OT: Environmentalists

[Tom Kunich]

Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is saying that
all we need to combat global warming is for every American family to be
taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For now.

Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the plate
and pay his share starting right now.

[Tim McNamara]

In article <tcudnTNvRtKV2dTVnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
> now.
>
> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
> plate and pay his share starting right now.

So, what, Tom, do you think we should "stay the course?" Did you have
some other planet to move to at some point? Or are you depending on
some miraculous divine intervention?

[Luke]

In article <tcudnTNvRtKV2dTVnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@earthlink.com>, Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:

> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is saying that
> all we need to combat global warming is for every American family to be
> taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For now.
>
> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the plate
> and pay his share starting right now.
>

Of course, the American Way is to buy a solution and charge the expense
to someone else. Regardless the free ride's over nda this time there's
no passing the buck.

[Bill Sornson]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For now.
>
> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
> plate and pay his share starting right now.

If not too busy doing this:

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#flourescent

[Tom Kunich]

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-EA9F32.14153506062008@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <tcudnTNvRtKV2dTVnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
>> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
>> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
>> now.
>>
>> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
>> plate and pay his share starting right now.
>
> So, what, Tom, do you think we should "stay the course?" Did you have
> some other planet to move to at some point? Or are you depending on
> some miraculous divine intervention?

If it weren't for man this planet would be a paradise.

[A Muzi]

>> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
>>> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
>>> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
>>> now.
>>> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
>>> plate and pay his share starting right now.

> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote
>> So, what, Tom, do you think we should "stay the course?" Did you have
>> some other planet to move to at some point? Or are you depending on
>> some miraculous divine intervention?

Tom Kunich wrote:
> If it weren't for man this planet would be a paradise.

Ah, "nature". You must mean bloody claw and fang.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org]

Tom Kunich wrote:

>>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
>>> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
>>> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
>>> now.

>>> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to
>>> the plate and pay his share starting right now.

>> So, what, Tom, do you think we should "stay the course?" Did you
>> have some other planet to move to at some point? Or are you
>> depending on some miraculous divine intervention?

> If it weren't for man this planet would be a paradise.

In that line, the earth has about 10x the human population than
support long term. For a view of the power humans have extracted from
fossils and blown away into earth atmosphere, this web site gives an
indication how much of the habitable land is under population stress.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011/earthlights_dmsp_big.jpg

Do-gooders are working hard to bring African population density up to
the brighter places on this map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_River_Basin

Jobst Brandt

[Bill Sornson]

Luke wrote:
> In article <tcudnTNvRtKV2dTVnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@earthlink.com>, Tom
> Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
>
>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
>> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
>> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
>> now.
>>
>> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
>> plate and pay his share starting right now.
>>
>
> Of course, the American Way is to buy a solution and charge the
> expense to someone else. Regardless the free ride's over nda this
> time there's no passing the buck.

Of course, you've got it completely wrong. China and India ain't playing
(paying), so even the US coughs up the $45 /trillion/ it won't solve a
thing. (Except to cripple the US economy, of course, which is the REAL
agenda in play.)

HTH (BKIW)

[DI]

"Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:070620080948330912%lucasiragusa@rogers.com...
> In article <tcudnTNvRtKV2dTVnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@earthlink.com>, Tom Kunich
> <cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
>
>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is saying
>> that
>> all we need to combat global warming is for every American family to be
>> taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For now.
>>

As soon as France pays off their WW2 war depts., that would probably be
$600,000 per person in France by now.

[Jay Beattie]

On Jun 7, 8:43*am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> Luke wrote:
> > In article <tcudnTNvRtKV2dTVnZ2dnUVZ_oLin...@earthlink.com>, Tom
> > Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
>
> >> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
> >> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
> >> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
> >> now.
>
> >> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
> >> plate and pay his share starting right now.
>
> > Of course, the American Way is to buy a solution and charge the
> > expense to someone else. Regardless the free ride's over nda this
> > time there's no passing the buck.
>
> Of course, you've got it completely wrong. *China and India ain't playing
> (paying), so even the US coughs up the $45 /trillion/ it won't solve a
> thing. *(Except to cripple the US economy, of course, which is the REAL
> agenda in play.)

Reliance on fossil fuels has crippled our economy. If we had reduced
our reliance on oil and petrochemicals fifty years ago, we would be
better off economically and environmentally. We need something like a
Manhattan Project to develop new energy technology -- which we could
do for under 45 trillion, maybe. Come up with a highly efficient
solar cell and license the technology to pay off the debt. Sure, this
would be government in the private sector -- but that worked fine for
the TVA and BPA and other energy production efforts. Investing in
infrastructure creates jobs and would also stimulate the economy --
more than a bogus $150 tax rebate. -- Jay Beattie.

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 08:43:09 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
wrote:

>Except to cripple the US economy, of course, which is the REAL
>agenda in play.)

Cripple? Ha.

[Luke]

In article <484aac7f$0$31727$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
<askme@ask.me> wrote:

> Luke wrote:
> > In article <tcudnTNvRtKV2dTVnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@earthlink.com>, Tom
> > Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
> >> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
> >> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
> >> now.
> >>
> >> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
> >> plate and pay his share starting right now.
> >>
> >
> > Of course, the American Way is to buy a solution and charge the
> > expense to someone else. Regardless the free ride's over nda this
> > time there's no passing the buck.
>
> Of course, you've got it completely wrong. China and India ain't playing
> (paying), so even the US coughs up the $45 /trillion/ it won't solve a
> thing. (Except to cripple the US economy, of course, which is the REAL
> agenda in play.)
>
> HTH (BKIW)

Why fault the "developing" world for flattering the West by imitation?
Really they're complimenting the Industrialized World by embracing the
same methods and sensibilities that served us so well as we embarked
down the road to prosperity.

That's their real crime: they're acting like us.



They want what we do; and are using our methods to get it. That it's
not feasible r
>
>

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
news:484aac7f$0$31727$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> Of course, you've got it completely wrong. China and India ain't playing
> (paying), so even the US coughs up the $45 /trillion/ it won't solve a
> thing. (Except to cripple the US economy, of course, which is the REAL
> agenda in play.)

OK Bill, no fair understanding what's really happening. You're supposed to
be as stupid as a Democrat.

[A Muzi]

>>Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
>>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
>>> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
>>> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
>>> now.
>>> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
>>> plate and pay his share starting right now.

> Luke wrote:
>> Of course, the American Way is to buy a solution and charge the
>> expense to someone else. Regardless the free ride's over nda this
>> time there's no passing the buck.

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Of course, you've got it completely wrong. China and India ain't playing
> (paying), so even the US coughs up the $45 /trillion/ it won't solve a
> thing. (Except to cripple the US economy, of course, which is the REAL
> agenda in play.)

True but trite. Would anyone argue against that? All of the putative
'improvement' is less than a volcano event or Siberian forest fires or
even smaller countries' emissions. It's simply a thumb in the eye of The
Great Satan and nothing more.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Bill Sornson]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Jun 7, 8:43 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>> Luke wrote:
>>> In article <tcudnTNvRtKV2dTVnZ2dnUVZ_oLin...@earthlink.com>, Tom
>>> Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
>>
>>>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
>>>> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
>>>> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
>>>> now.
>>
>>>> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to
>>>> the plate and pay his share starting right now.
>>
>>> Of course, the American Way is to buy a solution and charge the
>>> expense to someone else. Regardless the free ride's over nda this
>>> time there's no passing the buck.
>>
>> Of course, you've got it completely wrong. China and India ain't
>> playing (paying), so even the US coughs up the $45 /trillion/ it
>> won't solve a thing. (Except to cripple the US economy, of course,
>> which is the REAL agenda in play.)
>
> Reliance on fossil fuels has crippled our economy. If we had reduced
> our reliance on oil and petrochemicals fifty years ago, we would be
> better off economically and environmentally.

You left out the word "foreign", repeatedly. If the US had explored,
drilled, extracted, and refined its /own/ oil resources -- while also
looking to create/invent alternative technologies -- AND built clean, green
and safe nuclear plants -- then not only would our economy not be "crippled"
(which it's not now even with all the efforts to make it so), it would be
BOOMING. It's the only country on earth that's not using its own resources
to meet its needs for energy.

> We need something like a
> Manhattan Project to develop new energy technology -- which we could
> do for under 45 trillion, maybe.

The 45 tril isn't intended for that; it's intended to line the pockets of
U.N.-like frauds and scammers. (Hint: check into Al Gore's interests in
these "carbon credits and offsets" companies. He's making millions, and
soon it will be billions.)

