Re: Republicans and other *******s are trying to slow you down

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher[_2_]]

On Nov 30, 6:47 am, dr_jeff > wrote:
> On 11/30/10 6:23 AM, Steve wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:26:26 -0500, > wrote:
>
> >> On 11/29/10 8:56 PM, Steve wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:27:12 -0500, > wrote:
>
> >>>> On 11/29/10 8:07 PM, Steve wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:28:37 -0500, > wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 11/29/10 6:52 PM, Steve wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:04:28 -0500, > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 8:15 AM, Steve wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 06:43:17 -0500, > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 5:25 AM, Steve wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 04:02:21 -0500, Dave >
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:14:12 -0800, "5829 Dead, 972 since 1/20/09"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <dead@dead> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 01:07:09 GMT,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In >,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/10 10:10 PM, Matthew Russotto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In >,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I don't hope that nuclear energy takes off. It is not 100%
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clean. Nothing is. Unless we can get fusion to work in a big way,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nuclear should provide a large part of our energy. Unfortunately, we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have to build a new electrical grid backbone.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing will ever be 100% clean. Not even if fusion were made practical.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not even if aneutronic fusion was made practical.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The best way to cut down our use of fossil fuels in the near-term is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservation.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Staying in one place, shivering, in the dark. No thanks.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? How about just shutting of the electricity to your TV and other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electronics at night, instead of shutting them "off"? When you shut a TV
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or other device, it is not truly off. Instead, it still uses
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electricity. Cutting off the electricity fixes the problem.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straining at gnats.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's supposedly about 3% of the total US electrical use. That's quite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a large "gnat".
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3% isn't worth any effort at all, unless you could duplicate it many
> >>>>>>>>>>>> times. 30% is something to do something for, but that won't be cheap.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Besides, what he describes is nowhere near 3%.. more like 0.3%
>
> >>>>>>>>>> It's at least 3%.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Total bull****..
>
> >>>>>>>>> According to the DOE, all residential color television usage is about
> >>>>>>>>> 3% of the total US residential electrical usage. That's all color
> >>>>>>>>> television usage in both the on and the off state.
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html
>
> >>>>>>>> That was ten years ago.
>
> >>>>>>> ...and TVs today use even less standby power.. lots less...
>
> >>>>>> Not plasma TVs. They can use around 1500 kWH per year or over $150 worth
> >>>>>> of electricity.
>
> >>>>> The standby power is much less than it was ten years ago.. We are
> >>>>> talking about this "vampire" standby power, aren't we, Bunky?
>
> >>>> Who's 'Bunky'?
>
> >>>> Standby power is about 5% of residential use according to DOE
> >>>>http://standby.lbl.gov/archives/global.html
>
> >>> <ROTFLMAO> That isn't the DOE, you pathetic moron, it's a wacko lefty
> >>> university.
>
> >> Berkley is part of the Univ. of California System.
>
> > Exactly... and Berkeley Lab is part of that system..
>
> >> You would not in the URL that it includes lbl.gov, which indicates that
> >> it is a government site, not a educational site.
>
> > It's not a government site, Dummy. Government sites are labeled as
> > ".gov" not "xxx.gov."
>
> WTF?
>
> .gov means the domain name ends in ".gov". As in "whitehouse.gov".
>
> >> The Berkley I am talking about is a DOE lab.
>
> > Read carefully, you moron. Berkeley Lab is not the DOE.
>
> No, it is a national lab owned by the DOE. It is under contract to be
> run by the University of California. Then why does it say at the very
> bottom of the page, "A U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory
> Operated by the University of California"?
>
> > It is part
> > of the University of California at Berkeley, a wacko lefty university.
> > It's designation as a national lab under the DOE simply states that it
> > is under contract with the DOE but it is staffed and run by the
> > Berkeley University.
>
> You got it backwards. It is a DOE lab that is operated by University of
> California.
>
> > It does not speak for the DOE
>
> Actually, it does. Because it is a DOE-owned lab.
>
> Besides, you yet to show that it has said anything incorrect.
>
> Here is another article saying that up to 10% of all residential power
> use is vampire power:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2V-517BB5...
>
> And here is on in Belgium where they studies actual households: They
> found 8% is wasted on standby power:http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4424225
>
> The lab may be operated by the "wacko, lefty" university, but they came
> to the correct conclusion.
>
> So drop your whining, and show that the results that they are finding
> are incorrect.

