The Buggery Of Trade With China

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:P9qpe.2425
>>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>> I don't see much reason why rail lines couldn't be run down the medians
>>> of
>>> existing interstates, similarly to the commuter rail service in and out
>>> of
>>> Chicago. And there are plenty of *existing* rail lines on *existing*
>>> rights of way that could be upgraded, doubtless at less expense than
>>leasing
>>> *new* rights of way and constructing new lines.
>>
>>Did you ever notice what _else_ is in those medians at most underpasses?
>>Concrete pillars....
>
> So how hard is it to go one side or the other? That doesn't seem to have
> been
> much of a problem in Chicago; I can't imagine it would be more difficult
> to
> figure out anywhere else.

Where do you guys live? Along many of the interstates here in the
northeast, you'd be hard pressed to ride a scooter let alone put rail lines.
There is NO median, just a barrier. Drive I-95 from Philly to Boston and
see how much rail you can lay. I know a Plate B boxcar has an inside height
of 10' 7" but I don' tknow the outside. Bridge clearance could also be a
problem. McKinley cars are 18' high. That puts the median 5" below the
grade of the highway.

I'm sure the idea has merit in some areas, but it is not easy to do in
others.

Han <[email protected]> wrote in news:Xns966E45EE8DD23ikkezelf@
130.81.64.196:

> than I can - I'm just a biochemist who occasionally uses low level
> radioisotopes such as 14C and 32P.

I125 here.
Did an iodination myself too -- once...

In article <[email protected]>, AL <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't mean this as a knock against Canada but I've always wondered how
> buying a Canadian made bicycle, car (eg. 300, Pacifica, Magnum, Charger,
> Crown Victoria, Equinox, etc.) or tank (eg. Stryker) benefitted the US
> economy any more than buying something made in China.

Why would a Canadian (like myself and Robatoy) be overly concerned
about benefitting the US economy?

He bought a Canadian made bike in Canada, Al.

--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>

In article <[email protected]>, J. Clarke
<[email protected]> wrote:

> he can take two hours in a plane

Nobody goes anywhere in "two hours in a plane". You need to tack on the
time and the money it takes /at/ /both/ /ends/ to get to and from the
airport, get parked/get to your vehicle or get cabs/limos, get through
security, etc., etc., etc.

For a very common trip as an example, from the *real* start to the
finish, going from Aurora to Toronto to get a flight to Montreal will
take nearly FIVE HOURS door-to-door although the actual flight is
around 1 1/2hr. Hell, I can drive it in five hours or so and have my
vehicle to use when I'm there.

Gerry

"Sadly it's (free greed econmy) the American way."

And the Chinese way, and the Indian way, and the French way, and the
Mexican way, and the Canadian way, and the German way, and the British
way, and on and on.

Capitialism is harnassing greed. Socialism just makes greed so
underground and become criminal.

A typical light water power reactor produces somewhere between
10,000 and 50,000 cubic ft of radioactive waste per year,
mostly DAW and ion exchange media.

In terms of volume, the spent fuel is insignificant.

OTOH, the high volume waste is all short-lived isotopes that
will decay to near background levels in only a few hunder years.

--

FF

J. Clarke wrote:
...
>
> The simple fact is that nobody wants to ride trains. Even if you build your
> railroad it will be empty most of the time unless you give it huge
> government subsidies and operate it at an immense loss, thereby essentially
> providing free transportation at taxpayer expense.

sorta like the use of automobiles today. the public subsidizes both oil
and most of the highway system. similar subsidies keep the airlines
going. trains are a far better value than either of those. of course,
suburban sprawl is built only for the use of a car, so much more would
need to be done than simply laying new tracks, we need whole new cities
built around them.

hydrogen will not replace oil in cars. beside the fact that hydrogen is
an energy sink, it is not feasible to store or move it on the scale we
are used to with gasoline. (not even 10% of the current scale) this is
a physical problem that cannot be mitigated by technology. forget about
it.

maybe a better battery will be developed, the best minds with the best
funding have been on it for many years, but say you could get the
weight and capacity problem solved, electricity generation and delivery
is less efficient than burning the gas directly in the cylinder, (about
3 times less). so clearly coal and gas is not going to provide the
power. nuke plants arent all that big a bonanza once you consider all
of the energy required, and it takes aobut 20 years to even start it
up, but does seem the only viable source of power down the road. and
what's more, an all-electric fleet is untenable with the current grid,
just rebuilding the decrepid system we already have has to happen
before one starts talking about delivering 4 times the juice.

personally, i prefer to ride the train over the car or the plane from a
sheer comfort standpoint. but whether you prefer it or not, the
airplane and car will no longer be an option within 10 years. but if we
dont start re-building the system immediately, the trains wont be there
either. between currupt US leadership and the public's
head-in-the-sand-ism, i'm pretty sure we'll end up with the latter
option.

to think that our society can maintain any significant percentage of
its current energy consumption levels is pure wishful thinking i'm
afraid. which means that all of this is thrust onto a backdrop of
worldwide economic failure. how to power your car will be a sick
joke...how to obtain food will be the main topic of the day 20 years
from now. along with "we coulda" and "we shoulda".




>
> Amtrak operates a high speed train based on the French TGV technology
> between Boston and New York. I thought about riding it once and it turned
> out that the fare was higher than any airline for the same trip. What
> makes you think that your miracle train will be cheaper?
>
> And you talk about hydrogen being impractical? We've had trains for more
> than two centuries--we know trains--and trains don't work for us anymore.
> Why do you have so much trouble with that notion?
>
> Maybe economic conditions will change in such a way tha trains become
> practical again. When that happens then trains will become popular again.
> --
> --John

well, thank you for the compliment, even more rare! and let's also
thank the fates which allowed me to manage such an attitude that
particular moment, i'm usually quite pissed off about the situation.
that is, the situation of a leadership that knows these facts and can't
even muster the cajones to pass new fuel standards for fear of
alienating their sponsors, a media that also lives in fear of
alienating the same sponsors, coupled with an american public that
knows this and just flips the channel.

i'm also gaining some peace from just accepting the fact that this
situation is a runaway train and i ain't gonna stop it. instead i'm
trying to focus on living in a dark future, making sure my kids are
gonna make it too.

i wanna get better at working wood!

J. Clarke whines:
> i started to give you a serious response, then I got to "but whether
> you prefer it or not, the airplane and car will no longer be an option
> within 10 years." and realized that you were pulling your information
> out of your ass.

i'm sure you spent enough time on google to realize that the rest was
not "out of my ass" so you've focused on the only thing that could be
seriously challenged. and i admit, a pessimistic prediction with little
hard data to back it up. noone knows exactly how much oil remains, that
is a closely guarded secret and though statistically unlikely, a
super-giant discovery may delay the deconstruction by 5 years or more.
maybe i should qualify the statement to say that cars and planes will
be around, but you or i will not be able to afford to use them. if i'm
wrong, i doubt i'm wrong by a significant margin. not to overlook the
discovery of a new fuel source, but it is a bit late in the game for
that possiblility to be a factor in any serious discussion.

>>noone knows exactly how much oil remains, that is a closely guarded secret

>Phooey. The amount of oil remaining is simply unknown. Not "a closely guarded secret".

true in the sense that some major find may happen, completely skewing
the statisics, but this is similar to the hope that a miraculous new
energy source will be discovered. the known reserves are what i was
referring to, coupled with the statistical rate of likely new
discoveries. the bottom line is production of course, can they meet
demand? statistics also predict that that isnt going to happen for
very much longer.

> and though statistically unlikely, a
>>super-giant discovery may delay the deconstruction by 5 years or more.

>You mean like the recent one in Saudi Arabia?

no, not even close. fields that contain years of oil rather than days
of oil have not been found in decades,(since1940 or 50 i think). and
total discoveries overall have fallen steadily since the 60's as one
would expect with a finite resource. most people agree that oil is
finite, but most are just hoping it isnt going to run out while they're
still here. (especially our so-called leaders)

> For as long as we've been using oil, the world's known oil reserves have been
> enough to last only the next fifty years". That's because there's no economic
> incentive to go looking for more, when current known reserves are adequate to
> meet current and projected demand.

developing _known_ reserves is definately dependent upon the market,
but discovery is critical to a company's balance sheet and future and
with production vs. demand projections, i seriously doubt that this can
explain the steady drop in discovery. but i have no ready stats to take
a look at whether discovery efforts have been steadily reduced in the
same period, i just doubt it.

In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Mundt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Greetings and Salutations.
>
>On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:56:13 -0700, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>[email protected] says...
>>> Exactly. A dear friend of mine lives in London, works in Toronto.
>>> Her company is more than happy to fly her in for meetings, but she
>>> prefers the train. She's there one hour earlier, and she works at a
>>> comfortable table while en-route. When she comes back from Toronto,
>>> she gets out in London, refreshed.
>>>
>>I love train travel. Everything you say is true. Even local
>>transportation is nice. I've ridden BART in the SF Bay area, and the
>>"L" in Chicago. In both cases I'd get a newspaper or magazine,
>>occasionally a book, lean back in my seat, and enjoy the trip to/from
>>work. I even forgot to get off at my station once or twice :-).
>>
>>--
>>BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever
>
> I am right there with you, although it has been years since
>I rode on anything train-like (outside the Metro in D.C.) However,
>back in the early 60s, my parents and I would go up to visit relatives
>up North, and, often took trains. It was a great experience, and,
>I would really like to STILL be able to do it.
> however, as mentioned elsewhere, the last time I had to go
>to D.C (a couple of years ago), I looked into train tickets.
>The best I could do was more than $400 for the round trip, and, in
>order to do that I would have had to drive to Atlanta to get ON
>the bloody train.

Note: you can board that train at Spartanburg, SC which looks to be
only about 3/4 the distance that it is to Atlanta. ("As the crow flies",
Toccoa GA is even closer, but it doesn't look like there is good highway
to get there.)

> However, i was able to fly out of Knoxville,
>round trip, for about $175.00. The bad news is that driving would
>have taken 12 hours, and thanks to a long layover in Cincinatti,
>the flights took 10 hours.
> However...in spite of the annoying searches, delays and
>lay-overs, it was STILL VERY much cheaper to fly.

Note: Checking prices currently, Amtrak from Atlanta to DC is $190 R/T
based on reasonable 'plan ahead' (i.e. depart July 11, return 7/21)
*INTERESTINGLY*, for the same dates, is is only _$149_ from Spartanburg.
("plan ahead" pays of _big_ on that train, for a June 13 departure
from Atlanta, returning June 21, it's $330 R/T. -- but talk about
*silly* -- that schedule from Spartanburg is only $212)

Best price I could find for a flight, using the same July schedule,
out of Knoxville, was $188 R/T, before adding 'departure fees'.


> I would have preferred a nice, leisurely trek through
>the countryside in the comfort of a train.
> Until there is some real support for passenger train travel,
>though, it will not come back. Amtrak (which I amazed still exists)
>is useless unless one lives in specific cities. For it to work,
>the services will have to extend out to cover even the smaller
>cities.


Amtrak _is_ limited -- first by 'where tracks are' that are of a condition/
grade that can handle passenger trains; and by the amount of equipment they
have available.

Both of those difficulties can be overcome with money. *BUT* Congress has
consistently short-changed Amtrak for the last 20 years. Congress has
demanded 'minimal, bare-bones' budgets from Amtrak, and then typically
appropriated only around SIXTY PERCENT of the required funding. Yet,
somehow, it is _Amtrak's_ fault when they can't deliver. *sigh*

In article <[email protected]>,
lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> However,
>> back in the early 60s, my parents and I would go up to visit relatives
>> up North, and, often took trains. It was a great experience, and,
>> I would really like to STILL be able to do it.
>>
>A few years ago, we got one of the Amtrak/VIA-Rail North American Rail
>Passes. Went all the way from BC to Nova Scotia, down to Baltimore, and
>back across to Washington(the state). Just over 10,000 miles in 30
>days. Loved it. If you care, you can see some "what I did on my
>vacation" photos at http://www.intergate.com/~lard.

Hah! I abused one of those passes to the tune of just over 25,000 miles.
They are an _incredible_ deal if you like to 'go for a ride on the train'.

In article <[email protected]>,
lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>bonomi.com says...
>>
>> Hah! I abused one of those passes to the tune of just over 25,000 miles.
>> They are an _incredible_ deal if you like to 'go for a ride on the train'.
>>
>VIA has some cheaper ones for, IIRC, 10 or 15 days if you limit your
>travel to Canada. Unlike Amtrak, you don't have to schedule in advance
>and you can upgrade ahead of time.

