jim beam

Jim Yanik wrote:
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in
> news:Mr-dndVU6ekNPSvVnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
>> Art wrote:
>>> If we had paid more for gas when it was a buck a gallon and the extra
>>> money had been used for alterative fuel research we would not be in
>>> the fix we are in now. Handling billions of bucks over to our
>>> enemies every year.
>
> after Carter's Windfall Profits taxes(*after* OPEC formed and put their
> squeeze(embargo) on the US),FOREIGN oil imports shot up tremendously,US oil
> production steadily dropped.
>
> The exact opposite of what was needed.
> BTW,more oil imported means more risk of oil SPILLS,as tankers are the
> greatest risk for oil spills,not offshore oil platforms.
> (as demonstrated by the Gulf platforms,especially after Katrina.Ocean life
> TEEMS around those platforms.)
>
>> it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem, not where we get it
>> from. last time i looked, and feel free to correct me on this, per
>> capita energy consumption in the usa was twice that of other highly
>> developed places in europe.
>
> And we produce far more than Europe,justifying that consumption.

no. per capita means per person. an island with two people will
consume twice that of an island with one person of the same per capita
consumption. but in our case, we're an island with one person consuming
as much as an island with two people. it makes no sense for what is
supposed to be the most technologically advanced nation on earth.




>
>> we're supposed to have some of the
>> brightest and best minds in the world here - man on the moon and all
>> that - but do we apply them to energy consumption? it's like we take
>> pleasure in balancing our best achievements in one department with a
>> perverse desire to be incredibly dumb in others.
>
> what's incredibly dumb is not looking at the entire picture.

see above.



>>
>>>
>>> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Hcntk.185034$102.39754@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>> howard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Hopefully people will begin to get mad at what the Republicans are
>>>>>> doing to the U.S..
>>>>> Begin? They're not upset yet? If they voted for this moron, they
>>>>> got what they asked for.
>>>>> If McCain wins and gets his way we may get all we want for $6-7 per
>>>>> gallon.
>>>> <giggle>
>>>>
>>>> I can promise you if O'bammy 'n gang get in, insane Al Gore 'n
>>>> company will have firm footholds in the new admin and higher gas
>>>> prices will be a certainty.
>>>>
>>>> After all, it is the dems that have fiercely resisted new oil
>>>> exploration, nuclear plants etc.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, youse got you doo doo together awright...
>>>
>
>
>

jim beam

Elle wrote:
> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote
>> all three monitored pollutants were already drastically
>> reduced (~90%) well before ethanol became common.
>
> The EPA states that, since 1970, new cars are more than 90%
> cleaner. Unfortunately, over the same time period vehicle
> use has increased by 200%.
>
> Easy come, easy go.
>
>

no, that's bad math. if a 1970 car produces 100 pollution units and a
2008 car produces 90% less, that's 10 pollution units. twice as many
cars means twice as much 2008 pollution units, i.e. 20 pollution units,
so you're still 80 units ahead.

Elle

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
> Elle wrote:
>> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote
>>> all three monitored pollutants were already drastically
>>> reduced (~90%) well before ethanol became common.
>>
>> The EPA states that, since 1970, new cars are more than
>> 90% cleaner. Unfortunately, over the same time period
>> vehicle use has increased by 200%.
>>
>> Easy come, easy go.
>
> no, that's bad math. if a 1970 car produces 100 pollution
> units and a 2008 car produces 90% less, that's 10
> pollution units. twice as many cars means twice as much
> 2008 pollution units, i.e. 20 pollution units, so you're
> still 80 units ahead.

Depends on whether 20 pollution units is still a problem;
depends on how many cars are new. Plus the premise is
fallacious, because ethanol is not common. It is required in
only a few parts of the country where the pollution problems
are either (1) so serious that EPA limits are exceeded; or
(2) so undesirable that the locals, through a voting
process, choose to mandate ethanol. It's been a long haul in
LA and other cities getting the pollution down to something
bearable. It's simply not for you or anyone else who did not
live through the heavily air-polluted years of LA and cities
like it to spout off your issues with gubmint's imposition
of ethanol.

jim beam

Elle wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
>> Elle wrote:
>>> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote
>>>> all three monitored pollutants were already drastically
>>>> reduced (~90%) well before ethanol became common.
>>> The EPA states that, since 1970, new cars are more than
>>> 90% cleaner. Unfortunately, over the same time period
>>> vehicle use has increased by 200%.
>>>
>>> Easy come, easy go.
>> no, that's bad math. if a 1970 car produces 100 pollution
>> units and a 2008 car produces 90% less, that's 10
>> pollution units. twice as many cars means twice as much
>> 2008 pollution units, i.e. 20 pollution units, so you're
>> still 80 units ahead.
>
> Depends on whether 20 pollution units is still a problem;

not to the fundamental math of wrongly thinking 90% reduction in
pollutants is negated by 200% increase in usage it doesn't!



