|
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
"Edward W. Thompson" <thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:a-WdnchZ_4AVFyrVnZ2dnUVZ8s7inZ2d@bt.com... > If the US is so technologically advanced how come their autos are so > deplorably inefficient in today's climate of high fuel prices? "Our" 3 ton SUVs are as efficient as anyone's. US autos are so "inefficient" because they are so large and heavy, not because they are technologically inferior. Compare a Lincoln MKZ (18 City / 28 Hwy / 22 Combined) to a Lexus ES350 (19 City / 27 Hwy / 22 Combined). The Lincoln has more passenger and luggage room, is faster, quieter, AND cheaper. So which is the more technologically superior? Hint - it isn't the Lexus. Or throw the BMW 328ci (19 City / 28 hwy / 22 Combined) into the mix. It has much less interior and luggage room, but at least it is faster (if ridiculously over priced AND unreliable). Where is the technological superiority there? Ed |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Tegger wrote: > Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in news:D7ntk.185026 > $102.3536@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > > >> >>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. > > > > Yep. If there's a governmental to suck on, the lobbyists will be right > in there like little piglets attacking a sow. ADM didn't get all the spoils > they did by sitting on their hands. > Yes, I have often referred to friends that this country has become a giant suckling pig no longer able to feed or otherwise take care of itself. All this in less than fifty years! Begin the blame with that good ol' crook, LBJ in the 1960's. JT |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message news:F9SdnV9VYeOJECrVnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... > 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? In what way? Becasue they fall apart after 5 years and force Customers to by new ones? Becasue they cost a lot more? Becasue they are generally smaller? > why are their planes fly-by-wire and ours aren't? Where did you get that idea.....Maybe our old designs (like the 737) are not fly by wire, but what makes you think new designs like the 777 are not? The US has been using fly by wire design in milatary planes since the 70's. > why can they launch 10 [civil] tons geosynchronous, and we can't? Again, where did you get that idea. The heaviest satellite launched by the Europeans is only around 6.5 tons. Check http://www.boeing.com/special/sea-launch/history.htm - Boeing has launched similar sized satellites. Ed |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Elle wrote: > "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. Else > we would not have such a high standard of living here in the > good ol' US of A. > And most laws have loopholes that are intentional. Never leave it to a politician to preach morality. > Otherwise, terrible system. Can't think of a better one > though. > > >>>>The thing is, all three monitored pollutants were already >>>>drastically >>>>reduced (~90%) well before ethanol became common. >>> >>He's right except in a very few pollution prone cities. > > > First, he fails to consider whether whatever reduction has > occurred is sufficient. In certain cities, it most certainly > is not. In cities where ethanol became mandatory, the > difference is noticeable. Second, he overlooks that only > three of fifty states and only a few cities currently > require ethanol to be blended with gasoline. We get one > poster most likely residing in a city with a serious air > pollution problem kvetching about less polluting gas, and it > attracts whiners like flies. Oh that nasty gubmint. > > That gubmint you elect. No one can argue that certain cities/regions have topographical characteristics that foster pollution. Cities like Los Angeles, Phoenix etc. Yet people elect to live there. In Austin, pollution is a minor consideration as it is in San Antonio. Yet the liberal politicos in Austin opted for emmissions testing even though such was not needed. Pollution levels here are 1/10th of what they were in 1990 and it was at all bad back then. >>So the politicos just throw out the baby(s) with the bath >>water and make us all pay... > > > The people you elect are making a tiny portion of the > country pay so that the air they breathe is better and > safer. At times during the year the bad air quality is quite > noticeable without fancy equipment to test it. I imagine how > worse it would be without the ethanol requirements. Fact is > EPA requirements re ethanol have made a difference in the > few areas that still at times during the year exceed EPA > limits. I say that people elect where they live. I would NEVER live in California where most of the wackiness that inflicts this country has its roots. Ethanol is almost as big a scam as "human caused" climate change. JT (Who wonders if Bush should be blamed for global warming on Mars and Jupitor) |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
jim beam wrote: > 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? Er, the L1011 was fly-by-wire by design... JT |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
On Aug 29, 1:41 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com>