These Republicans don't believe in science and Climate Change. Hey, I
want you to do a simple test in your lab. Place a Republican in his
car in a closed garage overnight and leave the car running. If he
survives carbon gases are harmless. ;)

[Forrest Hodge]

On 11/30/2010 9:54 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average
backyard philosopher wrote:
> On Nov 30, 6:47 am, > wrote:
>> On 11/30/10 6:23 AM, Steve wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:26:26 -0500, > wrote:
>>
>>>> On 11/29/10 8:56 PM, Steve wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:27:12 -0500, > wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On 11/29/10 8:07 PM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:28:37 -0500, > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 6:52 PM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:04:28 -0500, > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 8:15 AM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 06:43:17 -0500, > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 5:25 AM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 04:02:21 -0500, Dave >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:14:12 -0800, "5829 Dead, 972 since 1/20/09"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dead@dead> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 01:07:09 GMT,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In >,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/10 10:10 PM, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In >,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I don't hope that nuclear energy takes off. It is not 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clean. Nothing is. Unless we can get fusion to work in a big way,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nuclear should provide a large part of our energy. Unfortunately, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have to build a new electrical grid backbone.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing will ever be 100% clean. Not even if fusion were made practical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not even if aneutronic fusion was made practical.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The best way to cut down our use of fossil fuels in the near-term is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservation.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Staying in one place, shivering, in the dark. No thanks.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? How about just shutting of the electricity to your TV and other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electronics at night, instead of shutting them "off"? When you shut a TV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or other device, it is not truly off. Instead, it still uses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electricity. Cutting off the electricity fixes the problem.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straining at gnats.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's supposedly about 3% of the total US electrical use. That's quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a large "gnat".
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3% isn't worth any effort at all, unless you could duplicate it many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times. 30% is something to do something for, but that won't be cheap.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides, what he describes is nowhere near 3%.. more like 0.3%
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's at least 3%.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Total bull****..
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> According to the DOE, all residential color television usage is about
>>>>>>>>>>> 3% of the total US residential electrical usage. That's all color
>>>>>>>>>>> television usage in both the on and the off state.
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html
>>
>>>>>>>>>> That was ten years ago.
>>
>>>>>>>>> ...and TVs today use even less standby power.. lots less...
>>
>>>>>>>> Not plasma TVs. They can use around 1500 kWH per year or over $150 worth
>>>>>>>> of electricity.
>>
>>>>>>> The standby power is much less than it was ten years ago.. We are
>>>>>>> talking about this "vampire" standby power, aren't we, Bunky?
>>
>>>>>> Who's 'Bunky'?
>>
>>>>>> Standby power is about 5% of residential use according to DOE
>>>>>> http://standby.lbl.gov/archives/global.html
>>
>>>>> <ROTFLMAO> That isn't the DOE, you pathetic moron, it's a wacko lefty
>>>>> university.
>>
>>>> Berkley is part of the Univ. of California System.
>>
>>> Exactly... and Berkeley Lab is part of that system..
>>
>>>> You would not in the URL that it includes lbl.gov, which indicates that
>>>> it is a government site, not a educational site.
>>
>>> It's not a government site, Dummy. Government sites are labeled as
>>> ".gov" not "xxx.gov."
>>
>> WTF?
>>
>> .gov means the domain name ends in ".gov". As in "whitehouse.gov".
>>
>>>> The Berkley I am talking about is a DOE lab.
>>
>>> Read carefully, you moron. Berkeley Lab is not the DOE.
>>
>> No, it is a national lab owned by the DOE. It is under contract to be
>> run by the University of California. Then why does it say at the very
>> bottom of the page, "A U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory
>> Operated by the University of California"?
>>
>>> It is part
>>> of the University of California at Berkeley, a wacko lefty university.
>>> It's designation as a national lab under the DOE simply states that it
>>> is under contract with the DOE but it is staffed and run by the
>>> Berkeley University.
>>
>> You got it backwards. It is a DOE lab that is operated by University of
>> California.
>>
>>> It does not speak for the DOE
>>
>> Actually, it does. Because it is a DOE-owned lab.
>>
>> Besides, you yet to show that it has said anything incorrect.
>>
>> Here is another article saying that up to 10% of all residential power
>> use is vampire power:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2V-517BB5...
>>
>> And here is on in Belgium where they studies actual households: They
>> found 8% is wasted on standby power:http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4424225
>>
>> The lab may be operated by the "wacko, lefty" university, but they came
>> to the correct conclusion.
>>
>> So drop your whining, and show that the results that they are finding
>> are incorrect.
>
> These Republicans don't believe in science and Climate Change. Hey, I
> want you to do a simple test in your lab. Place a Republican in his
> car in a closed garage overnight and leave the car running. If he
> survives carbon gases are harmless. ;)
>
I'm a conservative who is a firm believer in science and doesn't
regularly attend any religious services, what do you make of that? I do
think it's kinda hypocritical that someone who is apparently a firm
believer in science would have such a big problem with SUV vs. Bicycles.
It's Darwinism in action. If the bicyclist cannot adapt, then then
he/she is destined for extinction. Or is there someone unnatural about
the law of the jungle?

