Too good to be true?

My apologies, the vote for the siezure case was 5-4. In this case O'Connor actually voted in the dissent; the original story upon which I based my comment above had indicated she was one of the 5. (No, it was an AP posting shortly after the ruling, so don't go "right wing whacko media here"). That was obviously in error and has since been corrected as a Google search just indicated.

My original rant was based upon that originally erroneous story and the fact that she has in the past sided with things such as upholding the reversal of first amendment rights in the campaign finance reform law decision. Given that occurence, I didn't question what I had originally read.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to
Mark & Juanita
Loading thread data ...

Hmmm. Fish stocks are being depleted, if not eliminated, by overfishing. Land, as well as sea, animals and plants are going extinct due to habitat loss, pollution, and overhunting, and the very atmosphere is changing due to pollution. CO2 is going up, O is going down. The reduction in the ozone layer is increasing skin cancer rates, and nobody's quite sure what's happening to the amphibians.

Seems to me the hubris, or maybe just plain ignorance, is on your side of the fence.

"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Reply to
lgb

In places.

Just as they've been doing for millions of years,

And, let's see. That's related to pollution how, exactly?

Well then I'm not quite sure if I should be concerned.

Seeing something doesn't mean that (a) it's real, (b) it's caused by what you think it's caused by, or (c) it's anything new or unique. Correlation is not the same thing as causation. You've seen the statistics regarding water drinking habits and mass murderers, haven't you?

Reply to
Dave Hinz

Ah. You'll probably be pleased to see this, then:

formatting link
Q.

Reply to
Tom Quackenbush

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Reply to
Prometheus

I hit send a little too fast, there. Just wanted to throw in that I'm not in agreement with you and trying to spur you on with that quote, just pointing out that if you've got a belief, it's senseless to sit on your hands and mope about it. We've got our way of doing things in the US, and Germany has it's own as well- what's good for the goose may not be good for the gander. No reason to assume that you must let power brokers "assimilate" you.

Reply to
Prometheus

Ah, a Rush Limbagh fan. Can we destroy the planet? Probably not- but I've no doubt that we can make it a rather unpleasant place to live. I used to buy the line about global warming being junk science, but it's a little late in the game to keep pretending it isn't there- go watch the weather channel for a bit- the climate has changed quite a bit already. There are very few places on the Earth that aren't directly altered by human beings, and while one person using an aerosol can isn't going to a darn thing to the ecology, 6 billion of us doing it sure can.

While we may not destroy the planet, or render it absolutely sterile, it's certainly possible that we can make it a worse place to live. That's reason enough to think about using resources sensibly. It may not take that much dramatic change on the part of every person to make a huge difference to the whole. We're still going to need oil, we're still going to have to cut down trees- it's not like we should all go back to living in caves and riding on horseback or any of that nonsense, but there is certainly room for admitting that something is happening and working towards a reasonable solution.

Reply to
Prometheus

I agree with everything you've said except it's going to be a real problem changing the global consciousness. There's far too many people with the selfish attitude that they're not going to be here when the world turns into an unsalvageable garbage dump so why should they care? Then you have the people at the top of the economic food chain who are not going to relinquish their wealth without a great deal of kicking and screaming.

At the same time, you've got the have-not population of the planet (and there's an overwhelming lot of them) who are aspiring to the lifestyle of the haves. If the have-nots ever come to approach even partially the economic status of the haves, the current destruction rate of the planet will increase exponentially.

And lastly, there's the large segment of our population who believe science will find a way out.

Me, I believe friendly aliens will visit earth and freely offer their advanced science to fix all our woes.

Reply to
Upscale

I thought so too, but what the heck. I'm just happy with the 42 mpg, and figure I can deal with the window most of the time to make that happen!

Reply to
Prometheus

That's a good question- the mfg sticker claims 35-51 hwy mpg. I have no idea where the table came from in the first place. Could be they used some kind of test that had nothing to do with real-world conditions.

Reply to
Prometheus

HP is not extremely high (I want to say it's 180 off the top of my head, but that could be wrong), but it is pretty zippy- 0-60 in 7.2 seconds, which is enough for me. Engine is a 2.0L Mazda.

Reply to
Prometheus

They did an episode of that "Mythbusters" show on that very thing. At first it seemed like they were the same, but when they took identical vehicles on a track and tried running them until they were out of gas, the car running AC lost by a large margin. Seemed that the drag from the open window wasn't nearly as much of a factor. They only tested one make, though- I would imagine the body style has a lot to do with how much drag is really there.

Reply to
Prometheus

71 km = 44 miles

Sorta makes you wonder?

Reply to
George

If it's that high, I agree the drop ascribed is excessive due to compressor load...

Reply to
Duane Bozarth

Perhaps you could list the places in which they are abundant?

From pollution?

You got me. I couldn't find the report on oxygen levels I'd read on this. However, it's accepted by almost everyone that CO2 is going up. By definition, if the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing the percent of oxygen, and nitrogen, and the trace gases, are going down.

What's destroying the ozone layer, Dave?

Oh good - ignorance is bliss.

I don't know why asthma has greatly increased over the last few decades either, but I sure would like to.

I'm never sure with you Dave, whether your really believe your positions or you're just yanking my chain. But in either case, some may take your views as stated, so I felt I shoud respond. But this is the end of it for me. You can have the last words, mistaken though they be.

BTW, do you believe the earth is only 6000 years old?

Reply to
lgb

I'm surprised ther eis more sugar in corn kernals than in the entire sorghum plant. I'm not clear on why the grain is stored at all. It seems ot me it would be more efficient to continuously process it as it is harvested and just tank the jiuce. E.g. make the 'squeezer' part of the combine.

...

How much electricity is generated from petroleum here in the US today?

When I was in the industry it was all but nil. Coal was tops, followed by hydro and nuclear (not sure of the order) and those three accounted at least 90% of the electricity generated in the US.

Reply to
fredfighter

More a Steve Malloy fan

Steve Malloy presents some pretty objective evidence that while global climate change may be occurring (as it always has, the global climate has never been in steady state); it is highly questionable that the change is due to human causes.

Evidence that if enough people say the same thing often enough and loud enough, people will buy into it, even if the evidence is shaky at best.

The global warming hysteria is a prime example. The idea that by measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous, yet this is one of the bits of evidence being used to show how average temperature is increasing compared to several centuries in the past.

I don't disagree with taking care of things, particularly if for no other reason than to keep our local environment pleasant. However, the strident extreme is what is being heard, and often acted upon -- that side will settle for nothing less than an absolute halt to future development and desires reversal of a significant portion of our current way of life (for everybody but themselves of course -- the "enlightened ones" must maintain their standard of living to assure that the rest of us peons are behaving appropriately).

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to
Mark & Juanita

Funny thing - Following a recent engine swap, I've suddenly got a wonky speedo, which is of course making the odometer less than reliable. I filled up the tank the other day, and checked the mileage. A quick bit of math led to around 84 MPG. That's one goddamn fine engine I put in there! :)

Reply to
Tim and Steph

Swap the transmission too? Kinda hard to see how an engine swap alone could do that... easy if you changed the tranny as well.

Reply to
Doug Miller

It isn't "squeezed", it's fermented (in essence). It also is required simply for logistics--to have a continuous process, one must have feedstock continuously--harvest comes only in a short period.

OTTOMH I'm not sure of the total fraction but it is now a measurable fraction--the Clinton/Gore-era paranoia against coal caused a shift to natural gas. Plus, siting issues made any other construction extremely difficult and so there was a plethora of gas-fired turbines installed for fast reserve generation and a lot of these then ended up as being needed.

Reply to
Duane Bozarth

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.