Now here's a cool car

dgk wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:35:52 -0700, "Stewart" >
> wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >, Grumpy
>>> AuContraire > wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In article >, "Stewart"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Left wing socialist alert!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And to keep it on topic.....what type of Honda do you own?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nah, we socialists only drive Volvo 240s and read
>>> misc.transport.rail.americas.
>>>>> (To which I am still trying to figure out why this thread is
>>>>> posted).
>>>>>
>>>> What???
>>>>
>>>> No Prius or Smaht Kahs???
>>>
>>> Ha! Those are only driven by wanna-be socialists. Too much computer
>>> technology, and made by corporations. The most advanced technology
>>> allowed near the homes of true socialists are the products of the
>>> Soviet
>>> Diesel Computer Cooperative.
>>>
>>> --
>>> -Glennl
>>> Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail
>>> sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess.
>> I like the all electrics to reduce "carbon footprint". plug 'em in to
>> an outlet fed by coal burning power generation......
>>
>
> Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want
> to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad
> goal?

Nope, not a bad goal at all but... Any big advance in technology will
come from innovation from the private sector, not guv'ment mandate. It
always has and always will. Guv'ment is nothing but a giant
interference entity.


> Hopefully electric cars are part of the solution, and the electricity
> can be produced by a cleaner method than coal.

Sure, a hundred nuke plants would be a great intermediate solution until
new technologies can be developed. But no one wants such in "their"
backyard.

JT

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> dgk wrote:
>> Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want
>> to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad
>> goal?
>
> Nope, not a bad goal at all but... Any big advance in technology will
> come from innovation from the private sector, not guv'ment mandate. It
> always has and always will. Guv'ment is nothing but a giant
> interference entity.

It is OK to be grumpy, Grumpy, but the above is a half-truth. While
most of the big advances in technology do, as you say, come from the
private sector, many of those biggies were the result, direct or
indirect, of gov't funding. Networking and semiconductors and
computers come to mind. And, since this is a car-focused NG, let
me add that many of the advances under the hood are based on
computers or semiconductors; technologies that were, in turn,
greatly pushed by gov't funding.

Now it is my turn to be grumpy, by opining that -- at least in
the US -- the private non-pharma sector is so intently focused
on short-term ROI, that it is incapable of adequately funding
the long-term R&D needed to achieve those great leaps forward.
And that is why gov't funding, to the private sector and to
universities, can lead to real technological progress.

Admittedly, it is easy to find examples of gov't funding that
is wasteful and weird. But, in the large-cap end of the
private sector, spending that is wasteful and/or political is
also pretty common. Gov't folks do not have exclusive rights
to insanity or inanity.

{Caveat: in the first few and in the last few years of my
four-decade career in computer engineering, my paycheck was
dependent upon gov't contracts. Yes, *that* gov't.}

--
Cheers, Bob

On Apr 8, 10:49*pm, Grumpy AuContraire >
wrote:
> dgk wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:35:52 -0700, "Stewart" >
> > wrote:
>
> >> > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> In article >, Grumpy
> >>> AuContraire > wrote:
>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> In article >, "Stewart"
> >>>>> > wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Left wing socialist alert!
>
> >>>>>> And to keep it on topic.....what type of Honda do you own?
>
> >>>>> Nah, we socialists only drive Volvo 240s and read
> >>> misc.transport.rail.americas.
> >>>>> (To which I am still trying to figure out why this thread is
> >>>>> posted).
>
> >>>> What???
>
> >>>> No Prius or Smaht Kahs???
>
> >>> Ha! Those are only driven by wanna-be socialists. *Too much computer
> >>> technology, and made by corporations. *The most advanced technology
> >>> allowed near the homes of true socialists are the products of the
> >>> Soviet
> >>> Diesel Computer Cooperative.
>
> >>> --
> >>> -Glennl
> >>> Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail
> >>> sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess.
> >> I like the all electrics to reduce "carbon footprint". *plug 'em in to
> >> an outlet fed by coal burning power generation......
>
> > Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want
> > to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad
> > goal?
>
> Nope, not a bad goal at all but... *Any big advance in technology will
> come from innovation from the private sector, not guv'ment mandate. *It
> always has and always will. *Guv'ment is nothing but a giant
> interference entity.
>
> > Hopefully electric cars are part of the solution, and the electricity
> > can be produced by a cleaner method than coal.
>
> Sure, a hundred nuke plants would be a great intermediate solution until
> new technologies can be developed. *But no one wants such in "their"
> backyard.

