jumper03 0 #26 May 19, 2004 QuoteQuote1 - discussions about 4-way 2 - boobs 3 - discussions about 4-way 4 - discussions about 8-way 5 - tunnel stuff 6 - climbing 7 - misused statistics did I mention 4-way? #1,3,4,5. RW forum #2,6. Bonfire #7. Any forum. For this Forum...this fits. What if we talk about an armed 4-way? IC has hang gun OC has shotgun who would handle the .50 cal? That would be a bitch to turn with... not to mention how you'd have to work the fall rates Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #27 May 19, 2004 Without regard to the article, or the other factors involved in this campaign (which I support), for those that insist on using this line of argument, I offer this: For the masses of people out there, confronted with the prospect of not having heat, power, cars, ad infinitum, the overwhelming message is going to be: get it back. They aren't going to care how, they won't care with what source. It's easy to debate it now. If there were a sudden massive embargo on Europe and North America, the masses won't give a sh*t. The key is to project what the response would be when they are cold, hungry, and unable to participate in the economy. It's a sad fact, but fact nonetheless.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #28 May 19, 2004 Of course it's about oil. That's been obvious from before day 1. Saying that the dismal outcome disproves that is bunk. All the dismal outcome shows is that the war was poorly planned and badly mismanaged.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #29 May 19, 2004 QuoteWithout regard to the article, or the other factors involved in this campaign (which I support), for those that insist on using this line of argument, I offer this: For the masses of people out there, confronted with the prospect of not having heat, power, cars, ad infinitum, the overwhelming message is going to be: get it back. They aren't going to care how, they won't care with what source. It's easy to debate it now. If there were a sudden massive embargo on Europe and North America, the masses won't give a sh*t. The key is to project what the response would be when they are cold, hungry, and unable to participate in the economy. It's a sad fact, but fact nonetheless. Well said. Soon as people start sitting in line at the gas station for an hour to get their daily ration of gas, public opinion about the war will suddenly shift. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #30 May 19, 2004 >For the masses of people out there, confronted with the prospect of >not having heat, power, cars, ad infinitum, the overwhelming >message is going to be: get it back. Agreed. But if we do "get it back" from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia etc the rest of the world might just realize that it's us or them. We can take on any other country in the world right now; we can't take on all of them. Fortunately that's not the only option. If we took all the money we plan to spend on the Iraq war and put it into alternative fuels we would have all the fuel we needed, and we would not have to do without our cars or furnaces or plastics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #31 May 19, 2004 Quote>For the masses of people out there, confronted with the prospect of >not having heat, power, cars, ad infinitum, the overwhelming >message is going to be: get it back. Agreed. But if we do "get it back" from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia etc the rest of the world might just realize that it's us or them. We can take on any other country in the world right now; we can't take on all of them. Fortunately that's not the only option. If we took all the money we plan to spend on the Iraq war and put it into alternative fuels we would have all the fuel we needed, and we would not have to do without our cars or furnaces or plastics. What alternative fuels would we be able to develop and how long do you think it would take for the US to be energy self-sufficient? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #32 May 19, 2004 QuoteYou forgot beer! Sorry - I'll pour ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #33 May 19, 2004 >What alternative fuels would we be able to develop and how long do >you think it would take for the US to be energy self-sufficient? Depends on how much you want to spend. Assuming Wolfowitz's latest estimates are a little conservative, the Iraq war will cost around $75 billion. So that gives you some money to work with. Take electricity. Right now, we generate most of our electricity with coal, nuclear and natural gas. Increasing our nuclear generation capabilities with PBMR reactors and the like would not only allow us to free up that natural gas as a vehicle fuel, but would allow us to do high temperature dissociation of water and generate hydrogen. Hydrogen is useful for three things - it lets you do hydrocracking to make each barrel of oil go 25% farther (i.e. lets you get more gasoline out of a barrel of oil, instead of producing les useful bunker fuel and asphalt.) It is also useful for making natural gas/methane (easy to do) and for fueling vehicles (which is currently hard to do.) More conventional nukes have a place as well. The AP600 design is the most advanced light-water design we have now, and can burn MOX fuel, which we happen to have a lot of. (It's a mix of low-grade plutonium and spent conventional nuclear fuel.) Reprocessing of nuclear fuel would use up the waste we have stored at plants, give us a use for degraded nuclear weapons, and let us get by with far less mining of uranium. The end goal would be a system based on nuclear, hydro and coal for baseline generation, with solar and wind as 'peakers.' Wind is as cheap as a new nuclear plant today. Solar is about three times as expensive but 'peaks' very well (i.e. it generates the most when demand is highest.) Coal would be phased out gradually as new sources came on line. Then there's vehicles. Today we have road vehicles that get 60mpg and that run on natural gas. With the additional natural gas from the power plant closures, and the potential for synthesized natural gas from the hydrogen from the HTR's, you have a source of fuel for at least 20% of the cars/buses on the road. Up the current light-truck CAFE from 20 mpg to 28 mpg - i.e. close the SUV loophole. Up the car CAFE from 28 to 34 mpg, which is a piece of cake with hybrid technology on even a small percentage of US cars. By doing this, you cut total transportation fuel demand by 25%. That's enough to stop importing Middle Eastern oil all by itself. For larger vehicles, biodiesel will both give you a cleaner fuel and put a lot of US farmers to work. We'd need to dedicate about 5% of the area of the country to producing fuel for trucks and trains, but that's not insurmountable. Other gains are smaller-scale. Generation incentives for homeowners could both help them out financially and get them generating more power than they use. Solar thermal alone could cut fuel oil usage by 15-20%. Add all the above up, and you could eliminate non-North-American imports completely. (We'd still import from Canada and Mexico, but they're not much of a threat in terms of energy security.) Nothing I listed above is new technology; the cars and trucks are available today, AP600 and PBMR pilot plants are running, trucks can (and do) use biodiesel, and solar/wind technology is proven. It would be very expensive to do all that quickly; a ballpark estimate would be $400 billion to get free of non-North-American imports within ten years. But if that can save us from a war or two, and save the lives of, say, 25,000 people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #34 May 19, 2004 QuoteWhat if we talk about an armed 4-way? IC has hang gun OC has shotgun who would handle the .50 cal? That would be a bitch to turn with... not to mention how you'd have to work the fall rates Silly boy, you don't carry the .50 cal. Maybe the 240B, but not a .50 cal."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #35 May 19, 2004 I have said this before...Lets work on Alternative fuels and let those jackasses learn how to mix oil and sand to make it edible. The problem is that We wil not REALLY look into alternative fuels until we HAVE to... Thats unfortunate. But then again I do drive a Mustang GT. So maybe I should shut up? But I HAVE been looking at these hybrids...But the maintenance/repair costs are really unknown now...And just like skydiving gear, I am not about to pay to be a test driver. Bill, how much for a tranny in your car?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #36 May 19, 2004 >The problem is that We wil not REALLY look into alternative fuels > until we HAVE to... Thats unfortunate. Yep, but they are creeping in anyway, which is good news. I can buy biodiesel in San Diego now. >Bill, how much for a tranny in your car? No idea. I got the CVT instead of the manual. The manual version costs about what any manual-transmission car does to fix. (I should have gotten the Prius - no transmission!) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #37 May 19, 2004 QuoteI trust that you are indeed "well regulated". I had a good Bowel Movement today yes. But an armed good citizen is only a threat to a corrupt government. Armed Bad citizens are a threat to everyone. But taking the weapons from the good guys will not disarm the bad guys."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #38 May 19, 2004 QuoteCapitalism IS mean to poor people. you see, in order for some people to be rich, there has to be poor people. That's so not right. Capitalism is a means of allocating resources. One of the odd facets of economic systems is that they grow. And the methods of allocating their products effects the rates at which they grow. In fact, over the long term, Capitalism is nice to poor people, because it's nice to everyone--it grows the total output more/faster.