> Come up with a highly efficient
> solar cell and license the technology to pay off the debt. Sure, this
> would be government in the private sector -- but that worked fine for
> the TVA and BPA and other energy production efforts. Investing in
> infrastructure creates jobs and would also stimulate the economy --
> more than a bogus $150 tax rebate. -- Jay Beattie.

When there's promise, investors and entrepreneurs will /flood/ new sectors
with money. True of energy, bio-tech, pharmaceutical, you name it.
Government will just regulate it to death and keep it from ever emerging
full scale.

[Tom Kunich]

"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
news:bb2765ff-90b1-41bc-a459-9c3c69b5e27d@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Reliance on fossil fuels has crippled our economy. If we had reduced
> our reliance on oil and petrochemicals fifty years ago, we would be
> better off economically and environmentally.

By all means perhaps you can explain how we could have done that?

> We need something like a
> Manhattan Project to develop new energy technology -- which we could
> do for under 45 trillion, maybe. Come up with a highly efficient
> solar cell and license the technology to pay off the debt.

I see your degree in physics is doing you some good after all. Oh, that's
right - apparently you know nothing about what you're writing but aren't
afraid to write it.

Jay, all kidding aside - solar cells only work about 30 - 40% of the time.
They've been IN DEVELOPMENT for 50 years. What makes you think that they
could be more than marginally improved?

Are you aware that it costs more energy to manufacture than they can
generate in their useful lifetime?

[A Muzi]

>> Luke wrote:
>>> In article <tcudnTNvRtKV2dTVnZ2dnUVZ_oLin...@earthlink.com>, Tom
>>> Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
>>>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
>>>> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
>>>> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
>>>> now.
>>>> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
>>>> plate and pay his share starting right now.
>>> Of course, the American Way is to buy a solution and charge the
>>> expense to someone else. Regardless the free ride's over nda this
>>> time there's no passing the buck.

> "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>> Of course, you've got it completely wrong. China and India ain't playing
>> (paying), so even the US coughs up the $45 /trillion/ it won't solve a
>> thing. (Except to cripple the US economy, of course, which is the REAL
>> agenda in play.)

Jay Beattie wrote:
> Reliance on fossil fuels has crippled our economy. If we had reduced
> our reliance on oil and petrochemicals fifty years ago, we would be
> better off economically and environmentally. We need something like a
> Manhattan Project to develop new energy technology -- which we could
> do for under 45 trillion, maybe. Come up with a highly efficient
> solar cell and license the technology to pay off the debt. Sure, this
> would be government in the private sector -- but that worked fine for
> the TVA and BPA and other energy production efforts. Investing in
> infrastructure creates jobs and would also stimulate the economy --
> more than a bogus $150 tax rebate. -- Jay Beattie.

Uh, we had a Manhattan Project.

We still are not allowed regular nuclear electricity generation like
France, Japan, etc.

Look to India, where rural areas cannot get electricity because some
local socialist politician always objects to a few meters' space for the
power lines. That is our future; endless bickering and dithering as the
country goes to hell.

This is not a technical problem.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:05:47 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
wrote:

>It's the only country on earth that's not using its own resources
>to meet its needs for energy.

You're very mistaken about this. Not surprising considering how
little you read and *what* you read..

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_imp_net_of_ene_use-energy-imports-net-of-use

[r15757@aol.com]

On Jun 7, 1:05 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:


> You left out the word "foreign", repeatedly. If the US had explored,
> drilled, extracted, and refined its /own/ oil resources -- while also
> looking to create/invent alternative technologies -- AND built clean, green
> and safe nuclear plants -- then not only would our economy not be "crippled"
> (which it's not now even with all the efforts to make it so), it would be
> BOOMING. It's the only country on earth that's not using its own resources
> to meet its needs for energy.

This kind of ignorance is astounding. The US has explored, drilled,
extracted and refined its own oil resources like no other country on
the planet.

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:07:40 GMT, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:05:47 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>wrote:
>
>>It's the only country on earth that's not using its own resources
>>to meet its needs for energy.
>
>You're very mistaken about this. Not surprising considering how
>little you read and *what* you read..
>
>http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_imp_net_of_ene_use-energy-imports-net-of-use

PS - I actually agree with Bill's sentiment that the US should be
looking to reduce it's reliance on energy imports. Though not is
desire that we trash the environment to do so.

[Tom Kunich]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message
news:k1nl44paok3i91en2vd0eno7nlmaaa0n8m@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:05:47 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
> wrote:
>
>>It's the only country on earth that's not using its own resources
>>to meet its needs for energy.
>
> You're very mistaken about this. Not surprising considering how
> little you read and *what* you read..
>
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_imp_net_of_ene_use-energy-imports-net-of-use

Yeah, that's a really accurate gauge alright - for instance, Norway
generates 7 "killowatts" of power. And they have 11 cubic feet of natural
gas in reserve.

[Bill Sornson]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
> news:484aac7f$0$31727$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

>> Of course, you've got it completely wrong. China and India ain't
>> playing (paying), so even {if} the US coughs up the $45 /trillion/ it
>> won't solve a thing. (Except to cripple the US economy, of course,
>> which is the REAL agenda in play.)

> OK Bill, no fair understanding what's really happening. You're
> supposed to be as stupid as a Democrat.

ITYMTS stupid /and/ dishonest.

Bill "full disclosure" S.

[Dan O]

On Jun 7, 12:58 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Jay Beattie" <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bb2765ff-90b1-41bc-a459-9c3c69b5e27d@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Reliance on fossil fuels has crippled our economy. If we had reduced
> > our reliance on oil and petrochemicals fifty years ago, we would be
> > better off economically and environmentally.
>
> By all means perhaps you can explain how we could have done that?
>

Ride bikes.

[Jay Beattie]

On Jun 7, 12:58*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Jay Beattie" <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bb2765ff-90b1-41bc-a459-9c3c69b5e27d@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Reliance on fossil fuels has crippled our economy. *If we had reduced
> > our reliance on oil and petrochemicals fifty years ago, we would be
> > better off economically and environmentally.
>
> By all means perhaps you can explain how we could have done that?

Everything from better urban planning to fuel efficiency requirements
to credits for new technology, etc., etc. All the same things we are
starting to do now. There was no reason in the world we needed to be
driving around in bazillion pound cars with wings when I was a kid ---
except that gas was cheap and we could. During that same time in
Europe, people paid more for gas -- a lot more -- which generated
money for mass transit infrastructure. Meanwhile, we were busy
tearing out our street cars, except in large cities like NY. In
Portland, for example, they tore out the street cars and electric
busses in the '50s -- and now the street cars are going back in. The
contractactors have to cope with the old rails that are covered under
a foot of asphalt. I sort of feel sorry for Carter because he harped
on energy independence and got pooh-poohed. On the other hand, he had
his "Carter Doctrine" that gave us the right to spank the Arabs to
protect our (their?) oil. Odd dude.
>
> > We need something like a
> > Manhattan Project to develop new energy technology -- which we could
> > do for under 45 trillion, maybe. *Come up with a highly efficient
> > solar cell and license the technology to pay off the debt.
>
> I see your degree in physics is doing you some good after all. Oh, that's
> right - apparently you know nothing about what you're writing but aren't
> afraid to write it.

Someone floats an idea, and like a reflex, you yammer about the person
not knowing anything. Is this some form of Tourrettes?
>
> Jay, all kidding aside - solar cells only work about 30 - 40% of the time.
> They've been IN DEVELOPMENT for 50 years. What makes you think that they
> could be more than marginally improved?

There must be something superior to buring combustible liquids and
gasses. That is stone-wheel technology. And not withstanding the fact
that solar cells have been in development for 50 years, we have had
significant recent improvements -- improvements achieved with DOE
support. http://www.energy.gov/news/4503.htm . The DOE came from our
nu-ca-lar program -- and the same vigor that went in to the Manhattan
Project could go in to developing non-exploding energy technology. I
don't see why not, and really, there is only so long that we can get
by burning stuff. -- Jay Beattie.

[Bill Sornson]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message
> news:k1nl44paok3i91en2vd0eno7nlmaaa0n8m@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:05:47 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It's the only country on earth that's not using its own resources
>>> to meet its needs for energy.
>>
>> You're very mistaken about this. Not surprising considering how
>> little you read and *what* you read..
>>
>> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_imp_net_of_ene_use-energy-imports-net-of-use
>
> Yeah, that's a really accurate gauge alright - for instance, Norway
> generates 7 "killowatts" of power. And they have 11 cubic feet of
> natural gas in reserve.

