a
clue: You cannot interfere with the profit potential for an institution
AND at the same time demand that they sink more money into longterm
infrastructure builds.
The US has consistently had growing energy needs while at the same time
reducing or eliminating additional energy *sources* from its
bag-o-tricks. We haven't built a nuclear plant or an oil refinery in
decades. The ANWR just got opened up for drilling even though the will
and desire to do so has been there for years. And so on and so on and so
on.
The truth is that most people use energy but very few pay attention to
the politics of energy production. In one corner you have the Green
Gasbag environmentalists who worship the earth and indulge in fantasy
science. In another you have the politicans who want to get paid off
before anything moves forward. In another corner, you'll find the
irresponsible regulators who pay attention to all the wrong things. This
allows genuine environmental atrocities like Love Canal to go
unmonitored until it is too late so we have to use tax monies to clean up
what should have been paid for by the polluter. In the final corner we
have positions like the one above: Let's *inhibit* the energy companies
from being too successful and lets blame them for all our miseries. Is
it any wonder we have a supply/demand problem with energy today?
The reality is that, even at $3+ per gallon, the inflation-adjusted
price for energy today is *lower* than it has been throughout most of
US history. It is *lower* than the price paid in Europe or Asia on
the whole.
The answer to this problem is to let markets do their job. When crude
hit $50 a barrel or so, it suddenly became economically rational to
process Canadian shale reserves. When it hit $60, even the eco-weenies
started making positive noises about Nuclear. As/when/if crude continues
rise, there will incentive for alternative/hybrid/yet to be discovered
ways to harness energy. The absolute *worst* thing we could do
would be to stick the government's beak into the business and further
try and regulate desireable outcomes. Meddling by those political
pilferers will do nothing more or less than drive investment and people
*out* of the energy business.
You think oil companies make too much money? Then this is a great
opportunity for you to *invest* in them if you believe their profits
are sustainable (I don't - the market always corrects).
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Still, it would be nice to know where our leaders have there
> money invested. Last I heard, the much-maligned Jimmy Carter
> was the first and last President to put his personal assetts
> into a blind trust when he was president.
>
>
>
> --
>
> FF
>
Fred,
Where did you get that info? I DAGS and it seems that Carter, Reagan, Bush,
Clinton and Bush all had their investments in blind trusts. I didn't look
back any farther than that.
--
Al Reid
Swingman wrote:
> ... as to be inflicted with this never ending proliferation of idiots with
> microphones and rain gear who seem convinced that they alone have made the
> profound discovery that high wind, rain, and flood water are components of
> hurricanes?
>
> It's gotta be the rarity of the air in LA and New York that causes the
> ignorant, condescending arrogance that makes the Teutels' look like brain
> surgeons.
>
G'day all,
I can only begin to imagine what it is like for those people caught in
the storm. No matter how many brain cells each of them have, my heart
goes out to each and everyone of them.(With the exception of the looters
who can all rot in hell).
To any who read this and have relatives or friends in the area, I wish
you a happy outcome.
A link that just about sums it up regarding reporters and others.
http://www.illwillpress.com/kat.html
Thoughts are with you all
John
Leon wrote:
> "Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Leon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"TomWoodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>This is utter nonsense. Approximately 50% of the US population lives
>>in a coastal area. The overwhelming majority of these are found in major
>>cities - New York, Miami, Seattle, LA, New Orleans, etc. Most of those
>>cities are *not* in Hurricane zones.
>
>
> Actually , Yes they are. New York has had hurricanes and every where along
Of a magnitude and severity as to shut down NYC the way NO has? I think not.
> the east coast to the souther tip of Texas has has hurricanes.
What about the entire West coast? A not insignificant population I'd say.
>
> Do you have some attraction or Smelly Hippie FETISH?
>
Naw, they just offend me socially, culturally, politically, intellectually,
and aesthetically. Other than that, I kinda like em ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Re: Have we become that stupid ..
these guys wrote:
Group: rec.woodworking Date: Tue, Aug 30, 2005, 2:57pm From:
[email protected] (Tim=A0Daneliuk)
Leon wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Leon wrote:
"TomWoodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
This is utter nonsense. Approximately 50% of the US population lives in
a coastal area. The overwhelming majority of these are found in major
cities - New York, Miami, Seattle, LA, New Orleans, etc. =A0 Most of
those cities are *not* in Hurricane zones.
Actually , Yes they are. New York has had hurricanes and every where
along
>UM OK SO SEATTLE AND LA ARENT,
BUT THE REST NYC , MIAMI THE CAROLINAS BALTIMORE JERSEY NY, CT,
RI, BEANTOWN AND EVEN PORTLAND MAINE HAVE HAD ISSUES WITH 'LOSS OF
LIFE' HURRICANES OF EPIC PROPORTIONS, GRANTED NONE OF THESE TOWNS ARE
BELOW SEA LEVEL, LIKE NO, NEW ORLEANS IS OLDER THEN MOST OF THEM
TOO....,
Of a magnitude and seveIity as to shut down NYC the way NO has? I think
not.
the east coast to the souther tip of Texas has has hurricanes.
What about the entire West coast? BETWEEN THE WEST COAST'S SEISMOLGICAL
ACTIVITY POTENTIAL FOR TSUNAMI, MUDLSLIDS ,AS WELL AS POTENTIAL TO BE
TAKEN BACK BY MEXICO AT ANY MOMENT ..LOL OOO WHAT ABOUT ALL THE DOPES
WHO BUILD 2 M DOLLAR HOMES IN THE CANYONS & ON THE HILLS
THEN GET NERVOUS >EVERY< YEAR WHEN THE CHAPPARELL BRUSH BURNS WHEN
ONE OF THESE IDIOTS THROWS A CIG OFF HIS DECK AND IT BURNS 200,000
ACRES ? ISNT IT OUR INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT ARE EXPECTED TO PAY EVEN
THOUGH THE RESIDENTS SHOULD KNOW THAT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE TO CUT THE
BRUSH BACK?
I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHERE YOU WERE LIKE TWO YEARS AGO , WHEN THAT PACIFIC
OCEAN HURRICANE SWEPT ACROSS MEXICO, THROUGH THE GULF REPOWERING ITSELF
MAKING LANDFALL AGAIN AND THEN DOWNGRADING TO A NOMINAL TS RAIN EVENT
BY THE TIME IT PASSED OVER NEW ENGLAND ?? NOT THAT IT WAS CRAZY
POWERFUL, BUT PRETTY MUCH A RECORDED FIRST....
I ALSO RECALL SPRING TIME A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK WHEN A GOODLY PART OF
THE UPPER MIDWEST WAS ALL FLOODED WITH THE RUNOFF FROM THE SNOW MELT
PRETTY MUCH THE WHOLE
"FLOODPLAIN" FROM THE DAKOTAS AND WEST WERE UNDERWATER , WHICH
OVERRAN ThE LEVIES AND BANKS OF THE MISSOURI AND MISSIPSSIPPI NO ONE
IN THE NEWSGROUPS THEN WAS SAYING MUCH ABOUT THE STUPIDITY OF THE
PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN NEW ORELANS OR IN THE BREADBASKET EITHER...
PERSONALLY I DO AGREE ANY ONE WHO BUILDS THAT 2 MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE
ON THE BARRIER ISLANDS DESERVES WHAT THEY GET PERIOD....
IMAGINE IF DURING THE ALASKA OR S.F. QUAKES WE STATED WELL, DUHHH
LIVE ON A FAULT ITS NOT MY FAULT ....
---------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have some attraction or Smelly Hippie FETISH?
Naw, they just offend me socially, culturally, politically,
intellectually, and aesthetically. Other than that, I kinda like em ...
----------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
and
ITS NICE TO LIVE IN A PLACE WHERE ONE IS ALLOWED TO BE OFFENDED AFTER
ALL
IF THIS WAS SADDAMS' IRAQ THEY (smelly hippies ) WOULD HAVE BEEN
KILLED LONG AGO , AND THEN WHAT WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO WHINE ABOUT? LOL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Pollack
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:35:11 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>This is utter nonsense. Approximately 50% of the US population lives in
>a coastal area. The overwhelming majority of these are found in major
>cities - New York, Miami, Seattle, LA, New Orleans, etc. Most of
>those cities are *not* in Hurricane zones.