Trivia: you don't _have_ to schedule in advance with the North America
RailPass either. If there is 'space available' 3 minutes before boarding
you can go. I can't speak about Amtrak upgrades -- they only have 2 levels
of service -- coach, and 'very expensive'. I've never been able to justify
the cost of anything but coach on Amtrak. on VIA I'll almost always upgrade
to the lowest class of sleeper available -- section berth, or roomette.

> Then you do have to schedule in
>advance of course. And VIA still has some of the old fashioned upper
>and lower berths with curtains on its sleeping cars :-).

Indeedy. even better, VIA has *dome* cars -- which give you a _real_ view
of the territory. The Amtrak 'sightseer/lounge' cars are a poor, *poor*
substitute.

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 08:59:12 -0600, "DouginUtah"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>> Only way to get people to think about it is to keep talking
>> until something gets through.
>>
>Sort of how I feel about my trying to get the word out about peak oil.
>
>http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/7203633?rnd=1117225753984&has-player=false
>

I sympathize with you on that one, too.

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Makes me think of Babylon 5, the SciFi series. One episode was a million
> > years in the future where someone was documenting our sun finally
burning
> > out.
>
> Off the top of my head, I think the number is closer to 2.5 billion years.

Actual estimation or the number of years in Babylon 5? In any event, I
thought it was a pretty neat series. Sorry to see it end.

hello,

>>And while I'm at it, outlaw or tax the bejeezus out of all privately
>>owned vehicles over 2500 pounds with engines bigger than 2 litres.
>
> You're gonna look kinda strange hauling plywood with a Honda Civic... and
> I
> think I'll keep my Suburban for deer hunting, thank you very much.

Never had trouble doing that on my Girlfriend 2 door civic 1.3L engine...
also most peoples do not go deer hunting :-)

I now also have a Ford Courier pickup truck at 2200lbs and 2L engine... with
a 8.5ft bed, perfect for these 8ft beices of wood :-)

cyrille

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:04:45 -0400, George <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "lgb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>
>>
>> And that's not even considering the waste disposal problem. All
>> industry has such a good record at cleaning up after itself :-).
>>
> Probably would help if they had a place to put it.

There's a great place to put the stuff, but political rather than
scientific reasons are preventing it being used. Go figure.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> There is no humor. It's going to run out of hydrogen eventually. But
I
> >> guess that that's so far in the future that you don't care what
> >> generation gets saddled with the problem.

Makes me think of Babylon 5, the SciFi series. One episode was a million
years in the future where someone was documenting our sun finally burning
out.

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
> There are times when I reach a point that I can't see past the corporate
> greed of some companies.
>

It's transplanted from their customers who want to get something for
nothing.

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I don't think I quite agree with you here, either. While a neat-looking
> weld
> is not necessarily a solid weld, it's reasonable to suppose that a
> sloppy-looking weld may also be a sloppily *made* weld.
>

I thought welding was like solder - bigger the glob the better the job....

"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The nuclear energy industry has done some really stupid things. The
> Shoreham (LI) facility is just one example. If you're going to build a
> reactor somewhere and require an evacuation plan, don't build a plant
> there, then when the opposition to it has just about prevented it from
> ever opening, you shouldn't activate it for even 1 second.
>

However - have you noticed that people move to be close to the airport, then
complain about the noise?

Or agitate for a prison to be sited nearby for the jobs it creates, then
begin public meetings about the danger of escapees?

Since companies can't vote, people get heard, even when they've done to
themselves.

"We have met the enemy, and he is us." - Walt Kelly

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snipperectomy]
>
> > Not only that, but it's just plain
> > spiffy.
>
> Its spiffiness becomes amplified when you bolt a couple of nuclear
> generators onto a new set of cross-country electrified high-speed double
> track railroads and get all them damned trucks and busses off the road.

How you going to obtain right-of way? Don't say you're going to use the
highway, because messing with the area for the public's cars won't get you
reelected. You certainly will have to avoid all wetlands, wilderness areas,
urban areas where crossings cannot be made at other than highway level
because of the danger ... goes on and on.

"lgb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,

>
> And that's not even considering the waste disposal problem. All
> industry has such a good record at cleaning up after itself :-).
>
Probably would help if they had a place to put it.

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
> I don't see much reason why rail lines couldn't be run down the medians of
> existing interstates, similarly to the commuter rail service in and out of
> Chicago. And there are plenty of *existing* rail lines on *existing*
> rights of way that could be upgraded, doubtless at less expense than
leasing
> *new* rights of way and constructing new lines.

Did you ever notice what _else_ is in those medians at most underpasses?
Concrete pillars....

Problem with the "upgrade" is sort of like trying to fix your power plant.
You go whole hog to the new requirements or nothing. The crossings would
all have to change.

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 15:04:45 -0400, George <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "lgb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >
> >>
> >> And that's not even considering the waste disposal problem. All
> >> industry has such a good record at cleaning up after itself :-).
> >>
> > Probably would help if they had a place to put it.
>
> There's a great place to put the stuff, but political rather than
> scientific reasons are preventing it being used. Go figure.
>

Instead it's in thousands of places, waiting for what the nuclear power
people were promised when they built.

"Scott Lurndal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> First off, the waste problem is greatly exagerated. Using reprocessing,
> the waste can be turned into useful reactor fuel. The problems with
> reprocessing are political, not technical.
>
> The waste is not really waste, anyway. It is a collection of isotopes,
> many of which are radioactive at various levels. Generally the level
> of radioactivity is inversely coorelated to the length of the half-life,
> i.e. isotopes with a longer half-life have relatively low radioactivity.
>
> After extracting the useful isotopes (cesium, etc for medical uses, et.
al.),
> the remainder can be reprocessed into useful fuel. The quite small amount
> left after reprocessing can be easily sequestered in Yucca mountain or a
> salt mine in Kansas until mankind finds a use for it.
>

I had the misfortune to mention that recycling worked in nuclear material in
a dinner group of artists one night. Should have heard the outcry.

There is also some particle absorption method for accelerating some of the
long-term stuff into stability, if I read it correctly. Just as soon as we
begin to do it, we'll discover a pressing need for what we've transmuted....

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I would hope that all those children who are now being left behind would
> have been trained properly by the new government.
> >

>
> You really shouldn't take me, or yourself so seriously.

The first sentence is scary.

I'm hoping you follow the second.

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > I would hope that all those children who are now being left behind
would
> > > have been trained properly by the new government.
> > > >
> >
> > >
> > > You really shouldn't take me, or yourself so seriously.
> >
> > The first sentence is scary.
> >
> It sure is scary. There are plenty of children left behind.
> They're not all going to grow up to be upright citizens?
> The 'Right or wrong, MY country' slogan carries only so much weight.
>

Sorry, images of what I saw in Cuba, USSR, and on TV of Hitler Youth define
"trained properly by the new government" to me.

Who's behind depends more on a cultural anti-intellectual bias and a
distorted concept of personal liberty defined as the freedom to be ignorant.

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Exactly. A dear friend of mine lives in London, works in Toronto.
> Her company is more than happy to fly her in for meetings, but she
> prefers the train. She's there one hour earlier, and she works at a
> comfortable table while en-route. When she comes back from Toronto,
> she gets out in London, refreshed.

What, no 16-inch, five wide seats with 11 inches of legroom and a tray table
too close to do anything off of unless you were a thalidomide baby?

Greetings and Salutations.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:56:13 -0700, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> Exactly. A dear friend of mine lives in London, works in Toronto.
>> Her company is more than happy to fly her in for meetings, but she
>> prefers the train. She's there one hour earlier, and she works at a
>> comfortable table while en-route. When she comes back from Toronto,
>> she gets out in London, refreshed.
>>
>I love train travel. Everything you say is true. Even local
>transportation is nice. I've ridden BART in the SF Bay area, and the
>"L" in Chicago. In both cases I'd get a newspaper or magazine,
>occasionally a book, lean back in my seat, and enjoy the trip to/from
>work. I even forgot to get off at my station once or twice :-).
>
>--
>BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

I am right there with you, although it has been years since
I rode on anything train-like (outside the Metro in D.C.) However,
back in the early 60s, my parents and I would go up to visit relatives
up North, and, often took trains. It was a great experience, and,
I would really like to STILL be able to do it.
however, as mentioned elsewhere, the last time I had to go
to D.C (a couple of years ago), I looked into train tickets.
The best I could do was more than $400 for the round trip, and, in
order to do that I would have had to drive to Atlanta to get ON
the bloody train. However, i was able to fly out of Knoxville,
round trip, for about $175.00. The bad news is that driving would
have taken 12 hours, and thanks to a long layover in Cincinatti,
the flights took 10 hours.
However...in spite of the annoying searches, delays and
lay-overs, it was STILL VERY much cheaper to fly.
I would have preferred a nice, leisurely trek through
the countryside in the comfort of a train.
Until there is some real support for passenger train travel,
though, it will not come back. Amtrak (which I amazed still exists)
is useless unless one lives in specific cities. For it to work,
the services will have to extend out to cover even the smaller
cities.
Of course, in the North West, there is a certain amount of
that still...but, most of the world is East of the Mississippi.
Regards
Dave Mundt

"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:t5%[email protected]...
>
> Now you're making me nostalgic. I remember taking the New York Central
from
> Chicago to New York and having my own room (with a full bath!) and
sleeping
> through most of the trip - in a real bed. I can't remember for certain,
but
> I think the one-way fare was around $50.
>

My last train rides were on the Chicago, South Shore and South Bend
railroad. One of the last of the interurbans. As they said, it used to
sway so much, to and fro, that you'd often fro up.

Of course we were often hung over on the way back to school after a night of
female company at Barat.

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 09:33:46 -0400, Robatoy <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>[snipperectomy]
>
>> Not only that, but it's just plain
>> spiffy.
>
>Its spiffiness becomes amplified when you bolt a couple of nuclear
>generators onto a new set of cross-country electrified high-speed double
>track railroads and get all them damned trucks and busses off the road.
>That alone will be a huge step in the right direction.
>BTW.. build in some accountability in that new system, i.e. Do Not
>privatize it. Staff the whole damn thing with military vets.

Yeah. I know a lot of people say they'd never part with their
vehicles, and I doubt I'd sell mine just because I had another option,
but if I could take a train to the city I work in, and a bus from the
depot to the shop, I sure as hell wouldn't be driving 60+ miles a day.
When I lived in the metro area (in MN), I used the bus to commute
every day, and it was great. Instead of getting pissed off at the
gridlock, I sat and read a book.

>Efficient transportation running off of a clean power source.
>
>And while I'm at it, outlaw or tax the bejeezus out of all privately
>owned vehicles over 2500 pounds with engines bigger than 2 litres.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:18:01 -0400, Stephen Young <[email protected]>
wrote:

>CW wrote:
>> None of this matters in a free greed economy. Screw every last dollar out of
>> anyone you can now, don't worry about the future. It's the American way.
>
>No, it's the American MANAGER/OWNER'S way.

Sadly, it's the American way. I should shut up about it, as it never
does any good- but that's kind of like commiting passive suicide in my
mind. Only way to get people to think about it is to keep talking
until something gets through.

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> A Subway low-fat sub...sure... if need be.

Yes, but Subway does not have the ambiance of a McDonalds. Pathetic, but
true.

On 6 Jun 2005 08:51:59 -0700, "Never Enough Money"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Sadly it's (free greed econmy) the American way."
>
>And the Chinese way, and the Indian way, and the French way, and the
>Mexican way, and the Canadian way, and the German way, and the British
>way, and on and on.

Well, you can't hardly argue with that, I guess.

>Capitialism is harnassing greed. Socialism just makes greed so
>underground and become criminal.

Just looking at that made my head hurt- proofread, please!

At the end of the day, I'm an advocate of pure capitalism, but that is
not the system that any country in the world is using. We've got a
mixed economic system, and the US has traditionally done much better
with mercantilism than pure international capitalism on a grand scale.
If everyone was playing the same game, then pure lassiez-faire
capitalism would be the most ethical system of trade- but that is not
the case, and if we want to maintain our standard of living, we must
retain our productive abilty through protective economic strategies.
If the government is not pursuing this strategy because of undue
influence from multi-national corporations, it falls to citizens to
reward those producers that choose to remain within our borders by
buying from them first- when they produce products worth owning.

Nobody said anything about socialism- but now that you mention it,
buying Chinese supports communism.

In article <[email protected]>, "AL" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I don't mean this as a knock against Canada but I've always wondered how
>buying a Canadian made bicycle, car (eg. 300, Pacifica, Magnum, Charger,
>Crown Victoria, Equinox, etc.) or tank (eg. Stryker) benefitted the US
>economy any more than buying something made in China.