ROTFL

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 14:20:00 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
wrote:

>Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message
>> news:k1nl44paok3i91en2vd0eno7nlmaaa0n8m@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:05:47 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's the only country on earth that's not using its own resources
>>>> to meet its needs for energy.
>>>
>>> You're very mistaken about this. Not surprising considering how
>>> little you read and *what* you read..
>>>
>>> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_imp_net_of_ene_use-energy-imports-net-of-use
>>
>> Yeah, that's a really accurate gauge alright - for instance, Norway
>> generates 7 "killowatts" of power. And they have 11 cubic feet of
>> natural gas in reserve.
>
>ROTFL

I forgot: facts have a liberal bias.

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 14:20:00 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
wrote:

>Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message
>> news:k1nl44paok3i91en2vd0eno7nlmaaa0n8m@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:05:47 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's the only country on earth that's not using its own resources
>>>> to meet its needs for energy.
>>>
>>> You're very mistaken about this. Not surprising considering how
>>> little you read and *what* you read..
>>>
>>> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_imp_net_of_ene_use-energy-imports-net-of-use
>>
>> Yeah, that's a really accurate gauge alright - for instance, Norway
>> generates 7 "killowatts" of power. And they have 11 cubic feet of
>> natural gas in reserve.
>
>ROTFL

I don't normally read Kunich, but it's interesting that he's as
innumerate as Sorni. Makes sense I guess.

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
news:484b0086$0$31743$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
>> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
>> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For now.
>>
>> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
>> plate and pay his share starting right now.
>
> If not too busy doing this:
>
> http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#flourescent

I wonder what these idiots think about when someone tells them that we used
mercurochrome as an antiseptic for half a century.

[Peter Cole]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
>> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
>> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For now.
>>
>> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
>> plate and pay his share starting right now.
>
> If not too busy doing this:
>
> http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#flourescent
>
>

Fluorescent bulbs have been used in large quantities for decades, there
has always been a problem of mercury contamination from disposal/breakage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp#Mercury_emissions:

"According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), when coal power
is used, less mercury is released when fluorescent lamps are used, even
including mercury in the lamps."

"The Albany Times Union reported that the annual mercury emissions of a
single cement plant amounted to 400 pounds.[50] That amount roughly
corresponds to the mercury content in 4,500 million compact fluorescent
lamps."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant:

"Trace amounts of mercury exist in coal and other fossil fuels.[12] When
these fuels burn, toxic mercury is released which accumulates in food
chains and is especially harmful to aquatic ecosystems. The worldwide
emission of mercury from both natural and human sources was an estimated
5,500 tons in 1995.[12] U.S. coal-fired plants emit an estimated 48 tons
annually, which is approximately 1/3 of all mercury emitted into the air
by human activity in the U.S.[12] In contrast, China's coal-fired power
plants emitted an estimated 68 tons of mercury in 1999, which was about
38% of Chinese human-generated mercury emissions."

[Bill Sornson]

A Muzi wrote:
>>> Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
>>>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
>>>> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
>>>> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
>>>> now.
>>>> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to
>>>> the plate and pay his share starting right now.
>
>> Luke wrote:
>>> Of course, the American Way is to buy a solution and charge the
>>> expense to someone else. Regardless the free ride's over nda this
>>> time there's no passing the buck.
>
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Of course, you've got it completely wrong. China and India ain't
>> playing (paying), so even the US coughs up the $45 /trillion/ it
>> won't solve a thing. (Except to cripple the US economy, of course,
>> which is the REAL agenda in play.)
>
> True but trite. Would anyone argue against that? All of the putative
> 'improvement' is less than a volcano event or Siberian forest fires or
> even smaller countries' emissions. It's simply a thumb in the eye of
> The Great Satan and nothing more.

True...but 45 trillion isn't trite....and only scratches the surface of the
true cost of giving in to this scam (back to OP).

You think $4.44 for gas is bad now; just wait till a "Cap & Trade" bill
actually passes -- as ALL THREE prez candidates favor.

BTW, when the Dems took contol of Congress in 2006, Nancy Pelosi said they
had a plan to lower gas prices. Anyone plan on asking her to reveal it?!?

BS (called)

[Patrick Lamb]

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:44:31 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
wrote:
>Uh, we had a Manhattan Project.
>
>We still are not allowed regular nuclear electricity generation like
>France, Japan, etc.
>
>Look to India, where rural areas cannot get electricity because some
>local socialist politician always objects to a few meters' space for the
>power lines. That is our future; endless bickering and dithering as the
>country goes to hell.
>
>This is not a technical problem.

Sure it is. We just need to include politicians with hairdressers,
realtors, and insurance agents when we respond to the critical world
problem that will mean the end of the world shortly, and requires us
to send our entire population to another undiscovered planet.

Pat

Email address works as is.

[Bill Sornson]

A Muzi wrote:
>>> Luke wrote:
>>>> In article <tcudnTNvRtKV2dTVnZ2dnUVZ_oLin...@earthlink.com>, Tom
>>>> Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
>>>>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
>>>>> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
>>>>> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
>>>>> now.
>>>>> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to
>>>>> the plate and pay his share starting right now.
>>>> Of course, the American Way is to buy a solution and charge the
>>>> expense to someone else. Regardless the free ride's over nda this
>>>> time there's no passing the buck.
>
>> "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>>> Of course, you've got it completely wrong. China and India ain't
>>> playing (paying), so even the US coughs up the $45 /trillion/ it
>>> won't solve a thing. (Except to cripple the US economy, of course,
>>> which is the REAL agenda in play.)
>
> Jay Beattie wrote:
>> Reliance on fossil fuels has crippled our economy. If we had reduced
>> our reliance on oil and petrochemicals fifty years ago, we would be
>> better off economically and environmentally. We need something like a
>> Manhattan Project to develop new energy technology -- which we could
>> do for under 45 trillion, maybe. Come up with a highly efficient
>> solar cell and license the technology to pay off the debt. Sure,
>> this would be government in the private sector -- but that worked
>> fine for the TVA and BPA and other energy production efforts.
>> Investing in infrastructure creates jobs and would also stimulate
>> the economy -- more than a bogus $150 tax rebate. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> Uh, we had a Manhattan Project.
>
> We still are not allowed regular nuclear electricity generation like
> France, Japan, etc.
>
> Look to India, where rural areas cannot get electricity because some
> local socialist politician always objects to a few meters' space for
> the power lines. That is our future; endless bickering and dithering
> as the country goes to hell.
>
> This is not a technical problem.

Bingo.

Amundo.

[!Jones]

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:44:31 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech A Muzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>We still are not allowed regular nuclear electricity generation like
>France, Japan, etc.

Nukes won't help us unless you're willing to accept the waste in your
backyard... and you shouldn't; your neighbors won't, I assure you; I
won't either. We should be thinking of using less power, not how can
we maintain our current consumption levels.

I see three options:

1) Let energy find its market clearing price.
2) Tax it heavily to drive the price up.
3) Ration it.

Energy has an artificially low cost in the US. Keeping it thus
encourages further consumption, not innovation and conservation.

Jones

[A Muzi]

>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
>>> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
>>> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For now.

> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote
>>> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
>>> plate and pay his share starting right now.
>> If not too busy doing this:
>> http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#flourescent

Tom Kunich wrote:
> I wonder what these idiots think about when someone tells them that we
> used mercurochrome as an antiseptic for half a century.

How about a couple million grammar-school-age boys (like me) who had a
small container of liquid mercury and played around with it often?
Metallic mercury is relatively inert - it's the active compounds which
are dangerous.

no common sense any more.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Peter Cole]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
> news:484b0086$0$31743$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
>>> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
>>> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For now.
>>>
>>> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
>>> plate and pay his share starting right now.
>>
>> If not too busy doing this:
>>
>> http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#flourescent
>
> I wonder what these idiots think about when someone tells them that we
> used mercurochrome as an antiseptic for half a century.
>

Which "idiots"? The FDA? They're "environmentalists" now?

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040723.html:

"Mercurochrome and other drugs containing mercury came up for scrutiny
as part of a general review of over-the-counter antiseptics that began
in 1978,"

"While no one's offered evidence of mass Mercurochrome poisoning, the
medical literature contains scattered reports of mercury toxicity due to
use of the antiseptic, and these days the burden of proof is on drug
manufacturers to show that their products' benefits outweigh the risks.
In the case of Mercurochrome and many other mercury-containing
compounds, that had never been done."

