What - Intelligent Thought?

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:12:28 -0800, Howard Kveck
wrote:

The only difference is that she would
need a plane that has greater rangethan he did because she needs to fly further.
It's really pretty simple.

Why can't she stop to refuel? Do you think it's worth another
$200,000.00 of taxpayer money per round trip to save her an hour?

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

snip
And ale wives are painful. In case anyone was wondering about that.

Wait until you date a candiru.

--
Bill Asher

On Feb 13, 6:07 am, Curtis L. Russell wrote:

Storage of power is plugging the phone and tablet PC to the wall
at night. Do either of these count?

Sure they do. Nothing wrong with it. But... You just screwed your
energy efficiency since you had to charge a battery. The battery is a
nasty sort of waste too, if you care about that sort of thing.

That 2nd law is a mutha****a. So let's wish it away.

http://www.powerstream.com/NiMH.htm
"The coulometric charging efficiency of nickel metal hydride batteries
is typically 66%, meaning that you must put 150 amp hours into the
battery for every 100 amp hours you get out. The faster you charge the
worse this gets."

http://www.powerstream.com/SLA.htm
The coulometric charging efficiency of flooded lead acid batteries is
typically 70%, meaning that you must put 142 amp hours into the
battery for every 100 amp hours you get out. This varies somewhat
depending on the temperature, speed of charge, and battery type.

I think I remember NiCad as about the same. Imagine that, no free
lunch. Who da thunk?

On Feb 12, 4:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
(just to keep the context in mind):
On Feb 11, 11:41 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

Nahh, I'm pretty sure that the Liberals would much rather just kill off
2/3rds of the world's population. That way their homes in the Marin
Redwoods
would remain unchanged.

There are still Redwoods, after Reagan/Watt?

Watt was it Watt avoided jail time for, again, as a part of the most
corrupt (indictments, etc.) administration up to that time?

How many of those Marin Redwoods homes actually have "conservative"
owners, do you think? Since "conservatives" are the only productive
people on the planet, one would expect the cost of these dwellings
would be overwhelmingly affordable only to the financially successful.
Just a guess.

(someone posted, excuse my being lost in the forest):
it however does not say that "trying to hold down CO2 emission would
end up costing millions or even billions of lives". that part is
invented by you.

Do you really think so? The USA provides about 60% of the surplus food in
the world. Most of the conveniently arable land in the world is now under
cultivation. While we could expand farming it becomes considerably more
expensive and because the farmed areas are marginal they become far more
sensitive to climatic variations.

That actually sounds rational, on the surface. However, "provides"
covers a vast complexity. As usualy, "it's all political", starting,
perhaps with "what we 'provide' and why".

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Amberwaves/S.../usfoodaid.htm

Just a quick read from the above:

The amount and types of "surplus" food in the USA has changed in
recent times. There have been drops in our "supply"; I didn't see
mention in the conservative-owned/controlled media of any Somali heavy
bombers attacking the Marin Redwoods.

Food is "provided" from government to government, at least the huge
grain "surpluses" that are the ordinary understanding IRT this
subject. Political ends are served, and distribution systems can be
very poor, even with best intentions. IOW, even of what amounts might
be "donated, free", an equal amount is not "received, free" by
individuals.

"Provided" food is often not just given away, including delivery (as
our generation was led to believe in 4th grade "Uncle Sam"
propaganda), but sold in national/local markets. This can be
disruptive in terms of effect on local production, and can cause
complications when "surplus" is used to feed animals intended for
human consumption.

Not to mention, if your figure of 60% is accurate (some recent years,
USA percentage was 50%), if US food surplus stopped, there would still
be about half of the "surplus", "provided" food in the pipeline, for
better or worse.

If we were to remove the entire corn and soybean output from our food
production it would almost wipe out our surplus food production. Entire
areas of Africa and Asia that are presently being supported by the surplus
food in the world would be without food so that white middle class Americans
could feel like they're saving the world.

As above, the "without food" is wrong.

Do you suppose those people would quietly starve to death? Digging deep into
your own intellect what would YOU think would be the result of cutting off
the food supply to massive areas of the world?

Lots of people in the world, including many in the USA, have deficient
diets, with no apparent ill effect on the homes in the Marin Redwoods.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070123-2.html
At the same time, we need to reform and
modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks --
and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017."

That's bass-ackwards. Fuel economy and emissions controls for light
trucks need to catch up to those for cars. Well, there's your poor
management, including driving markets with advertising (domestic
makers of SUV's, light trucks), and lobbying dollars (domestic makers
pushing for easy requirements for the vehicles they're making money
on) at work.

The only sources of energy which is clean and efficient is nuclear energy.
We are in great need of about a thousand nuclear generators over the USA and
then we'd be in a position to cut oil and coal use by a lot.