It doesn't. But if you look at Robatoy's email address
>
>"Robatoy" <[email protected]>

you'll see that he lives in Canada, and presumably is concerned about
benefitting the Canadian economy.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

In article <[email protected]>, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> [snipperectomy]
>>
>> > Not only that, but it's just plain
>> > spiffy.
>>
>> Its spiffiness becomes amplified when you bolt a couple of nuclear
>> generators onto a new set of cross-country electrified high-speed double
>> track railroads and get all them damned trucks and busses off the road.
>
>How you going to obtain right-of way? Don't say you're going to use the
>highway, because messing with the area for the public's cars won't get you
>reelected. You certainly will have to avoid all wetlands, wilderness areas,
>urban areas where crossings cannot be made at other than highway level
>because of the danger ... goes on and on.

I don't see much reason why rail lines couldn't be run down the medians of
existing interstates, similarly to the commuter rail service in and out of
Chicago. And there are plenty of *existing* rail lines on *existing*
rights of way that could be upgraded, doubtless at less expense than leasing
*new* rights of way and constructing new lines.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"Upscale" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >>
> > >> There is no humor. It's going to run out of hydrogen eventually.
But
> I
> > >> guess that that's so far in the future that you don't care what
> > >> generation gets saddled with the problem.
>
> Makes me think of Babylon 5, the SciFi series. One episode was a million
> years in the future where someone was documenting our sun finally burning
> out.

Off the top of my head, I think the number is closer to 2.5 billion years.

todd

China.

"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>:-).
> >
> Probably would help if they had a place to put it.
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In my experience, there are, percentage-wise, per capita, as many
> assholes on either side of this virtually non-existent border.
>
Not to be competitive, but I think we've got more on this side (US) of
that border :-). I can only judge as a tourist, but I found the
percentage of friendly people higher in Canada than here, But yes, I
ran into a few assholes there too.

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Efficient transportation running off of a clean power source.
>
Fine. We'll bury the spent fuel rods in your backyard.

It ain't the firewood, it's the ashes :-).

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Operating a nuclear plant should be held to the highest standards. The
> plain fact that coal mines don't is no argument. I repeat: If someone
> else operates illegally, irresponsibly, or unethically does not permit
> Indian Point to operate their plant(s) in the same manner.
>
I once helped write a computer monitoring system for a nuke plant. It
was very clear that it would never be used, but the feds required the
plant to have it. Very discouraging to work on a useless system.

And I was a big proponent till I saw the quality of the workers and of
the security system. No thank you.

And that's not even considering the waste disposal problem. All
industry has such a good record at cleaning up after itself :-).

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Exactly. A dear friend of mine lives in London, works in Toronto.
> Her company is more than happy to fly her in for meetings, but she
> prefers the train. She's there one hour earlier, and she works at a
> comfortable table while en-route. When she comes back from Toronto,
> she gets out in London, refreshed.
>
I love train travel. Everything you say is true. Even local
transportation is nice. I've ridden BART in the SF Bay area, and the
"L" in Chicago. In both cases I'd get a newspaper or magazine,
occasionally a book, lean back in my seat, and enjoy the trip to/from
work. I even forgot to get off at my station once or twice :-).

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> However,
> back in the early 60s, my parents and I would go up to visit relatives
> up North, and, often took trains. It was a great experience, and,
> I would really like to STILL be able to do it.
>
A few years ago, we got one of the Amtrak/VIA-Rail North American Rail
Passes. Went all the way from BC to Nova Scotia, down to Baltimore, and
back across to Washington(the state). Just over 10,000 miles in 30
days. Loved it. If you care, you can see some "what I did on my
vacation" photos at http://www.intergate.com/~lard.

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
bonomi.com says...
>
> Hah! I abused one of those passes to the tune of just over 25,000 miles.
> They are an _incredible_ deal if you like to 'go for a ride on the train'.
>
VIA has some cheaper ones for, IIRC, 10 or 15 days if you limit your
travel to Canada. Unlike Amtrak, you don't have to schedule in advance
and you can upgrade ahead of time. Then you do have to schedule in
advance of course. And VIA still has some of the old fashioned upper
and lower berths with curtains on its sleeping cars :-).
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

In article <t5%[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Now you're making me nostalgic. I remember taking the New York Central from
> Chicago to New York and having my own room (with a full bath!) and sleeping
> through most of the trip - in a real bed. I can't remember for certain, but
> I think the one-way fare was around $50.
>
I had to make some business trips to Columbia SC from Spokane WA about 6
or 7 years ago. After two flights, I told them if they wanted me again
they'd have to spring for train fare. It was under 2 grand for a
roomette, which included all meals. I think it was $1600 or $1800,
similar to first class air fare.

And I added my wife for only $400, essentially food and service only,
since the room was already booked.

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

In article <[email protected]>, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>> I don't see much reason why rail lines couldn't be run down the medians of
>> existing interstates, similarly to the commuter rail service in and out of
>> Chicago. And there are plenty of *existing* rail lines on *existing*
>> rights of way that could be upgraded, doubtless at less expense than
>leasing
>> *new* rights of way and constructing new lines.
>
>Did you ever notice what _else_ is in those medians at most underpasses?
>Concrete pillars....

So how hard is it to go one side or the other? That doesn't seem to have been
much of a problem in Chicago; I can't imagine it would be more difficult to
figure out anywhere else.
>
>Problem with the "upgrade" is sort of like trying to fix your power plant.
>You go whole hog to the new requirements or nothing. The crossings would
>all have to change.

Still less expense than building a bunch of new ones, I'm sure.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

In article <[email protected]>, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, "AL" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >I don't mean this as a knock against Canada but I've always wondered how
>> >buying a Canadian made bicycle, car (eg. 300, Pacifica, Magnum, Charger,
>> >Crown Victoria, Equinox, etc.) or tank (eg. Stryker) benefitted the US
>> >economy any more than buying something made in China.
>>
>> It doesn't. But if you look at Robatoy's email address
>> >
>> >"Robatoy" <[email protected]>
>>
>> you'll see that he lives in Canada, and presumably is concerned about
>> benefitting the Canadian economy.
[snip]
>
>Doug, I won't consider your observation about my being Canadian as a
>snipe, because you obviously don't know anything about me.

Other than the obvious, that you're a woodworker with an email address in a
Canadian domain, and the reasonable deduction that you live in Canada, no, I
admit that I don't. My comment wasn't intended as a snipe, and I certainly
apologize if it appeared to be one. Please note, though, that I referred to
you as "livi[ng] in Canada", not as "a Canadian" - precisely because the
former is fairly obvious, but the latter is only an assumption.

And I do think it's reasonable to suppose that most people are more concerned
with the economy of the nation in which they reside, than with that of a
neighboring nation.

My comment was directed at the guy who wondered why you might think that
buying a Canadian-made bike would benefit the US economy more than buying a
Chinese-made bike - seems to me that someone living in Canada wouldn't think
that, and wouldn't be all that interested in benefitting the US economy...


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Makes me think of Babylon 5, the SciFi series. One episode was a
million
> > > years in the future where someone was documenting our sun finally
burning
> > > out.
> >
> > Off the top of my head, I think the number is closer to 2.5 billion
years.
> >
> > todd
>
> *Pfew*!!! *wiping my brow*...2.5 Billion .. you had me worried it was
> only a million!
>
> *sigh of relief*

Sorry. As an engineer, I cringe when I see a three-orders of magnitude
error. ;-)

todd

I don't mean this as a knock against Canada but I've always wondered how
buying a Canadian made bicycle, car (eg. 300, Pacifica, Magnum, Charger,
Crown Victoria, Equinox, etc.) or tank (eg. Stryker) benefitted the US
economy any more than buying something made in China.

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snippification of Inquirer article.]
>
>> © 2005 Philadelphia Inquirer and wire service sources. All Rights
>> Reserved.
>>
> Thanks for that article, Tom. *still shaking my head*
>
> There are times when I reach a point that I can't see past the corporate
> greed of some companies.
>
> I had the opportunity to compare some hybrid bicycles. I hadn't owned a
> bicycle for some time. I did ride my oldest daughter's bike a bit, but
> that saddle was giving me an involuntary prostrate exam.
>
> My wife received a nice comfortable bike from my parents for her
> birthday. We're talking front suspension, the saddle nice and comfy,
> upright riding position, wide handlebars. A dream to ride. The brand she
> bought was on the recommendation of a co-worker. I had a chance to study
> it and I was very impressed with the quality of the aluminum welds, the
> design and all the goodies that were mounted on it. It was manufactured
> by a small company in Quebec and therefore Made In Canada. I felt proud.
>
> My stepdaughter (11) and my wife (18 years younger than I) love going
> out for a ride after supper now that the weather has been co-operating.
> They wanted me, the old guy, to join them. So Rob went shopping for a
> bike. Why not? The cortesone and the Naprosin are really helping my
> knees, not to mention dropping 35 pounds in weight. Some of that by
> diet, some of that by solid work-outs in my basement gym. (Supervised by
> my physiotherapist.)
>
> Without going into too much detail, I started reading
> rec.bicycles.marketplace, soc. and .repair and tried to glean as much
> info as possible, because I was buying my LAST bike.
>
> I learned that without exception all bikes are an assembly of parts from
> all over the planet. Wheels, tires, gear-sets, cranks, brakes,
> shifters..all seem to come from a few manufacturers and everybody uses
> them. It basically comes down to the feature-set and the
> geometry/paint-job/brand-name of the frame.
>
> My research led me to a company called TREK. Highly promoted by the fact
> that American hero Lance Armstrong rides a TREK in the Tour De France.
> However, in my $ 500.00 dollar range, I could also buy a TREK, with NONE
> of the features of Lance's $ 5000.00 carbon fibre/unobtanium bike (So
> WHERE TF is the connection???) I took one of the $500.00 ones for a
> ride. Nice. Same front forks as my wife's. Same shifters and deraileurs
> as my wife's... same everything 'cept a different brand of tires and
> saddle. Both had aluminum welded frames of similar geometry.
> The TREK made in China was $ 50.00 more.
> My new MIELE Siena L-2 made in Canada became my new bike.
>
> The typical corporate bullshit. US corporation leaning on the success of
> an American sports hero (and I hope he wins #7) to sell an off-shore
> inferior bike for the same money as a quality North-American built
> product..... just because of the brand name. It's bloody extortion!
>
> PS.. the TIG welds didn't look as nice on the China TREK as they did on
> my home-brew.

Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:design-66D48F.23085004062005
@news.bellglobal.com:

<snip>
> The TREK made in China was $ 50.00 more.
> My new MIELE Siena L-2 made in Canada became my new bike.
>
> The typical corporate bullshit. US corporation leaning on the success of
> an American sports hero (and I hope he wins #7) to sell an off-shore
> inferior bike for the same money as a quality North-American built
> product..... just because of the brand name. It's bloody extortion!
>
> PS.. the TIG welds didn't look as nice on the China TREK as they did on
> my home-brew.

Marketing costs something. Sponsorships are not free. Pull through has a
price. Is there value in brand?

Freud or FS Tools table saw blades? Same thing in a different market. My
sharpening guru tells me that the FS Tools blades are better in every way.
The three I have purchased seem to bear that out. 30% less cash, more
customization, local dealer, nationwide distribution. Keeter uses them,
too, but I didn't know that before I bought the first two.

Is it easier to sell a name brand solid surface material? Or are you, the
'retailer', the chief influencer of the materials decision, and the real
product is the service/installation/materials? Did you buy a bike? Or a
dealer, who supplied you with a bike? Where is the value creation for you?

In a strange town, where will you stop for breakfast? Does brand matter?

Patriarch

Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 19:14:19 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> A posting of a story about bugs in wooden goods that originated in
> China.
>
>
>
>
> It is always damned fascinating to me how "thread drift" occurs but
> I've seldom seen it happen without at least one reference to the
> content of the original post.
>
> I guess I should know by now that the OP is nothing more than a
> catalyst for the ensuing discussion and can only hope that he will not
> be consumed in the reaction.
>

Would a comment on Asian crabs infesting SF Bay waters be bringing the
thread back to its original starting point?

Or would it be more appropriate to start a discussion on the laws of
unintended consequences?

Patriarch,
more an economist than a philosopher...

Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> For those who want to take a read with an open mind about nuclear
> energy. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html
>
Dear John McCarthy:

I'm in favor of nuclear energy. But you're looking at the problem from
a non-realistic, ivory tower point of view.

All you say is probably true, but the public has an exaggerated fear of
anything nuclear. That has to be taken into account.