"The FDA initially proposed clipping Mercurochrome's GRAS status in 1982
and asked for comment. Hearing little, the FDA classified the antiseptic
as a "new drug," meaning that anyone proposing to sell it nationwide had
to submit it to the same rigorous approval process required of a drug
invented last month. (This took place in 1998--nobody's going to accuse
the FDA of rushing to judgment.) "

[Tom Kunich]

"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
news:54589$484b146a$1873@news.teranews.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> I wonder what these idiots think about when someone tells them that we
>> used mercurochrome as an antiseptic for half a century.
>
> How about a couple million grammar-school-age boys (like me) who had a
> small container of liquid mercury and played around with it often?
> Metallic mercury is relatively inert - it's the active compounds which are
> dangerous.
>
> no common sense any more.

This appears to be what happens when the education system is taken over by
the Marxists (who even told us they were going to do it) and then most
subjects are simply not taught any more.

At one time experience was valued. Now only education is valued and often it
demonstrates a sort of ignorance hard to understand by "normal" people. I
had to choose to hire between 15 college educated engineers and I couldn't
find ONE of them that actually could engineer anything.

[Peter Cole]

A Muzi wrote:
>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
>>>> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
>>>> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For now.
>
>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote
>>>> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
>>>> plate and pay his share starting right now.
>>> If not too busy doing this:
>>> http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#flourescent
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> I wonder what these idiots think about when someone tells them that we
>> used mercurochrome as an antiseptic for half a century.
>
> How about a couple million grammar-school-age boys (like me) who had a
> small container of liquid mercury and played around with it often?
> Metallic mercury is relatively inert - it's the active compounds which
> are dangerous.
>
> no common sense any more.

http://www.pcij.org/i-report/2007/mercury2.html:

"St. Andrew’s was the Parañaque school where early last year at least 24
students, mostly aged 13, wound up in the hospital as confirmed cases of
mercury poisoning. Investigation showed that the students were poisoned
after they were allowed to play with 50 grams of mercury intended for a
science experiment. The school had to remain closed for months while
local and international experts cleaned up and decontaminated it."

[Michael Press]

In article <54589$484b146a$1873@news.teranews.com>,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

> >> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
> >>> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
> >>> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For now.
>
> > "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote
> >>> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
> >>> plate and pay his share starting right now.
> >> If not too busy doing this:
> >> http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#flourescent
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > I wonder what these idiots think about when someone tells them that we
> > used mercurochrome as an antiseptic for half a century.
>
> How about a couple million grammar-school-age boys (like me) who had a
> small container of liquid mercury and played around with it often?
> Metallic mercury is relatively inert - it's the active compounds which
> are dangerous.

Agree that the horribly toxic stuff are the Hg compounds.

Hg has a high vapor pressure, it enters the organism
through inhalation, and build up of Hg is harmful.
Best to keep away. No cause for panic. Hg spills
in an enclosed space _must_ be attended to. Hg can
settle between floor boards and become a long term
source of Hg vapor.

> no common sense any more.

Any toxicologist will tell you the poison is in the dose.
Problem with heavy metals is the we do not have natural
mechanisms to excrete them or denature them. They remain
and continuously do damage.

--
Michael Press

[Paul M. Hobson]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> At one time experience was valued. Now only education is valued and
> often it demonstrates a sort of ignorance hard to understand by "normal"
> people. I had to choose to hire between 15 college educated engineers
> and I couldn't find ONE of them that actually could engineer anything.

I blame that on the seemingly nationwide* switch from quarters to semesters.

*Are the CA schools still on quarters?

\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

[Jay Beattie]

On Jun 7, 4:14*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "A Muzi" <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
>
> news:54589$484b146a$1873@news.teranews.com...
>
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> I wonder what these idiots think about when someone tells them that we
> >> used mercurochrome as an antiseptic for half a century.
>
> > How about a couple million grammar-school-age boys (like me) who had a
> > small container of liquid mercury and played around with it often?
> > Metallic mercury is relatively inert - it's the active compounds which are
> > dangerous.
>
> > no common sense any more.
>
> This appears to be what happens when the education system is taken over by
> the Marxists (who even told us they were going to do it) and then most
> subjects are simply not taught any more.

It's not the Marxists -- they did a good job and produced some first
class scientists, like Oppenheimer.
Dumbing down can much later with the shift to affective education in
the '70s, IMO. I was getting my secondary credential at the time and
was amazed at the shift from content knowledge and application to
feeling good about ones self. -- Jay Beattie.

[Peter Cole]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message

>> no common sense any more.
>
> This appears to be what happens when the education system is taken over
> by the Marxists (who even told us they were going to do it) and then
> most subjects are simply not taught any more.
>
> At one time experience was valued. Now only education is valued and
> often it demonstrates a sort of ignorance hard to understand by "normal"
> people. I had to choose to hire between 15 college educated engineers
> and I couldn't find ONE of them that actually could engineer anything.

You need to find better applicants:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge


Winning team roster:
http://www.tartanracing.org/team.html

[Peter Cole]

Tom Kunich wrote:

> This appears to be what happens when the education system is taken over
> by the Marxists (who even told us they were going to do it) and then
> most subjects are simply not taught any more.

Such as?


> At one time experience was valued. Now only education is valued

By whom?

This implies our society is overeducated. I find that a tough position
to defend.

[still just me]

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 18:19:50 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
wrote:

>BTW, when the Dems took contol of Congress in 2006, Nancy Pelosi said they
>had a plan to lower gas prices. Anyone plan on asking her to reveal it?!?

I believe her plan begins with getting an administration filled with
oil executives out of office.

[Bill Sornson]

r15757@aol.com wrote:
> On Jun 7, 1:05 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
>
>> You left out the word "foreign", repeatedly. If the US had explored,
>> drilled, extracted, and refined its /own/ oil resources -- while also
>> looking to create/invent alternative technologies -- AND built
>> clean, green and safe nuclear plants -- then not only would our
>> economy not be "crippled" (which it's not now even with all the
>> efforts to make it so), it would be BOOMING. It's the only country
>> on earth that's not using its own resources to meet its needs for
>> energy.
>
> This kind of ignorance is astounding. The US has explored, drilled,
> extracted and refined its own oil resources like no other country on
> the planet.

You once again exceed your own standards of cluelessness. Well done.

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 05:10:47 GMT, still just me
<wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 18:19:50 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>wrote:
>
>>BTW, when the Dems took contol of Congress in 2006, Nancy Pelosi said they
>>had a plan to lower gas prices. Anyone plan on asking her to reveal it?!?
>
>I believe her plan begins with getting an administration filled with
>oil executives out of office.

POTM.

In the long run, oil prices will rise. They'll rise a little slower
w/o the Bush cabal in power. They'll rise a little faster with more
environmentally concerned politicians (some Democrats and maybe
McCain, though I think he's lying about his environmentalism
considering his voting record)) in power.

[Jay Beattie]

On Jun 7, 10:10*pm, still just me <wheeledBobNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 18:19:50 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me>
> wrote:
>
> >BTW, when the Dems took contol of Congress in 2006, Nancy Pelosi said they
> >had a plan to lower gas prices. *Anyone plan on asking her to reveal it?!?
>
> I believe her plan begins with getting an administration filled with
> oil executives out of office.

Increase the margin requirements for oil futures and increase taxes on
oil profits -- that would decrease speculation, at least in the
American market -- but I don't know if it would affect the global
price of oil. As for lowering the price at the pump, AFAIK, there is
no quick fix -- just like there is no quick fix to anything that
matters in this election cycle. Whoever wins is going to be screwed
unless the rapture ensues quickly or else some other miracle occurs. I
would like to think that American enginuity will keep us from slipping
in to the second world, but I am not so sure anymore. -- Jay Beattie.

[r15757@aol.com]

On Jun 8, 12:19 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:

> You once again exceed your own standards of cluelessness. Well done.

Tell me what you think is clueless so I can make fun of you more
properly.

[Tom Kunich]

"!Jones" <hi@there.org> wrote in message
news:bm1o4494d8an3qhq6nvl98vhfl8lpfqkeq@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:44:31 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech A Muzi
> <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>>We still are not allowed regular nuclear electricity generation like
>>France, Japan, etc.
>
> Nukes won't help us unless you're willing to accept the waste in your
> backyard.

What waste? By all means explain to us what "waste" a modern reactor has.

> Energy has an artificially low cost in the US. Keeping it thus
> encourages further consumption, not innovation and conservation.

That's pretty funny. What is your position that you would be able to even
guess at the cost vs. the price of energy production?

What are you going to have to say when your parents freeze to death because
they can't afford natural gas heating?