The thing that separates New Orleans from other US cities is if the
pumps stop on a dry day the city will still flood.
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Joseph Crowe wrote:
>
>>Duane Bozarth wrote:
>>>I'm sure if it were selling in the US that wouldn't have happened.
>>
>>I'm uncertain what you mean here. The ECHO was selling in the U.S.
>>until the year 2006 models. ...
>
>
> I mean if it were selling in sufficient numbers as to be a profitable as
> opposed to marginal item ....
Ah, I understand now. Actually, I think that it was a case on Toyota's
part of trying to maximize profit. The ECHO sold well, but probably the
margin was not so high on it. The Scion XA, which uses the same engine,
probably provides a little higher profit. I also still believe that
Toyota had the perception that the ECHO might have been cannibalizing
Prius sales since the milage was not terribly different and the Prius is
a lot more expensive. The Scion XA drops about 10% on gas milage....as
a side note, used ECHOs are selling at a premium....something like 90%
of original prices.....one thing about the ECHO, with the rear seats
folded down, one could actually haul a good number of boards, but no
sheet goods. (lame attempt to bring this back to relevence for
rec.woodworking....*BEG*)
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>a kid, it was done that way throughout NY State. Now? So-called
>>utilities have become just another in an evergrowing group of
>>businesses whose primary aim is to screw the customer out of as much
>>money as possible. Yes, businesses are there to make a profit. Yes,
>>making a good profit is the reason for the existence of most
>>businesses. But at one time, businesses tended to get started as a way
>>for one or two or however many people to make a living, hopefully a
>>good one, while also providing a product or service to as broad a
>>customer base as possible--done by keeping quality up and price down.
>
>
> Exactly what I think. I call the economic system now in place "greed
> driven chaos economy", where stuff gets produced because it promises
> profits and not because it's needed, as can be seen by such enourmous
> markets for cell phone ring tones, addictive drugs and SUVs.
>
You guys are unbelievable. Just *who* do you propose is smart
enough/wise enough/experienced enough to be "in charge" of what gets
produced and how much profit gets made. How shall we choose? Popular
vote? What joke - the Sheeple already want Something For Nothing. They
would bankrupt the economy in months. Politicans? Oh please. I've lived
in Canada, the US, and Europe. One thing all these areas have in common
is that politicans are largely useless corrupt lumps whose dishonesty
makes the sins of the private sector shrink into invisibility.
"Greed" and market economies are what have given us unprecedented
lifespan, comfort, free time, gagets, better homes, and and overall
higher quality of life. The one thing we've apparently utterly failed to
do is educate people on how economics actually operate and what works
(and what does not). May I gently suggest the following reading:
Economics In One Lesson - Hazlitt
The Road To Serfdom - F.A. Hayek
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
> ...
>
>>Orvitz? Is that his name? Supposedly the right fit to run Disney ...
>
>
> Oh. The golden parachute. A lamentable phenomenon but one that Boards
> of Directors and stockholders can see isn't repeated if they choose to
> do so.
This problem is relatively easy to fix. The vast majority of public
stock is held by large funds - especially retirement funds. These funds
DO exercise considerable control over the board and they do control who
gets on the board. Despite what you hear about the "rich guys" that
control everything, its just not so. Most stock is held by teachers' and
other union retirement funds, mutual funds, and so forth. The percentage
of public corps held by Management is actually rather small in almost
all large publicly traded firms.
When you see an Ovitz or someone similar walking out with big cash,
remember that the many citizen owners - expressing their will through
their retirement holdings especially, put that deal into play in the
first place, presumably because they believed that the individual in
question was worth the price of his/her contract. IOW, it's not the Rich
Bastards doing this, it's the many owners of the funds
permitting/encouraging it.
The problem is *the next biggest group* of investors - the employees.
Most companies of any size grant stock as a portion of employee
retirement/401K/pension funds. But here's the rub: This very large block
of stock (over time) *is voted by the board*! The one significant change
in today's corporate governance we need is that if an anyone owns the
stock - whether by grant or outright purchase - only *they* can vote it,
either directly or by signing a proxy. It does not take anywhere near a
full majority of the stock to control the board or win a proxy fight in
most companies. By having the employees be able to vote what is theirs,
companies would either have to stop granting them stock (to maintain the
status quo) or start listening to one of their most significant asset
bases.
I am as pro-business as they come, but the current employee stock voting
situation is iniquitous and unfair.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Leon wrote:
> ...
>
>>I am for as little government intervention as possible but I believe that
>>the Oil companies, insurance companies, and electric companies should be
>>limited to the "percent" of profit that they can make.
>
>
> What business are you in? Why should yours be allowed to make whatever
> profit level you can as opposed to someone else's?
>
> What is needed isn't price control but reducing the restrictions on
> increasing supply...
Hand this man a fine cigar ... Exactly right!
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:32:45 +0200, Phil Hansen <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:38:41 -0500, Prometheus
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
><Major snip>
>>I'm ashamed to be part of this country.
>
>Thank you for speaking out.
>So there is at least one sane American out there.
>Goes against the general protracted image that you are all bush bible
>bashing buddies.
>Maybe your biased news networks should get some unbiased views of the
>peoples feelings and not those of those who get paid to say the right
>things.
If you think our news media is biased towards Bush and his policies, I
would hate to see a media that was out to have him tossed out of office.
[hint, our mainstream news media goes out of its way to bash Bush and his
adminstration. The bias in the media is apalling -- all of this paranoia
regarding how Bush and his cronies would suppress dissent is exactly that,
a bunch of paranoid hooie]
>
>
>>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:36:05 -0500, "Amused" <[email protected]>
wrote:
... snip
>
>The levees that breeched in New Orleans had been fully maintained. They
>just failed.
>Had New Orleans actually received the brunt of the eye wall winds and storm
>surge, ALL the levees would (probably) have been inadquate by ten, maybe
>fifteen feet.
>
>New Orleans sits in a depression. The only possible way to guarantee no
>future flooding would be to haul in a few billion cubic yards of dirt.
>
>New Orleans will get hit, again....
>Boloxi will get hit, again...
>San Francisco will have more earthquakes, some of them serious....
>Kansas (Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, etc) will have extremely destructive
>tornadoes...
>North Dakota will have destructive blizzards....
>
>It doesn't matter who is in the White House, Congress, or the local barber's
>chair, for that matter...
>
Thank-you for that bit of fresh air. ... and the sitting president will
be praised for his compassion by those who support him when he visits the
victims of those disasters and cursed by those who oppose him as being an
opportunistic cad for using a disaster for political gain.
[leaning back in the barber's chair]
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Lee DeRaud" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:52:14 -0400, Robatoy <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Lee Michaels" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Essentially as long as I restrict myself to machinery and the bike
>>> itself,
>>> it is watchable. Everything else is crap.
>>
>>I tracked down a cpl of episodes.
>>Fabulous bikes, indeed. WAY too much theatrical diatribe bullshit.
>>That artificial deadline crap gets reallly stale quick.
>
> Could be worse: try "American Hot Rod". The Teutels are organizational
> *geniuses* compared to that megalomaniac Coddington. The funniest bit
> is how he is genuinely *surprised* when his best people leave to work
> for his competition.
>
>
That is funny. Usually don't watch this but I saw a couple recent episodes.
You are right. He is crazy, obsessive, etc. He had a guy design some wheels
for Chip Foose. And felt like this guy was some kinda ultimate scumbag for
doing so. How incredibly short sighted.
He should just take a cut and encourage his guys to do more outside work.
Bring in some more money.
As it is, he trained a guy who became very good at his craft. Then he kicked
him out. He will go back to doing this with a lot of other people. If he
treated his people better, they would stay around longer.
Now this guy who got kicked out has a super resume. He can just give his new
boss a tape of how he got fired from American Hot Rod. He is obviously
qualified.
Besides, the guy makes unimaginative copies of very old design hot rods.