Nuclear energy is not clean by any stretch of the imagination. Or,
maybe we could bury the waste in your back yard? If it's OK with the
neighbors, of course.

But the bottom line is this - if you expect to use the US surplus of food to
replace our present use of fuels then you had better be ready for a world
war. And it won't be a nice small clean war.

Baloney.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/fatus/monthlysummary.htm

We import nearly as much food as we export, with the trend being to
import more of the percentage.

The old "America Feeds the World" slogan seems not to be true. Well,
imagine that.

I wonder why "water" hasn't been mentioned as a power source. --D-y

On Feb 13, 8:57 am, Jack Hollis wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:12:28 -0800, Howard Kveck

wrote:
The only difference is that she would
need aplanethat has greater rangethan he did because she needs to fly further.
It's really pretty simple.

Why can't she stop to refuel? Do you think it's worth another
$200,000.00 of taxpayer money per round trip to save her an hour?

I can't believe that people are still making this claim **five** days
after she's already been flown home in an Air Force C-37A (Gulfstream
V). It's a 12-seat plane that Speaker Hastert had traveled home in on
several occasions. It's marginally larger than the C-20B (Gulfstream
III) that Speaker Hastert was typically transported in. I've
certainly heard from enough people that the C-20B flies at a lower
altitude, has smaller tanks, and will not meet its published range
flying into a winter headwind. It's an older plane that's supposedly
really loud compared to newer executive jets like the C-37A, and
likely not as fuel efficient given its size. Tack on landing delays
due to fog in San Francisco and their unique closely paired parallel
runways and that 4250 mile published range (of the C-20B) may not be
enough. In fact, I hear that the cost in resources (VIP security
measures at the refueling site, additional takeoff/landing wear on the
aircraft, and additional fuel usage) probably makes a non-stop flight
in a C-37A cheaper than a C-20B with a refueling stop.

When the DoD said that a "larger" plane capable of making non-stop
flights to San Francisco might not always be available, they were
likely referring to the C-37A. People with an agenda against the
current Speaker imagined they were referring to the C-32/757 or the
C-40/737.

http://news.bostonherald.com/politic...ticleid=182301
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...AGEVO2E271.DTL

quote

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the subject of Republican criticism for
her mode of air travel, flew home nonstop Thursday night aboard a 12-
seat military aircraft set aside for use by lawmakers.

clip

Pelosi flew nonstop from the nation's capital to San Francisco to
attend the funeral services of the late Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy aboard a
C-37A, the military's version of a Gulfstream V that can travel 6,300
miles. It is one of the planes used regularly by Hastert, Pelosi's
office and the Pentagon said.

unquote

On 13 Feb 2007 18:14:06 GMT, William Asher wrote:

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

snip
And ale wives are painful. In case anyone was wondering about that.

Wait until you date a candiru.

I'll pass. Or maybe not, depending on whether you believe the stories.

And this is one bit of knowledge I could have lived without, even if I
have no plans to visit the Amazon.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
I think I remember NiCad as about the same. Imagine that, no free
lunch. Who da thunk?

Just so long as the beer is free.

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

And this is one bit of knowledge I could have lived without, even if I
have no plans to visit the Amazon.

If you wait long enough there will be a rain forest in Greenland.

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On 13 Feb 2007 18:14:06 GMT, William Asher wrote:

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

snip
And ale wives are painful. In case anyone was wondering about that.

Wait until you date a candiru.

I'll pass. Or maybe not, depending on whether you believe the stories.

And this is one bit of knowledge I could have lived without, even if I
have no plans to visit the Amazon.

Ok, picture the scene, you're trophy alewive tells you no more nookie until
you take her on that romatic honeymoon you promised. She wants to see the
Amazon. You don't really want to see the Amazon, but don't really feel
like getting yet another divorce for at least six months so what the hell,
you go to the Amazon. Once you're there, the alewive, as alewives do,
wants to go skinny dipping, claiming it will be romantic. You will be able
to tell her that skinny dipping, well, any kind of dipping, in the Amazon
is not really a good idea because of the candiru. She may look a little
green in the gills when you tell her about the candiru, but it's in both of
your best interest. After she's recovered, the both of you can use the hot
tub, after which your alewive will probably be really good with a little
butter, lemon, parsley, some rice pilaf, and a cold bottle of the local
brew.

Easy come, easy go. Plenty of fish in the sea. etc. etc.

--
Bill Asher

Donald Munro wrote:

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

And this is one bit of knowledge I could have lived without, even if I
have no plans to visit the Amazon.

If you wait long enough there will be a rain forest in Greenland.


There would be except it will be underwater. Didn't you see Waterworld?

--
Bill Asher