[Tom Kunich]

"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
news:82ebb803-6148-43e5-9adc-c025d336a6f7@g16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 7, 12:58 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > "Jay Beattie" <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:bb2765ff-90b1-41bc-a459-9c3c69b5e27d@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > > Reliance on fossil fuels has crippled our economy. If we had reduced
> > > our reliance on oil and petrochemicals fifty years ago, we would be
> > > better off economically and environmentally.
> >
> > By all means perhaps you can explain how we could have done that?
>
> Everything from better urban planning to fuel efficiency requirements
> to credits for new technology, etc., etc. All the same things we are
> starting to do now.

How about jail sentences for people who use more gasoline than you believe
they should? Why is it that you fascists always manage to believe that your
view of the world is the right view and you need to punish everyone else
that doens't hold your view?

> There was no reason in the world we needed to be
> driving around in bazillion pound cars with wings when I was a kid ---
> except that gas was cheap and we could.

And of course the small think that it took 70 years to develop the
industrial capability to make things with enough accuracy to make them as
efficient as they are today. Oh, that's right - you bozos who can't actually
do anything yourself believe that everyone else could do it back in the
1800's.

> I sort of feel sorry for Carter because he harped
> on energy independence and got pooh-poohed.

I notice you didn't actually quote Carter.

> > I see your degree in physics is doing you some good after all. Oh,
> > that's
> > right - apparently you know nothing about what you're writing but aren't
> > afraid to write it.
>
> Someone floats an idea, and like a reflex, you yammer about the person
> not knowing anything. Is this some form of Tourrettes?

The problem is that your ideas aren't backed by any real knowledge and you
think they are. Why is it that you don't realize that is a fools way of
doing things?

> > Jay, all kidding aside - solar cells only work about 30 - 40% of the
> > time.
> > They've been IN DEVELOPMENT for 50 years. What makes you think that they
> > could be more than marginally improved?
>
> There must be something superior to buring combustible liquids and
> gasses.

OK, what?

> That is stone-wheel technology. And not withstanding the fact
> that solar cells have been in development for 50 years, we have had
> significant recent improvements -- improvements achieved with DOE
> support. http://www.energy.gov/news/4503.htm .

No we HAVEN'T had any "recent improvements". The "improvements" have all
been microscopic in function and slight in economics. As I pointed out
before - solar cells cost more to produce than they generally return in
electricity in their lifetime. Why do you believe that to be somehow
superior to anything else?

Do you suppose PG & E's test solar generators in the Mojave Desert were just
kidding when they used steam generators instead of solar cells? Or perhaps
you want to believe that they're much dumber than you are?

> The DOE came from our nu-ca-lar program --
> and the same vigor that went in to the Manhattan Project
> could go in to developing non-exploding energy technology.

Of course they've been trying to get funding for that for 40 years while
Democrats have been putting 20 times as much into their own pet projects
such as Harry Reid's $61 million Nevada "special transportation projects"
stuff etc.

And don't get the idea that I'm implying that Republicans aren't equally to
blame.

The point is: you don't have a clue what you're talking about and you yammer
on like that without every bothering to actually look into anything.

[Jay Beattie]

On Jun 8, 12:45*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Jay Beattie" <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
>
> news:82ebb803-6148-43e5-9adc-c025d336a6f7@g16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 7, 12:58 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > "Jay Beattie" <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:bb2765ff-90b1-41bc-a459-9c3c69b5e27d@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com....
> > > > Reliance on fossil fuels has crippled our economy. If we had reduced
> > > > our reliance on oil and petrochemicals fifty years ago, we would be
> > > > better off economically and environmentally.
>
> > > By all means perhaps you can explain how we could have done that?
>
> > Everything from better urban planning to fuel efficiency requirements
> > to credits for new technology, etc., etc. *All the same things we are
> > starting to do now.
>
> How about jail sentences for people who use more gasoline than you believe
> they should? Why is it that you fascists always manage to believe that your
> view of the world is the right view and you need to punish everyone else
> that doens't hold your view?
>
> > There was no reason in the world we needed to be
> > driving around in bazillion pound cars with wings when I was a kid ---
> > except that gas was cheap and we could.
>
> And of course the small think that it took 70 years to develop the
> industrial capability to make things with enough accuracy to make them as
> efficient as they are today. Oh, that's right - you bozos who can't actually
> do anything yourself believe that everyone else could do it back in the
> 1800's.

What are you getting at? While Detroit was making giant, gas guzzling
tanks, Germany, France, Italy and Japan were making compacts. And
what do you mean that I can't do anything myself? How would you
know? As a matter of fact, I do everything myself -- I even know how
to plaster. You try getting a nice sanded finish!
>
> > I sort of feel sorry for Carter because he harped
> > on energy independence and got pooh-poohed.
>
> I notice you didn't actually quote Carter.
>
> > > I see your degree in physics is doing you some good after all. Oh,
> > > that's
> > > right - apparently you know nothing about what you're writing but aren't
> > > afraid to write it.
>
> > Someone floats an idea, and like a reflex, you yammer about the person
> > not knowing anything. *Is this some form of Tourrettes?
>
> The problem is that your ideas aren't backed by any real knowledge and you
> think they are. Why is it that you don't realize that is a fools way of
> doing things?

What, to you, is real knowledge? A PhD in solar technology? You're
not going to get that on this NG. And the fact is that many fools, as
you put it, were responsible for huge technological advances. Kennedy
and Rosevelt come to mind --- both created programs that invented
dramatic new technology. All they had was a vision -- although
Rosevelt had a note from Einstein about the potential for a fission
bomb. And Kennedy was chasing the Russians in to space, but in any
event, both made the effort to advance the state of the art and didn't
sit on their thumbs listening to naysayers.


> > > Jay, all kidding aside - solar cells only work about 30 - 40% of the
> > > time.
> > > They've been IN DEVELOPMENT for 50 years. What makes you think that they
> > > could be more than marginally improved?
>
> > There must be something superior to buring combustible liquids and
> > gasses.
>
> OK, what?
>
> > That is stone-wheel technology. *And not withstanding the fact
> > that solar cells have been in development for 50 years, we have had
> > significant recent improvements -- improvements achieved with DOE
> > support.http://www.energy.gov/news/4503.htm.
>
> No we HAVEN'T had any "recent improvements". The "improvements" have all
> been microscopic in function and slight in economics. As I pointed out
> before - solar cells cost more to produce than they generally return in
> electricity in their lifetime. Why do you believe that to be somehow
> superior to anything else?

More than doubling the efficiency of the common solar cell is a
significant improvement, unless "significant" means something
different to you. Cost of production will decrease as production
increases -- which it will because of the cost of oil. The whack-o
environmentalists also will help drive demand and production.

>
> Do you suppose PG & E's test solar generators in the Mojave Desert were just
> kidding when they used steam generators instead of solar cells? Or perhaps
> you want to believe that they're much dumber than you are?

Man, what is it with you -- of course you use the most efficient
technology. If you can boil water with sunlight, then boil the
f****** water. Make steam. Turn turbines. That ain't gonna happen
in the PNW. We do have Bonneville -- built by FDR along with the
other communists with musical support from Woody Guthrie . Or was FDR
a fascists? He did ration gas -- among other things.
>
> > *The DOE came from our nu-ca-lar program --
> > and the same vigor that went in to the Manhattan Project
> > could go in to developing non-exploding energy technology.
>
> Of course they've been trying to get funding for that for 40 years while
> Democrats have been putting 20 times as much into their own pet projects
> such as Harry Reid's $61 million Nevada "special transportation projects"
> stuff etc.
>
> And don't get the idea that I'm implying that Republicans aren't equally to
> blame.
>
> The point is: you don't have a clue what you're talking about and you yammer
> on like that without every bothering to actually look into anything.

Then educate us, Thomas, please. All I hear from you is nay. If you
have something better than the status quo, please share it with us.
The status quo obviously is not working, so I only want to hear if you
have a plan. -- Jay Beattie.

[Bill Sornson]

Tom Kunich wrote:

> What are you going to have to say when your parents freeze to death
> because they can't afford natural gas heating?

That a Republican was in office? (Because when a Dem is, you won't hear
about poor Mom 'n Dad.)

[!Jones]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 12:47:20 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech "Tom Kunich"
<cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>What waste? By all means explain to us what "waste" a modern reactor has.

Please do not patronize.

By "waste", one usually means spent fuel. The fuel is the radioactive
substance that, by decay, produces heat... all reactors work thus;
although, it's an overly simplistic explanation. As the decay
proceeds, the heat produced diminishes by a logarithmic function. At
some point, it is no longer economically feasible to use it as fuel;
however, it is still quite radioactive from a public health
perspective and will continue to be for centuries to come. This is
the "waste" that all reactors have and will always produce.

>> Energy has an artificially low cost in the US. Keeping it thus
>> encourages further consumption, not innovation and conservation.
>
>That's pretty funny. What is your position that you would be able to even
>guess at the cost vs. the price of energy production?

I'm not sure that I understand your question. I don't usually give
out personal information; however, on Usenet, I assure you, sir, that
*everyone* is an expert on whatever topic is under discussion... thus,
you should assume that I (along with everyone else) am an expert.
Based on your patronizing tone, I take it that you, also, are an
expert and are offended that anyone else would dare to disagree with
you; am I correct?

>What are you going to have to say when your parents freeze to death because
>they can't afford natural gas heating?

That seems to be a non sequitur ... my parents were quite wealthy;
however, rest their souls, they passed in the late '80s, but thank you
for asking. But, to address your question, *if* that happened, than I
might say, "Golly, I just *hate* it when that happens!" I don't know,
I suppose I'd have to be there.

Now that I have answered three questions for you, let me ask you:
"What are YOU going to have to say when your parents freeze to death
because they can't afford natural gas heating?"

Actually, I remember the nuke projects in the early '70s when the
slogan was "Electricity that will be too cheap to meter" ... right!
Nuclear energy is by far and away the most expensive way to produce
electricity. Well, OK... you have to consider the cost of raping a
wild river or flooding a canyon, I suppose, to get a balance.

My position in the debate is that our energy costs to the consumer are
way too low. We tend to build infrastructure with general revenue,
mostly income tax. If we drove the consumer price up by loading the
actual cost of the infrastructure into a consumption tax, then, at
some point, consumption will drop. So, what about parents freezing to
death? My dad had a Hummer and my mom had a Cadillac, both of which
drank gasoline at an astounding rate. My point is that the price of
any commodity is only capped (in a free market) at the point where a
subsequent increase will produce unsold inventory.

In the US, we need to go on a diet, not find other ways to consume.

Jones

[Tom Kunich]

"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
news:da005bc0-1674-4d28-a47f-7a9767ecc20a@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> What are you getting at? While Detroit was making giant, gas guzzling
> tanks, Germany, France, Italy and Japan were making compacts. And
> what do you mean that I can't do anything myself? How would you
> know? As a matter of fact, I do everything myself -- I even know how
> to plaster. You try getting a nice sanded finish!

What is it that you think is incorrect about Detroit making what people
WANTED to buy? Remember - at that time Chevron had people going around to
all of the schools telling kids that oil and hence gasoline wasn't going to
last forever. I had one of those guys in my 4th grade class in 1953 or so.

I should appologize for getting carried away with my writing style when I'm
arguing with you. My point is that virtually ALL of those telling us about
how bad people have been are those who don't actually know anything about
the circumstances behind things. For instance - it took a lot of years to
develop thin-wall casting technology and then another decade to develop
reliable aluminum engine blocks and the like. These things simply don't
happen overnight and progress HAS been going on my entire life. Just because
you think it should have been faster doesn't mean that it could have.

> What, to you, is real knowledge? A PhD in solar technology?

Look, my brother was the chief electrician for US Windpower in the Altamont
Pass area. All of those windmills which started installation in 1982 could
put out a great deal of power once in awhile but the fact remained that they
couldn't pay for themselves and provide a profit without subsidies from the
government. Solar power is about the same problem.

Pretending that something is better doesn't make it that way.


> And the fact is that many fools, as
> you put it, were responsible for huge technological advances. Kennedy
> and Rosevelt come to mind --- both created programs that invented
> dramatic new technology.

OK - what was that "new" technology again?

> > The point is: you don't have a clue what you're talking about and you
> > yammer
> > on like that without every bothering to actually look into anything.
>
> Then educate us, Thomas, please. All I hear from you is nay. If you
> have something better than the status quo, please share it with us.
> The status quo obviously is not working, so I only want to hear if you
> have a plan.

Why do you think that you could even understand what is happening around you
if you can even see it now?

1) Coal to diesel oil is an old and reliable process invented by the Germans
in WW II. It hasn't been used because it costs about $40/bbl to produce. But
gee - at $130 a barrel it would be cheaper to use the Fischer-Tropsch
process of generating diesel freeing up some 30% more oil for conversion to
gasoline. Not to mention home heating oil in the winter.

2) Even though you're being convinced by other Fascists that business is
evil, it is NORMAL PEOPLE who have invented and continue to insist on zoning
laws that lock housing farther and farther away from businesses. That
requires more and more commuting and more fuel usage.

3) Even with fuel at over $4 a gallon I'm being passed on the freeway by
large SUVs driving at 80+ mph. And they're being driven by mothers with
children inside. Meanwhile the cops are pulling people over and citing them
for not wearing seatbelts. The mental illness of society is easy to see.

I could go on but why? You ain't going to be affected in the least.

[Bill Sornson]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> What are you going to have to say when your parents freeze to death
>> because they can't afford natural gas heating?

> That a Republican was in office? (Because when a Dem is, you won't
> hear about poor Mom 'n Dad.)

PS: Just like you didn't hear much about all those people (nearly all
minorities) who died of heat stroke in 1998* Chicago. Where were the news
crews and helicoptors covering THAT little national disgrace?

*the warmest year in recent history, btw. Earth's been /cooling/ since
then.

[still just me]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 16:33:39 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

>2) Even though you're being convinced by other Fascists that business is
>evil, it is NORMAL PEOPLE who have invented and continue to insist on zoning
>laws that lock housing farther and farther away from businesses. That
>requires more and more commuting and more fuel usage.

You might want to look up the definition of Fascism before using it in
a sentence.

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
news:484c71ef$0$12948$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> PS: Just like you didn't hear much about all those people (nearly all
> minorities) who died of heat stroke in 1998* Chicago. Where were the news
> crews and helicoptors covering THAT little national disgrace?
>
> *the warmest year in recent history, btw. Earth's been /cooling/ since
> then.

Just more proof of global warming to the Liberals.

[Tom Kunich]

"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gohp44pqmd0fjlg2rfefhdevo0hru2c98o@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 16:33:39 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>>2) Even though you're being convinced by other Fascists that business is
>>evil, it is NORMAL PEOPLE who have invented and continue to insist on
>>zoning
>>laws that lock housing farther and farther away from businesses. That
>>requires more and more commuting and more fuel usage.
>
> You might want to look up the definition of Fascism before using it in
> a sentence.

Apparently you could use a bit of your own suggestions.

[Bill Sornson]

r15757@aol.com wrote:
> On Jun 8, 12:19 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:

>> You once again exceed your own standards of cluelessness. Well done.

> Tell me what you think is clueless so I can make fun of you more
> properly.

I would but you conveniently DELETED everything you wrote! LOL

Bill "can't say that I blame you" S.

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
news:484d860f$0$12958$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> r15757@aol.com wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 12:19 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
>>> You once again exceed your own standards of cluelessness. Well done.
>
>> Tell me what you think is clueless so I can make fun of you more
>> properly.
>
> I would but you conveniently DELETED everything you wrote! LOL

Can't say that wasn't a bit clueless.....

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 12:35:40 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
wrote:

>r15757@aol.com wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 12:19 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
>>> You once again exceed your own standards of cluelessness. Well done.
>
>> Tell me what you think is clueless so I can make fun of you more
>> properly.
>
>I would but you conveniently DELETED everything you wrote!

Bill, I've tried to explain it to you before and though it didn't
work, I'll try again. Here goes:

The internet is a shared resource, and usenet postings exist on many
computers. They exist on a variety of news servers, they exist on
web-based archives such as a via Google groups and, often, they even
exist on your own computer.

So while it may appear that someone has deleted something, they
haven't removed it from everywhere. Copies exist. If what they
deleted is a portion of something you wrote, you can probably find it
in the outbox of your newsreader. Take a look.

[Tom Kunich]

"Paul M. Hobson" <fobson@gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:g2kpul$ges$1@news-int.gatech.edu...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> At one time experience was valued. Now only education is valued and often
>> it demonstrates a sort of ignorance hard to understand by "normal"
>> people. I had to choose to hire between 15 college educated engineers and
>> I couldn't find ONE of them that actually could engineer anything.
>
> I blame that on the seemingly nationwide* switch from quarters to
> semesters.
>
> *Are the CA schools still on quarters?

I blame it on the failure to hire good teachers.

[jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org]

Tom Kunich wrote:

>>> At one time experience was valued. Now only education is valued
>>> and often it demonstrates a sort of ignorance hard to understand
>>> by "normal" people. I had to choose to hire between 15 college
>>> educated engineers and I couldn't find ONE of them that actually
>>> could engineer anything.