Nothing inspirational or original.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Leon wrote:
>
>> "TomWoodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>
> This is utter nonsense. Approximately 50% of the US population lives
> in a coastal area. The overwhelming majority of these are found in major
> cities - New York, Miami, Seattle, LA, New Orleans, etc. Most of those
> cities are *not* in Hurricane zones.
Actually , Yes they are. New York has had hurricanes and every where along
the east coast to the souther tip of Texas has has hurricanes.
Do you have some attraction or Smelly Hippie FETISH?
Duane Bozarth wrote:
<SNIP>
> This part is <not> true in general even though there are instances of
> folks selling out voluntarily. There are a myriad of reasons why
> farmers are forced to sell even they don't want to. Three of the most
> common include
>
> - Zoning being placed in order to force them to cease
> - Tax rates being changed from agricultural use to higher rates making
> it impossible farm profitably.
> - Even imminent domain has been used.
Fair enough - these are all, everyone of them, abuses of government
power and ought never to happen. Then again, I think the ridiculous
level of farm subsidies are similar abuses of government power and
ought also to never happen. I would be delighted to join farmers or
anyone else to stop the wealth redistribution scheme that is our
government whether by taxation, zoning, emminent domain, or outright
handouts.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
"Dave in Fairfax" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I've been wondering about that ever since I came back to CONUS about 20
> years ago from Guam. We didn't close the grocery stores until we had
> 100mph winds. Nobody panicked or did the stupid stuff I see on TV. We
> tossed tires onto sheet metal roofs and tied them down to stakes, put
> shutters over the windows and collected water. No big deal. We had
> tons of little "banana 'phoons". They were good for parties afterwards
> while the gov tried to get the electricity back up. Everyday someone on
> the street wold open their freezer and the street would have a party.
> Next day it was somebody else's turn. Just kept going until we had
> power again. No FEMA except for the *really* bad ones. Certainly no
> talking heads whining about rain and wind.
> Dave in Fairfax
You obviously have never been in a storm bad enough that you thought you
were going to die in. 100 mph winds are wimp winds. It is the sustained
150+ mph winds with downward micro blasts that hit the ground and spread out
at 180 mph that get your attention. Then mix in the tornado's. I became a
believer on my 3rd hurricane when I was 15.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The OP has plenty of "compassion" for those displaced, he lost his home
> and
> a lifetime of possessions to flooding in Tropical Storm Allison in 2001.
> DAMHIKT.
Exactly...the reporters trivialize the danger by over acting the danger
before it has really begun or from just out side of a shelter. The fact
that you can see what is going on is an indicater that the storm has not
really begun. In 1970 I went through my 3rd hurricane at age 15. My
parrents and I sat in the master bath room in the middle of the house and
there the walls moved back and forth. The water in the toilet would almost
empty and refill from the vacuum in the sewer caused by the winds. Yelling
was required to talk when sitting elboe to elboe.
After the winds died down and we looked outside the fences were gone. Not
just knocked down, gone. Whole roofs from the heighbors homes sat in the
middle of the streets. Many homes whole roofs sat upside down in their back
yards. Few trees remained standing and U-haul trailers sat on top of
houses.
I really do feel sorry for every one that was hit by Katrina. They will be
very very lucky if their lives get back to normal by this time next year.
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 8/29/05
>
>
>
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
In a couple of cases, one bike broke down or
> did not start on the deadline and the other shop would win by default.
> Nope, the guy that could just walk away a winner refused to and in fact
> helped his competitor to get going to the finish voting. Proving again
that
> life is more than having a trophy.
Of course it is, life is about making it a better tv show. All of these
shows are about setting up a false, overblown "competition" and allegedly
watching the contestants try to beat the clock or each other.
It started with "Survivor" of course, anyone with half a brain could figure
out that if a group of people were truly stranded in the wild that they
would need to find a way to work together to survive, not form alliances and
lie cheat and steal from one another.
Of course people working together to solve problems and help one another,
doesn't make for good television.
You ever wonder how much more good could be done if the brain trust behind
those home make-over shows worked with communities in need instead of
building those god-awful testaments to shitty design and Ty Pennington's ego
that look good on TV?
All of these alleged reality shows are a very sad commentary of modern life.
"Hurricane Survivor" coming this fall...catch it...
John Emmons
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:27:25 GMT, "Clint" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>*just shaking my head, trying to understand the hard-hearted comments*
>
>
>Clint
>
>"Dave in Fairfax" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> George Max wrote:
>>> When did we become weather wimps? Snow is not an unusual feature of a
>>> Milwaukee winter, yet each and ever snowfall, regardless of amount, is
>>> played as a life threatening disaster on the local stations. I
>>> suppose all in the name of ratings.
>>>
I have to agree,Clint. I don't think some of these folks understand
how this " Wet Weather" down south will be affecting the economy of
the U.S. for years to come let alone the lives of a million displaced
weather wimps. The Port of New Orleans is the worlds busiest port
complex , that's including the shipping activity of the Mississippi.
Their saying at least 6 weeks to get electrify back up in the busiest
port complex in the world! I'm not too sure how that compares to a few
snow days off in Milwaukee or a week of eating canned beef in Gaum
after a good soaking, but were going to find out.
I recommend a visit to the Red Cross for a little donation in spite of
all the wet weather down there, they still have a need for water to
drink!
Ed
<< American Chopper['s] ... evolution has been to a point where the
soap opera part was almost intolerable and then has receded a bit to
where Senior is far more human and the "drama" seems almost contrived
as a parody of itself. But the Paulie/Vinnie/Rick dynamic is really
good and I really enjoy watching them fabricate.
On the other hand, the sister show (same channel, same producers)
American HotRod has basically imploded. Although it's just television,
they've managed to make Boyd Coddingtion look like a narcissistic
martinet>>
Your assessment of both shows is right on the money. At least neither has
succumbed to what I have dubbed the "Discovery Channel Curse." On at least
three other shows of the same ilk, one major player met with an untimely
death last season. There was the fairly young hotel manager on American
Casino who suffered a fatal heart attack. Then the big doofus on Wing Nuts
died (possibly of a drug overdose??) in mid-season. And finally, from the
Great Biker Build-Off, frequently featured bike builder Indian Larry was
killed while stunt riding.
Lee
--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"
_________________________________
Lee Gordon
http://www.leegordonproductions.com
"Rick M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> The intent of commercial television is not education or enlightment ...
> the
> intent is to make money, LOTS of money (hence the name commercial
> television). That's why PBS is having such difficult times ... their
> charter
> is about education and enlightment, and most people don't want that.
No, PBS is commercial no matter what they say. Our CT station was j ust
noted as an organization dedicated to fund rasing that happens to runs some
TV shows. Most shows are not interupted by commercials, but they start
with five minutes of them, like "Chevy is funding part of TOH" while the
truck is backing up to the gate, etc. The cable channels are showing stuff
that is reaching the equivilent of what PBS used to have as a foundation.
Discovery, TLG, History Channel are tough competition for them.
>
> Once you understand this, the rest is pretty obvious. To make more money,
> you put on whatever crap is cheap to produce (more profits), requires
> little
> or no scripting (let's not confuse our audience), and laugh all the way to
> the bank (while crying how hard this job really is).
OK, that is correct.
Joseph Crowe (in [email protected]) said:
| On the contrary, my take on Tim's posting was that serious R&D
| on alternative energy sources will flourish without government
| interference, especially as prices rise on conventional energy
| sources. I think it's well supported by a basic understanding of
| economics
| for which Hazlitt's book, Economics in One Lesson, can shed some
| light. Note: Tim did state "the politics of energy production". My
| interpretation of his position is that political interference in the
| arena of energy production, distribution etc. introduces
| perturbations of the market's natural distribution of resources. To
| drag this back to rec.woodworking, do you as a purveyor of passive
| solar heating technology think that people can homebrew such
| panels. Further, do you think that solar generation of electricity
| given technological advances can generate enough DC power to run a
| decent table saw or similar?
[1] Yes I do. Not too long ago one of the regulars' 12-year old
(grand?) daughter did her own research and under his watchful eyes
built a small working demonstration panel for a school science fair.