The nuclear energy industry has done some really stupid things. The
Shoreham (LI) facility is just one example. If you're going to build a
reactor somewhere and require an evacuation plan, don't build a plant
there, then when the opposition to it has just about prevented it from
ever opening, you shouldn't activate it for even 1 second.

Operating a nuclear plant should be held to the highest standards. The
plain fact that coal mines don't is no argument. I repeat: If someone
else operates illegally, irresponsibly, or unethically does not permit
Indian Point to operate their plant(s) in the same manner.

If Entergy is able to refuel its plants in 2 weeks, where normally it
would take 2 months, I would put the new process under a magnifying
glass. If all is OK and fine - more power to them (pun intended). The
argument remains that safety is of paramount importance because of the
potential problems and dangers.

Now, if someone could come up with a use for the heat generated by
nuclear waste while it cools off, that'd be great. Breeding reactors
would be fine too (in about 50 years) if the dangers of plutonium could
be contained. Not only proliferation, but non-radioactive toxicity as
well.

John, you could probably highlight the dangers of nuclear energy better
than I can - I'm just a biochemist who occasionally uses low level
radioisotopes such as 14C and 32P.

Thanks for initiating a discussion.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

I'm not quite sure how Doug sniped Robatoy. He merely pointed out that
Robatoy's email address is in Canada, a point which I had missed.

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, "AL" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >I don't mean this as a knock against Canada but I've always wondered how
>> >buying a Canadian made bicycle, car (eg. 300, Pacifica, Magnum, Charger,
>> >Crown Victoria, Equinox, etc.) or tank (eg. Stryker) benefitted the US
>> >economy any more than buying something made in China.
>>
>> It doesn't. But if you look at Robatoy's email address
>> >
>> >"Robatoy" <[email protected]>
>>
>> you'll see that he lives in Canada, and presumably is concerned about
>> benefitting the Canadian economy.
>
> Considering that Canada is the USA's single largest trading partner via
> the AutoPAC and FTA, the Canadian economy largely (but not exclusively)
> depends on decisions made in Detroit, MI. I don't think my purchase had
> anything to do with the fact it was Canadian made. I would have been
> just as happy to have bought a USA-made bicycle. (which I did when I
> bought one for my oldest daughter when Schwinn was still making them in
> the USA)
> Had the Chinese TREK been 150- 100 dollars cheaper, I would have
> considered it.... probably bought it.
> My beef wasn't so much about the craftsmanship or country of origin, but
> with that outrageous price, considering the craftsmanship and country of
> origin.
>
> Doug, I won't consider your observation about my being Canadian as a
> snipe, because you obviously don't know anything about me.
> Had you known anything about me, you would have questioned why I didn't
> buy a bike from The Netherlands where I was born and raised and finished
> highschool. BTW.. the Dutch know a few things about bicycles *G*
>
> Just to drive the point home, I was admiring the condition and accuracy
> of my old Porter Cable VersaPlaner(126) just yesterday. I have never
> parted with that tool, not because it is all that functional/useful but
> I like it. On it is a sticker that says: "Proudly Made In The USA"
> It put a smile on my face.
> A small company near here makes some nice compressors, but the one I
> bought came from St.Louis MO.
> Hell, my SISTER and my favourite and only nieces and nephew are
> American, that ought to account for something??
> The minister that married my wife and I flew in from Missouri.
> The rest of the wedding party included US Airforce (ret) from Boston,
> Royal Canadian Navy, 2 Nam vets.
>
> One thing I can never be accused of, is that I play the nationalistic
> card. You know why?
> In my experience, there are, percentage-wise, per capita, as many
> assholes on either side of this virtually non-existent border.
> And that wasn't a snipe at you either, Doug.

In article <[email protected]>, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Perhaps using nuclear rockets? An Orion could put quite a lot of nuclear
>waste into the sun in a single go <eg>.

There's still the orbital mechanics issue. It's a lot easier to eject it from
the solar system than to shoot it into the sun.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Hello,

>> Which does what? The guys who retire from NR already go into reactor
>> operation and who else do you have that is going to be any more capable
>> than your average civilian?
> I was just looking for a job for the warriors who won't be needed in
> times of world piece. Can't fight really big wars without fuel.
> Besides, there will be virtually zero terrorists as there will be fewer
> people pissed at having been invaded for their resources... because
> they'll be all out of resources.

Yeha right: I can see the conversation going like that:
US (280M people): Well, that's it, we have used all your ressources, but
now, they are no more of it, so let us all be friends and return home.
others (China, 1.3B peoples, Affirca/Middle east, 1B peoples): Yeha right,
you mean, you came here, took everything and now you are leaving us after
you've ripped the benefits! you are dead meat!

because, let us be realistic, in Warcraft, the guy who has gathered the most
ressources when they run out usually wins the game because you can not get
anything without them... in real life a whole lot of motivated little guys
(over 2B of them) will eat alive 280 fatys watching a beeped out jerry
springer while sittinng on their couch....


regards, cyrille

Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote in news:design-867337.22255006062005
@nr-tor01.bellnexxia.net:

> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

With the startling increase in the number of cases of Autism, there's
renewed interest in Mercury contamination.

I personally find the amount of Mercury that comes from coal-fired plants
objectionable and would prefer alternative energy sources.

I'm more than willing to entertain a discussion on revitalizing our nuclear
plants. But as one who remembers TMI very well, I'm damned motivated to
ensure proper oversight of the General Contractor and Operator.

Robatoy wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snippification of Inquirer article.]
>
>> © 2005 Philadelphia Inquirer and wire service sources. All Rights
>> Reserved.
>>
> Thanks for that article, Tom. *still shaking my head*
>
> There are times when I reach a point that I can't see past the corporate
> greed of some companies.
>
> I had the opportunity to compare some hybrid bicycles. I hadn't owned a
> bicycle for some time. I did ride my oldest daughter's bike a bit, but
> that saddle was giving me an involuntary prostrate exam.
>
> My wife received a nice comfortable bike from my parents for her
> birthday. We're talking front suspension, the saddle nice and comfy,
> upright riding position, wide handlebars. A dream to ride. The brand she
> bought was on the recommendation of a co-worker. I had a chance to study
> it and I was very impressed with the quality of the aluminum welds, the
> design and all the goodies that were mounted on it. It was manufactured
> by a small company in Quebec and therefore Made In Canada. I felt proud.
>
> My stepdaughter (11) and my wife (18 years younger than I) love going
> out for a ride after supper now that the weather has been co-operating.
> They wanted me, the old guy, to join them. So Rob went shopping for a
> bike. Why not? The cortesone and the Naprosin are really helping my
> knees, not to mention dropping 35 pounds in weight. Some of that by
> diet, some of that by solid work-outs in my basement gym. (Supervised by
> my physiotherapist.)
>
> Without going into too much detail, I started reading
> rec.bicycles.marketplace, soc. and .repair and tried to glean as much
> info as possible, because I was buying my LAST bike.
>
> I learned that without exception all bikes are an assembly of parts from
> all over the planet. Wheels, tires, gear-sets, cranks, brakes,
> shifters..all seem to come from a few manufacturers and everybody uses
> them. It basically comes down to the feature-set and the
> geometry/paint-job/brand-name of the frame.
>
> My research led me to a company called TREK. Highly promoted by the fact
> that American hero Lance Armstrong rides a TREK in the Tour De France.
> However, in my $ 500.00 dollar range, I could also buy a TREK, with NONE
> of the features of Lance's $ 5000.00 carbon fibre/unobtanium bike (So
> WHERE TF is the connection???) I took one of the $500.00 ones for a
> ride. Nice. Same front forks as my wife's. Same shifters and deraileurs
> as my wife's... same everything 'cept a different brand of tires and
> saddle. Both had aluminum welded frames of similar geometry.
> The TREK made in China was $ 50.00 more.
> My new MIELE Siena L-2 made in Canada became my new bike.
>
> The typical corporate bullshit. US corporation leaning on the success of
> an American sports hero (and I hope he wins #7) to sell an off-shore
> inferior bike for the same money as a quality North-American built
> product..... just because of the brand name. It's bloody extortion!
>
> PS.. the TIG welds didn't look as nice on the China TREK as they did on
> my home-brew.

Couple of comments here--first Trek is a well established bicycle
manufacturer which had a solid reputation long before anybody had ever
heard of Lance Armstrong. Second, I suspect that far more Chinese ride
bicycles than do Americans and for many of the ones who do it's
transportation and not recreation. So I would not assume that a Chinese
made bicycle, especially one that Trek puts their label on, was of inferior
quality any more than I would assume that a Chinese-made wok was of
inferior quality to an American-made one. As for the welds looking rough,
better a rough weld that doesn't break than a smooth one that does--unless
there are obvious voids you can't tell how good a weld is by looking at it
through a coat of paint.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"George" <george@least> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I don't think I quite agree with you here, either. While a neat-looking
>> weld
>> is not necessarily a solid weld, it's reasonable to suppose that a
>> sloppy-looking weld may also be a sloppily *made* weld.
>>
>
> I thought welding was like solder - bigger the glob the better the job....

Don't want you soldering my wires!

--
Nahmie
The greatest headaches are those we cause ourselves.

> Only way to get people to think about it is to keep talking
> until something gets through.
>
Sort of how I feel about my trying to get the word out about peak oil.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/7203633?rnd=1117225753984&has-player=false

"Han" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
> Dear John McCarthy:
>
> I'm in favor of nuclear energy. But you're looking at the problem from
> a non-realistic, ivory tower point of view.


Han, you are much too kind! I am amazed at how a deluge of "facts" can be
used to support one's (political/religious) biases. His reasoning is scary!
I'm not against nuclear power--I know that is what is going to happen, but,
well, let's just say I wouldn't want him to be in charge--of anything.

I try to avoid posting off-topic subjects on the wRECk so, no more.

-Doug
(Robatoy--thanks for the link. It is always good to consider a different
point of view.)

Robatoy wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >And while I'm at it, outlaw or tax the bejeezus out of all privately
>> >owned vehicles over 2500 pounds with engines bigger than 2 litres.
>>
>> You're gonna look kinda strange hauling plywood with a Honda Civic... and
>> I think I'll keep my Suburban for deer hunting, thank you very much.
>
> I had hoped that it would be reasonable to assume that trades people
> would be given somewhat larger vehicles. I was discussing the insanity
> that comes with filling parking lots with urban assault monstrosities to
> get a quart of milk, Doug. I also see no reason to drop a single child
> off at a school with a 3 tonne SUV driven by the same woman who is
> writing letters to the editor bitching and whining about the price of
> gas.

Simple fact--Americans like big cars. If we can't have big cars we'll take
big trucks. People don't drive SUVs because they want to drive SUVs, they
drive them because you can't get a full-sized station wagon anymore.

> A Suburban to go deer-hunting, albeit overkill, would be somewhat
> acceptable if that's all it was used for. Up here in Kanuckistan, you're
> not allowed to shoot deer from a moving vehicle, Doug.

No, but you have to get the deer _home_ in something. Of course deer are
small--think moose.

> (Nomex=ON) (I forgot who started that Nomex thing, I'm stealing it..and
> thanks)
>
> Drive something a little more responsible and walk a little further into
> the bush, or buy a Quad if you have problems with your knees/legs, like
> I do.

It's not walking in that is the problem, it's hauling out.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Robatoy wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "DouginUtah" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snipped for brevity]
>
>> I try to avoid posting off-topic subjects on the wRECk so, no more.
>
> You're right. It is OT. But often the feedback in the wRECk is of a much
> higher grade than the 'specialized' flamewars in other NG's.
> I will bow out of this thread as well.
>>
>> -Doug
>> (Robatoy--thanks for the link. It is always good to consider a different
>> point of view.)
>
> I try to point out that there is a lot of ground between the two points
> of view. Conserve on the fossil end, and get smarter on the nuke end.

And of course you're also planning to throttle down the Sun to just what we
need so that it doesn't run out of hydrogen sooner than it has to. Or is
that too long a time frame for you to be concerned about? And you
criticize others for thinking short term. Shame, shame.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Robatoy wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [ snippage]
>
>
>> but now that you mention it,
>> buying Chinese supports communism.
>
> Bingo. Glad to see somebody is awake.

Or perhaps it supports corruption of the Communist system by forcing them to
compete with capitalism?

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Robatoy wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snipperectomy]
>
>> Not only that, but it's just plain
>> spiffy.
>
> Its spiffiness becomes amplified when you bolt a couple of nuclear
> generators onto a new set of cross-country electrified high-speed double
> track railroads and get all them damned trucks and busses off the road.