>> I blame that on the seemingly nationwide* switch from quarters to
>> semesters.

>> *Are the CA schools still on quarters?

> I blame it on the failure to hire good teachers.

I think blame lies with the attitude of students. One that the school
is responsible for their learning, hand feeding them with "facts", a
mode to which they have become previously accustomed. I also found in
my education that there are many students who can pass exams but are
not skilled in the application of the theory they can repeat for the
exam. The best engineers I met were seldom students at the top of the
honor roll.

Jobst Brandt

[Tom Kunich]

<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:484df1de$0$17159$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> I blame it on the failure to hire good teachers.
>
> I think blame lies with the attitude of students. One that the school
> is responsible for their learning, hand feeding them with "facts", a
> mode to which they have become previously accustomed. I also found in
> my education that there are many students who can pass exams but are
> not skilled in the application of the theory they can repeat for the
> exam. The best engineers I met were seldom students at the top of the
> honor roll.

I will completely agree with you that I've seldom found a good engineer that
was a great student. Most people that turn into good engineers are a good
bit more interested in things other than tests.

[Tom Kunich]

"Jay Beattie" <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
news:5cb26163-54fc-4fd1-8266-117eeaec5246@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 7, 4:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> > This appears to be what happens when the education system is taken over
> > by
> > the Marxists (who even told us they were going to do it) and then most
> > subjects are simply not taught any more.
>
> It's not the Marxists -- they did a good job and produced some first
> class scientists, like Oppenheimer.

Uh, which Oppenheimer are you talking about? Robert and family were
socialists. Franz Oppenheimer was also a socialist. Stephen Oppenheimer and
Frank Oppenheimer weren't politically loud so I don't know what their
politics were.

> Dumbing down can much later with the shift to affective education in
> the '70s, IMO. I was getting my secondary credential at the time and
> was amazed at the shift from content knowledge and application to
> feeling good about ones self.

A lot of it was directed from the forward desk. Because 90% of teachers are
just teachers doesn't mean you can ignore the 10% who are political
saboteurs. Communists announced that they would take over the schools and
teach socialism to our children and they simply did it.

Question - how is it that someone like Angela Davis could be allowed to
teach children?

[Peter Cole]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Jun 7, 4:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>> This appears to be what happens when the education system is taken over by
>> the Marxists (who even told us they were going to do it) and then most
>> subjects are simply not taught any more.
>
> It's not the Marxists -- they did a good job and produced some first
> class scientists, like Oppenheimer.
> Dumbing down can much later with the shift to affective education in
> the '70s, IMO. I was getting my secondary credential at the time and
> was amazed at the shift from content knowledge and application to
> feeling good about ones self. -- Jay Beattie.

The irony is that these changes were introduced with no science to back
them up, the idea that academic underperformance was (primarily) related
lack of self-esteem was never tested. By the time they got around to
that (recently), it doesn't appear there's a correlation. Current
evidence seems to support a negative correlation -- poor performers
often have unrealistically high self-esteem. Another case where "common
sense" was wrong.

[Peter Cole]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
> news:484df1de$0$17159$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> I blame it on the failure to hire good teachers.
>>
>> I think blame lies with the attitude of students. One that the school
>> is responsible for their learning, hand feeding them with "facts", a
>> mode to which they have become previously accustomed. I also found in
>> my education that there are many students who can pass exams but are
>> not skilled in the application of the theory they can repeat for the
>> exam. The best engineers I met were seldom students at the top of the
>> honor roll.
>
> I will completely agree with you that I've seldom found a good engineer
> that was a great student. Most people that turn into good engineers are
> a good bit more interested in things other than tests.
>

In general, school systems never have taught creative thinking. They've
been designed to teach elementary skills, obedience, and tolerance of
boredom. Very few people wind up in careers where creativity is important.

In technical fields, the sheer growth of the knowledge domain is
watering things down, breadth invariably means less depth, unless people
want to spend more years in the educational system. There are two main
consequences of this knowledge explosion: increasing specialization
(with attendant cross disciple chasms) and, at least for undergraduate
degrees, the reality that four years is enough to train a technician,
not an engineer.

All this was clear in the 70's, when I got my BSEE/ME. We only got 2
weeks of quantum mechanics, and that only in an optional solid state
physics lab.

[Paul M. Hobson]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> I will completely agree with you that I've seldom found a good engineer
> that was a great student. Most people that turn into good engineers are
> a good bit more interested in things other than tests.
>

I think we're discussing different sides of the same coin. Ever since
high school for me (c/o 2001), "instruction" has been replaced with test
preparation. A few great exceptions to this rule have been Dr. Webster,
Dr. Sturm, and Dr. Leone of Georgia Tech's civil engineering program.

I imagine the No Child Left Behind Act only makes this worse.

I think I only had 1 real design project in undergrad -- design a
two-story concrete building. I was out voted in my senior design group
and instead of designing a greenway or a new stream bank stabiliztion,
we wrote a report on ethanol ::sigh::

--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

[Peter Cole]

Tom Kunich wrote:

> A lot of it was directed from the forward desk. Because 90% of teachers
> are just teachers doesn't mean you can ignore the 10% who are political
> saboteurs. Communists announced that they would take over the schools
> and teach socialism to our children and they simply did it.

I don't know what school system you're talking about. I live in one of
the most liberal communities (Newton) in the most liberal state (MA).
Both my kids (16/20) seem to be ardent capitalists, somewhat to my
dismay. I regularly preach on the (obvious) benefits of social
democracy, but those pinko teachers obviously didn't lay the groundwork.
Slackers!

[Jay Beattie]

On Jun 9, 9:41*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Jay Beattie" <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5cb26163-54fc-4fd1-8266-117eeaec5246@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 7, 4:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > This appears to be what happens when the education system is taken over
> > > by
> > > the Marxists (who even told us they were going to do it) and then most
> > > subjects are simply not taught any more.
>
> > It's not the Marxists -- they did a good job and produced some first
> > class scientists, like Oppenheimer.
>
> Uh, which Oppenheimer are you talking about? Robert and family were
> socialists. Franz Oppenheimer was also a socialist. Stephen Oppenheimer and
> Frank Oppenheimer weren't politically loud so I don't know what their
> politics were.

I was thinking of J. Robert -- although both he and Frank were
accused of being communists, which, as you know, is based on Marxist
philosphy. The way I see it, the Marxists working at U.S. colleges
and universities before the '50s (and the commie scare) were
intellectuals who had classical educations and who valued learning --
and expected their students to know how to conjugate their Latin
verbs, etc. Even if you were a good comrade, you would get your butt
kicked if you couldn't do the work. -- Jay Beattie.

[Patrick Lamb]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:59:16 GMT, Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net>
wrote:
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> How about a couple million grammar-school-age boys (like me) who had a
>> small container of liquid mercury and played around with it often?
>> Metallic mercury is relatively inert - it's the active compounds which
>> are dangerous.
>>
>> no common sense any more.
>
>http://www.pcij.org/i-report/2007/mercury2.html:
>
>"St. Andrew’s was the Parañaque school where early last year at least 24
>students, mostly aged 13, wound up in the hospital as confirmed cases of
>mercury poisoning. Investigation showed that the students were poisoned
>after they were allowed to play with 50 grams of mercury intended for a
>science experiment. The school had to remain closed for months while
>local and international experts cleaned up and decontaminated it."

Fascinating -- one of my profs dropped and broke a half-pint jar of
mercury. He scooped up all he could, sprinkled about a pound of
sulfur flowers around the room, and locked it up for a week. I
shudder to think what response a similar accident would require now.

Pat

Email address works as is.

[Michael Press]

In article <45v3k.5588$LN.3026@trndny03>,
Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> wrote:

> Jay Beattie wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 4:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >> This appears to be what happens when the education system is taken over by
> >> the Marxists (who even told us they were going to do it) and then most
> >> subjects are simply not taught any more.
> >
> > It's not the Marxists -- they did a good job and produced some first
> > class scientists, like Oppenheimer.
> > Dumbing down can much later with the shift to affective education in
> > the '70s, IMO. I was getting my secondary credential at the time and
> > was amazed at the shift from content knowledge and application to
> > feeling good about ones self. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> The irony is that these changes were introduced with no science to back
> them up, the idea that academic underperformance was (primarily) related
> lack of self-esteem was never tested. By the time they got around to
> that (recently), it doesn't appear there's a correlation. Current
> evidence seems to support a negative correlation -- poor performers
> often have unrealistically high self-esteem. Another case where "common
> sense" was wrong.