If a 12-year old can, then I'd have to believe that determined adults
can. To build reliable, long-lived, highly efficient, full-size panels
is a slightly different matter, but within the capabilities of any
woodworker willing to put forth the effort. It's a lot easier than,
say, building your own car from scratch - but a lot harder than buying
mine. :-)
[2] Even with the current state of photovoltaics with enough PV panel
area and sufficient battery and inverter capacity, it's possible to
run even an obscenely large table saw. Having said that, I'll also say
that I don't consider it an economical solution to powering stationary
tools. PV panel cost is high and efficiency is low. You'd need a lot
of panel/battery to power my Unisaw or CNC router.
FWIW, I'm working with a friend to build a solar-powered stirling
engine to drive a generator. I'm hoping to learn a bit about
electrical power generation in the process. My involvement is centered
about collector fabrication and plumbing. It's a fascinating project!
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
On 3 Sep 2005 15:31:09 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>Aside from the references to Pat Robertson's followers, there is no
>mention of wood here. Do we have the common sense, courtesy and
>balls to move it to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?
<shrug> It's labeled "OT" already. That aside, do you *really* want to
continue this discussion with the kind of people who hang out in
newsgroups where this discussion *is* on-topic? I'll pass.
Lee
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Our local news girl stands at the low spot of the curb that is channeling
> water from a morning rain wearing similar gear. I know that she cannot
> help it but "Treacherous " blurts out of her mouth several times as she
> points to the 2" of water that she is standing in.
>
>
LOL I know exactly of what you speak. She makes it sound like the water is
teeming with sharks or alligators.
Another one I like is the one where they stand by a road with debris on it
and talk about how you would take your life in your hands to drive down this
road. Apparently these reporters are not smart enough to drive AROUND the
debris. Or get off their fat asses and actually move the stuff out of the
way.
Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I just read the Constitution from cover to cover about 6 weeks ago
>>and I do not recall any such language.
>
>
> Did you high-light any sections where your Patriot Act makes a mockery
> of that same Constitution?
Listen Sparky, it is not "my" Patriot Act. The political Right is only
slightly less obnoxious than the the Left and the Right has been guilty
of plenty of abuses of power. But, and just for the record, a good deal
of the precedent law that made the Patriot Act possible was passed in
the so-called "War On Drugs" during the *Clinton* administration.
So now that we've swatted your ad hominem diversionary response back
to the middenheap where it belongs, why don't you answer the simple and
direct question:
Please cite the relevant portions of the Constitution Of The US that
make it the case that "Infrastructure is a federal responsibility".
With a similarly simple and direct response. I'll make it easy for
you by making it multiple-choice:
1) There is no such Constitutional power granted government.
2) There is such Constitutional power granted government and here's
the citation:
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 07:24:10 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>... as to be inflicted with this never ending proliferation of idiots with
>microphones and rain gear who seem convinced that they alone have made the
>profound discovery that high wind, rain, and flood water are components of
>hurricanes?
>
>It's gotta be the rarity of the air in LA and New York that causes the
>ignorant, condescending arrogance that makes the Teutels' look like brain
>surgeons.
Amen.
When did we become weather wimps? Snow is not an unusual feature of a
Milwaukee winter, yet each and ever snowfall, regardless of amount, is
played as a life threatening disaster on the local stations. I
suppose all in the name of ratings.
Apparently it is no different elsewhere for whatever the nature of
their weather. High winds, heavy rain, flooding. Business as usual
in a hurricane.
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is *always* less energy
>>>>out than energy in because perpetual motion is impossible.
>>>
>>>
>>>That law doesn't apply to a farm. There are many sources and drains for
>>>energy on a farm. It is not a closed system. Thermal air-flows, solar
>>>radiation, rain, etc.
>>>
>>>Cow/pig farts contain valuable gasses. My guess is that a single
>>>cow-fart will light your lamp for a week.
>>
>>If you can demonstrate this, there is a Nobel in Physics in it for you.
>>The net energy out is always <= net energy in - at least as currently
>>understood thermodynamics works. But ... science does change. I'll
>>be the first to congratulate you on your discipline-bending work if
>>you prove otherwise ... (I always wanted to meet a Nobel winner ;)
>>
>
>
> You have to remember that the sun is a major input into the energy cycle
> of growing things...
Major? might want to revise that a little higher.
"D. J. MCBRIDE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I've often suspected that the local bozos here in H-town can't wait to
> do a spot from the Galveston seawall, standing in front of a wind machine
> while a colleague sprays water from a hose on them. The local NBC
> affiliate in particular. It's always tonight's "BIG STORY."
Eggsactly... AND if it is such a big story or crucial news why do we have
to wait sometimes till the next day to get this life saving or valuable
information? Give it to us NOW.
In article <[email protected]>, Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote:
>Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>[...]
>
>>
>> Unless the Acme Corp has a gun to Joe's head (which is a criminal act)
>> he is free to move elsewhere,
>
>So I take for granted that you, if standing next to the US border to
>Mexico, cry out "Mr. Bush, tear down this fence!".
What the hell --???
The U.S. is attempting to keep people from *entering* our country
*illegally*. The Berlin Wall was erected to keep people from *leaving* theirs,
*legally*.
>> start his own company,
>
>Most people cannot do that, either from personal disposition or from
>lack of resources.
Socialism will do that to you -- prevent you from amassing resources, and
extirpate any semblance of motivation and initiative.
>The money market and interest rates basically mean
>that the more desperate you need money the less you get it or are able
>to afford it.
Non sequitur.
>
>> or attempt to find a better job locally.
>
>With workers in ample supply the market makes better jobs scarce.
And where would that be, where workers are in ample supply?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Somebody said ...
>
>> While my heart goes out to the people who've suffered these losses, as
>> someone else here pointed out - they've decided to live and build in a
>> hurricane zone at or below sea level. There are plenty of places to live
>> that do not have this ongoing and consistent risk. An "act of God" kind
>> of disaster is one thing, but constantly placing yourself in harms way
>> is another. But is it any wonder? A good part of the society spends its
>> time shooting itself in the foot and then screaming for the rest of us
>> to pay restitution. I have no ill will and wish no harm upon the people
>> effected by this storm, but somehow, someday, people in this nation are
>> going to have to start taking responsibility for their own choices.
>
>
It's important to recognize that there is a reason New Orleans is
located where it is. As an important shipping point, the inconvenience
associated with its low elevation was offset by the value of the location.
Sometimes life is like that, the best places for a particular purpose
aren't always the safest for other reasons.
Now, California on the other hand .... :-)
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> Add to that our "just in time" system of truck based delivery of damned
> near everything from everywhere, and some of the problems come into
> focus, or closer to focus. I don't know what system Europe uses for
> delivery of goods over long distances, but here, with 3000 miles from
The very same. Every piece of shit is transported just in time to
where someone thinks there is a need for it to be handled once, then
it's transported back to the other end of Europe to be packaged, and
back again to be sold. Obviously transportation is much too cheap.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Prometheus <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> drown, no doubt Wisconsin will ice over just as easily. Nobody I know
> has enough money to pay an additional 5-6x rate increase for heating
> oil- last year was bad enough for most folks, and it's becoming very
> clear that if you don't own a multi-national corporation or two these
> days, you're expendable garbage.
Captitalism & free markets at its best. Cheer up, it will get better
when the US becomes a communist state (BTW: Several winters in hell
will happen first, as snow in hell is much more lekely...)
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
> Robatoy wrote:
[...]
>> The equipment is more efficient, yet its role in the process is more
>> prominent. So you gain on the gals/HP ratio, but lose it by using it
>> more.
>
> No, that isn't true. Modern farming covers <much> more ground per
> operational pass than before and also uses fewer operations. If not,
> there's no way one could even begin to stay in business w/ >$2 diesel
> and <$3 wheat.
You also have to consider the resources used for fertilizer,
herbi-/pesti-/whatevercides, transporting the produce fom the agrarian
states where it grows to the populated places where its converted to
waste again...
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 23:22:18 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Juergen Hannappel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> 35MPG cars are available since 20 years and at reasonable prices. They
>> are not big, not showy but useful. E.g. my wifes Peugeot 306 is a 10
>> year old model, has ample power and transport capacity (it's a model
>> probably called station wagon in the US, here it's called "Kombi") and
>> goes at 40MPG (although diesel fuel)
>>
>
>Ok you absolutely asked it there were any good reason to not be driving a
>car with less than 35 MPG?