Meh, I grew up with one in my backyard, or pretty close to it, and I
turned out just fine.

nate

Bob Willard wrote:
> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>> dgk wrote:
>>> Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want
>>> to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad
>>> goal?
>>
>> Nope, not a bad goal at all but... Any big advance in technology will
>> come from innovation from the private sector, not guv'ment mandate.
>> It always has and always will. Guv'ment is nothing but a giant
>> interference entity.
>
> It is OK to be grumpy, Grumpy, but the above is a half-truth. While
> most of the big advances in technology do, as you say, come from the
> private sector, many of those biggies were the result, direct or
> indirect, of gov't funding. Networking and semiconductors and
> computers come to mind. And, since this is a car-focused NG, let
> me add that many of the advances under the hood are based on
> computers or semiconductors; technologies that were, in turn,
> greatly pushed by gov't funding.

Really???

Seems to me that the transistor came out of Bell Labs.

Seems to me that the IC came out of Texas Instruments.


> Now it is my turn to be grumpy, by opining that -- at least in
> the US -- the private non-pharma sector is so intently focused
> on short-term ROI, that it is incapable of adequately funding
> the long-term R&D needed to achieve those great leaps forward.
> And that is why gov't funding, to the private sector and to
> universities, can lead to real technological progress.

Yes, I'll agree to this and in fact it is my point. Guv'ment has become
to great provider of corporate welfare and it is more important to
analyze why this became so.


> Admittedly, it is easy to find examples of gov't funding that
> is wasteful and weird. But, in the large-cap end of the
> private sector, spending that is wasteful and/or political is
> also pretty common. Gov't folks do not have exclusive rights
> to insanity or inanity.

Well, if you look at California, there's a perfect example on guv'ment
running amuck.


> {Caveat: in the first few and in the last few years of my
> four-decade career in computer engineering, my paycheck was
> dependent upon gov't contracts. Yes, *that* gov't.}

Ah... OK, you were/are a beneficiary!

JT

N8N wrote:
> On Apr 8, 10:49 pm, Grumpy AuContraire >
> wrote:
>> dgk wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:35:52 -0700, "Stewart" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> In article >, Grumpy
>>>>> AuContraire > wrote:
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> In article >, "Stewart"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Left wing socialist alert!
>>>>>>>> And to keep it on topic.....what type of Honda do you own?
>>>>>>> Nah, we socialists only drive Volvo 240s and read
>>>>> misc.transport.rail.americas.
>>>>>>> (To which I am still trying to figure out why this thread is
>>>>>>> posted).
>>>>>> What???
>>>>>> No Prius or Smaht Kahs???
>>>>> Ha! Those are only driven by wanna-be socialists. Too much computer
>>>>> technology, and made by corporations. The most advanced technology
>>>>> allowed near the homes of true socialists are the products of the
>>>>> Soviet
>>>>> Diesel Computer Cooperative.
>>>>> --
>>>>> -Glennl
>>>>> Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail
>>>>> sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess.
>>>> I like the all electrics to reduce "carbon footprint". plug 'em in to
>>>> an outlet fed by coal burning power generation......
>>> Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want
>>> to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad
>>> goal?
>> Nope, not a bad goal at all but... Any big advance in technology will
>> come from innovation from the private sector, not guv'ment mandate. It
>> always has and always will. Guv'ment is nothing but a giant
>> interference entity.
>>
>>> Hopefully electric cars are part of the solution, and the electricity
>>> can be produced by a cleaner method than coal.
>> Sure, a hundred nuke plants would be a great intermediate solution until
>> new technologies can be developed. But no one wants such in "their"
>> backyard.
>
> Meh, I grew up with one in my backyard, or pretty close to it, and I
> turned out just fine.
>
> nate


I would never advocate a path that would be unnecessarily risky but a
risk that is manageable. Nukes are just that and the only viable
interim solution to the nation's energy needs.