[Tºm Shermªn™ °_°[_2_]]

On 12/2/2010 4:30 PM, Forrest Hodge wrote:
> On 11/30/2010 9:54 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average
> backyard philosopher wrote:
>> On Nov 30, 6:47 am, > wrote:
>>> On 11/30/10 6:23 AM, Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:26:26 -0500, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On 11/29/10 8:56 PM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:27:12 -0500, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 8:07 PM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:28:37 -0500, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 6:52 PM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:04:28 -0500, > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 8:15 AM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 06:43:17 -0500, >
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 5:25 AM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 04:02:21 -0500, Dave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:14:12 -0800, "5829 Dead, 972 since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1/20/09"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dead@dead> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 01:07:09 GMT,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In >,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/10 10:10 PM, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I don't hope that nuclear energy takes off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clean. Nothing is. Unless we can get fusion to work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a big way,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nuclear should provide a large part of our energy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have to build a new electrical grid backbone.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing will ever be 100% clean. Not even if fusion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were made practical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not even if aneutronic fusion was made practical.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The best way to cut down our use of fossil fuels in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the near-term is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservation.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Staying in one place, shivering, in the dark. No thanks.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? How about just shutting of the electricity to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your TV and other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electronics at night, instead of shutting them "off"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you shut a TV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or other device, it is not truly off. Instead, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still uses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electricity. Cutting off the electricity fixes the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straining at gnats.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's supposedly about 3% of the total US electrical use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a large "gnat".
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3% isn't worth any effort at all, unless you could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duplicate it many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times. 30% is something to do something for, but that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be cheap.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides, what he describes is nowhere near 3%.. more like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.3%
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's at least 3%.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Total bull****..
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> According to the DOE, all residential color television usage