>I in no way shape or form indicated that these cars are not available. I
>simply stated the fact that if every one bought one in the next 6 months ths
>cost would not be justifyable. In the US the demand for these type
>vehicles has been low. Basically if the demand went up 7 to 10 times of
>what it is now the prices would go up. Sorta like gasoline.
>FYI cars getting 40 mpg with gasoline engines have been available well over
>40 years. They were Fiat's.
>
>
Well, yeah, if a car doesn't (can't) move but from home to repair shop
and back, gas mileage is infinite. :-)
>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:34:30 -0700, Tim Douglass
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On the other hand, if you want to reduce your fuel usage there is a
>real simple step you can take - slow down. Most cars will show a
>significant improvement in economy being driven at 55 mph rather than
>65-70.
Yeah, but around here, the cost to have hood ornaments extracted from
your trunk lid can eat up the savings real fast.
Lee
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> Unfortunately, there is no advantage in making every place "equally
> poor". Far better is to fix the problems in the poorer economies rather
> than tear down the more successful.
Very true. But if you impose a market constraint on labour (which an
immigration limit is) you have in consequence to allow for traffic
limitations in the form of quotas and tariffs in the poorer economies
to allow their problem fixing. (Which of course raises the problem of
limits in the very developped countries...)
[...]
> It can also be viewed as an attempt by some of the other countries to
> solve their problems by unloading them onto somebody else. That there
> have to be some boundaries on absolute freedom in order to maintain a
> semblance of society is an inevitable limitation of being a societal
> species.
Yes, I agree with that.
[...]
> the other advantages of a free society for those who do live an orderly
> and law-abiding life therein. I have no problem w/ immigration--it's the
> "illegal" part that's the problem.
The "illegal" part comes down to not allowing in those who have
nothing but themself to offer and no special talents, while those with
money or skills sought after can get in. The unfavoured could be as
orderly and law-abiding as the favoured!
>
> Ideally, those which are having difficulty in keeping their populations
> clothed and fed would solve their own problems. Unfortunately, in most
Ideally. But I don't see how that can happen.
> instances the cause of the problem either is or is heavily influenced by
> corruption in that selfsame government
Yes.
> and non-capitalistic economic systems.
No.
> Often the problem is also compounded by religious
> proscriptions against any form of population control.
... which is one of the most evil problems there are, and should be on
the forefront of action.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> To some extent I agree, but...there's no way we can do w/o a major port
> at the mouth of the Mississippi. That a major residential area and city
Maybe it could be shifted some way inland; consider Hamburg/Germany for
example where a major port is 100 miles from the sea, although that
has it's own problems, of course.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Lee DeRaud <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> Here's the real deal: the reason you even saw the picture of that
> house is because it was an anomaly at that location. The single house
> that survives (for whatever reasons) gets tons of air time, unlike the
> blocks of identical structures that were burned flat *or* survived
> unscathed.
... just like old battleships that are anounced as "never been
overcome by the enemy forces". Yes. Anyone sees that the ship is still
afloat and was not sunk by the enemy. The other vessels cn no longe be
visited unless you do scuba diving...
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> Some places have more freedom to make moves such as you suggest than
> others.
Obviously you are free to leave poor places but not free to enter rich
ones. Kind of assymetrical freedom.
>
> Illegal immigration into the US is primarily the result of significantly
> better opportunities here than in the locations from which the emigrants
> came.
The illegality of this immigration can be viewd as a regulation of the
labour market in the US, iow a lack of freedom.
> Sometimes this emigration is tacitly condoned or even encouraged
> by the governments in these countries.
Otherwise what would be the alternative? Forbidding their citicens
the right to leave the country? Build "Berlin Walls" around their
borders?
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> But, as I recall, you were the fella' sometime back saying you couldn't
> bother to get involved???
No. I stated that I feel that I can't do anything that really matters,
and sometimes I feel too depressed and find any action too futile to
make an effort. Then again I feel it's too early yet to give up and
die, so it's not a yes or no, but a sometimes more, sometimes less.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
> In article <[email protected]>, Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>
>>> Unless the Acme Corp has a gun to Joe's head (which is a criminal act)
>>> he is free to move elsewhere,
>>
>>So I take for granted that you, if standing next to the US border to
>>Mexico, cry out "Mr. Bush, tear down this fence!".
>
> What the hell --???
>
> The U.S. is attempting to keep people from *entering* our country
> *illegally*.
So you say the Mexico fence is illegal,
> The Berlin Wall was erected to keep people from *leaving* theirs,
> *legally*.
while the Berlin Wall was legal? ;-)
Earnestly: If Tim is in favour of freedom and free markets this would
include freedom to move elsewhere, and that implies not only freedom
to go away from one place but also to arrive at another. The labour
market would according to his beliefs either happily supply all the
migrants with jobs or make migration sufficiently unatractive not to
happen. A free labour market produces lots of competition among
workers, obviuosly.
[...]
>>The money market and interest rates basically mean
>>that the more desperate you need money the less you get it or are able
>>to afford it.
>
> Non sequitur.
Loan interest rates depend on debtor failure probability, so starting
a business produces extra expensive loans.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
> Juergen Hannappel wrote:
[...]
>> ...transporting the produce fom the agrarian
>> states where it grows to the populated places where its converted to
>> waste again...
>
> That's a fixed factor independent of the production cost--it's simply a
> factor of life that city folk can not produce the stuffs they eat.
But if more peopl;e were involved in argarian production and less in
business consultancy the overall amount of transportation could be
less, if you had smaller towns (which would also be less hazardous in
case of hurricanes and other disasters; one would think the SF
earthquakes, the bombings of Hiroshime, Hamburg, Dresden, the 9/11
attacks and now the flooding of NO, togheter with stuff like the
yearly stampedes at Mecca should persuade anyone not to live in huge
clusters of many people).
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
...
> Given the source of that information, I would want to see further
> substantiating data before quoting it as the norm. ....
Oh, that isn't a definitive curve, certainly. I just posted the link to
show the truly sceptical that there's definite information that to state
it makes essentially no difference is not true.
I didn't look to see if I could track down the source of the actual
figure, but it obviously has to be a composite of some sort. Better
than that figure shows, mostly likely for many current vehicles. But
I'd wager the general shape would be pretty well the same.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Given the source of that information, I would want to see further
> substantiating data before quoting it as the norm. Aside from aerodynamic
> effects, the power curve on a given engine can be set to optimal
> performance within a fairly broad range of conditions. My suspicion is
> that this, being a government organization, was research done to prove a
> specific point during the height of the 55 mph speed limit days rather
> than
> letting the research identify the facts in the broadest application of
> most
> drivers and vehicles.
I've been wanting to find to myself. My car has a computer that read the
instant MPG while driving. Although probably not 100% accurate I want to
see the difference on the same section of highway at 70 and at 55. Problem
is, every time I want to slow to 55 it becomes very dangerous.
No matter what the figures, I doubt we can get the US to drive 55 again.
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 08:35:40 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>...
>> This is a one of those all too often quoted falsehoods. Most cars today
>> show no significant difference in mileage between any highway speeds.
>
>That's absolute balderdash...
>
>> difference between highway and city driving isn't even really significant in
>> most cars today, let alone the difference between 55mph and 65-70mph.
>
>So is this...
>
>> ...EPA
>> ratings suggest otherwise, but when was the last time anyone saw a car that
>> really performed the way that the EPA ratings suggested?
>
>Never, because that's not what EPA ratings measure...
>
>> ...Standing on it
>> from the stop light, and then standing on the brakes at the next stop light
>> will give the worst performance you can get, but really - how many people
>> drive like that?
>
>Actually, about 90% of those under 25-30, and about 80% of those under
>40...
>
>> Don't believe it? Do the test. Drive on the highway at
>> 55 for a week and measure your real consumption. Then do the same thing
>> driving at 70mph. You won't see any significant difference unless there is
>> something really wrong with your car.