Well, that gets you from New York to Los Angeles or wherever, but how do you
get from Miami to Seattle? It's not as simple as building a railroad--if
it were then the railroads would still be a high profit operation. For
long haul passenger service, over that distance, your train is going to
have to be going 400 or so MPH to compete with the airlines and then you're
still going to have to run it cheaper, which may be difficult considering
all the infrastructure you have to maintain. For freight, who cares how
fast it goes?

> That alone will be a huge step in the right direction.
> BTW.. build in some accountability in that new system, i.e. Do Not
> privatize it.

Huh? You're trusting the _government_?

> Staff the whole damn thing with military vets.

Which does what? The guys who retire from NR already go into reactor
operation and who else do you have that is going to be any more capable
than your average civilian?

> Efficient transportation running off of a clean power source.
>
> And while I'm at it, outlaw or tax the bejeezus out of all privately
> owned vehicles over 2500 pounds with engines bigger than 2 litres.

So your plumber or carpenter or whatever is going to have to make ten trips
in his Honda instead of one in the truck he uses now? How does that
benefit anybody? Or do you not consider ownership by a tradesman to be
"privately owned"?

Sorry, you're coming across as an idealist who hasn't really given his ideas
much thought.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Robatoy wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Simple fact--Americans like big cars. If we can't have big cars we'll
>> take big trucks.
>
> We know this. That is the root of the problem. It is irresponsible to be
> blowing that much of a finite resource for absolutely no reason other
> than the gratification of spoiled consumers. The feed that those
> monsters run on is going to run out.

The feed that mo-peds run on is also going to run out. So what? You think
that economizing is going to change that?

> I guess we'll leave that for our kids to worry about?

And you think that if everybody drives little bitty cars the oil won't ever
run out? Or do you favor leaving it to your kids' kids? How is that
better?

When the price of oil rises to such a level that something else is
economically preferable then we'll stop burning oil. So far it hasn't
happened.

> Just asking questions..Thassall..

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Robatoy wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> For openers, my 'idealistic' view is set in the future when there are no
> airlines to compete with, when fossil-fuel is priced through the roof
> or simply not available; planes don't compete.

By that time they'll all be burning hydrogen anyway. Can't build a scramjet
that runs on oil. You really think that the engineers of the world are so
limited in their abilities that they will be unable to build an aircraft
that runs on anything but fossil fuels?

> I also didn't confine my
> suggestion for a railroad to a single line.You, however, did.

Actually, you did--you said a two track railroad from coast to coast.

>> Well, that gets you from New York to Los Angeles or wherever, but how do
>> you
>> get from Miami to Seattle? It's not as simple as building a railroad--if
>> it were then the railroads would still be a high profit operation. For
>> long haul passenger service, over that distance, your train is going to
>> have to be going 400 or so MPH to compete with the airlines and then
>> you're still going to have to run it cheaper, which may be difficult
>> considering all the infrastructure you have to maintain.
>
>>For freight, who cares how
>> fast it goes?
> When stuff absolutely, positively has the get there....whenever.
> They will still want lettuce in New York City.

So? It has to be transported at high speed? It isn't transported at high
speed now now so why would it need to be in the future?

>> > That alone will be a huge step in the right direction.
>> > BTW.. build in some accountability in that new system, i.e. Do Not
>> > privatize it.
>>
>> Huh? You're trusting the _government_?
> Maybe the likes of Bechtel and Haliburton will be a better idea?
> oops...they ARE the government....now.

Why are the options the government, Bechtel, or Halliburton? Are they
running all the nuke plants now?

> There will have been some changes in the government by then.
> There will have been a revolution. The mobs get really pissy when they
> can't drive their SUV's

Why would "the mobs" be unable to drive their SUVs in your gloom and doom
future? It may come as a shock to you that automobiles run quite nicely on
a number of non-fossil fuels.

>> > Staff the whole damn thing with military vets.
>>
>> Which does what? The guys who retire from NR already go into reactor
>> operation and who else do you have that is going to be any more capable
>> than your average civilian?
> I was just looking for a job for the warriors who won't be needed in
> times of world piece.

Now let's see, the oil has run out, we can't run out SUVs, and there's going
to be no war as the world scrabbles over the pieces?

> Can't fight really big wars without fuel.

Tell that to Hannibal. The Romans lost 100,000 men in a single day at
Cannae--that's one fourth as many as the US lost in the whole of WWII. And
the Romans ended up winning that war.

And what makes you think that lack of oil will render the military devoid of
fuel?

> Besides, there will be virtually zero terrorists as there will be fewer
> people pissed at having been invaded for their resources... because
> they'll be all out of resources.

You really think that Osama Bin Laden is "pissed at having been invaded for
their resources"?

> I would hope that all those children who are now being left behind would
> have been trained properly by the new government.

Trained to do what?

>>
> [snip]
>>
>> So your plumber or carpenter or whatever is going to have to make ten
>> trips
>> in his Honda instead of one in the truck he uses now? How does that
>> benefit anybody? Or do you not consider ownership by a tradesman to be
>> "privately owned"?
>
> You just added some variables again. I would allow for trades to operate
> larger vehicles, of course. Your interpretation of my suggestion is
> silly. Perhaps some guidelines would exist for trade vehicles to be more
> efficient, hybrids of some sort.

Why? You are the one who worded it. Words have meaning. If you did not
mean what you wrote then you should have written what you meant.

>> Sorry, you're coming across as an idealist who hasn't really given his
>> ideas much thought.
>
> I'm only seeing the big picture.

Actually, you're not seeing the big picture. You're only seeing that the
oil is going to run out, which it is no matter what we do, and not seeing
that the result will simply be the adoption of a different portable fuel.
That will have ramifications--what they are will depend on what is adopted,
but I doubt that the world is just going to roll over and freeze to death
in the dark because they weren't smart enough to find an alternative energy
source.

> Others are better suited to nit-pick
> the whole process to crawl. Let's form a study group and discuss what
> colour to paint the railroad ties, eh?
>
> You really shouldn't take me, or yourself so seriously.

Why not? If you're joking you need to put in the occasional emoticon or
some other such indicator.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Scott Lurndal wrote:

> "George" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>"lgb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>
>>>
>>> And that's not even considering the waste disposal problem. All
>>> industry has such a good record at cleaning up after itself :-).
>>>
>>Probably would help if they had a place to put it.
>>
>>
>
> First off, the waste problem is greatly exagerated. Using reprocessing,
> the waste can be turned into useful reactor fuel. The problems with
> reprocessing are political, not technical.
>
> The waste is not really waste, anyway. It is a collection of isotopes,
> many of which are radioactive at various levels. Generally the level
> of radioactivity is inversely coorelated to the length of the half-life,
> i.e. isotopes with a longer half-life have relatively low radioactivity.
>
> After extracting the useful isotopes (cesium, etc for medical uses, et.
> al.),
> the remainder can be reprocessed into useful fuel. The quite small amount
> left after reprocessing can be easily sequestered in Yucca mountain or a
> salt mine in Kansas until mankind finds a use for it.
>
> Anyone who seriously believes that sequestration for 10000 years is
> required doesn't understand the progress of technology. Only 100
> years ago, there were no uses for Uranium, and Plutonium was basically
> unknown (being man-made :-), I fully expect that mankind will find uses
> for the remaining relatively low-level, long half-life waste long before
> 10000 years elapses, if nothing else, for low-power, long lasting RTG
> devices.
>
> It would be quite foolish to dispose of the waste in some fashion where
> we cannot get to it in the near future (as some wags have suggested
> shooting into the sun - a suggestion that also evidences a lack of
> understanding of orbital mechanics).

Perhaps using nuclear rockets? An Orion could put quite a lot of nuclear
waste into the sun in a single go <eg>.
>
> scott

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Robatoy wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> And of course you're also planning to throttle down the Sun to just what
>> we
>> need so that it doesn't run out of hydrogen sooner than it has to. Or is
>> that too long a time frame for you to be concerned about? And you
>> criticize others for thinking short term. Shame, shame.
>
> I am looking really hard to find the humour in this because you canNOT
> be serious.

There is no humor. It's going to run out of hydrogen eventually. But I
guess that that's so far in the future that you don't care what generation
gets saddled with the problem.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Todd Fatheree wrote:

> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> And of course you're also planning to throttle down the Sun to just
> what
>> >> we
>> >> need so that it doesn't run out of hydrogen sooner than it has to. Or
> is
>> >> that too long a time frame for you to be concerned about? And you
>> >> criticize others for thinking short term. Shame, shame.
>> >
>> > I am looking really hard to find the humour in this because you canNOT
>> > be serious.
>>
>> There is no humor. It's going to run out of hydrogen eventually. But I
>> guess that that's so far in the future that you don't care what
>> generation gets saddled with the problem.
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
>
> No problem. After the hydrogen is consumed, it will burn helium, for a
> while.

It's my understanding that stars go through the helium pretty fast. I would
also expect a change in output.

> The real problem will be when it becomes a red giant and expands
> to
> a size somewhat larger than the Earth's orbit. You'd better hope they've
> come out with SPF 1E+12 sun screen when that happens.

Yep.
>
> todd

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Cyrille de Brébisson wrote:

> Hello,
>
>>> Which does what? The guys who retire from NR already go into reactor
>>> operation and who else do you have that is going to be any more capable
>>> than your average civilian?
>> I was just looking for a job for the warriors who won't be needed in
>> times of world piece. Can't fight really big wars without fuel.
>> Besides, there will be virtually zero terrorists as there will be fewer
>> people pissed at having been invaded for their resources... because
>> they'll be all out of resources.
>
> Yeha right: I can see the conversation going like that:
> US (280M people): Well, that's it, we have used all your ressources, but
> now, they are no more of it, so let us all be friends and return home.
> others (China, 1.3B peoples, Affirca/Middle east, 1B peoples): Yeha right,
> you mean, you came here, took everything and now you are leaving us after
> you've ripped the benefits! you are dead meat!
>
> because, let us be realistic, in Warcraft, the guy who has gathered the
> most ressources when they run out usually wins the game because you can
> not get anything without them... in real life a whole lot of motivated
> little guys (over 2B of them) will eat alive 280 fatys watching a beeped
> out jerry springer while sittinng on their couch....

Uh, how they gonna get here? Planning an invasion against a weak nation
when you have a powerful navy is a huge job. Planning an invasion against
a strong nation when you have no navy to speak of is pretty much
impossible. Or would they invade Mexico first?

> regards, cyrille

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Robatoy wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> By that time they'll all be burning hydrogen anyway. Can't build a
>> scramjet
>> that runs on oil. You really think that the engineers of the world are
>> so limited in their abilities that they will be unable to build an
>> aircraft that runs on anything but fossil fuels?
>
> Take that blind optimism one step further and maybe anti-gravity will
> get us all out of this.

We don't know how to create anti-gravity, but we do know how to make engines
that run on hydrogen. The engine in your car can almost certainly be
converted, just as it can be converted to run on natural gas (call your gas
company and ask them how much it will cost to do the conversion--this is
everyday technology--most gas companies run their own vehicles on natural
gas). The only problem is where to get the hydrogen, and electrolysis
using nuclear power plants to supply the electricity will work fine.

> I prefer to do my speculating with parts and
> pieces we have today. They need to be fine tuned and developed.

Hydrogen is a part and piece we have today. There's no magic there. Any
senior mechanical engineering student should be able to cobble together a
hydrogen-powered vehicle if you give him enough budget or access to a good
enough junk pile. You can fine tune and develop all you want to but the oil
will still run out. There is a finite amount of it and if any more is
being created it is being created at a very, very slow rate, slow enough
that lubricant for bicycle chains would probably use it up eventually if we
all quit using it for anything else.

> If you see nothing wrong with squandering resources, finite as they may
> be, than you're part of the problem.

If you think that finite resources can be made to last for all time by
economizing then you are the one who is part of the problem. The solution
is not to economize, the solution is to find ways to do whatever we want to
do without having those resources available.

> Wishfully thinking that we'll
> engineer our way out of whatever problem we create for ourselves is
> irresponsible in my book.

Wishfully thinking that if we all make ourselves miserable the oil won't
ever run out is what is irresponsible.

> I'm not expecting you to agree.
>
> And you're right. I should have been more specific in my suggestion of a
> railroad 'coast to coast' by adding a few thousand details which may
> have explained in more detail of it is that makes up a railroad. I do
> believe that others may have had some idea that 'the rail road' could
> even include branch lines. My feeling is that you simply like to be
> contrary. Then again, I could be wrong.