Continued dependence on foreign oil is folly at best and downright
dangerous regarding national security and economically as well.

If the private sector had the same freedom of movement regarding
innovation that it had forty or fifty years ago, we might well be
enjoying a new source of energy that meets the needs of consumers as
well as being environmentally friendly.

But I'll never see such at this point in time...

JT

On 4/11/10 10:25 AM, in article
, "Grumpy AuContraire"
> wrote:

> Bob Willard wrote:
>> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>> dgk wrote:
>>>> Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want
>>>> to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad
>>>> goal?
>>>
>>> Nope, not a bad goal at all but... Any big advance in technology will
>>> come from innovation from the private sector, not guv'ment mandate.
>>> It always has and always will. Guv'ment is nothing but a giant
>>> interference entity.
>>
>> It is OK to be grumpy, Grumpy, but the above is a half-truth. While
>> most of the big advances in technology do, as you say, come from the
>> private sector, many of those biggies were the result, direct or
>> indirect, of gov't funding. Networking and semiconductors and
>> computers come to mind. And, since this is a car-focused NG, let
>> me add that many of the advances under the hood are based on
>> computers or semiconductors; technologies that were, in turn,
>> greatly pushed by gov't funding.
>
> Really???
>
> Seems to me that the transistor came out of Bell Labs.

To be totally correct about it, Bell labs invented the transistor,
Geophysical Systems Inc. bought the rights to manufacture it from Bell labs
and renamed the company from GSI to Texas Instruments. Now, whether or not
Bell labs did the research with Govt. investment is a whole other question.

>
> Seems to me that the IC came out of Texas Instruments.
>

True. Jack Kilby has a Nobel prize for it.

>
>> Now it is my turn to be grumpy, by opining that -- at least in
>> the US -- the private non-pharma sector is so intently focused
>> on short-term ROI, that it is incapable of adequately funding
>> the long-term R&D needed to achieve those great leaps forward.
>> And that is why gov't funding, to the private sector and to
>> universities, can lead to real technological progress.
>
> Yes, I'll agree to this and in fact it is my point. Guv'ment has become
> to great provider of corporate welfare and it is more important to
> analyze why this became so.
>
>
>> Admittedly, it is easy to find examples of gov't funding that
>> is wasteful and weird. But, in the large-cap end of the
>> private sector, spending that is wasteful and/or political is
>> also pretty common. Gov't folks do not have exclusive rights
>> to insanity or inanity.
>
> Well, if you look at California, there's a perfect example on guv'ment
> running amuck.
>
>
>> {Caveat: in the first few and in the last few years of my
>> four-decade career in computer engineering, my paycheck was
>> dependent upon gov't contracts. Yes, *that* gov't.}
>
> Ah... OK, you were/are a beneficiary!
>
> JT