>
>Or you're driving on a road that is covered w/ air...
>
>> ...Most of us never really pay enough
>> attention to this stuff, or to what may have affected mileage, or we think
>> we observed something casually, but we never really look to validate our
>> beliefs.
>
>Obviously, you're one of them...
>
>> .... Some things like this sort of become our very own urban legends.
>
>Except some of these things of this sort are acutally true...
>
>See the data on average mileage vs speed on the DOE site at...
>
>http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml
Duane,
Given the source of that information, I would want to see further
substantiating data before quoting it as the norm. Aside from aerodynamic
effects, the power curve on a given engine can be set to optimal
performance within a fairly broad range of conditions. My suspicion is
that this, being a government organization, was research done to prove a
specific point during the height of the 55 mph speed limit days rather than
letting the research identify the facts in the broadest application of most
drivers and vehicles. i.e, this was conclusion in search of facts vs. facts
driving a conclusion. Looking at the curve cited, it looks like they
selected a small, underpowered econobox (something getting about 30 mpg,
guessing some 4 cylinder engine in a compact to mid-size (Chevy
Lumina-type) vehicle) for which the power curve was tuned to the 35 to 55
mph range. After 55 mph, the engine was required to perform significantly
more work than needed in its optimal operating range, thus the sharp drop
in mileage. A 6 or 8 cylinder vehicle, while possibly showing lower peak
mileage would show very little difference in 55 vs 75 mph performance.
I suspect that you are a driver who enjoys driving at 55 rather than 75,
thus would like to see the facts born out by the given reference. But,
given the source of the information, I would like to see something more
definitive across a broader range of vehicles.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> driving a conclusion. Looking at the curve cited, it looks like they
> selected a small, underpowered econobox (something getting about 30 mpg,
> guessing some 4 cylinder engine in a compact to mid-size (Chevy
> Lumina-type) vehicle) for which the power curve was tuned to the 35 to 55
> mph range. After 55 mph, the engine was required to perform significantly
After 55 mph the effect of air drag starts to kick in ever more
significantly, as it goes up rougly like speed to the third power.
So maybe a formula 1 car gets its best MPG at a higher speed due to
very good aerodynamics and a motor thats designed for speed.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> Hmmm, I've seen this argument before:
>
> "From each according to their ability,
> to each according to their need."
>
> Karl Marx
That is what I think humankind should strive to achieve. The
alternative ("To each according to his abilities, needs will sort out
by magic" or "market solution") is not what could be called human.
> (Except for air and water) The resources are not "common" they belong to
> those who develop them.
Interesting. In other words the stuff around us belongs to him who
grabs it? Why should the share in natures riches not be evenly
distributed amoung the people? So you say if in some poor country a
company moves in to "develop" the resources (i.e. take them out of
that country) the inhabitants have no claim to the profits because the
do not contribute to the "development"?
> And while you're busy wagging your finger, take
> a good look at the per capita CO2 production in Europe, for instance,
> and then look at the US (guess who's being more naughty?).
DOE claims (for 2000) 20 tons/capita in the US,
something like 10 tons/capita in Germany. So the answer seems clear.
> The "pollution" argument is a chimera - the air is *cleaner* today in most
> all the industrial world than it was a hundred years ago.
True.
> Global Warming is a vastly overstated threat and there is today no
> statistically demonstrable connection between human activity and the
> very slight observed warming (which has been going on for 15,000
> years or so).
This is an opinion different from that of most scientists, as you
should be aware of. Also if we really did not know for sure if it's
true then just doing nothing is like driving your car in the fog at
full speed (always accelerating, and that even progressively) with the
lame exuse that there are no visible obstacles. When you see tha wall
at last *no* amount of braking will save you.
>
> But, all these little illusions make good fodder for promoting the
> collectivist/socialist agenda that is at the heart of all Do Gooder
> programs that propose to tell all the rest of us what to do. This
I am well aware that many people who start out to do good end up
bringing great evils about, which is why every decision should be very
well weighted and as many sapects considered as possible.
> is no "common sense", it is a deadly political ideology found at the
> heart of the majority of the environmentalists movements, the UN,
> and, sadly, EU governance ...
The capitalist ideology is no less deadly, and in EU governance there
seems to my mind much too less collectivist/socialist agenda.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> >Executive Summary: In 1995 Italy was 98% Catholic, second only
> >> >to the Vatican City and in 1994 had a birth rate of 11/1000
> >> >population, tied with Germany for the lowest in the world,
> >> >rounded to the nearest percentage,
> >>
> >> Wrong again.
> >>
> >> Birth rates from CIA World Factbook 1995
> >> http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/1995/index.html
> >>
> >> Germany 10.98
> >> Italy 10.89
> >> Japan 10.66
> >> Monaco 10.66
> >> Greece 10.56
BTW, if we round those all to the nearest whole number (not as
I wrote befor percentage), as in the aformentioned 1994 tables,
they all tie at 11.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Read again: "in 1994 had a birth rate of 11/1000
> >population, tied with Germany for the lowest in the world"
> >Your statistics are (ostensibly) from 1995 and from
> >different webpages from the earlier source you used.
>
> Well, DUH! The "earlier source" I used was for 2004 figures. In each case, I
> used the first one I came across in Google that had the figures I was looking
> for.
The same source you used for 2004 figures has similar data going
back to 1989.
> >
> >I gather that in response to my question, you have chosen
> >to use the 1995 statistics. OK with me.
> >
> >Going back to your previous source:
> >
> >Birthrates from
> >http://www.theodora.com/wfb/1995/wfb_1995.html
> >SOURCE: 1995 CIA WORLD FACTBOOK
> >
> >Germany 11.04
> >Italy 10.79
> >Japan 10.49
> >Greece 10.5
> >Monaco 10.71
> >
> >Greece Japan Monaco beat Italy, I owe you a buck--where do
> >I send it?
>
> Keep it. If you insist on sending it, a whois search on my domain will produce
> my home address.
Got yer own domain eh? Cool.
>
> >How about Italy being second only to Vatican City in proportion of
> >Catholics, true ten years ago though nolonger so?
>
> Wasn't true ten years ago either.
Well, please name that country. No, I'm not putting another
dollar on it.
> >
> >Nothing has changed? Were Monaco Greece and Japan among the
> >ten lowest in 2004 like they were in 1994? Was the Hong Kong
> >birthrate not higher in 1995 than in 2004?
>
> No, but those weren't the points we were discussing.
The Hong Kong birthrate, precommunist takeover vs post,
was one the dicussion issues:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/d481d15736dc89dd?dmode=source&hl=en
> We were talking about
> your false claims that Italy and France were number 1 & 2 in Catholic
> population by percentage, and number 1 & 2 from the bottom in birth rates.
Nope, I always insisted that Vatican City was first and last,
respectively.
--
FF
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> >Doug Miller wrote:
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> > [email protected] wrote:
>> >> >Executive Summary: In 1995 Italy was 98% Catholic, second only
>> >> >to the Vatican City and in 1994 had a birth rate of 11/1000
>> >> >population, tied with Germany for the lowest in the world,
>> >> >rounded to the nearest percentage,
>> >>
>> >> Wrong again.
>> >>
>> >> Birth rates from CIA World Factbook 1995
>> >> http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/1995/index.html
>> >>
>> >> Germany 10.98
>> >> Italy 10.89
>> >> Japan 10.66
>> >> Monaco 10.66
>> >> Greece 10.56
>
>BTW, if we round those all to the nearest whole number (not as
>I wrote befor percentage), as in the aformentioned 1994 tables,
>they all tie at 11.
Grasping at straws...
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
[...]
>>> The U.S. is attempting to keep people from *entering* our country
>>> *illegally*.
>>
>>So you say the Mexico fence is illegal,
>
> What on earth makes you think I'm saying that?
My sentence was an attempt to bring some humour into this thread by
deliberately stating your sentence in a way that uses the ambiguous
reference of "illegaly": It can refer to "entering" and to "attempting".
[...]
> You obviously missed the point completely: the United States has erected a
> fence to prevent the illegal movement of people into the U.S. The Soviet Union
> erected the Berlin Wall to prevent the legal movement of people out of East
> Berlin.