wrote: > jim beam wrote: > > Elle 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. > > > 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? > > Er, the L1011 was fly-by-wire by design... DC-10's and MD-11s were also FBW, not full time, but they were indeed FBW in certain situations. Boeing's present FBW systems allows pilot override in situations where the aircraft may need to maneuver outside it's operating envelope while Airbus's system does not. Whether that is good or bad depends on the situation. The Airbus A320 that crashed in Habsheim, France would have benefited from the ability to override the FBW computers, as it was, the a/c was doing what the computer was telling it to do, land. Problem was it landed in the trees. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EM0hDchVlY That works in reverse too. Some Boeing crashes may have been prevented if the computer took over and made corrections or adjusted systems that the pilot may have overlooked during an emergency (retract speed brakes). Crashes for both types are about equal. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Siskuwihane wrote: > On Aug 29, 1:41 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> > wrote: > >>jim beam wrote: >> >>>Elle 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. >> >>>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? >> >>Er, the L1011 was fly-by-wire by design... > > > > DC-10's and MD-11s were also FBW, not full time, but they were indeed > FBW in certain situations. > Certainly not "full time." One DC-10 that broke up over Europe as a result of a rapid decompression lost control because the floor buckled and cables were rendered useless. Additionally, the basic DC-10 design left much to be desired including insufficient hydraulic system redundency which was the major cause for fatalities in a DC-10 that (physically) lost an engine in Chicago and the Sioux City crash landing of a DC-10 that lost all hydralic capability due to an engine failure (#2). > Boeing's present FBW systems allows pilot override in situations where > the aircraft may need to maneuver outside it's operating envelope > while Airbus's system does not. Whether that is good or bad depends > on the situation. > > The Airbus A320 that crashed in Habsheim, France would have benefited > from the ability to override the FBW computers, as it was, the a/c was > doing what the computer was telling it to do, land. Problem was it > landed in the trees. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EM0hDchVlY > > That works in reverse too. Some Boeing crashes may have been prevented > if the computer took over and made corrections or adjusted systems > that the pilot may have overlooked during an emergency (retract speed > brakes). > > Crashes for both types are about equal. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
On Aug 29, 5:02 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com>
wrote: > Siskuwihane wrote: > > On Aug 29, 1:41 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> > > wrote: > > >>jim beam wrote: > > >>>Elle 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. > > >>>eh? europe's not technologically advanced? why are their cars better > >>>than ours? why are their planes fly-by-wire and ours aren't? whycan > >>>they launch 10 [civil] tons geosynchronous, and we can't? > > >>Er, the L1011 was fly-by-wire by design... > > > DC-10's and MD-11s were also FBW, not full time, but they were indeed > > FBW in certain situations. > > Certainly not "full time." One DC-10 that broke up over Europe as a > result of a rapid decompression lost control because the floor buckled > and cables were rendered useless. > > Additionally, the basic DC-10 design left much to be desired including > insufficient hydraulic system redundency which was the major cause for > fatalities in a DC-10 that (physically) lost an engine in Chicago and > the Sioux City crash landing of a DC-10 that lost all hydralic > capability due to an engine failure (#2). That should have been MD-10. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:ebWtk.19269$Mh5.8797@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > > > Tegger wrote: >> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in >> news:D7ntk.185026 $102.3536@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: >> >> >>> >>>Elle wrote: >>> >>>>"Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote >>>> >>>> >>>>>Yes, that's how lobby groups act; they get laws and >>>>>regulations passed, >>>>>thereby using the power of the state to effect their >>>>>desired changes. >>>> >>>> >>>>You see lobbyists making laws. I see members of Congress, >>>>the President, and those who elect them doing so. >>>> >>> >>>After they have been paid off by lobbyists. >> >> >> >> Yep. If there's a governmental to suck on, the lobbyists will be >> right in there like little piglets attacking a sow. ADM didn't get >> all the spoils they did by sitting on their hands. >> > > > Yes, I have often referred to friends that this country has become a > giant suckling pig no longer able to feed or otherwise take care of > itself. > > All this in less than fifty years! > > Begin the blame with that good ol' crook, LBJ in the 1960's. > > JT > no,begin with the Fabians in the early 1900's;they are the ones who began working to get socialists in education and gov't. the avalanche point came in the late 1960s. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:nxWtk.19289$Mh5.8420@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > > > jim beam wrote: > >> 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? > > > Er, the L1011 was fly-by-wire by design... > > JT > > so's the F-16. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Siskuwihane wrote: > On Aug 29, 5:02 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> > wrote: > >>Siskuwihane wrote: >> >>>On Aug 29, 1:41 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> >>>wrote: >> >>>>jim beam wrote: >> >>>>>Elle 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. >> >>>>>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? >> >>>>Er, the L1011 was fly-by-wire by design... >> >>> DC-10's and MD-11s were also FBW, not full time, but they were indeed >>>FBW in certain situations. >> >>Certainly not "full time." One DC-10 that broke up over Europe as a >>result of a rapid decompression lost control because the floor buckled >>and cables were rendered useless. >> >>Additionally, the basic DC-10 design left much to be desired including >>insufficient hydraulic system redundency which was the major cause for >>fatalities in a DC-10 that (physically) lost an engine in Chicago and >>the Sioux City crash landing of a DC-10 that lost all hydralic >>capability due to an engine failure (#2). > > > That should have been MD-10. No, these incidents are clearly documented as DC-10(s). JT |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
