Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 29 Oct 2006 12:49 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ei22el$8ss_006(a)s765.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <VjT0h.22840$e66.20121(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:45436FD6.3B0A4C75(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> Wow. You should market your filter. I know a few politicians >>>> that would love to hand them out before every speech. >>> >>> Do you have anything useful to contribute ? >> >>Apparently she doesn't. Logic has failed her, so she just goes around >>spouting Republican soundbites and acting holier-than-thou when people >>dare >>to question them. > > I seem to be making my points; I can tell when you start using > circular logic to refute them. Citation, please? You're the one who is running around in circles avoiding each critique of one of your "soundbites" by leaping to another explanation, coming back around full circle when all your explanations are exhausted and shown false. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 29 Oct 2006 12:52 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ei237d$8ss_011(a)s765.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <eYqdnV1nvMdH7d7YRVnysA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehvloo$8qk_005(a)s1270.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <45435648.FD2B9A7(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >Your pompousness aside, so what? It was just a couple of >>>>> >> >buildings >>> full >>>>> >> >of people, mostly Americans. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> The primary purpose of the occupants was global trade. >>>>> > >>>>> >Not especially. It was just a catchy name for a big office block. >>>>> >>>>> Yes. That is how the mayor got the building filled up; by attracting >>>>> businesses that dealt in world trade. >>>> >>>>Largely financial institutions as far as I know. That's not exclusively >>>>about >>>>world trade. >>> >>> You overlooked the commodities and shipping businesses. >> >>Still not the centre of world trade. There are more economically important >>buildings in New York, let alone globally. > > You are exhibiting complete idiocy. It was the people, their knowledge > and the data that mattered. And we're still looking for an assessment of what exactly you think has been the net effect on world trade, from the loss of this supposedly critical edifice. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 29 Oct 2006 12:57 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ei281c$8qk_001(a)s765.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4t08k2pjlpobt7rql6ghtn3sei5ro4d3lv(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:19:40 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:ehvloo$8qk_005(a)s1270.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <45435648.FD2B9A7(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >Your pompousness aside, so what? It was just a couple of >>>>>> >> >buildings >>>> full >>>>>> >> >of people, mostly Americans. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> The primary purpose of the occupants was global trade. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >Not especially. It was just a catchy name for a big office block. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. That is how the mayor got the building filled up; by attracting >>>>>> businesses that dealt in world trade. >>>>> >>>>>Largely financial institutions as far as I know. That's not exclusively >>>>>about >>>>>world trade. >>>> >>>> You overlooked the commodities and shipping businesses. >>> >>>Yes, and what has the loss of these world-critical buildings done to >>>world >>>commodities and shipping businesses, exactly? >> >>So far as I can tell, the harm was mostly localized geographically and >>where there were broader impacts, they were localized in time: > > This (localized in time) is never true with economic cycles. > >> >>http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/bureaus/bud/reports/WTC_Attack_Oct_4-final.pdf >> >>"The business interruptions that occurred during the days and weeks >>following the WTC attack are those resulting from the destruction of >>the WTC and the shutdown of airports and financial markets. Some of >>these impacts are permanent; for example, flights postponed may be >>cancelled forever. Other impacts simply represent a shift to a later >>time period. For example, securities trades that were to be made from >>September 11 to 14 were postponed to September 17." >> >>"The major initial impact over the first five weeks is on (1) Wall >>Street firms, (2) tourism, i.e., Broadway theaters, museums, hotels, >>air travel, automobile travel in NYC, and (3) retail sales. For the >>remainder of FY 02, the business interruption is estimated equal to >>the value of the first five weeks." > > You are only counting interruptions. YOu also need to include > long-term effects. Yeah, and as much as you keep parroting that, you surely must be able to come up with some *quantified* long-term effects. Hint: they're minimal. > Companies, who did survive, reacted by > spreading their operations over a wide-geographic area. 1) Quantify, please. 2) So what? How has this led to a long-term disruption in global trade--verifiable, please. > The computer biz has yet to solve the problem of keeping data > pristine and accessible over the long-term in wall clock time. What exactly does that have to do with the WTC attacks? It's a fact, no matter who does what. >>So I'm interested in researched evidence that classifies this "world >>trade impacts" being pointed at. > > Consider the added costs of doing business that was not necessary > before then. This increases the market prices. Now can you > see the long term effects? No, and I'm beginning to think you don't either, since you can neither list tangible actual effects, nor quantify them. Please answer the question, and quantify the effects. Surely if the WTC was such a critical part of world trade, there would be easily quantifiable effects on world trade. Eric Lucas