>>>>>>>>>>>> is about
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3% of the total US residential electrical usage. That's all
>>>>>>>>>>>> color
>>>>>>>>>>>> television usage in both the on and the off state.
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That was ten years ago.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...and TVs today use even less standby power.. lots less...
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not plasma TVs. They can use around 1500 kWH per year or over
>>>>>>>>> $150 worth
>>>>>>>>> of electricity.
>>>
>>>>>>>> The standby power is much less than it was ten years ago.. We are
>>>>>>>> talking about this "vampire" standby power, aren't we, Bunky?
>>>
>>>>>>> Who's 'Bunky'?
>>>
>>>>>>> Standby power is about 5% of residential use according to DOE
>>>>>>> http://standby.lbl.gov/archives/global.html
>>>
>>>>>> <ROTFLMAO> That isn't the DOE, you pathetic moron, it's a wacko lefty
>>>>>> university.
>>>
>>>>> Berkley is part of the Univ. of California System.
>>>
>>>> Exactly... and Berkeley Lab is part of that system..
>>>
>>>>> You would not in the URL that it includes lbl.gov, which indicates
>>>>> that
>>>>> it is a government site, not a educational site.
>>>
>>>> It's not a government site, Dummy. Government sites are labeled as
>>>> ".gov" not "xxx.gov."
>>>
>>> WTF?
>>>
>>> .gov means the domain name ends in ".gov". As in "whitehouse.gov".
>>>
>>>>> The Berkley I am talking about is a DOE lab.
>>>
>>>> Read carefully, you moron. Berkeley Lab is not the DOE.
>>>
>>> No, it is a national lab owned by the DOE. It is under contract to be
>>> run by the University of California. Then why does it say at the very
>>> bottom of the page, "A U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory
>>> Operated by the University of California"?
>>>
>>>> It is part
>>>> of the University of California at Berkeley, a wacko lefty university.
>>>> It's designation as a national lab under the DOE simply states that it
>>>> is under contract with the DOE but it is staffed and run by the
>>>> Berkeley University.
>>>
>>> You got it backwards. It is a DOE lab that is operated by University of
>>> California.
>>>
>>>> It does not speak for the DOE
>>>
>>> Actually, it does. Because it is a DOE-owned lab.
>>>
>>> Besides, you yet to show that it has said anything incorrect.
>>>
>>> Here is another article saying that up to 10% of all residential power
>>> use is vampire
>>> power:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2V-517BB5...
>>>
>>>
>>> And here is on in Belgium where they studies actual households: They
>>> found 8% is wasted on standby
>>> power:http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4424225
>>>
>>> The lab may be operated by the "wacko, lefty" university, but they came
>>> to the correct conclusion.
>>>
>>> So drop your whining, and show that the results that they are finding
>>> are incorrect.
>>
>> These Republicans don't believe in science and Climate Change. Hey, I
>> want you to do a simple test in your lab. Place a Republican in his
>> car in a closed garage overnight and leave the car running. If he
>> survives carbon gases are harmless. ;)
>>
> I'm a conservative who is a firm believer in science and doesn't
> regularly attend any religious services, what do you make of that? I do
> think it's kinda hypocritical that someone who is apparently a firm
> believer in science would have such a big problem with SUV vs. Bicycles.
> It's Darwinism in action. If the bicyclist cannot adapt, then then
> he/she is destined for extinction. Or is there someone unnatural about
> the law of the jungle?

The SUV will become extinct, since it can not adapt to a world where
human overpopulation and over-consumption are rapidly depleting natural
resources and damaging the ecosystem.

100 years from now, the human population will almost certainly be
between 0 and 100 million.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher[_2_]]