The simple fact is that nobody wants to ride trains. Even if you build your
railroad it will be empty most of the time unless you give it huge
government subsidies and operate it at an immense loss, thereby essentially
providing free transportation at taxpayer expense.

Amtrak operates a high speed train based on the French TGV technology
between Boston and New York. I thought about riding it once and it turned
out that the fare was higher than any airline for the same trip. What
makes you think that your miracle train will be cheaper?

And you talk about hydrogen being impractical? We've had trains for more
than two centuries--we know trains--and trains don't work for us anymore.
Why do you have so much trouble with that notion?

Maybe economic conditions will change in such a way tha trains become
practical again. When that happens then trains will become popular again.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Upscale wrote:

> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > Makes me think of Babylon 5, the SciFi series. One episode was a
>> > million years in the future where someone was documenting our sun
>> > finally
> burning
>> > out.
>>
>> Off the top of my head, I think the number is closer to 2.5 billion
>> years.
>
> Actual estimation or the number of years in Babylon 5? In any event, I
> thought it was a pretty neat series. Sorry to see it end.

Actual estimation--depending on who you talk to it could be 5 billion to the
red giant stage. And at that stage if we haven't done something we're all
dead--Earth is going to be inside the sun at that point. So is Mars.

But that is so far off that most people think that it means "never".

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Morris Dovey wrote:

>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> By that time they'll all be burning hydrogen anyway. Can't build a
>> >> scramjet
>> >> that runs on oil. You really think that the engineers of the world
>> >> are so limited in their abilities that they will be unable to build an
>> >> aircraft that runs on anything but fossil fuels?
>> >
>> > Take that blind optimism one step further and maybe anti-gravity will
>> > get us all out of this.
>>
>> We don't know how to create anti-gravity, but we do know how to make
> engines
>> that run on hydrogen. The engine in your car can almost certainly be
>> converted, just as it can be converted to run on natural gas (call your
> gas
>> company and ask them how much it will cost to do the conversion--this is
>> everyday technology--most gas companies run their own vehicles on natural
>> gas). The only problem is where to get the hydrogen, and electrolysis
>> using nuclear power plants to supply the electricity will work fine.
>
> There's no technology involved in burning hydrogen - but /burning/ and
> /using/ hydrogen are two different things.
>
>> > I prefer to do my speculating with parts and
>> > pieces we have today. They need to be fine tuned and developed.
>>
>> Hydrogen is a part and piece we have today. There's no magic there. Any
>> senior mechanical engineering student should be able to cobble together a
>> hydrogen-powered vehicle if you give him enough budget or access to a
>> good enough junk pile. You can fine tune and develop all you want to but
>> the
> oil
>> will still run out. There is a finite amount of it and if any more is
>> being created it is being created at a very, very slow rate, slow enough
>> that lubricant for bicycle chains would probably use it up eventually if
> we
>> all quit using it for anything else.
>
> In as far as you've taken this, what you've said is absolutely true. I'll
> assume that you're aware that the hydrogen atom is the smallest - and that
> the hydrogen molecule (H2) is /so/ small that it can pass through the wall
> of a tank made of nearly any material.

Wrong. It can pass through many materials, but it cannot pass through
"nearly any material". NASA seems to have little trouble storing it. All
of this was addressed in the '60s in the Centaur project.
>
> The challenge is not to build a hydrogen-fueled engine. The first
> challenge is to build a safe gas tank and a safe gas station.

I believe that I mentioned that storage was the issue with hydrogen, not the
engine itself. However it is not nearly as dangerous as you make it out to
be. Gasoline goes bang quite nicely you know and yet we seem to be able to
live with it. Natural gas too. And hydrogen from a ruptured tank is soon
gone--it doesn't sit there in a pool on the ground and burn.

> I'll also assume that you've had enough high school chemistry to know that
> the hydrogen ion is "hungry" (chemically active). It "strongly prefers" to
> bond with other elements. To produce hydrogen fuel, those bonds need to be
> broken and the hydrogen isolated.> Breaking the hydrogen bond will require
> *at least* as much energy as will be made available in any use of hydrogen
> as fuel.

Sigh. READ WHAT I WROTE. I believe that I mentioned something about
"electrolysis" and "nuclear reactors". Hydrogen is a transfer medium, not
a primary energy source, at least not chemically.

> What this means is that while hydrogen has potential as a means of storing
> and/or transporting energy today's physicists, chemists, and engineers are
> unable to develop hydrogen as a primary energy source.

Straw man. Nobody has suggested its use as a _primary_ energy source. The
_primary_ source would be the nuclear reactors of the kind that are in
daily use all over the world.

> To do that, we'll
> need a major scientific breakthrough. We may have that breakthrough with
> fuel cells - but that's not "for sure" yet.

Not with hydrogen. Fuel cells require molecular hydrogen. It may be that a
gasoline-air cell can be constructed that lets us build vehicles with the
same capabilities as current ones but twice or more the efficiency. That
means 100 MPG econoboxes and 30+ MPG SUVs.
>
>> > If you see nothing wrong with squandering resources, finite as they may
>> > be, than you're part of the problem.
>>
>> If you think that finite resources can be made to last for all time by
>> economizing then you are the one who is part of the problem. The
>> solution is not to economize, the solution is to find ways to do whatever
>> we want
> to
>> do without having those resources available.
>
> This last sentance is one of the best points of the entire thread. I'd
> like to suggest that the discussion should not be about who's right or
> wrong (or about /who/ at all), but about what works and what doesn't.
> There are both long-term and short-term aspects to this problem. Fitting
> all the pieces of the problem on a time line would be hugely constructive
> - and would of itself be a significant undertaking. Bickering over
> randomly selected pieces doesn't seem to be moving us toward solutions...
>
>> > Wishfully thinking that we'll
>> > engineer our way out of whatever problem we create for ourselves is
>> > irresponsible in my book.
>>
>> Wishfully thinking that if we all make ourselves miserable the oil won't
>> ever run out is what is irresponsible.
>
> Well, we'll either have to design a solution, accidentally trip over a
> solution, or do without a solution. My own opinion is that it'll probably
> work best to be optimistic and at least attempt to design a solution. By
> so doing, if we fail we'll at least maximize our chances to recognize a
> solution if we accidentally trip over it - and it might not be too early
> to begin serious thought about the third possibility...

When there is money to be made from a "solution" then there will be a
solution. There are numerous possibilities, but so far none of them seem
to present any kind of major market. When the price of current fuels is
such that it costs less to use some other fuel then some other fuel will
become commercially significant.
>>
>> > I'm not expecting you to agree.
>> >
>> > And you're right. I should have been more specific in my suggestion of
>> > a railroad 'coast to coast' by adding a few thousand details which may
>> > have explained in more detail of it is that makes up a railroad. I do
>> > believe that others may have had some idea that 'the rail road' could
>> > even include branch lines. My feeling is that you simply like to be
>> > contrary. Then again, I could be wrong.
>>
>> The simple fact is that nobody wants to ride trains. Even if you build
> your
>> railroad it will be empty most of the time unless you give it huge
>> government subsidies and operate it at an immense loss, thereby
> essentially
>> providing free transportation at taxpayer expense.
>
> I'd rather travel by transporter beam if I'm in a hurry, or by sailboat if
> I'm not. (-:
>
> I don't mind riding in trains - so your "simple fact" isn't quite as
> simple and absolute as you claimed.

Some people do prefer trains. They are not in the mainstream in the US.
>
> We've done rail transport rather badly in the USA.

Mainly because we found other alternatives.

> The industry fell
> victim first to bad management; and then to overregulation by a
> legislature who had no understanding of the problems and which was fed
> misinformation (and campaign funding) by special interest groups who
> weren't terribly concerned about the well being of either railroads or the
> country.
>
> Young people should understand that this behavior is not a new problem.
> The story of the passing of Philadelphia's street car lines amounts to an
> encapsulation of what happened to the entire rail industry, except that
> labor unions played a very much more prominant role in the national story.
>
> What remains should be considered "on life support". This life support is
> terribly expensive - and I think the only reason the plug hasn't been
> pulled is that a few key knowledgable folks know that at some point we're
> going to need to re-awaken the patient and coax it back to health.

My uncle was engineer on the Silver Meteor back when he was more likely to
be fired for being late than for derailing the train trying to make the
schedule. My father's best friends were a couple of gandy dancers. The
reason the "plug" hasn't been "pulled" is that the _freight_ operations are
still doing well, it is the _passenger_ operations that are moribund and
the reason they are moribund is that nobody wants to take two days on the
train when for less money he can take two hours in a plane.

>> Amtrak operates a high speed train based on the French TGV technology
>> between Boston and New York. I thought about riding it once and it
>> turned
>> out that the fare was higher than any airline for the same trip. What
>> makes you think that your miracle train will be cheaper?
>
> Why should it be cheaper? In France the TGV costs more to ride than do the
> other trains. The TGV (Train à Grande Vitesse or "high-speed train" to the
> French, "Train Goes Voom!" to us) is especially clean, comfortable, safe,
> and breathtakingly fast (and only stops at major cities.) Their other
> trains seemed safe and reliable but not quite as spiffy and seemed to stop
> at every town - and they cost less per km to ride than the TGV.

If it is going to compete with the airlines it must either be cheaper or
faster or both. It is neither. So why will anyone ride your miracle train
if it costs more to ride it than to fly?

>> And you talk about hydrogen being impractical? We've had trains for more
>> than two centuries--we know trains--and trains don't work for us anymore.
>> Why do you have so much trouble with that notion?
>>
>> Maybe economic conditions will change in such a way tha trains become
>> practical again. When that happens then trains will become popular
>> again.
>
> Passenger trains don't work for us any more because we stopped allowing
> them to work for us.

Nope, they don't work for us because for short runs you have to live where
the train goes instead of where you want to live and for long runs they
cost more and are slower than the alternative.

> If our need becomes sufficient, we have the option of
> allowing them to work for us again - but it'll be expensive to restore all
> of that infrastructure and undo all of the special interest legislative
> damage.

What infrastructure? The tracks that carry freight just fine? The
infrastructure is there, it may need to be tuned up more than a little, but
it hasn't been dismantled.
>
> --
> Morris

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

bill stender wrote:

I started to give you a serious response, then I got to "but whether you
prefer it or not, the airplane and car will no longer be an option within
10 years." and realized that you were pulling your information out of your
ass.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article <[email protected]>,
"DouginUtah" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Only way to get people to think about it is to keep talking
> > until something gets through.
> >
> Sort of how I feel about my trying to get the word out about peak oil.
>
> http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/7203633?rnd=1117225753984&has-play
> er=false



Excellent read, thanks for that. I have always believed that the supply
of oil and the consumption thereof was like striking a match along a 200
year time line. A flash for 70+ years and then a dwindling ember.

I have always believed in clean, well-managed nuclear power. Not the
ideal solution, but a helluva lot better than second best.

I know quite a few people in the nuclear power industry, my daughter is
one, and the Long Emergency is often a topic of discussion.

Rob

LOL..... I had stopped reading RS since they screwed up the top 100
guitar player list.

In article <[email protected]>,
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:

> By that time they'll all be burning hydrogen anyway. Can't build a scramjet
> that runs on oil. You really think that the engineers of the world are so
> limited in their abilities that they will be unable to build an aircraft
> that runs on anything but fossil fuels?

Take that blind optimism one step further and maybe anti-gravity will
get us all out of this. I prefer to do my speculating with parts and
pieces we have today. They need to be fine tuned and developed.

If you see nothing wrong with squandering resources, finite as they may
be, than you're part of the problem. Wishfully thinking that we'll
engineer our way out of whatever problem we create for ourselves is
irresponsible in my book. I'm not expecting you to agree.

And you're right. I should have been more specific in my suggestion of a
railroad 'coast to coast' by adding a few thousand details which may
have explained in more detail of it is that makes up a railroad. I do
believe that others may have had some idea that 'the rail road' could
even include branch lines. My feeling is that you simply like to be
contrary. Then again, I could be wrong.

In article <m%[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:

> For as long as we've been using oil, the world's known oil reserves have been
> "enough to last only the next fifty years". That's because there's no
> economic
> incentive to go looking for more, when current known reserves are adequate to
> meet current and projected demand.

The price of oil exploration for oil has gone up recently as it now
includes the cost of regime changes as well... not to mention a few
bodies here and there.
The Oil Companies have figured out that campaign contributions are
cheaper than exploration in the traditional sense... You don't need CAD
to draw these conclusions. <G>

One thing they haven't learned yet, is to have the geologists install
their seismic instruments BEFORE they drop bunker-busters and MOABs.

But WAIT!!

I have said too much.

