If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Now here's a cool car
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 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Now here's a cool car
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 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Now here's a cool car
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 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Now here's a cool car
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 |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Now here's a cool car
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Now here's a cool car
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. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Now here's a cool car
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Now here's a cool car
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cool | Tracy | VW air cooled | 4 | August 18th 08 11:37 AM |
99 SW - A/C not cool enough | Michal | Saturn | 0 | June 10th 05 03:22 AM |
This might be cool... | Shag | VW air cooled | 1 | May 19th 05 12:59 AM |
96 2.2 Dex cool or not? | Bob Urz | Technology | 6 | May 9th 05 03:07 AM |
this is cool | billybeer | VW air cooled | 0 | November 16th 04 02:01 PM |