From: joseph2k on 29 Oct 2006 13:09 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <kOq0h.17025$TV3.9936(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ehsmvn$8qk_001(a)s834.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>>>Reminds me of a professor I had, a psychologist in the Army Air Force >>>>in WWII. He discovered that graduates of the cooks and bakers school >>>>were better aerial gunners than graduates of the aerial gunnery >>>>school. >>> >>> OK. I've thought about this one and cannot deduce why. I have >>> a disadvantage because I have no idea what kind of work is required >>> to be an aerial gunner. >>> >>> Did it have to do with following the recipe in the properly ordered >>> steps? >> >>You think *that's* what good cooking is about??? > > Definitely. Cooking is chem lab products you have to eat. > > /BAH Gee, i have never considered chickens, pigs, cattle, or my garden to be chem labs. Live and learn. -- JosephKK Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens. --Schiller
From: lucasea on 29 Oct 2006 13:11
"MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message news:1162134921.231642.47450(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message >> news:1162051292.871997.222400(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> > [....] >> >> Well, since electric cars are neither practical nor economically >> >> competitive >> >> with fossil fuel ICE, I guess we're never going to find out. Nobody >> >> will >> >> buy electric cars, >> > >> > This is not actually true. Lots of people will buy electric cars when >> > they can be had at a reasonable cost. >> >> When will that be? Not any time soon, as near as I can tell. > > You can count on them not being american made. The US auto industry > didn't make small fuel efficient cars in the 1970s. They were very > late getting any sort of hybrid on the road. There are people who add > extra batteries to the Prius so that it can go some distance as a pure > electric. It seems the hardware for doing this is already mostly in > place because Toyota is keeping their options open. The controller > circuits already have the needed input for the extra button on the dash > board. > > >> > They are not practical for long >> > commutes but as I sure the folks in Florida will confirm, even the golf >> > cart will work as a way to get the old folks to the 7-11[1]. >> >> And therein lies a major problem. The American lifestyle does not admit >> of >> a vehicle that cannot reliably tranport them > 150 miles per day. People >> simply will not buy them until forced to. > > When the price of oil hits about $100, I'd expect to start seeing > people get them as the second car. I absolutely agree, they may very well be the next transportation technology--but that $100/bbl is not going to happen until the oil supply either becomes drastically harder to get at, or there is an embargo. Once an embargo starts, it will take the automotive industry months or years to gear up for production of large numbers of electric cars, so having the nuclear power plants to support them won't matter a whit to our oil dependence. Nuclear power will in no way become a replacement for oil until a substantial number of people own electric cars, and that's not going to happen for a very long time, and it's no plan for dealing with an embargo at current. She accuses people of not thinking, but she has not even analyzed her own suggestion. >> > The electric car has the advantage that you don't need to drive it to >> > the gas station to fill it up. For many this would be the longest trip >> > they would take. >> >> But by far those are the minority, whether you're counting vehicles or >> miles >> driven. And replacing them with electric cars will have almost zero >> impact >> on the amount of oil we consume, for a long time. > > I disagree because these people are the market that gets the electric > car started. > > From there it will expand into the longer commutes if > battery technology improves or gas goes way up in price. I agree it is what will kick-start the technology, but it will not have a significant impact on the amount of oil used (which is largely proportional to the number of miles, not the number of trips) until electric cars are practical for the longer trips--that is, until the battery technology improves. That "if gas goes way up in price" is another key. It's not going to happen in the near future, and it is no plan for a response to an embargo since the lag time to get the electric cars into production and onto the roads is way, way too long. Eric Lucas |