Jim Yanik wrote: > Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in > news:ebWtk.19269$Mh5.8797@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > > >> >>Tegger wrote: >> >>>Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in >>>news:D7ntk.185026 $102.3536@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: >>> >>> >>> >>>>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. >>> >>> >>> >>>Yep. If there's a governmental to suck on, the lobbyists will be >>>right in there like little piglets attacking a sow. ADM didn't get >>>all the spoils they did by sitting on their hands. >>> >> >> >>Yes, I have often referred to friends that this country has become a >>giant suckling pig no longer able to feed or otherwise take care of >>itself. >> >>All this in less than fifty years! >> >>Begin the blame with that good ol' crook, LBJ in the 1960's. >> >>JT >> > > > no,begin with the Fabians in the early 1900's;they are the ones who began > working to get socialists in education and gov't. > the avalanche point came in the late 1960s. > Sorry, but this country was clearly the top of the heap in 1963 under JFK. The decline began in 1965 with the passage ot the voting rights and civlil rights laws during LBJ's, (who was concerned about his legacy), administration. Socialism has always been a factor... JT |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
On 29 Aug 2008 12:15:35 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> 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. Sorry, but you are living in the past. The USA is in decline both technologically and most unfortunately morally. Even more unfortunately, most Americans are completely oblivious of what is going on both inside and outside of their country and fail to recognize the problems they and their country have. With respect to medical care, perhaps some of the most respected surgeons and doctors practice in the USA but how many have access to their expertise? Precious few, as a very substantial minority of citizens simply are unable to afford medical care. |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
On 2008-08-30, Edward W Thompson <thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > Sorry, but you are living in the past. The USA is in decline both > technologically and most unfortunately morally. Even more > unfortunately, most Americans are completely oblivious of what is > going on both inside and outside of their country and fail to > recognize the problems they and their country have. > > With respect to medical care, perhaps some of the most respected > surgeons and doctors practice in the USA but how many have access to > their expertise? Precious few, as a very substantial minority of > citizens simply are unable to afford medical care. See, now, that's how people go about making themselves look stupid... Roughly 45 Million Americans do not have Health Insurance. There are around 300 Million Americans total. So, your statement "a very substantial minority of citizens simply are unable to afford medical care." is patently false, and probably intentional. The US continues to lead the world in innovation and design. Manufacturing and resource management have become major holes. And I am not sure what you mean by "morally". In that regard, the US is not that much different than any other Western culture... -- Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X |
Re: "May Contain up to 10% Ethanol"
On Aug 30, 12:32 am, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com>
wrote: > Siskuwihane wrote: > > On Aug 29, 5:02 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> > > wrote: > > >>Siskuwihane wrote: > > >>>On Aug 29, 1:41 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Gru...@ExtraGrumpyville.com> > >>>wrote: > > >>>>jim beam wrote: > > >>>>>Elle 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. > > >>>>>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? > > >>>>Er, the L1011 was fly-by-wire by design... > > >>> DC-10's and MD-11s were also FBW, not full time, but they were indeed > >>>FBW in certain situations. > > >>Certainly not "full time." One DC-10 that broke up over Europe as a > >>result of a rapid decompression lost control because the floor buckled > >>and cables were rendered useless. > > >>Additionally, the basic DC-10 design left much to be desired including > >>insufficient hydraulic system redundency which was the major cause for > >>fatalities in a DC-10 that (physically) lost an engine in Chicago and > >>the Sioux City crash landing of a DC-10 that lost all hydralic > >>capability due to an engine failure (#2). > > > That should have been MD-10. > > No, these incidents are clearly documented as DC-10(s). No, I'm not saying those accidents were MD-10 aircraft. What I am saying is that I meant to put "MD-10", not "DC-10" in my other post. When I previously wrote "DC-10's and MD-11's", that should have been "MD-10's and MD-11's". Sorry for the confusion. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:31 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands