FreeflyChile

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.html I guess cheap to me means less than $2 a gallon - and definitely less than $3 a gallon.

Well, the *real* answer to this is "fix the foreign policy screwups of the current US President".

I tried like hell to find it on youtube but the only thing I found was some guy lipsynching to the soundbite while wearing a paper mask. A far cry from the original. Elvisio "glad to be able to contribute to the discussion in a meaninful fashion" Rodriguez The great Stanley Spadowsky in UHF.

Exactly.

Right, but what I meant is that it'd be happening too fast for you to be able to tell what's going on.

Even assuming that you could see the light emitted by the train, I don't think the human eye or brain can process the information fast enough for you to see it.

We're number 1! We're number 1!

Of course, voting FOR X could also result in hell here....

You anomaly guys are too good at skydiving. No more jumping for you until the rest of us catch up!

Reminds me of the bill hicks bit about following people named "vernon"

So basically, the Chicago gun ban is next...

I'd venture to guess there are a number of students that had a chop on their first jump and never jumped again for a ratio of 1:1. Also, if you just jumped intentional cutaways and had mals every time...you could in theory have a ratio of greater than 1:1. Finally, to get completely silly, if you were on your first jump and accidentally hit the cutaway handle on the plane and as a result had to land with the plane...you'd have a ratio that approaches infinity!

Shouldn't the market be allowed to decide that? I think that's the whole gist of this discussion. Having worked for Exxon, I see their senior management as being extraordinarily competent and responsible people. I expect other oil company executives are not too different. The market is responsible for the current situation. and it's funny you point to Exxon on this - they've been very upfront that they are an oil company and do not have expertise in other forms of energy. While BP is making a point of alternative forms, Exxon is sticking to its core competency and will make money on oil as long as it can. That makes them rather useless to the point you're making here. ANWR is our life insurance policy - when things get bad, we have it ready. Cashing out this policy now only delays our adaptation to the new world, and will make the experience far worse. If the account balance matter is hurting the economy too much, that's a hell of a good reason to ban 14mpg Dodge SUVs and the Hummer. While I think that mileage requirements probably will speed things up as far as using less fuel/making more efficient cars, it seems the market is already deciding: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25125212/ I'm sure that's a repost, and it's not exactly breaking news...but it does show that people not buying Hummers is hurting the brand to the point where the higher ups at GM have to weigh their options.

So in reading all of the back and forth w/r/t politics that goes on here, and the usual posters that go back and forth with their usual defense of their party and the usual attacks of the opposing party, it got me wondering.... ....to those that are either very much liberal/conservative or if you just know that you'll be voting Obama or McCain already, is there some issue where you agree with the opposing candidate more than the one you plan to vote on? I was going to say 'is there a quality...' but I'm thinking I'd get a lot of "I wish McCain was younger like Obama" or "I wish Obama was a war hero like McCain". So I'm very curious to see what the usual suspects that post in the SC say...

I thought battery pack replacement was closer to 100,000. I can't remember if I read that on the Tesla or the Hymotion sites. Ok, the sarcastic thought that comes to mind is "why are people suddenly concerned with "breaking even" when it comes to automobiles? That's never been a priority in the past. That said, one factor that people don't seem to consider is that in addition to looking at the "break even" number, which is attainable, but by using less fuel you are USING LESS FUEL! One gallon saved is one gallon still on the market. More fuel in the market keeps the price of everything else you buy down. So, by using energy efficient vehicles you lower your total cost of ownership as well as the price of your groceries and jump tickets. And by supporting the technology you help to advance it. $0.02 While I agree with what you say in a theoretical sense, I really don't think that it's realistic to expect the suburban family of 4 that has to make ends meet to take such a 'large-scope' view of their decision and it's impact. I think it IS, however, much more realistic to think that this same family of 4 will take a look at gas prices now, the car they have now and its costs (gas/maintenance/insurance/etc) and then compare that to what it would cost to replace that car and whether they save any money over the period that they'd own the car (this is, of course, strictly speaking about numbers - not factoring things like personal preference that would go against a strictly economical view). As Bill said, and what I was asking about, is whether these cars actually make economic sense to the 'average Joe' when you look at more than just gas mileage.

Does this include the actual cost of the new electric car vs. keeping the car you have? Or are these numbers just based on post-purchase operational costs? Just asking because even though hybrids (i know you're talking about electric cars, but I'm curious and you know a lot about this) will save you money on gas - is it enough to recoup the cost of buying the hybrid model over the conventional one? For example: http://automobiles.honda.com/civic/ The 'normal' civic 4 door - starting at just over 15k The hybrid civic 4 door - starting at 22,600 The civic natural gas 4 door - starting at just under 25k.

This is not really furthering the debate, but while reading this thread, I just had this mental image of an adviser coming up to Bush as he's in the oval office doing his sudoku and Bush getting angry and telling the adviser "Get me Colonel Jessup NOW!"

Those conversations may be innocent enough...but what about having them overhear you and your wife arguing, or what about heated discussions that involve personal opinion of the current administration - things that could be interepreted as threatening and grounds for action by those watching you..... what then?

if it's my 10th jump of the day, and we've been jumping in the 12-18 mph winds all day and then they say the winds are like 18-22, sure, I'll go...or at least i would if i were jumping more. now, i wouldnt because i havent jumped much the last few years

From what I understand, also, the defense played up the fact that the dude in the video doesnt have a mole on his back and R Kelly does.

Just saw on a banner on CNN.com

So the days where we were outraged by a $2.00 gallon of gas (as it was in 2000, where the state of IL actually suspended its gas taxes when gas was nearing $2/gal) are effectively over, even if we did all switch to driving hybrids...

From what I've read lately, the gas price issue has really REALLY affected automakers - not just in advertising going towards emphasizing gas mileage but to the point where I read somewhere that GM was considering selling the Hummer brand, as it's just getting killed. So, given this trend (which, while annoying, I think is a long-term positive), to what level do hybrids/efficient cars/alternative energy vehicles have to take over in order for it to make any difference with oil prices? I mean, buying a hybrid will make YOUR gasoline bills drop but how extensive does this have to go for it to actually affect supply so that gas prices come back down a bit? My understanding is that a big part of the oil price problem right now is the large amount of consumption that China has suddenly developed, so I'm not sure how extensive the switch to more gas efficient vehicles has to be to really affect things. Regardless, if this makes it so that all these alternative energies and engine development speed up, I think we're better for it (even if it hurts now). I guess it's easy for me to say...I take the El to work every day....

Given the flooding that has been happening lately...Wisconsin might not be safe either!

The problem is that these people are not adapting (learning English) and are not being left behind ... I don't see why this is a problem. You can conduct your official government business in English if you want to. No private party is obligated to speak to you in English, and you're not obligated to do business with them in Spanish. If a business owner requires a bilingual employee in order to communicate with his or her customers and you're not bilingual, you don't meet the requirements for the job, so either become bilingual or find a job elsewhere. No business owner is obligated to hire you. Precisely. This kind of complaining sounds to me like the call of those that refuse to adapt. So is the next cry going to be "Why should *I* have to get a master's degree to get a good job?? If you require a master's degree to hire me, you should be out of business!!"??