Divorce Your Car --and get into a relationship with a Bike!

Matthew Russotto wrote:
In article ,
Bill Baka wrote:
The less meat more veggies makes a lot of sense. Somewhere I remember
reading that it takes about 5 times more energy to produce a pound of
steak than a pound of veggies, mostly due to the fact that you have to
grow the veggies, then they are eaten by the cattle and metabolized,

You want to eat what cows eat? I don't.

Not grass. Plant veggies.

meat that is not all that healthy for you. I saw a special on television
once where the farmers were comparing slices of their beef and bragging
about who had the best 'marbling', meaning thick fat bands through the
meat. It pumps up the weight of the beef cattle and raises the fat
content, to no one's advantage except the farmer, and they could care
less about your health except for the panic over mad cow disease and such.

Marbling is a good thing; that's what differentiates between USDA
Select, Choice, and Prime, and it has a major impact on tenderness of
the beef.

And the cholesterol content. More tender means more fat means more
cholesterol.

Lighting mostly means replacing incandescent with fluorescent these
days, except that most of the bulb assemblies are made in China with
zero regard for RFI emissions.

Not just RFI; also audio emissions (they buzz) and flicker?
Not to mention the odd colors, usually green or pink.

My colors are OK, but you are right that they do make audible noise and
at least once, smoke then Kapow. (Chinese).

Wait a few years on HVAC, since that is where I am pressuring venture
capitalists to get money to develop A / C units with an SEER over 20 and
to try to get the EPA, DOE, Congress or whoever to ban these cheesy
Chinese units that come in at 9.5.

SEER 13 is already scheduled to be mandated. SEER 20? The units
would be bigger than your house and cost as much...


Not really. Just a little bit better engineering and a few new ideas.
Nothing that I could patent, but rolled together could make 20 easily.
The technology exists but nobody is willing to spend a few more dollars
up front to save that much electricity in say, 2 years.
Bill Baka

RJ wrote:
Bill Baka wrote:

The automakers have been keeping the obvious from the public who seems
to buy all the crap they can hand out.

Yeah, and they bought the rights to the 100 mpg carburetor just so we
would have to buy more gas, right?

That was always a myth. Computer controlled fuel injection is about as
close as we are going to get. Most of the energy is wasted as exhaust
heat and radiator heat. Use that and you might get close to 100 MPG.
Bill Baka

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:30:43 +0000, R Brickston wrote:

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:15:36 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 04:28:44 +0000, R Brickston wrote:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:40:49 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
wrote:

Where would the U.S. Congress have something to do with a state
running it's own business, such as granting the placement of refinery?

109th U.S. Congress (2005-2006)
H.R. 5254: Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act
Introduced: May 2, 2006
Sponsor: Rep. Charles Bass [R-NH]

New refineries are not being built due, in part, to a permitting
process that is overly cumbersome and capital intensive. Refiners are
subject to significant environmental and other regulations and face
several new Clean Air Act requirements over the next decade.

Nice of you to provide my arguments. These are federal laws, in which
case the Republican party has control. So, stop blaming the flaming
liberals, and ask your duly elected conservatives to do something.

Status: 99% of Republicans supporting, 92% of Democrats opposing.

Sounds like, if they really want it, they can get it.

Remember: More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than have died in
United States Commercial Nuclear Power plant operations.

Cute. Wrong, but cute.

You want to talk deaths, talk about coal operations. Many more die in
mining coal, and untold more will die from pollution involved in coal
plants, than would ever die from nuclear energy production. Not one, but
considerably fewer than from coal. But what do current policies favor?
And who is in control of that?


--

David L. Johnson

__o | I believe that the motion picture is destined to revolutionize
_`\(,_ | our educational system and that in a few years it will supplant
(_)/ (_) | largely, if not entirely, the use of textbooks -- Thomas
Edison, 1922

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 22:29:32 +0000, R Brickston wrote:

I think Teddy is the unfortunate result of sympathy votes caused by
his brothers assasinations.

