Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 30 Oct 2006 10:41 "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message news:1162181937.522746.321980(a)e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message > > [... electric cars ...] >> > 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. > > Or the dollar starts to fall. Right now the oil is priced in dollars. > In the future, they may start of price oil based on some average of the > dollar and the euro. There is a largish amount to US dollars sloshing > around in the oil market. This is because the transactions are all > dollar based. If that stopped bing the case, there would be a fairly > sudden inflation shock in the US. ....in which case all technologies would experience similar inflation, and none would especially have an advantage over oil, economically speaking. What has to happen is that electric vehicle technology needs at least a couple of step-change improvements in battery life, efficiency and time-between-charges, and electricity needs to drop in price with respect to oil by a very significant amount. > As it is the US will see inflation start to grow over the next few > years. It only takes 10 years of 7.2% inflation to drop the money by > half. > > As it is, I expect oil to inch up in real price over the next 10 or 15 > years to hit the $100 mark That's not "inching up". That's an inflation rate (on oil) of 30 - 48 % *per year*, an unprecedented event for one year, let alone 10 - 15 years straight, to be sure. I'm not sure I see that happening until oil becomes very, very much harder to get at. The Athabasca tar sands are supposed to have several times the current reserve in the Middle East, or about a 200 year world reserve total, and are already being mined. I don't see Canada trying to put us over a barrel, or us letting them if they do.... >> Once >> an embargo starts, it will take the automotive industry months or years >> to >> gear up for production of large numbers of electric cars, > > Assuming a sudden shock, the economy will fold up and it could take > longer than for the slow increase case. Absolutely....although I'm not sure your scenario of oil costing $100 in 10 - 15 years is what I would call a "slow increase". > >> so having the >> nuclear power plants to support them won't matter a whit to our oil >> dependence. > > In the longer run it may matter. We have some time to do research. I absolutely agree, and we need to do the research (and are, as far as I know). But the point is, people aren't going to buy the electric cars until they're competitive, so this in no way affects any near-term embargo, until electric vehicles become competitive. I'm not saying we shouldn't do the research and try to commercialize electric cars...but it ain't the solution to any impending oil embargo. >> 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. > > At least I can agree that her analyzsis was shallow. I would have said "non-existent". > [...] >> > 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. > > I think we mostly agree on the broad outlines. I see todays electric > car not as a solution to todays oil problems. I see it more as a way > to get technology ready for when it starts to become needed. I don't > see a step function in the price but rathe a smooth increase. People > will start to see the increase and make plans based on it. In this way > the new technology will phase in at some future date. I'm not even > sure it will be electric. Right now nuclear power looks like the most > likely energy source but it may not be carried to the wheels of a car > by electrical means. We agree, absolutely. I was only responding to BAH's embargo scenario. Eric Lucas
From: YD on 30 Oct 2006 10:53 Late at night, by candle light, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com penned this immortal opus: >In article <4543423D.7C3A2311(a)hotmail.com>, > 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. > > >> >> >>> This is >>> the part of human society that keeps it functioning, growing, >>> thriving. Remove that and you have a dark ages. >> >>See these Muslim centres of trade. >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petronas_towers >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_World_Trade_Centre >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putra_World_Trade_Centre >> >>And this list of 74 buildings also called " World Trade Center " >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_trade_center > >And the goal of those extremists is to destroy it. > >/BAH Hey, I named the shed in my back yard "World Trade Center". Does that make it so? Am I at risk of someone bombing it? Should I rename it "Collected Junk And Dubious Experiment Center"? Doesn't sound as catchy. - YD. -- Remove HAT if replying by mail.
From: YD on 30 Oct 2006 10:56 Late at night, by candle light, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> penned this immortal opus: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>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. > >The data's very unlikely to have been lost and at the end of the day it was only >2602 deaths in New York of which 403 were Fire, Police and Port Authority >workers. > >That makes 2199 deaths in the towers. How many of those were truly 'key workers' >? Maybe 1/4 ? > >Ok so that's 550 key workers lost. A large number but not irreplaceable as is >seen by the evidence. > >Graham > > Even so an insignificant fraction of all knowledgeable business people. Any business not having backups off-site shouldn't have been in business in the first place. - YD. -- Remove HAT if replying by mail.
From: YD on 30 Oct 2006 11:11 Late at night, by candle light, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com penned this immortal opus: >In article <454342E5.9F806C12(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: >>> > >>> >> Which word of the phrase "World Trade Center" >>> >> do you not understand? >>> > >>> >In a much earlier post you suggested that Islam was anti-capitalist / >>> business. >>> >Maybe you'd like to take a look at this ? Or maybe you'd prefer to >continue >>> >living in ignorance of the facts ? >>> > >>> >http://www.bahrainwtc.com/ >>> >>> I don't webbit and it's too stormy to go to the library today. >> >>You're incapable of browsing the web from home ? > >Yes. > >> Just how blinkered are you ? > >486, DOS 6.0, Windows 3.11, and about 18Kbyte of real memory left. Hey, I managed to browse the web on dial-up with a 386, with about the same sw setup and a whopping 4 megs of memory. No excuse. I still have the case stating it's a 386 16MHz, though it now contains a P2-500. The lid was rusty so I painted it metal green and the front panel is all but falling off. The paint job turned out all spotty and and generally botched. - YD. -- Remove HAT if replying by mail.
From: Lloyd Parker on 30 Oct 2006 05:43
In article <ehv9me$8qk_001(a)s964.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <1161872944.979802.222000(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>[....] >>> Clinton's plans only dealt with Bin Laden? What about the other >>> 99% of the extremists who intend to make mesess? >> >>This is simply false. > >Oh, you mean my comment about only Bin Laden. >> >>Things I can remember, off the top of my head, Clinton admin doing: >> >>(A) >>The Counter-Terrorism Act of IIRC 1995 > >I don't remember that one. I'll check it out. Didn't that just >provide some funding to put cement barriers around a few buildings? >> >>(B) >>Conducted terrorism threat assessment of every federal facility. > >I don't believe that. From my recollection the embassies were >checked and then nothing was done to fix the security problems >in most of them; no funding was allowed. >> >>(C) >>Pressed the Saudi government to reduce support for the Wahhabis. This >>I remember because it was a near perfect failure. > >I don't call asking a government to reduce support for its brand >of religion an effective action. That's spitting into a gale >force wind with expectations that you'll hit the sidewalk >a hundred miles away. > >> The Saudi government >>had made a faustian bargain with the Wahhabiists and the US depended on >>Saudi oil so much that there was no leaverage point. > >None of these are actions that addresses the problems as Clinton's >stump speeches would have one believe. > >I'll ask again...if those plans were so good and so effective, why >didn't _Clinton_ use them instead of now blaming Bush for not >doing it? > As was posted here, the confirmation from the FBI and CIA that bin Laden was behind the Cole came right at the end of Clinton's term, so it was too late for him to act on that. But plans had been drawn up and were left for Bush. Clinton also never received a briefing that bin Laden was (1) "determined to strike inside the US" and (2) might crash airplanes into buildings. Bush got both. >Everybody swallows what this man says without any critical thinking. >I guess that's what JMF called charisma. > >/BAH > |