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #39 May 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteCapitalism IS mean to poor people. you see, in order for some people to be rich, there has to be poor people. That's so not right. Capitalism is a means of allocating resources. One of the odd facets of economic systems is that they grow. And the methods of allocating their products effects the rates at which they grow. In fact, over the long term, Capitalism is nice to poor people, because it's nice to everyone--it grows the total output more/faster. I was listening to an interview on the radio yesterday with a 20something young woman who had been abandoned by her parents as a baby, and had lived in 15 foster homes and various state homes during her childhood, being moved between schools just as often. The state had given her a 2-week life skills course and a change of clothes before turning her loose at age 18. The amazing thing is that she had held down a job at O'Hare airport until the layoffs following 9/11 and had managed to save $4,000 (which has now all gone). Now what exactly has capitalism done for this woman? What kind of equal opportunity did she get?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #40 May 19, 2004 QuoteI had a good Bowel Movement today yes. One clear sign of old age is capitalizing "Bowel Movement." ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #41 May 19, 2004 QuoteQuoteI had a good Bowel Movement today yes. One clear sign of old age is capitalizing "Bowel Movement." Or keeping careful track of them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #42 May 19, 2004 QuoteOne clear sign of old age is capitalizing "Bowel Movement." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Or keeping careful track of them. Those are the funniest 2 replies I've read in a while! Anyway, I agree with Ron here... lets get rid of our dependence on oil and let the middle east realize that its luck with being born on top of oil has run out. Hell, they'd probably fight us because we took our dollars elsewhere. Bill's ideas are great... now we need to make it happen. I really wish that Americans could move as a collective sometimes to get things like this moving! I'm down.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #43 May 20, 2004 QuoteI really wish that Americans could move as a collective sometimes to get things like this moving! Ahh...the collective...it's been tried. Doesn't work on a compulsory level. They're still trying in China though...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #44 May 20, 2004 QuoteAhh...the collective...it's been tried. Doesn't work on a compulsory level. They're still trying in China though... You talking about the evil masterplan to have every Chinese citizen jump simultaneously to throw the earth off axis?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #45 May 20, 2004 QuoteAhh...the collective...it's been tried. Doesn't work on a compulsory level. They're still trying in China though... Not really. The Chinese have pretty much given up on it too.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #46 May 20, 2004 QuoteTell us again who constitutes the militia. Well, according to the founding fathers/framers, the miltias was constituted of the whole people. Everyone. All of us. According to US law (TITLE 10 Subtitle A PART I CHAPTER 13 Sec. 311. QuoteSec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are -(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia In other words, I AM THE MILITIA, and so is every man between 17 and 45. QuoteCorrect! It is the militia that should be well regulated. Regulated was does not mean subject to thousands of regulations. It means well prepared. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html Read the part about "well regulated." QuoteThe Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1989) defines regulated in 1690 to have meant "properly disciplined" when describing soldiers: [obsolete sense] b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1. 1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side. edited for format and to add definitionswitty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumperconway 0 #47 May 20, 2004 read this "THE REAL REASON WE ARE IN IRAQ/ long read " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #48 May 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteAhh...the collective...it's been tried. Doesn't work on a compulsory level. They're still trying in China though... Not really. The Chinese have pretty much given up on it too. Only on the face of it IMO. I don't trust them one bit.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mpsniper98 0 #49 May 20, 2004 capatilism is what makes this the greatest country on the face of the earth. there will always be people who don't get a fair shake and those who would rather watch tv than learn...but if there is no competition in economy, your country ends up like the USSR, dead. NBFT Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #50 May 20, 2004 QuoteQuoteCapitalism IS mean to poor people. you see, in order for some people to be rich, there has to be poor people. That's so not right. Capitalism is a means of allocating resources. One of the odd facets of economic systems is that they grow. And the methods of allocating their products effects the rates at which they grow. In fact, over the long term, Capitalism is nice to poor people, because it's nice to everyone--it grows the total output more/faster. Ever tried to play monopoly having a tenth of the initial money than the rest of the players? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