> depends on how many cars are new. Plus the premise is
> fallacious, because ethanol is not common.

eh? what are you talking about??? it's ubiquitous across every state.
it's federal!!!


> It is required in
> only a few parts of the country where the pollution problems
> are either (1) so serious that EPA limits are exceeded; or
> (2) so undesirable that the locals, through a voting
> process, choose to mandate ethanol.

no, you need to get an update on that!


> It's been a long haul in
> LA and other cities getting the pollution down to something
> bearable.

you're working with 1970's data.


> It's simply not for you or anyone else who did not
> live through the heavily air-polluted years of LA and cities
> like it to spout off your issues with gubmint's imposition
> of ethanol.

1. ethanol is not required to make clean burning fuel.
2. ethanol /is/ required to subsidize farmers and oilcos when it's
imposed on the public, at /twice/ their expense - once from tax subsidy,
and twice from lower mpg's.

see point 1. again for emphasis.

Elle

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
> Elle wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
>>> Elle wrote:
>>>> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote
>>>>> all three monitored pollutants were already
>>>>> drastically
>>>>> reduced (~90%) well before ethanol became common.
>>>> The EPA states that, since 1970, new cars are more than
>>>> 90% cleaner. Unfortunately, over the same time period
>>>> vehicle use has increased by 200%.

> not to the fundamental math of wrongly thinking 90%
> reduction in pollutants is negated by 200% increase in
> usage it doesn't!

Down to 10 units; up to 20 units.

Easy come, easy go.

>> depends on how many cars are new. Plus the premise is
>> fallacious, because ethanol is not common.
>
> eh? what are you talking about??? it's ubiquitous across
> every state. it's federal!!!

EPA rules apply to every place in the U.S. But not all areas
of the U.S. exceed pollution limits the EPA sets, hence not
all areas of the U.S. need to use oxygenated fuels.

>> It is required in only a few parts of the country where
>> the pollution problems are either (1) so serious that EPA
>> limits are exceeded; or (2) so undesirable that the
>> locals, through a voting process, choose to mandate
>> ethanol.
>
> no, you need to get an update on that!

All this is readily available on the net. My statements
above are accurate, though I guess you want to quibble over
alternatives to ethanol for oxygenating.

Elle

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
>>> it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem,
> it makes no sense for what is supposed to be the most
> technologically advanced nation on earth.

Hyper-consumption of oil helped the U.S. grow to become the
most technologically advanced. It makes complete sense.

Edward W. Thompson

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:15:06 -0700, "Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com>
wrote:

>"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
>>>> it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem,
>> it makes no sense for what is supposed to be the most
>> technologically advanced nation on earth.
>
>Hyper-consumption of oil helped the U.S. grow to become the
>most technologically advanced. It makes complete sense.
>

Only an American would think that.

If the US is so technologically advanced how come their autos are so
deplorably inefficient in today's climate of high fuel prices? Is it
because you are no quite as smart as you seem to think you are?

jim beam

Elle wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
>> Elle wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
>>>> Elle wrote:
>>>>> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote
>>>>>> all three monitored pollutants were already
>>>>>> drastically
>>>>>> reduced (~90%) well before ethanol became common.
>>>>> The EPA states that, since 1970, new cars are more than
>>>>> 90% cleaner. Unfortunately, over the same time period
>>>>> vehicle use has increased by 200%.
>
>> not to the fundamental math of wrongly thinking 90%
>> reduction in pollutants is negated by 200% increase in
>> usage it doesn't!
>
> Down to 10 units; up to 20 units.

no, it's down 90, up 10. net 80 decrease.



>
> Easy come, easy go.
>
>>> depends on how many cars are new. Plus the premise is
>>> fallacious, because ethanol is not common.
>> eh? what are you talking about??? it's ubiquitous across
>> every state. it's federal!!!
>
> EPA rules apply to every place in the U.S. But not all areas
> of the U.S. exceed pollution limits the EPA sets, hence not
> all areas of the U.S. need to use oxygenated fuels.

but ethanol is federally mandated for every state.