In article <[email protected]>,
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:


[snip]
> > If you see nothing wrong with squandering resources, finite as they may
> > be, than you're part of the problem.
>
> If you think that finite resources can be made to last for all time by
> economizing then you are the one who is part of the problem.

I love the way you sneak in little words like "last for 'all' time" when
I said/suggested nothing of the kind. If you're going to reply to me,
try to stick to what I said without you adding variables to the argument.
Try to focus, Mr. Clarke.

>The solution
> is not to economize, the solution is to find ways to do whatever we want to
> do without having those resources available.
>
> > Wishfully thinking that we'll
> > engineer our way out of whatever problem we create for ourselves is
> > irresponsible in my book.
>
> Wishfully thinking that if we all make ourselves miserable the oil won't
> ever run out is what is irresponsible.

And where do I say that? What's with you? Stop putting words in my mouth.
If you can't have an intelligent discussion without badgering, please
keep your sanctimonious crap to yourself.
>

>
> The simple fact is that nobody wants to ride trains.

(to use your technique:) All the trains are empty? All the Time?
The current passengers are there against their will? The Japanese and
European models don't work?

>Even if you build your
> railroad it will be empty most of the time unless you give it huge
> government subsidies and operate it at an immense loss, thereby essentially
> providing free transportation at taxpayer expense.

There isn't a penny of taxpayers money in airports or airlines? Or, for
that matter the roads servicing those airports?
>
> Amtrak operates a high speed train based on the French TGV technology
> between Boston and New York. I thought about riding it once and it turned
> out that the fare was higher than any airline for the same trip. What
> makes you think that your miracle train will be cheaper?

Where did I say that? When the prices of fuel keep going up, up, up,
the train will look better and better. The problem I am discussing is
likely to occur 20+ years down the road, a vision that you want to shoot
down by using today's examples. Besides, the fact the YOU decided not to
take the train, doesn't make it the choice of others, particularly when
you include models based on European and Japanese experience.
>
> And you talk about hydrogen being impractical? We've had trains for more
> than two centuries--we know trains--and trains don't work for us anymore.
> Why do you have so much trouble with that notion?

Take a close look at the above paragraph. I indeed don't think hydrogen
as a fuel will keep the price of airline tickets down. As soon as the
price of plane tickets go up, the train wins favour again.
I'm not having trouble with that notion. Your model, in your mind, is
based on the railroad's performance today. That model will lose its
balance as soon as it costs more to fly than to ride. That isn't far off.

There are other reasons, today, that people chose trains. If I want to
go to Toronto for business, I can fly or ride. If I fly, by the time I
park, check in, wait, board, wait, hope-the-hell the pilot is sober this
time around... it takes me as long as it takes me to take the train. The
difference is, I step off the train, I am downtown Toronto. When I land,
I still have 1/2 hour of major cab fare to get to downtown...oh darn,
traffic jam....... and I never get fogged in/delayed/de-iced. No
restrictions of my having a corkscrew in my pocket either. I can carry
as big a bag as I want. Use my cellphone as I please and order a drink
and some food.
>
> Maybe economic conditions will change in such a way tha trains become
> practical again. When that happens then trains will become popular again.

Now...was that so hard to agree on? Not so hard to see things my way, eh?

I knew you could.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote:

> If so, that $175 air fare is about to ratchet up to $275. It's still cheaper
> to fly - but it won't take many fare increases like that to make rail the
> less expensive option.

That juxtaposition will show up soon enough.... say at $75.00 per barrel?
A 3000 HP locomotive can move whole lot more stuff than 10- 300HP SUV's.
<G>

I envision a day where CNC routers will be manually operated.
A scroll with notes rolls by the eyes of the operator:
Left crank, three turns to the right
Right crank seven turns to the left

In article <[email protected]>, "George" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Exactly. A dear friend of mine lives in London, works in Toronto.
> > Her company is more than happy to fly her in for meetings, but she
> > prefers the train. She's there one hour earlier, and she works at a
> > comfortable table while en-route. When she comes back from Toronto,
> > she gets out in London, refreshed.
>
> What, no 16-inch, five wide seats with 11 inches of legroom and a tray table
> too close to do anything off of unless you were a thalidomide baby?

*WEG*.....I see you have flown Air Canada. Fun, eh?
Try TransfarethereAir...or whatever name they use this week to The
Dominican Republic... First Class means you get a chiropractor
straightening you out when you get there. The sound of knees and backs
un-popping upon deplaning was LOUD! It also gave me a better perspective
why so many ride on top of- and hang from the sides of the busses there
as well... same layout as the plane.
By the time I got to my destination, I could utter only one word:
"Rum".
"Ron?"..
"noooo... Rob..gimme RUM.."
"ron??"
(this went on for a while.)

I also learned how a drink called a Mojito improves projectile vomiting.

How did I get here? Is it the weekend already?

In article <[email protected]>,
"Cyrille de Brébisson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> > Its spiffiness becomes amplified when you bolt a couple of nuclear
> > generators onto a new set of cross-country electrified high-speed double
> > track railroads and get all them damned trucks and busses off the road.
> > That alone will be a huge step in the right direction.
> > BTW.. build in some accountability in that new system, i.e. Do Not
> > privatize it. Staff the whole damn thing with military vets.
> >
> > Efficient transportation running off of a clean power source.
> >
> > And while I'm at it, outlaw or tax the bejeezus out of all privately
> > owned vehicles over 2500 pounds with engines bigger than 2 litres.
>
> That might be a little bit stiff...
> my VW Jetta (hardly a large vehicul) is 2600 with 2.1 litre engine....
> you might want to turn the knob a little bit higher in order to include most
> cars and exlude most monstruosity (1/2 of the 6 cilinders and all the 8 and
> more...)...
>
> cyrille

Cyrille,

You get to keep the car, but are confined to a maximum of 10,000 km per
year. How is that? <G>
One of my daughters has a Diesel Jetta..I just love driving that thing.

In article <[email protected]>,
"George" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I would hope that all those children who are now being left behind would
> > have been trained properly by the new government.
> > >
>
> >
> > You really shouldn't take me, or yourself so seriously.
>
> The first sentence is scary.
>
It sure is scary. There are plenty of children left behind.
They're not all going to grow up to be upright citizens?
The 'Right or wrong, MY country' slogan carries only so much weight.

> I'm hoping you follow the second.
In most cases, I do. When it becomes obvious so many kids are falling
through the cracks, as well as other pressing issues, I find it harder
to look at the bright side.
The general tone of my posts in this thread were in reply to an link
DouginUtah posted.. that, in fact, resources are finite. The results of
which will bite us all in the collective, communal ass.

I sell and fabricate countertops made from petroleum products, some made
in Korea and China. In terms of tree-hugging, volvo-driving,
tofy-sucking ideology, I don't have a leg to stand on. That in itself is
no reason not to discuss the issues.

In article <[email protected]>,
"DouginUtah" <[email protected]> wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

> I try to avoid posting off-topic subjects on the wRECk so, no more.

You're right. It is OT. But often the feedback in the wRECk is of a much
higher grade than the 'specialized' flamewars in other NG's.
I will bow out of this thread as well.
>
> -Doug
> (Robatoy--thanks for the link. It is always good to consider a different
> point of view.)

I try to point out that there is a lot of ground between the two points
of view. Conserve on the fossil end, and get smarter on the nuke end.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Makes me think of Babylon 5, the SciFi series. One episode was a million
> > years in the future where someone was documenting our sun finally burning
> > out.
>
> Off the top of my head, I think the number is closer to 2.5 billion years.
>
> todd

*Pfew*!!! *wiping my brow*...2.5 Billion .. you had me worried it was
only a million!

*sigh of relief*


<G>

In article <[email protected]>,
"bill stender" <[email protected]> wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

Thank you, Bill. Not just because I happen to agree with all you stated,
but also because you got your views across without a haughty attitude.
Refreshing.

In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:

[snippification of Inquirer article.]

> © 2005 Philadelphia Inquirer and wire service sources. All Rights
> Reserved.
>
Thanks for that article, Tom. *still shaking my head*

There are times when I reach a point that I can't see past the corporate
greed of some companies.

I had the opportunity to compare some hybrid bicycles. I hadn't owned a
bicycle for some time. I did ride my oldest daughter's bike a bit, but
that saddle was giving me an involuntary prostrate exam.

My wife received a nice comfortable bike from my parents for her
birthday. We're talking front suspension, the saddle nice and comfy,
upright riding position, wide handlebars. A dream to ride. The brand she
bought was on the recommendation of a co-worker. I had a chance to study
it and I was very impressed with the quality of the aluminum welds, the
design and all the goodies that were mounted on it. It was manufactured
by a small company in Quebec and therefore Made In Canada. I felt proud.

My stepdaughter (11) and my wife (18 years younger than I) love going
out for a ride after supper now that the weather has been co-operating.
They wanted me, the old guy, to join them. So Rob went shopping for a
bike. Why not? The cortesone and the Naprosin are really helping my
knees, not to mention dropping 35 pounds in weight. Some of that by
diet, some of that by solid work-outs in my basement gym. (Supervised by
my physiotherapist.)

Without going into too much detail, I started reading
rec.bicycles.marketplace, soc. and .repair and tried to glean as much
info as possible, because I was buying my LAST bike.

I learned that without exception all bikes are an assembly of parts from
all over the planet. Wheels, tires, gear-sets, cranks, brakes,
shifters..all seem to come from a few manufacturers and everybody uses
them. It basically comes down to the feature-set and the
geometry/paint-job/brand-name of the frame.

My research led me to a company called TREK. Highly promoted by the fact
that American hero Lance Armstrong rides a TREK in the Tour De France.
However, in my $ 500.00 dollar range, I could also buy a TREK, with NONE
of the features of Lance's $ 5000.00 carbon fibre/unobtanium bike (So
WHERE TF is the connection???) I took one of the $500.00 ones for a
ride. Nice. Same front forks as my wife's. Same shifters and deraileurs
as my wife's... same everything 'cept a different brand of tires and
saddle. Both had aluminum welded frames of similar geometry.
The TREK made in China was $ 50.00 more.
My new MIELE Siena L-2 made in Canada became my new bike.

The typical corporate bullshit. US corporation leaning on the success of
an American sports hero (and I hope he wins #7) to sell an off-shore
inferior bike for the same money as a quality North-American built
product..... just because of the brand name. It's bloody extortion!

PS.. the TIG welds didn't look as nice on the China TREK as they did on
my home-brew.

In article <[email protected]>,
lgb <[email protected]> wrote:

> Fine. We'll bury the spent fuel rods in your backyard.

Naaaaaa.. Grind them into a slurry and pump it back into all the empty
oil wells. There's going to be some big ones available soon in the
Middle East.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Robatoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >A Suburban to go deer-hunting, albeit overkill, would be somewhat
> >acceptable if that's all it was used for. Up here in Kanuckistan, you're
> >not allowed to shoot deer from a moving vehicle, Doug.
>


> I don't know of any place where that *is* allowed.

I'm sorry, but I should have used a smileycon thinghy indicating my
attempt at humour. I could, in a pinch, actually visualize a 'Burb
blasting through the thicket with guns blazing, but I didn't really
think you would do that.

>I was talking about using
> the 'Burb to haul my hunting gear, and hopefully a dead deer or two, while
> keeping everything enclosed and locked up. Depending on where I'm hunting
> (private land vs. public) I'll walk between 800yd and 2mi to get to my
> hunting
> spot after I park.

Most of my friends are avid hunters. I get to eat lots of wild game. Had
some venison smoked sausage once, that I would like to have again. Damn
I like a good sausage. (That one had a bit of pork in it so it wouldn't
be too dry, I was told.)

For those who want to take a read with an open mind about nuclear energy.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

In article <[email protected]>, "George" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> > Its spiffiness becomes amplified when you bolt a couple of nuclear
> > generators onto a new set of cross-country electrified high-speed double
> > track railroads and get all them damned trucks and busses off the road.
>
> How you going to obtain right-of way? Don't say you're going to
>use the highway, because messing with the area for the public's cars
>won't get yo reelected.

Right Of Way?? Confiscate what you need.
In areas where DieBolt wants too much money to assure you an election
win, contract Bechtel to dig you a tunnel. Bechtel still has some
tunnelling gear sitting around Boston.

Oh ye of little faith. All you have to do it make it worth-while to the
right people. But FIRST we use up all the oil, we have to bring those
voters to their knees first. What good is an empty highway?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but am I being a tad cynical today?

In article <[email protected]>,
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:

For openers, my 'idealistic' view is set in the future when there are no
airlines to compete with, when fossil-fuel is priced through the roof
or simply not available; planes don't compete. I also didn't confine my
suggestion for a railroad to a single line.You, however, did.

