Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 2 Nov 2006 13:14 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:29d9e$454a2b92$4fe71d7$24986(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:5578b$454a10c6$49ecfab$24208(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>news:3c732$4549ec30$4fe7336$23388(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>> >>>> >>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>I am not talking about oil becoming uncompetitive. I am talking >>>>>>>about oil suddenly becoming unavailable. That should be a >>>>>>>scenario considered by all heads of state, not just the US. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>It's not going to happen short of nuclear war. >>>>> >>>>>You're obviously not old enough to personally >>>>>remember the fuel crisis of the early 1970's. >>>> >>>> >>>>First you say you're not talking about an embargo, >>> >>>Who are you talking about? Your imaginary conflation >>>of two distinct individuals? >>> >>> >>>>then as evidence that it will happen, >>> >>>Oil becoming unavailable by embargo is a historical >>>fact. >> >> >> I never said it wasn't....although strictly speaking, the 1970s embargo >> just tightened supply, it didn't become "unavailable". It was the US >> government's braindead decision to impose price controls that prevented >> demand from matching the reduced supply through price increases, thereby >> creating shortages. As others have pointed out, everywhere else that >> allowed the price to float only experienced higher prices and as a >> result, reduced consumption, not unavailability. >> >> >> >>>The discussion you led us into has to do with >>>can/can't happen. >> >> >> Uh, no....please try to keep up. I was pointing out that if it does >> happen it won't matter a whit if we've built hundreds of nuclear plants >> or not, since we will not have the electric cars to make use of the >> increased supply of electricity. > > > In the US we have what can only be described as an overkill > in residential electrical services. The minimum permitted > these days is 100 Amps @ 240 volts. In fact, people are > being forced to upgrade to that minimum by their homeowners > insurance. This is a fairly small factor, since relatively little heating is done by fuel oil--something like 5% of US households, and much of that in older homes that can benefit from improved insulation, if the economic benefit is there. The rest is domestically supplied--either natural gas or already electric. Add to this the fact that much of the oil home heating will be taken up by natural gas, since it is much cheaper in most markets. And add to this the fact that it is in the summer, not the winter, that the electric grid is stretched to anywhere near its limit. The need for more electric plants to supply the increase in electric home heating would be minimal. > So rthe plain fact is we could easily and quickly switch > most free standing residences to electric heat in a big > hurry if the need arises. Manufacturing and distributing > electric baseboard or, even simpler, plenum style heating > elements, is trivial. Electric domestic water heaters > are simple devices. This is a completely negligible factor, since very little residential hot water comes from oil burners. It's already almost all domestically sourced--either electric or natural gas. > Automobiles form part of our consumption. There are many > other uses, including significant industrial consumption. Much of that is raw materials for the petrochemical industry, which cannot be replaced by nuclear power. Very little industrial heating is done by fuel oil. Mostly it's natural gas, which is already a domestic supply. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 2 Nov 2006 13:15 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:40570$454a2bd8$4fe71d7$24986(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:d38ed$454a0d9f$49ecfab$24139(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>news:11089$45495c2e$4fe7052$20335(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>> >>>> >>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In article <4546F871.E7AD0EB5(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Also compare the availability of goods and services in Europe >>>>>>>>>>and other places in the world to ours. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>What !!!! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Are you being funny ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>No, he's not. There are a lot of Europeans who come to the US >>>>>>>>to shop. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>There have been many flights bringing Europeans to shop at >>>>>>>the Mall of America in Minnesota. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Cite ? >>>>> >>>>>Stuff it, fool. I've been there and talked with some of >>>>>the people. I've also shopped at Gurnee Mills which is >>>>>a one story affair with a mile long zig-zag mall under >>>>>roof. I first ran into them there, later at Mall of >>>>>America. >>>>> >>>>>Mall of America is so large, for your information, that >>>>>there's an amusement park in the center, including a >>>>>roller coaster. It set itself up to be an international >>>>>destination. You don't suppose that a setup like that >>>>>could be supported solely by sales to the Twin Cities >>>>>and Minnesota folks within an easy drive, do you? >>>> >>>> >>>>And yet despite all that, you still only have a handful of anecdotes >>>>from a few travellers who have done it. Useless. If you're going to >>>>claim "there have been many flights...", you better supply data on it, >>>>otherwise you're being hoodwinked by the very same thing you chastise >>>>other people for--seeing only the evidence they want to see. >>> >>>Bwahahahaha. Trying to create a hard science where there is none? >> >> Hey, I wasn't the one that made the unsupportable claim, based on a few >> anecdotes. > > BS, you do it constantly. Cite three examples, please. Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 2 Nov 2006 13:38 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > MooseFET wrote: > >>Eeyore wrote: > >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>They seem to be doing better than the US with a lot less money for > >>>>>health care. > >>>> > >>>>Could it be the drug costs that make this difference? > >>> > >>>Why do so may US medical practicioners prescibe expensive drugs when cheaper > >>>generics are just as good for mnay things ? > >> > >>Imagine that a drug company comes up with a new drug called > >>"Nopainatall". They send their field people out to talk to doctors an > >>sell them on the advantages of Nopainatall. They have studies and > >>graphs and all sorts of useful literature that calls the drug only by > >>its brand name not the chemical name. This is where doctors get a lot > >>of their information today. > > > > > > And of course some of these new drugs are just replacements for old one ( where a > > patent has expired ) so a to get a new patent on the new ones and keep the prices > > high. > > You obviously don't understand how patent applications work. I understand perfectly. Graham
From: unsettled on 2 Nov 2006 19:51 Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>Eeyore wrote: >> >>>MooseFET wrote: >>> >>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>They seem to be doing better than the US with a lot less money for >>>>>>>health care. >>>>>> >>>>>>Could it be the drug costs that make this difference? >>>>> >>>>>Why do so may US medical practicioners prescibe expensive drugs when cheaper >>>>>generics are just as good for mnay things ? >>>> >>>>Imagine that a drug company comes up with a new drug called >>>>"Nopainatall". They send their field people out to talk to doctors an >>>>sell them on the advantages of Nopainatall. They have studies and >>>>graphs and all sorts of useful literature that calls the drug only by >>>>its brand name not the chemical name. This is where doctors get a lot >>>>of their information today. >>> >>> >>>And of course some of these new drugs are just replacements for old one ( where a >>>patent has expired ) so a to get a new patent on the new ones and keep the prices >>>high. >> >>You obviously don't understand how patent applications work. > > > I understand perfectly. If you actually uunderstand then you knew you were lying when you called new drugs "just replacements for old one." You can't get a patent for a new widget that's simply a replacement for an old one.
From: Eeyore on 2 Nov 2006 20:12
unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > >>Eeyore wrote: > >>>MooseFET wrote: > >>>>Eeyore wrote: > >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>>>> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>They seem to be doing better than the US with a lot less money for > >>>>>>>health care. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Could it be the drug costs that make this difference? > >>>>> > >>>>>Why do so may US medical practicioners prescibe expensive drugs when cheaper > >>>>>generics are just as good for mnay things ? > >>>> > >>>>Imagine that a drug company comes up with a new drug called > >>>>"Nopainatall". They send their field people out to talk to doctors an > >>>>sell them on the advantages of Nopainatall. They have studies and > >>>>graphs and all sorts of useful literature that calls the drug only by > >>>>its brand name not the chemical name. This is where doctors get a lot > >>>>of their information today. > >>> > >>> > >>>And of course some of these new drugs are just replacements for old one ( where a > >>>patent has expired ) so a to get a new patent on the new ones and keep the prices > >>>high. > >> > >>You obviously don't understand how patent applications work. > > > > > > I understand perfectly. > > If you actually uunderstand then you knew you were lying when you > called new drugs "just replacements for old one." > > You can't get a patent for a new widget that's simply a replacement > for an old one. This is *exactly* what they're doing by modifying the chemical formula when making 'Drug B'.. Without a patented drug to treat condition X they'd suffer a loss of income when Drug A's patent runs out. Drug B will of course be promoted as a 'better' version of Drug A. Graham |