E. Meyer wrote:
> On 4/11/10 10:25 AM, in article
> , "Grumpy AuContraire"
> > wrote:
>
>> Bob Willard wrote:
>>> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>>> dgk wrote:
>>>>> Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want
>>>>> to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad
>>>>> goal?
>>>> Nope, not a bad goal at all but... Any big advance in technology will
>>>> come from innovation from the private sector, not guv'ment mandate.
>>>> It always has and always will. Guv'ment is nothing but a giant
>>>> interference entity.
>>> It is OK to be grumpy, Grumpy, but the above is a half-truth. While
>>> most of the big advances in technology do, as you say, come from the
>>> private sector, many of those biggies were the result, direct or
>>> indirect, of gov't funding. Networking and semiconductors and
>>> computers come to mind. And, since this is a car-focused NG, let
>>> me add that many of the advances under the hood are based on
>>> computers or semiconductors; technologies that were, in turn,
>>> greatly pushed by gov't funding.
>> Really???
>>
>> Seems to me that the transistor came out of Bell Labs.
>
> To be totally correct about it, Bell labs invented the transistor,
> Geophysical Systems Inc. bought the rights to manufacture it from Bell labs
> and renamed the company from GSI to Texas Instruments. Now, whether or not
> Bell labs did the research with Govt. investment is a whole other question.

Good point.

Back a zillion or so years ago, I did a couple of contracts for the
technical support (sub)contractor for the Safeguard R&D program on
Kwajalein. The project management was by Bell Labs and later I learned
that they were told that they had to do this because they were the only
entity that was capable of such a complex program.

Imagine that... The guv'ment actually telling a business entity that
they had to take a contract! And, it was up to Bell Labs to succeed
with a minimum of interference which certainly is not the case today.

The plus side is that since AT&T was in charge, benefits were good even
for us lowly subcontractors...

JT

In article >,
dgk > wrote:
>
>Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want
>to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad
>goal?

That's not a goal at all. Taken one way, it's an unsatisfiable set of
constraints. Taken another way, it's an ambiguous one.

If you want to both "BEST deliver people where they want to go", and
"deliver people where they want to go with the least harmful impact on
the environment", it's unsatisfiable. If you want to balance delivery
with impact on the environment, it's ambiguous.

>Hopefully electric cars are part of the solution, and the electricity
>can be produced by a cleaner method than coal.

Not likely. In the US, a state court just ruled that a nuke
supplying 30% of the power to New York City has to shut down because
its water output is too hot. Now, it's possible to produce
electricity with a minimum of conventional pollutants, and it's even
possible to produce it with a minimum of CO2 (with a nuke). But you
can't produce electricity without heat. The standards are
impossible.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:52:10 -0500,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article >,
>dgk > wrote:
>>
>>Right, but the question is how to best deliver people where they want
>>to go with the least harmful impact on the environment. Is that a bad
>>goal?
>
>That's not a goal at all. Taken one way, it's an unsatisfiable set of
>constraints. Taken another way, it's an ambiguous one.
>
>If you want to both "BEST deliver people where they want to go", and
>"deliver people where they want to go with the least harmful impact on
>the environment", it's unsatisfiable. If you want to balance delivery
>with impact on the environment, it's ambiguous.
>
>>Hopefully electric cars are part of the solution, and the electricity
>>can be produced by a cleaner method than coal.
>
>Not likely. In the US, a state court just ruled that a nuke
>supplying 30% of the power to New York City has to shut down because
>its water output is too hot. Now, it's possible to produce
>electricity with a minimum of conventional pollutants, and it's even
>possible to produce it with a minimum of CO2 (with a nuke). But you
>can't produce electricity without heat. The standards are
>impossible.


So what's your option? Kill all the fish by boiling them in the case
of your NY reactor.

In article >,
dgk > wrote:

> So what's your option? Kill all the fish by boiling them in the case
> of your NY reactor.

The water doesn't come out even close to boiling temperature.

Con Ed wanted to put in cooling towers when the plant was built in the
60's (Units 2 and 3), but Riverkeeper opposed them because they'd spoil
the view (not like Buchan's scenic - it's a ********)

In any case, NY's ruling affects virtually every power plant of any
type, in the state. I'd love to see the owners just pack up and leave -
IP going off line alone would make electric service in the area a
nightmare (it's 1/3rd NYC's generating capacity). There's a number of
other plants in the area of various sizes affected by this ruling, too.
Most owner/operators are national - they can just go elsewhere, and
nobody's proposing any new construction of useable size. Why bother,
when the state's attitude is to drive everyone out.