> Well, that gets you from New York to Los Angeles or wherever, but how do you
> get from Miami to Seattle? It's not as simple as building a railroad--if
> it were then the railroads would still be a high profit operation. For
> long haul passenger service, over that distance, your train is going to
> have to be going 400 or so MPH to compete with the airlines and then you're
> still going to have to run it cheaper, which may be difficult considering
> all the infrastructure you have to maintain.

>For freight, who cares how
> fast it goes?
When stuff absolutely, positively has the get there....whenever.
They will still want lettuce in New York City.
>
> > That alone will be a huge step in the right direction.
> > BTW.. build in some accountability in that new system, i.e. Do Not
> > privatize it.
>
> Huh? You're trusting the _government_?
Maybe the likes of Bechtel and Haliburton will be a better idea?
oops...they ARE the government....now.

There will have been some changes in the government by then.
There will have been a revolution. The mobs get really pissy when they
can't drive their SUV's
>
> > Staff the whole damn thing with military vets.
>
> Which does what? The guys who retire from NR already go into reactor
> operation and who else do you have that is going to be any more capable
> than your average civilian?
I was just looking for a job for the warriors who won't be needed in
times of world piece. Can't fight really big wars without fuel.
Besides, there will be virtually zero terrorists as there will be fewer
people pissed at having been invaded for their resources... because
they'll be all out of resources.

I would hope that all those children who are now being left behind would
have been trained properly by the new government.
>
[snip]
>
> So your plumber or carpenter or whatever is going to have to make ten trips
> in his Honda instead of one in the truck he uses now? How does that
> benefit anybody? Or do you not consider ownership by a tradesman to be
> "privately owned"?

You just added some variables again. I would allow for trades to operate
larger vehicles, of course. Your interpretation of my suggestion is
silly. Perhaps some guidelines would exist for trade vehicles to be more
efficient, hybrids of some sort.
>
> Sorry, you're coming across as an idealist who hasn't really given his ideas
> much thought.

I'm only seeing the big picture. Others are better suited to nit-pick
the whole process to crawl. Let's form a study group and discuss what
colour to paint the railroad ties, eh?

You really shouldn't take me, or yourself so seriously.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, "AL" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I don't mean this as a knock against Canada but I've always wondered how
> >buying a Canadian made bicycle, car (eg. 300, Pacifica, Magnum, Charger,
> >Crown Victoria, Equinox, etc.) or tank (eg. Stryker) benefitted the US
> >economy any more than buying something made in China.
>
> It doesn't. But if you look at Robatoy's email address
> >
> >"Robatoy" <[email protected]>
>
> you'll see that he lives in Canada, and presumably is concerned about
> benefitting the Canadian economy.

Considering that Canada is the USA's single largest trading partner via
the AutoPAC and FTA, the Canadian economy largely (but not exclusively)
depends on decisions made in Detroit, MI. I don't think my purchase had
anything to do with the fact it was Canadian made. I would have been
just as happy to have bought a USA-made bicycle. (which I did when I
bought one for my oldest daughter when Schwinn was still making them in
the USA)
Had the Chinese TREK been 150- 100 dollars cheaper, I would have
considered it.... probably bought it.
My beef wasn't so much about the craftsmanship or country of origin, but
with that outrageous price, considering the craftsmanship and country of
origin.

Doug, I won't consider your observation about my being Canadian as a
snipe, because you obviously don't know anything about me.
Had you known anything about me, you would have questioned why I didn't
buy a bike from The Netherlands where I was born and raised and finished
highschool. BTW.. the Dutch know a few things about bicycles *G*

Just to drive the point home, I was admiring the condition and accuracy
of my old Porter Cable VersaPlaner(126) just yesterday. I have never
parted with that tool, not because it is all that functional/useful but
I like it. On it is a sticker that says: "Proudly Made In The USA"
It put a smile on my face.
A small company near here makes some nice compressors, but the one I
bought came from St.Louis MO.
Hell, my SISTER and my favourite and only nieces and nephew are
American, that ought to account for something??
The minister that married my wife and I flew in from Missouri.
The rest of the wedding party included US Airforce (ret) from Boston,
Royal Canadian Navy, 2 Nam vets.

One thing I can never be accused of, is that I play the nationalistic
card. You know why?
In my experience, there are, percentage-wise, per capita, as many
assholes on either side of this virtually non-existent border.
And that wasn't a snipe at you either, Doug.

In article <[email protected]>,
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:

> And of course you're also planning to throttle down the Sun to just what we
> need so that it doesn't run out of hydrogen sooner than it has to. Or is
> that too long a time frame for you to be concerned about? And you
> criticize others for thinking short term. Shame, shame.

I am looking really hard to find the humour in this because you canNOT
be serious.

(spoken)
The world today is absolutely cracked.
With nuclear bombs to blow us all sky high.
There's fools and idiots sitting on the trigger.
It's depressing, and it's senseless, and that's why...

(singing)
I like chinese,
I like chinese,
They only come up to you knees,
Yet they're always friendly and they're ready to to please.

I like chinese,
I like chinese,
There's nine hundred million of them in the world today,
You'd better learn to like them, that's what I say.

I like chinese,
I like chinese,
They come from a long way overseas,
But they're cute, and they're cuddly, and they're ready to please.

I like chinese food,
The waiters never are rude,
Think the many things they've done to impress,
There's maoism, taoism, eging and chess.

I like chinese,
I like chinese,
I like their tiny little trees,
Their zen, their ping-pong, their ying and yang-eze.

I like chinese thought,
The wisdom that Confusious taught,
If Darwin is anything to shout about,
The chinese will survive us all without any doubt.

So, I like chinese,
I like chinese,
They only come up to you knees,
Yet they're wise, and they're witty, and they're ready to please

Wo ai Zhong-guo ren [Wo, I chumba run]
Wo ai Zhong-guo ren
Wo ai Zhong-guo ren
Ni Hao Ma? Ni Hao Ma? Ni Hao Ma? Zai zhen [Ne hamma? ... Chi Chen]

I like chinese,
I like chinese,
They're food is guaranteed to please,
A fourteen, a seven, a nine and li-chese

I like chinese,
I like chinese,
I like their tiny little trees,
Their zen, their ping-pong, their yin and yang-eze

I like chinese,
I like chinese,
(fade out....)

In article <[email protected]>,
Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:

[ snippage]


> but now that you mention it,
> buying Chinese supports communism.

Bingo. Glad to see somebody is awake.

In article <[email protected]>,
Patrick Conroy <[email protected]> wrote:

> But as one who remembers TMI very well, I'm damned motivated to
> ensure proper oversight of the General Contractor and Operator.

Oh yeah. You said a mouthful there. TRUE bidding processes.

In article <100620051003557102%[email protected]>,
"G.E.R.R.Y." <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, J. Clarke
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > he can take two hours in a plane
>
> Nobody goes anywhere in "two hours in a plane". You need to tack on the
> time and the money it takes /at/ /both/ /ends/ to get to and from the
> airport, get parked/get to your vehicle or get cabs/limos, get through
> security, etc., etc., etc.
>
> For a very common trip as an example, from the *real* start to the
> finish, going from Aurora to Toronto to get a flight to Montreal will
> take nearly FIVE HOURS door-to-door although the actual flight is
> around 1 1/2hr. Hell, I can drive it in five hours or so and have my
> vehicle to use when I'm there.
>
Exactly. A dear friend of mine lives in London, works in Toronto.
Her company is more than happy to fly her in for meetings, but she
prefers the train. She's there one hour earlier, and she works at a
comfortable table while en-route. When she comes back from Toronto,
she gets out in London, refreshed.
When is the last time anybody ever got off a plane 'refreshed'?
When my wife holds or attends a seminar in Toronto...train.
Every time. It's the planes from here that empty...not the trains.
Then again, we aren't managed by Amtrak...*ducking*

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Robatoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >And while I'm at it, outlaw or tax the bejeezus out of all privately
> >owned vehicles over 2500 pounds with engines bigger than 2 litres.
>
> You're gonna look kinda strange hauling plywood with a Honda Civic... and I
> think I'll keep my Suburban for deer hunting, thank you very much.

I had hoped that it would be reasonable to assume that trades people
would be given somewhat larger vehicles. I was discussing the insanity
that comes with filling parking lots with urban assault monstrosities to
get a quart of milk, Doug. I also see no reason to drop a single child
off at a school with a 3 tonne SUV driven by the same woman who is
writing letters to the editor bitching and whining about the price of
gas.

A Suburban to go deer-hunting, albeit overkill, would be somewhat
acceptable if that's all it was used for. Up here in Kanuckistan, you're
not allowed to shoot deer from a moving vehicle, Doug.
(Nomex=ON) (I forgot who started that Nomex thing, I'm stealing it..and
thanks)

Drive something a little more responsible and walk a little further into
the bush, or buy a Quad if you have problems with your knees/legs, like
I do.
.

In article <[email protected]>,
Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:

[snipperectomy]

> Not only that, but it's just plain
> spiffy.

Its spiffiness becomes amplified when you bolt a couple of nuclear
generators onto a new set of cross-country electrified high-speed double
track railroads and get all them damned trucks and busses off the road.
That alone will be a huge step in the right direction.
BTW.. build in some accountability in that new system, i.e. Do Not
privatize it. Staff the whole damn thing with military vets.

Efficient transportation running off of a clean power source.

And while I'm at it, outlaw or tax the bejeezus out of all privately
owned vehicles over 2500 pounds with engines bigger than 2 litres.

In article <[email protected]>, "AL" <[email protected]>
wrote:

..and what part of:
> > Doug, I won't consider your observation about my being Canadian as a
> > snipe,
didn't you get, AL?

In article <[email protected]>,
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Simple fact--Americans like big cars. If we can't have big cars we'll take
> big trucks.

We know this. That is the root of the problem. It is irresponsible to be
blowing that much of a finite resource for absolutely no reason other
than the gratification of spoiled consumers. The feed that those
monsters run on is going to run out.

I guess we'll leave that for our kids to worry about?


Just asking questions..Thassall..

In article <[email protected]>,
Patriarch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Marketing costs something. Sponsorships are not free. Pull through has a
> price. Is there value in brand?

Considering that Ferrari won the bulk of the Formula 1 races in 2004 and
before, those victories sold a lot of Fiats which count amongst some
the worst cars made. Brands obviously does matter to the marketing.
To the quality? Obviously not.
>
> Freud or FS Tools table saw blades? Same thing in a different market. My
> sharpening guru tells me that the FS Tools blades are better in every way.
> The three I have purchased seem to bear that out. 30% less cash, more
> customization, local dealer, nationwide distribution. Keeter uses them,
> too, but I didn't know that before I bought the first two.

You chose that particular brand based on intelligent research and
trusted the experience of an expert. Performance came first, service
next and I don't know where to put price on this... but you probably
would be happy to pay a bit more?
>
> Is it easier to sell a name brand solid surface material? Or are you, the
> 'retailer', the chief influencer of the materials decision, and the real
> product is the service/installation/materials?

The brand names of solid surface products sometimes bring the customers
in. My reputation allows me to show them an equal product for far less
money, a savings which I pass on to the customer. My piece of the pie
doesn't change. I do not sell the Korean import for the same money as US
made DuPont Corian and pocket the extra. THAT is what turned me off the
TREK. In many cases I could do just that using my local reputation as
the way to do that. The bulk of my clients are referrals, so they buy a
bit of me. I sometimes get customers who tell me to talk to their
decorator about colour, "build it, send me the bill".. no
quotation/prices up front..just "do it". Fortunately for them, they can
do that with me.

> Did you buy a bike? Or a
> dealer, who supplied you with a bike? Where is the value creation for you?

The value was in the fact that the bike had all the features and quality
I wanted for the price I was willing to pay. The dealer means little in
this case as I am capable of maintaining my own bike, but the people
seemed more pleasant than the TREK dealer. The TREK also had all the
feature for the price..but I felt that (like my solid surface philosophy
in pricing) because it was Chinese-made, there should have been a better
price... if for no other reasons than cheaper labour and undervalued
currency, all of which are true.
But I know what you mean. It is often the whole package one should look
at. In this town I would NEVER buy a Ford product, yet my buddy loves
his Ford dealer and trucks 100 km from here.
>
> In a strange town, where will you stop for breakfast? Does brand matter?
>
Strange town or home-town I avoid ALL brand-hyped garbage. I am never so
hungry that I can't reach a grocery store and buy a bun and cheese.

A Wendy's salad, maybe. A Subway low-fat sub...sure... if need be.