On Dec 2, 5:30*pm, Forrest Hodge > wrote:
> On 11/30/2010 9:54 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average
>
> backyard philosopher wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 6:47 am, > *wrote:
> >> On 11/30/10 6:23 AM, Steve wrote:
>
> >>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:26:26 -0500, > * wrote:
>
> >>>> On 11/29/10 8:56 PM, Steve wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:27:12 -0500, > * *wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 11/29/10 8:07 PM, Steve wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:28:37 -0500, > * * wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 6:52 PM, Steve wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:04:28 -0500, > * * *wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 8:15 AM, Steve wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 06:43:17 -0500, > * * * wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 5:25 AM, Steve wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 04:02:21 -0500, Dave >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:14:12 -0800, "5829 Dead, 972 since 1/20/09"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dead@dead> * * * *wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 01:07:09 GMT,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In >,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/10 10:10 PM, Matthew Russotto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In >,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > * * * * wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I don't hope that nuclear energy takes off. It is not 100%
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clean. Nothing is. Unless we can get fusion to work in a big way,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nuclear should provide a large part of our energy. Unfortunately, we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have to build a new electrical grid backbone.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing will ever be 100% clean. *Not even if fusion were made practical.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not even if aneutronic fusion was made practical.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The best way to cut down our use of fossil fuels in the near-term is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservation.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Staying in one place, shivering, in the dark. *No thanks.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? How about just shutting of the electricity to your TV and other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electronics at night, instead of shutting them "off"? When you shut a TV
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or other device, it is not truly off. Instead, it still uses
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electricity. Cutting off the electricity fixes the problem.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straining at gnats.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's supposedly about 3% of the total US electrical use. *That's quite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a large "gnat".
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3% isn't worth any effort at all, unless you could duplicate it many
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> times. *30% is something to do something for, but that won't be cheap.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides, what he describes is nowhere near 3%.. *more like 0.3%
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's at least 3%.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Total bull****..
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> According to the DOE, all residential color television usage is about
> >>>>>>>>>>> 3% of the total US residential electrical usage. * That's all color
> >>>>>>>>>>> television usage in both the on and the off state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html
>
> >>>>>>>>>> That was ten years ago.
>
> >>>>>>>>> ...and TVs today use even less standby power.. *lots less...
>
> >>>>>>>> Not plasma TVs. They can use around 1500 kWH per year or over $150 worth
> >>>>>>>> of electricity.
>
> >>>>>>> The standby power is much less than it was ten years ago.. *We are
> >>>>>>> talking about this "vampire" standby power, aren't we, Bunky?
>
> >>>>>> Who's 'Bunky'?
>
> >>>>>> Standby power is about 5% of residential use according to DOE
> >>>>>>http://standby.lbl.gov/archives/global.html
>
> >>>>> <ROTFLMAO> * * That isn't the DOE, you pathetic moron, it's a wacko lefty
> >>>>> university.
>
> >>>> Berkley is part of the Univ. of California System.
>
> >>> Exactly... and Berkeley Lab is part of that system..
>
> >>>> You would not in the URL that it includes lbl.gov, which indicates that
> >>>> it is a government site, not a educational site.
>
> >>> It's not a government site, Dummy. *Government sites are labeled as
> >>> ".gov" not "xxx.gov."
>
> >> WTF?
>
> >> .gov means the domain name ends in ".gov". As in "whitehouse.gov".
>
> >>>> The Berkley I am talking about is a DOE lab.
>
> >>> Read carefully, you moron. *Berkeley Lab is not the DOE.
>
> >> No, it is a national lab owned by the DOE. It is under contract to be
> >> run by the University of California. Then why does it say at the very
> >> bottom of the page, "A U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory
> >> Operated by the University of California"?
>
> >>> It is part
> >>> of the University of California at Berkeley, a wacko lefty university..
> >>> It's designation as a national lab under the DOE simply states that it
> >>> is under contract with the DOE *but it is staffed and run by the
> >>> Berkeley University.
>
> >> You got it backwards. It is a DOE lab that is operated by University of
> >> California.
>
> >>> It does not speak for the DOE
>
> >> Actually, it does. Because it is a DOE-owned lab.
>
> >> Besides, you yet to show that it has said anything incorrect.
>
> >> Here is another article saying that up to 10% of all residential power
> >> use is vampire power:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2V-517BB5...
>
> >> And here is on in Belgium where they studies actual households: They
> >> found 8% is wasted on standby power:http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4424225
>
> >> The lab may be operated by the "wacko, lefty" university, but they came
> >> to the correct conclusion.
>
> >> So drop your whining, and show that the results that they are finding
> >> are incorrect.
>
> > These Republicans don't believe in science and Climate Change. Hey, I
> > want you to do a simple test in your lab. Place a Republican in his
> > car in a closed garage overnight and leave the car running. If he
> > survives carbon gases are harmless. ;)
>
> I'm a conservative who is a firm believer in science and doesn't
> regularly attend any religious services, what do you make of that? I do
> think it's kinda hypocritical that someone who is apparently a firm
> believer in science would have such a big problem with SUV vs. Bicycles.
> It's Darwinism in action. If the bicyclist cannot adapt, then then
> he/she is destined for extinction. Or is there someone unnatural about
> the law of the jungle?