Just why is one movement legal and the other not?
[...]
> So are you suggesting that nations do not have the right to control
> *entry* at their borders?
I am not suggesting tat. I am pointing out that there is a
contradiction between advocating a free labour market on one side and
controling entry at the border.
[...]
> Not necessarily. If a start-up business is well-capitalized, with a
> well-thought-out business plan and a readily marketable product or service,
> there is no particular reason to suppose a high failure probability, and
> therefore no particular reason to suppose high interest rates either. On the
> other hand, a poorly-capitalized business, with no business plan (or a poor
> one), not offering a readily marketable product or service, *is* likely to
> fail, and thus presents a higher risk.
This sub-trhread started on the options of Joe Sixpack (probably a
relative of the german Otto Normalconsumer) if he looses his job or
his pay is too low. He has usually no chance to start with a
well-capitalized busines.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
>
> Unless the Acme Corp has a gun to Joe's head (which is a criminal act)
> he is free to move elsewhere,
So I take for granted that you, if standing next to the US border to
Mexico, cry out "Mr. Bush, tear down this fence!".
> start his own company,
Most people cannot do that, either from personal disposition or from
lack of resources. The money market and interest rates basically mean
that the more desperate you need money the less you get it or are able
to afford it.
> or attempt to find a better job locally.
With workers in ample supply the market makes better jobs scarce.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> >> >Executive Summary: In 1995 Italy was 98% Catholic, second only
> >> >> >to the Vatican City and in 1994 had a birth rate of 11/1000
> >> >> >population, tied with Germany for the lowest in the world,
> >> >> >rounded to the nearest percentage,
> >> >>...
> >BTW, if we round those all to the nearest whole number (not as
> >I wrote befor percentage), as in the aformentioned 1994 tables,
> >they all tie at 11.
>
> Grasping at straws...
>
Reminding you of what I said: "in 1994 had a birth rate of 11/1000
population, tied with Germany for the lowest in the world,
rounded to the nearest percentage"
--
FF
Joseph Crowe <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> Freedom of choice means that we don't get to make
> our neighbors' decisions and we must respect them. Frankly, I'm
If the neighbors' decisions would not affect all of us that seems very
fine. However energy wasters deplete the resources needed by
everyone, sending prices and pollution up, and "common sense" seems to
be no part of the decision why people choose the kind of car they do.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >Executive Summary: In 1995 Italy was 98% Catholic, second only
> >to the Vatican City and in 1994 had a birth rate of 11/1000
> >population, tied with Germany for the lowest in the world,
> >rounded to the nearest percentage,
>
> Wrong again.
>
> Birth rates from CIA World Factbook 1995
> http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/1995/index.html
>
> Germany 10.98
> Italy 10.89
> Japan 10.66
> Monaco 10.66
> Greece 10.56
>
>
Read again: "in 1994 had a birth rate of 11/1000
population, tied with Germany for the lowest in the world"
Your statistics are (ostensibly) from 1995 and from
different webpages from the earlier source you used.
I gather that in response to my question, you have chosen
to use the 1995 statistics. OK with me.
Going back to your previous source:
Birthrates from
http://www.theodora.com/wfb/1995/wfb_1995.html
SOURCE: 1995 CIA WORLD FACTBOOK
Germany 11.04
Italy 10.79
Japan 10.49
Greece 10.5
Monaco 10.71
Greece Japan Monaco beat Italy, I owe you a buck--where do
I send it? I didn't check those befor because they were not
in the lowest ten in 2004.
Isn't it interesting that your sources do not agree as to
what was in the CIA world Factbook for 1995?
> > UNLESS some country that
> >did not make the top 15 or bottom 10 respectively in 2004,
> >beat Italy out.
>
> Ahhh.... there's the bob-and-weave.
That's recognition that I can be wrong, something you don't
seem to be able to accept about yourself
> >
> >So I feel vindicated about saying that unless things have
> >changed over the last 5 or ten years .... Italy is second
> >only to the Vatican City in percentage of Catholics and
>
> If that figure is as "accurate" as the birth-rate
> "statistics" you've provided
> so far, there's no reason to put any trust in it.
Maybe you should check it. Please let us know what you find.
>
> >second lowest, just above Vatican City in birthrate.
>
> As shown above... wrong again.
Yes. I should be so lucky as to have you check all my facts.
>
> >It was true ten years ago and has changed since.
>
> No, nothing has changed: none of what you wrote was
> true ten years ago, and it still isn't true.
Noe of what I wrote was true ten years ago? How about Vatican
city having the lowest birthrate and the highest proportion
of Catholics. True ten years ago and still true today, right?
How about Italy being second only to Vatican City in proportion of
Catholics, true ten years ago though nolonger so?
Nothing has changed? Were Monaco Greece and Japan among the
ten lowest in 2004 like they were in 1994? Was the Hong Kong
birthrate not higher in 1995 than in 2004?
Seems you have just made some statements contrary to fact.
--
FF
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>> >Executive Summary: In 1995 Italy was 98% Catholic, second only
>> >to the Vatican City and in 1994 had a birth rate of 11/1000
>> >population, tied with Germany for the lowest in the world,
>> >rounded to the nearest percentage,
>>
>> Wrong again.
>>
>> Birth rates from CIA World Factbook 1995
>> http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/1995/index.html
>>
>> Germany 10.98
>> Italy 10.89
>> Japan 10.66
>> Monaco 10.66
>> Greece 10.56
>>
>>
>
>Read again: "in 1994 had a birth rate of 11/1000
>population, tied with Germany for the lowest in the world"
>Your statistics are (ostensibly) from 1995 and from
>different webpages from the earlier source you used.
Well, DUH! The "earlier source" I used was for 2004 figures. In each case, I
used the first one I came across in Google that had the figures I was looking
for.
>
>I gather that in response to my question, you have chosen
>to use the 1995 statistics. OK with me.
>
>Going back to your previous source:
>
>Birthrates from
>http://www.theodora.com/wfb/1995/wfb_1995.html
>SOURCE: 1995 CIA WORLD FACTBOOK
>
>Germany 11.04
>Italy 10.79
>Japan 10.49
>Greece 10.5
>Monaco 10.71
>
>Greece Japan Monaco beat Italy, I owe you a buck--where do
>I send it?
Keep it. If you insist on sending it, a whois search on my domain will produce
my home address.
> I didn't check those befor because they were not
>in the lowest ten in 2004.
Assumptions, assumptions. They'll bite you every time.
>
>Isn't it interesting that your sources do not agree as to
>what was in the CIA world Factbook for 1995?
They're certainly closer to each other, than your claims are to reality.
>
>> > UNLESS some country that
>> >did not make the top 15 or bottom 10 respectively in 2004,
>> >beat Italy out.
>>
>> Ahhh.... there's the bob-and-weave.
>
>That's recognition that I can be wrong, something you don't
>seem to be able to accept about yourself
Put whatever spin on it makes you happy. You're still wrong.
>
>> >
>> >So I feel vindicated about saying that unless things have
>> >changed over the last 5 or ten years .... Italy is second
>> >only to the Vatican City in percentage of Catholics and
>>
>> If that figure is as "accurate" as the birth-rate
>> "statistics" you've provided
>> so far, there's no reason to put any trust in it.
>
>Maybe you should check it. Please let us know what you find.
Maybe *you* should check it. Maybe you should've checked the other figures,
too, before posting them.
>
>>
>> >second lowest, just above Vatican City in birthrate.
>>
>> As shown above... wrong again.
>
>Yes. I should be so lucky as to have you check all my facts.
It's certainly plain enough that *you* didn't.
>
>>
>> >It was true ten years ago and has changed since.
>>
>> No, nothing has changed: none of what you wrote was
>> true ten years ago, and it still isn't true.
>
>Noe of what I wrote was true ten years ago? How about Vatican
>city having the lowest birthrate and the highest proportion
>of Catholics. True ten years ago and still true today, right?
Oh, ok, excuse me. You did manage to get that part right. I'll give you credit
for that. Of course, you could hardly have missed on those.
>How about Italy being second only to Vatican City in proportion of
>Catholics, true ten years ago though nolonger so?