Unskilled and Unaware of It:
How Difficulties in Recognizing
One's Own Incompetence Lead to
Inflated Self-Assessments

Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Selected Article
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
For personal use only--not for distribution
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134

<http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf>

--
Michael Press

[Tom Kunich]

"Peter Cole" <peter_cole@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1Qv3k.328$7A1.263@trndny04...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
>> news:484df1de$0$17159$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>>
>>> I think blame lies with the attitude of students. One that the school
>>> is responsible for their learning, hand feeding them with "facts", a
>>> mode to which they have become previously accustomed. I also found in
>>> my education that there are many students who can pass exams but are
>>> not skilled in the application of the theory they can repeat for the
>>> exam. The best engineers I met were seldom students at the top of the
>>> honor roll.
>>
>> I will completely agree with you that I've seldom found a good engineer
>> that was a great student. Most people that turn into good engineers are a
>> good bit more interested in things other than tests.
>
> In general, school systems never have taught creative thinking. They've
> been designed to teach elementary skills, obedience, and tolerance of
> boredom. Very few people wind up in careers where creativity is important.
>
> In technical fields, the sheer growth of the knowledge domain is watering
> things down, breadth invariably means less depth, unless people want to
> spend more years in the educational system. There are two main
> consequences of this knowledge explosion: increasing specialization (with
> attendant cross disciple chasms) and, at least for undergraduate degrees,
> the reality that four years is enough to train a technician, not an
> engineer.
>
> All this was clear in the 70's, when I got my BSEE/ME. We only got 2 weeks
> of quantum mechanics, and that only in an optional solid state physics
> lab.

I would really have liked to have worked with people like Jobst, yourself
and Hobson. It would have been interesting to say the least.

[Tom Kunich]

"Peter Cole" <peter_cole@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:pVv3k.1374$Mu.1289@trndny07...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> A lot of it was directed from the forward desk. Because 90% of teachers
>> are just teachers doesn't mean you can ignore the 10% who are political
>> saboteurs. Communists announced that they would take over the schools and
>> teach socialism to our children and they simply did it.
>
> I don't know what school system you're talking about. I live in one of the
> most liberal communities (Newton) in the most liberal state (MA). Both my
> kids (16/20) seem to be ardent capitalists, somewhat to my dismay. I
> regularly preach on the (obvious) benefits of social democracy, but those
> pinko teachers obviously didn't lay the groundwork. Slackers!

That's good to hear. But remember that I'm a resident of a town adjacent to
Berkeley and was here during the 60's.

[Michael Press]

In article
<e2e5431d-7dbd-4d91-9504-38c04380604a@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Jay Beattie <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote:

> On Jun 9, 9:41*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > "Jay Beattie" <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:5cb26163-54fc-4fd1-8266-117eeaec5246@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 7, 4:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > This appears to be what happens when the education system is taken over
> > > > by
> > > > the Marxists (who even told us they were going to do it) and then most
> > > > subjects are simply not taught any more.
> >
> > > It's not the Marxists -- they did a good job and produced some first
> > > class scientists, like Oppenheimer.
> >
> > Uh, which Oppenheimer are you talking about? Robert and family were
> > socialists. Franz Oppenheimer was also a socialist. Stephen Oppenheimer and
> > Frank Oppenheimer weren't politically loud so I don't know what their
> > politics were.
>
> I was thinking of J. Robert -- although both he and Frank were
> accused of being communists, which, as you know, is based on Marxist
> philosphy.

Not really. Communism predates Marxism.
Thomas More's Utopia [1516], for instance.

--
Michael Press

[Luke]

In article <fjgt44dojmkj81liasc05lul2km9upmmgf@4ax.com>, !Jones
<hi@there.org> wrote:

> My position in the debate is that our energy costs to the consumer are
> way too low. We tend to build infrastructure with general revenue,
> mostly income tax. If we drove the consumer price up by loading the
> actual cost of the infrastructure into a consumption tax, then, at
> some point, consumption will drop. So, what about parents freezing to
> death? My dad had a Hummer and my mom had a Cadillac, both of which
> drank gasoline at an astounding rate. My point is that the price of
> any commodity is only capped (in a free market) at the point where a
> subsequent increase will produce unsold inventory.
>
> In the US, we need to go on a diet, not find other ways to consume.
>
> Jones

Well put. Disassociating and isolating costs and consequences from
activities, e.g., subsidizing driving and energy costs with revenue
from the general tax base, leads to irrational use patterns. Look no
further than America's agricultural policy.

[Jay Beattie]

On Jun 10, 3:31*pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <e2e5431d-7dbd-4d91-9504-38c043806...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> *Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 9:41*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > "Jay Beattie" <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:5cb26163-54fc-4fd1-8266-117eeaec5246@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com....
> > > On Jun 7, 4:14 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > > > This appears to be what happens when the education system is taken over
> > > > > by
> > > > > the Marxists (who even told us they were going to do it) and then most
> > > > > subjects are simply not taught any more.
>
> > > > It's not the Marxists -- they did a good job and produced some first
> > > > class scientists, like Oppenheimer.
>
> > > Uh, which Oppenheimer are you talking about? Robert and family were
> > > socialists. Franz Oppenheimer was also a socialist. Stephen Oppenheimer and
> > > Frank Oppenheimer weren't politically loud so I don't know what their
> > > politics were.
>
> > I was thinking of J. Robert *-- although both he and Frank were
> > accused of being communists, which, as you know, is based on Marxist
> > philosphy. *
>
> Not really. Communism predates Marxism.
> Thomas More's Utopia [1516], for instance.

Very true, but I'm talking about BAD communism -- and not Biblical
communalism. Now that you mention it, though, I wonder if "I was just
following the Bible" was ever raised as an excuse in a HUAC
investigation. -- Jay Beattie.

[Paul M. Hobson]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> I would really have liked to have worked with people like Jobst,
> yourself and Hobson. It would have been interesting to say the least.
>

Whoa whoa. I'm no where near the same class as those guys. I move to
Portland in two weeks and start my first real/non-internship engineering
job there.

After I've got about five years of experience under me, then we can
start talking about my skills being worth anything at all*.


*Academically, I think they are -- real world, not so much.

--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

[Paul M. Hobson]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> I would really have liked to have worked with people like Jobst,
> yourself and Hobson. It would have been interesting to say the least.
>

Whoa whoa. I'm no where near the same class as those guys. I move to
Portland in two weeks and start my first real/non-internship engineering
job there.

After I've got about five years of experience under me, then we can
start talking about my skills being worth anything at all*.


*Academically, I think they are -- real world, not so much.

--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

[Tom Kunich]

"Paul M. Hobson" <fobson@gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:g2ndfs$8kc$1@news-int2.gatech.edu...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> I would really have liked to have worked with people like Jobst, yourself
>> and Hobson. It would have been interesting to say the least.
>>
>
> Whoa whoa. I'm no where near the same class as those guys. I move to
> Portland in two weeks and start my first real/non-internship engineering
> job there.
>
> After I've got about five years of experience under me, then we can start
> talking about my skills being worth anything at all*.
> *Academically, I think they are -- real world, not so much.

Paul, what makes you think that you have to be top of the heap to be very
valuable to a company?

[Paul M. Hobson]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Paul, what makes you think that you have to be top of the heap to be
> very valuable to a company?

I just don't have much practical experience yet; that's all. So even
though I made good grades as an undergrad and manage to scrape by with
mostly B's in grad school (heavy teaching + research load), it remains
to be seen if I can put any of this stuff to use yet.

\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

[Tom Kunich]

"Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:110620081726051769%lucasiragusa@rogers.com...
>
> Well put. Disassociating and isolating costs and consequences from
> activities, e.g., subsidizing driving and energy costs with revenue
> from the general tax base, leads to irrational use patterns. Look no
> further than America's agricultural policy.

BANG! Right between the eyes. Large companies that are now farming are
making great money for not farming in many cases. While it was probably
understandable that we were trying to support small time farmers with tax
relief and that sort of thing, it isn't nearly so excusable that we're
funding large agricultural concerns that are very profitable with taxpayers
dollars.

[!Jones]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:26:05 -0400, in rec.bicycles.tech Luke
<lucasiragusa@rogers.com> wrote:

>> In the US, we need to go on a diet, not find other ways to consume.
>
>Well put. Disassociating and isolating costs and consequences from
>activities, e.g., subsidizing driving and energy costs with revenue
>from the general tax base, leads to irrational use patterns. Look no
>further than America's agricultural policy.

You'll get scant argument from me on that.

See also my favorite pet peeve: tobacco subsidies.

Jones