Well, yeah. Not my favorite Kennedy, either. So? The latest energy he's
been involved with is canning offshore windmills off of Cape Cod since
they would "spoil" his view. Such an environmentalist.

We could complain about conservatives by continually pointing at Richard
Nixon. Get on with it. If the party in power doesn't improve refinery
capacity, it is not because of environmentalists. It is because someone
doesn't want the refineries built, someone with clout. This is not Ralph
Nader.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a
_`\(,_ | conclusion. -- George Bernard Shaw
(_)/ (_) |

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:37:04 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:12:21 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , R Brickston wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:18:48 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

In article , Bill Funk wrote:

Also there is probably a fair number of other reasons for invading
including having a base of operations in the region and generally
causing instability, which increases prices further. A bombing then calm
for years then a bombing doesn't keep the prices as high as invasion and
instability every day.

Wow. A nice conspiracy, there. And, like most such, it requires no
actual evidence.

What was the actual evidence the reason was WMDs? Oh, GWB said so. and he
_never_ lies, right?

"...I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and
biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations.
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to
eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our
troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens
of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities; sadly,
those same citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts
to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers
are with the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of
U.S. troops participating in the current action.

I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is,
unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam
Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international
community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program.
While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can
be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a
lasting solution through diplomatic means. "

snip

Wooptie do da day.... an uncited quote. I've seen it before can't quite
place it... probably from someone on the left side of the single
effective political party.

Just because I'm not on your 'team' doesn't mean I am on that other
'team'. Silly binary thinkers.


Oh, please! Confess, you know exactly who wrote it and under what
circumstances.

I don't remember nor care. I do know it was either a democrat or a
republican, which are in my view essentially the same thing. Just
different in their excuses and pandering.


Just like the adage "I only drink by myself or with someone."

Yet, you accuse Bush alone of the WMD "lies."

I didn't accuse him of anything but being yet another lying holder of
public office. It's the same BS Clinton and the democrats fed us years
earlier.

BTW, it was Nancy Pelosi on December 16, 1998.

Ms. union who's own businesses are non-union. Another shining example of
how there is only one effective political party in the USA.

In article ,
R Brickston rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ wrote:

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:11:03 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

In article ,
R Brickston rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ wrote:

109th U.S. Congress (2005-2006) H.R. 5254: Refinery Permit Process
Schedule Act Introduced: May 2, 2006 Sponsor: Rep. Charles Bass
[R-NH]

New refineries are not being built due, in part, to a permitting
process that is overly cumbersome and capital intensive. Refiners
are subject to significant environmental and other regulations and
face several new Clean Air Act requirements over the next decade.
New Clean Air Act requirements will benefit the environment but
will also require substantial capital investment and additional
government permits. There is currently a lack of coordination in
permitting requirements and other regulations affecting refineries
at federal, state, and local levels. There is no consistent
national permitting program for refineries, compared with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) lead agency role
over interstate natural gas pipelines, liquefied natural gas, and
hydroelectric power and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s role
over nuclear plants. More regulatory certainty and coordination is
needed for refinery owners to stimulate investment in increased
refinery capacity.

And you think this partisan drivel is some sort of statement of
fact?

Oil executives- who oughta know, after all- testified that there's
not much point in building new refineries in the U.S.

The topic was do the environmentalists prevent the building of
refineries. But to comment on your claim, you're saying big oil who
are big pals of the Republicans (just ask any liberal) are so
powerless they couldn't kill this bill in its infancy?

What kind of crack are you smoking, dude? I neither said nor meant
anything of the kind.

Between the expectation of dropping crude production and increasing
demand from China and India, the oil industry mostly thinks it's a
bad investment because the refineries will end up being
underutilized and thus under-profitable. New refineries would be a
bad business decision for most oil companies.

What a minute, we're importing gasoline right now to make up for the
shortfall from the current refineries who are operating at near
maximum capacity.

Yup. The oil industry is heavily into forecasting, after all. You are
talking about a company spending billions of dollars over a lot of years
to build a refinery. A refinery is not built in 8 months.