Wasn't true ten years ago either.
>
>Nothing has changed? Were Monaco Greece and Japan among the
>ten lowest in 2004 like they were in 1994? Was the Hong Kong
>birthrate not higher in 1995 than in 2004?
No, but those weren't the points we were discussing. We were talking about
your false claims that Italy and France were number 1 & 2 in Catholic
population by percentage, and number 1 & 2 from the bottom in birth rates.
>Seems you have just made some statements contrary to fact.
You seem to be the expert in that department...
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> Then look at the lines forming at those stations, people filling up
> before the price rises again, angry because they have to wait, but
> still driving dual tank dually pick-ups and Hemi powered SUVs and
> Suburbans that get 10 MPG. Or less.
>
> Contrary.
>
> But you can gently nudge them in a direction, even if you can't push
> them toward a goal.
>
> First, though, we need a goal, and a leader capable of expressing that
> goal and doing the nudging.
Probably the people who suffer now from Katrina, especially those who
died are the true avantgarde of mankind: They go first where the rest
will follow after some time...
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
> Juergen Hannappel wrote:
[...]
>> If the neighbors' decisions would not affect all of us that seems very
>> fine. ...
>
> But you, of course, know <exactly> what everyone else should be doing
Not exactly. But I don't want to sit completely idle and watch the
world collapse.
> and are more than glad to point it out to them...
... and since I'm not a consultant even free of charge.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> a kid, it was done that way throughout NY State. Now? So-called
> utilities have become just another in an evergrowing group of
> businesses whose primary aim is to screw the customer out of as much
> money as possible. Yes, businesses are there to make a profit. Yes,
> making a good profit is the reason for the existence of most
> businesses. But at one time, businesses tended to get started as a way
> for one or two or however many people to make a living, hopefully a
> good one, while also providing a product or service to as broad a
> customer base as possible--done by keeping quality up and price down.
Exactly what I think. I call the economic system now in place "greed
driven chaos economy", where stuff gets produced because it promises
profits and not because it's needed, as can be seen by such enourmous
markets for cell phone ring tones, addictive drugs and SUVs.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
And I fully agree with the OP (you) about the talking heads, and what value
they add by standing in the middle of the hurricane going "Gee, the wind is
really strong out right now", and then demonstrating it by opening their
jackets up and taking flight.
But my comments were to the follow up posters, and I mentioned specifically
"the two previous poster's compassion". They're the ones I don't
understand. Comments like "When did we become weather wimps?" and
"They were good for parties afterwards while the gov tried to get the
electricity back up."
Clint
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Clint" wrote in message
>> *just shaking my head, trying to understand the hard-hearted comments*
>>
>> Sure, maybe the talking heads don't have to be on the air, 24/7. And
>> soon
>> enough, they'll stop, and go on to the next story. But the rebuilding
>> process down along the coast is going to go on for a long time. I
> wouldn't
>> wish that on my worst enemy.
>
> You're missing the point and running rabbit trails that have nothing to do
> with original comment regarding the pervasive "tragic TV syndrome".
>
> The OP has plenty of "compassion" for those displaced, he lost his home
> and
> a lifetime of possessions to flooding in Tropical Storm Allison in 2001.
> DAMHIKT.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 8/29/05
>
>
>
<<This is something I ponder after every report of a disaster. Some
disasters seem to have greater survivability than others. For the
ones with a higher probability of survival of the structure, why
aren't the structures better built for the environment they stand in?>>
Frank Zappa had a song that fairly well describes the prevailing attitude:
"It Can't Happen Here." It's the same reason that people will have 3 or 4
beers and get behind the wheel (some without bucking their seatbelts), or
that hundreds of people who have never lit a cigarette will embark upon the
habit every day for the foreseeable future, or that several people who know
better will stand directlly in line with the blade while ripping a piece of
wood on the table saw. There is just something in human nature that
convinces us that bad things can only happen to other people and not to
ourselves.
Lee
--
To e-mail, replace "bucketofspam" with "dleegordon"
_________________________________
Lee Gordon
http://www.leegordonproductions.com
"Clint" wrote in message
> But my comments were to the follow up posters, and I mentioned
specifically
> "the two previous poster's compassion". They're the ones I don't
> understand. Comments like "When did we become weather wimps?" and
> "They were good for parties afterwards while the gov tried to get the
> electricity back up."
Sorry, you are certainly correct. My mistake ... I apologize.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/29/05
[snip]>
> This is utter nonsense. Approximately 50% of the US population lives
> in a coastal area. The overwhelming majority of these are found in major
> cities - New York, Miami, Seattle, LA, New Orleans, etc. Most of those
> cities are *not* in Hurricane zones. There is more than enough land
> for the people who do live in hurricane zones to get away from the problem.
> Each year we see *less* land needed for farming, for example,
> because farming is becoming incrementally more efficient. This frees up
> the land for other uses. About 1/3 of US land is government owned
> (mostly as Federal parks so smelly hippies can go hiking and complain
> about "the man"). Some of this land could be sold and populated (and
> managed far better than BLM ever has).
>
>>
Keep in mind that Manhattan is a barrier island...
--WebTV-Mail-2582-125
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Re: Have we become that stupid ..
Group: rec.woodworking Date: Tue, Aug 30, 2005, 12:45pm (EDT-3) From:
[email protected] (jo4hn)
[snip]> I dont think jo4hn said this... but .
Keep in mind that Manhattan is a barrier island...
Umm actually it isnt .. Manhattan was caused
by a chunk of rock that poped up along a Fault line some millions of
years ago, either end of the island like battery park is silt from the
river that has been filled in and some by us,(like around the former
world trade center... that is why the true skyscrapers are not
covering All of Manhattan because in the north the sit doesnt
provide stable foundation to bedrock
Manhattan Island is located about 26 miles up river from the mouth of
NY harbor which is more open then say New Orleans harbor which has
salt marsh barriers in the true sense of barrier islands like those
off the carolinas and jersey long island etc
I would find it difficult to say that even Staten Island was a barier
island in this sense because it is Partly formed by drainage and
silt (and a lotta "landfill" )
maybe hundreds of years ago it could have been so considered , but not
Manhattan
did you know that the fault lines in the NE like the up the hudson
canyon while nothing like the pacific faults we all know so well, are
active and seem tpo provide an earthquake every four or five years
or so? I know cause i have sept through like 4 or 5 of them ....lol
--WebTV-Mail-2582-125
Content-Description: signature
Content-Disposition: Inline
Content-Type: Text/HTML; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
<html>
<body>
<body
bgcolor="black"
text="coral" link="black" vlink="white"
</body>
</html>
--WebTV-Mail-2582-125--
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>When Carter was elected President his people made a big deal about
>setting a precedent by putting his assets into a blind trust.
Either you, or they, were misinformed. About it setting a precedent, I mean.
I'm currently in the middle of Dwight Eisenhower's book "Mandate for Change",
in which he desribes placing his assets into a blind trust in 1952. It's not
clear whether this took place pre- or post-election, but certainly it was
before inauguration. [Eisenhower, D.D., "The White House Years: Mandate for
Change 1953-1956", Doubleday, New York, 1963, pp 111-112]
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Charlie Self wrote:
> True. And every yuppie needs a 380-430 HP engine to haul his or her
> sorry ass to work in the morning, using a light truck chassis and
> hitting a total weight of 6000 pounds per vehicle.
Not your decision to make, even as you exxagerate. OTOH, I don't
feel sorry for the folks who fell for the Hummermarketting ploy as
gasoline soars past $3/gallon on its way tomuch higher. I suspect that a
lot of heavy SUVs will be coming on the used car market for a very
low price and soon, while higher milage cars get more expensive.
Ironically, Toyota took its ECHO out of the U.S. market...it gets
42mpg on the highway at around a sustained 75mph. That's just
dumb IMO.
Freedom of choice means that we don't get to make
our neighbors' decisions and we must respect them. Frankly, I'm
a little unhappy that my four-cylinder pickup gets less than
30mpg, directly because of pollution control measures. It does,
however, allow me to haul a decent load of wood and sheetgoods
when needed.