Yeah, you forget the other side of the equation: BIG FISH EATS LITTLE
FISH, but the LITTLE FISH ORGANIZED would lead to a balance or perhaps
to making the predator redundant when we can all live in abundance.

Monkeys always fought lions, and finally beat them.

Otherwise we get these Darwinist roads where you can't even use your
400 hp muscle car that any big SUV can flatten.

But the predator is not very smart, just powerful. You must be content
to admire your own muscle without using it. Go to the Autobahn instead!

[Forrest Hodge]

On 12/2/2010 6:18 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average
backyard philosopher wrote:
> On Dec 2, 5:30 pm, Forrest > wrote:
>> On 11/30/2010 9:54 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average
>>
>> backyard philosopher wrote:
>>> On Nov 30, 6:47 am, > wrote:
>>>> On 11/30/10 6:23 AM, Steve wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:26:26 -0500, > wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On 11/29/10 8:56 PM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:27:12 -0500, > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 8:07 PM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:28:37 -0500, > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 6:52 PM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:04:28 -0500, > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 8:15 AM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 06:43:17 -0500, > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 5:25 AM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 04:02:21 -0500, Dave >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:14:12 -0800, "5829 Dead, 972 since 1/20/09"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dead@dead> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 01:07:09 GMT,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In >,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/10 10:10 PM, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In >,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I don't hope that nuclear energy takes off. It is not 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clean. Nothing is. Unless we can get fusion to work in a big way,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nuclear should provide a large part of our energy. Unfortunately, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have to build a new electrical grid backbone.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing will ever be 100% clean. Not even if fusion were made practical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not even if aneutronic fusion was made practical.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The best way to cut down our use of fossil fuels in the near-term is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservation.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Staying in one place, shivering, in the dark. No thanks.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? How about just shutting of the electricity to your TV and other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electronics at night, instead of shutting them "off"? When you shut a TV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or other device, it is not truly off. Instead, it still uses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electricity. Cutting off the electricity fixes the problem.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straining at gnats.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's supposedly about 3% of the total US electrical use. That's quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a large "gnat".
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3% isn't worth any effort at all, unless you could duplicate it many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times. 30% is something to do something for, but that won't be cheap.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides, what he describes is nowhere near 3%.. more like 0.3%
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's at least 3%.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Total bull****..
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to the DOE, all residential color television usage is about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3% of the total US residential electrical usage. That's all color
>>>>>>>>>>>>> television usage in both the on and the off state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That was ten years ago.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...and TVs today use even less standby power.. lots less...