>
>>> It is required in only a few parts of the country where
>>> the pollution problems are either (1) so serious that EPA
>>> limits are exceeded; or (2) so undesirable that the
>>> locals, through a voting process, choose to mandate
>>> ethanol.
>> no, you need to get an update on that!
>
> All this is readily available on the net. My statements
> above are accurate, though I guess you want to quibble over
> alternatives to ethanol for oxygenating.
>
>

no, i want to contest the validity of "oxygenating". it's b.s. to claim
increasing oxygen in exhaust means better combustion when the oxygen is
pre-combined and hasn't participated in the reaction, as is the case
here. if you want to "oxygenate", add it in a form that /can/
participate. but that would improve mpg's and thus decrease fuel sales,
so that's not going to happen.

jim beam

Elle wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
>>>> it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem,
>> it makes no sense for what is supposed to be the most
>> technologically advanced nation on earth.
>
> Hyper-consumption of oil helped the U.S. grow to become the
> most technologically advanced. It makes complete sense.

eh? europe's not technologically advanced? why are their cars better
than ours? why are their planes fly-by-wire and ours aren't? why can
they launch 10 [civil] tons geosynchronous, and we can't?

Tegger

"Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote in news:bfAtk.589$3A4.395@newsfe04.iad:

> "Grumpy" wrote
>> Elle wrote:
>>> "Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote
>>>
>>>>Yes, that's how lobby groups act; they get laws and
>>>>regulations passed,
>>>>thereby using the power of the state to effect their
>>>>desired changes.
>
>>> You see lobbyists making laws. I see members of Congress,
>>> the President, and those who elect them doing so.
>>>
>>
>> After they have been paid off by lobbyists.
>
> I love a good dose of cynicism. :-) Those not drunk with the
> fun of venting on Usenet will remember that our system of
> laws is pretty good at catching instances of bribery.



It's not considered bribery if you give the money to
the party rather than individual politicians, which is how
bribes, uh, contributions are done today.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...earch&aq=f&oq=


> Else
> we would not have such a high standard of living here in the
> good ol' US of A.
>
> Otherwise, terrible system. Can't think of a better one
> though.


I can. The one that existed in the US prior to 1914.
That one doesn't exist anymore.



--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Jim Yanik

jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in
news:BvqdnUZ_DM61-irVnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@speakeasy.net:

> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in
>> news:Mr-dndVU6ekNPSvVnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>
>>> Art wrote:
>>>> If we had paid more for gas when it was a buck a gallon and the
>>>> extra money had been used for alterative fuel research we would not
>>>> be in the fix we are in now. Handling billions of bucks over to
>>>> our enemies every year.
>>
>> after Carter's Windfall Profits taxes(*after* OPEC formed and put
>> their squeeze(embargo) on the US),FOREIGN oil imports shot up
>> tremendously,US oil production steadily dropped.
>>
>> The exact opposite of what was needed.
>> BTW,more oil imported means more risk of oil SPILLS,as tankers are
>> the greatest risk for oil spills,not offshore oil platforms.
>> (as demonstrated by the Gulf platforms,especially after Katrina.Ocean
>> life TEEMS around those platforms.)
>>
>>> it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem, not where we get
>>> it from. last time i looked, and feel free to correct me on this,
>>> per capita energy consumption in the usa was twice that of other
>>> highly developed places in europe.
>>
>> And we produce far more than Europe,justifying that consumption.
>
> no. per capita means per person. an island with two people will
> consume twice that of an island with one person of the same per capita
> consumption. but in our case, we're an island with one person
> consuming as much as an island with two people. it makes no sense for
> what is supposed to be the most technologically advanced nation on
> earth.