And note that the Clean Air Act was signed into law by a Republican
president with major Republican Congressional support. It was one
of the major legislative achievements of the past 50 years.

And the Dems didn't have a thing to do with it?

Sure, but the Republicans were a big part of that law, had a lot of
input into it, and a Republican could have vetoed it but didn't. How
old are you? Were you not alive at that time?

Remember: More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than have
died in United States Commercial Nuclear Power plant operations.

And more people have died on George W. Bush's orders than died on
9/11.

It's a volunteer armed forces who know the danger. I doubt that the
9/11 victims would have volunteered to work that day given the same
knowledge.

Wasn't talking about the troops. Perhaps you forget that 39,000 to
44,000 Iraq citizens have been killed?

Your point?

I think Teddy is the unfortunate result of sympathy votes caused by
his brothers assasinations.

Not for six terms.

In article ,
DTJ wrote:

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 23:40:09 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

I can't tell you about bleeding heart liberals. Most all the other
liberals live in the same world you do, and probably drive about as
much. I'm a left-winger although my heart doesn't bleed much. I
see it as a practical matter of investing public assets in public
goods with

Hey ****head, how about we invest your assets, not mine. There is no
such thing as public assets.

Another moron heard from. Where do you twits breed? The stupidity of
your post requires no further comment.

Bill Baka wrote:

RJ wrote:
Bill Baka wrote:

The automakers have been keeping the obvious from the public who seems
to buy all the crap they can hand out.

Yeah, and they bought the rights to the 100 mpg carburetor just so we
would have to buy more gas, right?

That was always a myth. Computer controlled fuel injection is about as
close as we are going to get. Most of the energy is wasted as exhaust
heat and radiator heat. Use that and you might get close to 100 MPG.
Bill Baka

Whoosh.

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

(RJ) said in rec.autos.driving:

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

(RJ) said in rec.autos.driving:

william welner wrote:

There are many neighborhoods for example such as Carol Gardens in
Brooklyn that have attached one family houses with backyards with
.lots of space

Attached, as in sharing walls with my neighbors? No thanks.

Right. So you'd rather live out in BuFu Egypt and drive two hours each
way to and from work?

Strawman choice. But the commute is easier than being kept up all night
by lousy neighbors.

Strawman yourself. You can have noisy neighbors even if you live in a
detached house. In Tucson I lived in a house with a 1.1 ACRE lot, and
I could still hear my neighbor's dog barking from certain rooms with
the windows open.

Imagine how exciting that would have been if the dog was 15 feet from
your window, like he could well be in a rowhouse.

william welner wrote:
It is my hope that Al Gore who is a border state native of TN will get the
Democrat Presidential Nomination, and get elected With a majority of
Democrats in both houses, who can push through the necessary reforms.

There is nobody else in my opinion.

He is the only candidate that can speak southern who has served in the army
in Viet Nam, thus is no draft dodger to be attacked by conservatives as a
weakling; he is well versed in global
warming and pollution, which he wrote a book about; and he is knowledgeable
about foreign relations and the military.

He like Tricky Dick Nixon who lost to JFK in 1960, took the loss very
gracefully and not as a sore loser. and came back to win in 1968 to win the
Presidency, Al Gore will also come back to win in 2008.
"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...
william welner wrote:
Hopefully some people will come to power to make changes in 2008 as FDR
did
in 1932 to deal with the Great Depression by creating the New Deal..
I hope so. It could have happened in 2000, but you know, they stole the
elections.





Someone please explain why military service is so damned important to
get elected? It invokes visions of taking orders from others to go and
storm a hill and get shot because someone of higher 'rank' told you to.
Is this the mark of a leader or a follower?
Many of the brightest among us have a high level college degree like a
Masters or Ph.D. (or 2 or 3) and would have never considered being a
military grunt.
I know the Kennedy's ( the boys who were old enough) were all pushed
into the service by their father Joseph and that is how his pride and
joy, Joe, Jr. got killed on a top secret bombing mission against Germany.
Comments?
Bill Baka