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not plasma TVs. They can use around 1500 kWH per year or over $150 worth
>>>>>>>>>> of electricity.
>>
>>>>>>>>> The standby power is much less than it was ten years ago.. We are
>>>>>>>>> talking about this "vampire" standby power, aren't we, Bunky?
>>
>>>>>>>> Who's 'Bunky'?
>>
>>>>>>>> Standby power is about 5% of residential use according to DOE
>>>>>>>> http://standby.lbl.gov/archives/global.html
>>
>>>>>>> <ROTFLMAO> That isn't the DOE, you pathetic moron, it's a wacko lefty
>>>>>>> university.
>>
>>>>>> Berkley is part of the Univ. of California System.
>>
>>>>> Exactly... and Berkeley Lab is part of that system..
>>
>>>>>> You would not in the URL that it includes lbl.gov, which indicates that
>>>>>> it is a government site, not a educational site.
>>
>>>>> It's not a government site, Dummy. Government sites are labeled as
>>>>> ".gov" not "xxx.gov."
>>
>>>> WTF?
>>
>>>> .gov means the domain name ends in ".gov". As in "whitehouse.gov".
>>
>>>>>> The Berkley I am talking about is a DOE lab.
>>
>>>>> Read carefully, you moron. Berkeley Lab is not the DOE.
>>
>>>> No, it is a national lab owned by the DOE. It is under contract to be
>>>> run by the University of California. Then why does it say at the very
>>>> bottom of the page, "A U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory
>>>> Operated by the University of California"?
>>
>>>>> It is part
>>>>> of the University of California at Berkeley, a wacko lefty university.
>>>>> It's designation as a national lab under the DOE simply states that it
>>>>> is under contract with the DOE but it is staffed and run by the
>>>>> Berkeley University.
>>
>>>> You got it backwards. It is a DOE lab that is operated by University of
>>>> California.
>>
>>>>> It does not speak for the DOE
>>
>>>> Actually, it does. Because it is a DOE-owned lab.
>>
>>>> Besides, you yet to show that it has said anything incorrect.
>>
>>>> Here is another article saying that up to 10% of all residential power
>>>> use is vampire power:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2V-517BB5...
>>
>>>> And here is on in Belgium where they studies actual households: They
>>>> found 8% is wasted on standby power:http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4424225
>>
>>>> The lab may be operated by the "wacko, lefty" university, but they came
>>>> to the correct conclusion.
>>
>>>> So drop your whining, and show that the results that they are finding
>>>> are incorrect.
>>
>>> These Republicans don't believe in science and Climate Change. Hey, I
>>> want you to do a simple test in your lab. Place a Republican in his
>>> car in a closed garage overnight and leave the car running. If he
>>> survives carbon gases are harmless. ;)
>>
>> I'm a conservative who is a firm believer in science and doesn't
>> regularly attend any religious services, what do you make of that? I do
>> think it's kinda hypocritical that someone who is apparently a firm
>> believer in science would have such a big problem with SUV vs. Bicycles.
>> It's Darwinism in action. If the bicyclist cannot adapt, then then
>> he/she is destined for extinction. Or is there someone unnatural about
>> the law of the jungle?
>
> Yeah, you forget the other side of the equation: BIG FISH EATS LITTLE
> FISH, but the LITTLE FISH ORGANIZED would lead to a balance or perhaps
> to making the predator redundant when we can all live in abundance.
>
> Monkeys always fought lions, and finally beat them.
>
> Otherwise we get these Darwinist roads where you can't even use your
> 400 hp muscle car that any big SUV can flatten.
>
> But the predator is not very smart, just powerful. You must be content
> to admire your own muscle without using it. Go to the Autobahn instead!
I tried to make it to drag strip at least once a month. As for the SUV
flattening the muscle car, I suppose it could happen, and indeed in
where I live the SUV and Pickup truck rule, but I don't have any ill
will towards those who choose to use a Tahoe or Excursion as their daily
driver, it's their choice.

In the interest of disclosure, I also have a full sized SUV of my
own. Though I don't drive it much since it has over 250k on the clock,
and the Mustang is much more fun to drive anyway. These days the Bronco
is limited to PWC towing duty, and getting around when it snows. It's an
appliance more or less,. I may end up replacing with with an F-150 at
some point, but it has been quite reliable, the only major repair was a
transmission rebuild, other than that it's served me well, and done
everything I've ever asked of it.

The Autobahn is overrated, traffic is terrible on most parts of it,
you're lucky if you can even briefly hit triple digit speeds.