Now you're getting into moronic "moral equivalence".
So,there's no point in arguing further.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik

Edward W. Thompson <thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> wrote in news:a-
WdnchZ_4AVFyrVnZ2dnUVZ8s7inZ2d@bt.com:

>
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:15:06 -0700, "Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
>>>>> it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem,
>>> it makes no sense for what is supposed to be the most
>>> technologically advanced nation on earth.
>>
>>Hyper-consumption of oil helped the U.S. grow to become the
>>most technologically advanced. It makes complete sense.
>>
>
> Only an American would think that.
>
> If the US is so technologically advanced how come their autos are so
> deplorably inefficient in today's climate of high fuel prices? Is it
> because you are no quite as smart as you seem to think you are?
>

actually,the US leads the world in innovation,but we aren't so good in
practical application of our technology,as evidenced by VCRs,autos and some
other things. We are also the best in medical care.Foreigners prefer to
come to the *US* for thier complex surgeries and treatment.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Siskuwihane

On Aug 29, 1:34 am, Edward W. Thompson <thomed...@btopenworld.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:15:06 -0700, "Elle" <honda.lion...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"jim beam" <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote
> >>>> it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem,
> >> it makes no sense for what is supposed to be the most
> >> technologically advanced nation on earth.
>
> >Hyper-consumption of oil helped the U.S. grow to become the
> >most technologically advanced. It makes complete sense.
>
> Only an American would think that.
>
> If the US is so technologically advanced how come their autos are so
> deplorably inefficient in today's climate of high fuel prices? Is it
> because you are no quite as smart as you seem to think you are?

It's because US vehicles became as bloated as those who drive them.

jim beam

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Edward W. Thompson <thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> wrote in news:a-
> WdnchZ_4AVFyrVnZ2dnUVZ8s7inZ2d@bt.com:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:15:06 -0700, "Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
>>>>>> it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem,
>>>> it makes no sense for what is supposed to be the most
>>>> technologically advanced nation on earth.
>>> Hyper-consumption of oil helped the U.S. grow to become the
>>> most technologically advanced. It makes complete sense.
>>>
>> Only an American would think that.
>>
>> If the US is so technologically advanced how come their autos are so
>> deplorably inefficient in today's climate of high fuel prices? Is it
>> because you are no quite as smart as you seem to think you are?
>>
>
> actually,the US leads the world in innovation,but we aren't so good in
> practical application of our technology,as evidenced by VCRs,autos and some
> other things. We are also the best in medical care.Foreigners prefer to
> come to the *US* for thier complex surgeries and treatment.

americans head overseas for their medical treatment in droves because
it's so over-priced here.

http://medicaltourismguide.org/

we always do a few high profile headline-grabbers each year, frequently
pro-bono work for poor foreigners. it's great for the career profiles
of the respective surgeons and medical teams - twin separations for
example - and it's great p.r., but the rest of the time, citizens have
to wrangle with insurers that that don't want to cough up what they've
been paid for, lifetime treatment expense limits, etc., so in fact, our
standards of medical care are pretty low. check out our infant
mortality rate ranking:

http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/r..._Rate_aall.htm

there we are, #37 on the list, up there with butt little countries
like croatia, belarus and lithuania. and three times worse than the
world leader, singapore.

world leadership? hardly.

jim beam

Jim Yanik wrote:
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in
> news:BvqdnUZ_DM61-irVnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
>> Jim Yanik wrote:
>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in
>>> news:Mr-dndVU6ekNPSvVnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>>
>>>> Art wrote:
>>>>> If we had paid more for gas when it was a buck a gallon and the
>>>>> extra money had been used for alterative fuel research we would not
>>>>> be in the fix we are in now. Handling billions of bucks over to
>>>>> our enemies every year.
>>> after Carter's Windfall Profits taxes(*after* OPEC formed and put
>>> their squeeze(embargo) on the US),FOREIGN oil imports shot up
>>> tremendously,US oil production steadily dropped.
>>>
>>> The exact opposite of what was needed.
>>> BTW,more oil imported means more risk of oil SPILLS,as tankers are
>>> the greatest risk for oil spills,not offshore oil platforms.
>>> (as demonstrated by the Gulf platforms,especially after Katrina.Ocean
>>> life TEEMS around those platforms.)
>>>
>>>> it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem, not where we get
>>>> it from. last time i looked, and feel free to correct me on this,
>>>> per capita energy consumption in the usa was twice that of other
>>>> highly developed places in europe.
>>> And we produce far more than Europe,justifying that consumption.
>> no. per capita means per person. an island with two people will
>> consume twice that of an island with one person of the same per capita
>> consumption. but in our case, we're an island with one person
>> consuming as much as an island with two people. it makes no sense for
>> what is supposed to be the most technologically advanced nation on
>> earth.
>
>
> Now you're getting into moronic "moral equivalence".

no, i'm getting into basic math.


> So,there's no point in arguing further.

and an attitude like that gets us where we are today. way to go with
the leadership there buddy.