The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: Rich the Philosophizer on 13 Aug 2007 20:59 On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:46:29 -0700, JosephKK wrote: > RichD r_delaney2001(a)yahoo.com posted to sci.electronics.design: >> On Aug 8, Paul Cardinale <pcardin...(a)volcanomail.com> wrote: >>> > Al Gore is going to look such an idiot in a couple of years. >>> >>> And in that time he'll make tons of money from his >>> investments in carbon-credit brokerage firms. He's not >>> stupid; he's evil. >> >> He's a career pol, with limitless power lust, >> as do they all. Does that necessarily equate >> to evil? > > I thought limitless power lust was part of the definition of evil. The definition of evil that I'm familiar with is the overriding of Free Will. http://www.godchannel.com/superdevils.html Cheers! Rich
From: MooseFET on 13 Aug 2007 21:07 On Aug 11, 10:20 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- Web-Site.com> wrote: > On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 09:35:29 -0700, John Larkin > > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:09:13 -0700, MooseFET <kensm...(a)rahul.net> > >wrote: > > >>Average household income for working families when adjusted for > >>inflation was $46,058 in 2000 and has since declined to $44,389. > >>There has also been a decline in the average value of benifits. > > >>This article (below) shows the debt or decreases in savings to > >>maintian the life style. > >>http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0802/p02s01-usec.html?page=1 > > Another "how to lie with statistics" demonstration... percent of WHAT > net average income? > > 8% of $50K sure beats 12% of $25K The suggested saving for your retirement rate is about 10%. An 8% savings rate means that your standard of living will have to go down from whatever it is to a lower value.
From: rlbell.nsuid on 13 Aug 2007 21:25 On Aug 9, 10:27 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 9, 8:26 am, Charlie Edmondson <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > > BradGuth wrote: > > > On Aug 8, 5:47 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >>On Jul 28, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>This is another reason why hybrids make more sense. Pure EVs > > >>>>>>have too many limitations. > > > >>>>>If they could recharge in 10 mins, the US power grid would burn out > > > >>>>What about these? > > >>>>http://altairnano.com/markets_amps.html > > > >>>Shockingly expensive. $75,000 per vehicle just for batteries. > > >>>http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/07/altair_nanotech.html > > > >>Expensive, who cares? We're talking about the > > >>ENVIRONMENT, we can't worry about filty lucre. > > >>What are you, a greedy Republican? > > > >>Let the gov't fund it, won't cost a farthing! That's > > >>why we need visionaries like Al Gore, bold men > > >>not afraid to take on the special interests, leading > > >>by example. > > > >>-- > > >>Rich > > > > How much cheap h2o2 would you like for your electric cars? > > > > How about a Hummwe/SUV at zero NOx and 100 empg? > > > - Brad Guth > > > Brad, > > Just go away now. This ain't SEH where you have a couple of logical > > engineers around, this is SED where the REAL engineers will tear you a > > new one! > > > Charlie > > Why are you Yiddish folks so deathly afraid of allowing any surplus of > the 100% renewable energy, as for such clean energy going into the > productions of LH2 and h2o2? > > Why are you against a Hummer/SUV that gets 100 empg and creates zero > NOx? > - Brad Guth As someone who understands what it might take to get a Hummer or SUV to 100 empg and zero NOx, I want a Hummer/SUV that can seat at least one person, accelerate from zero to sixty mph in less than thirty seconds, and not crumple if I inadvertantly lean against it. There are only two ways to produce useful amounts of LH2 and H2O2, economically-- new coal generation and new nuclear generation. While I personally want the latter, thanks to wrongheaded environmentalists, the former is more likely.
From: James Arthur on 14 Aug 2007 01:19 On Aug 11, 7:09 am, MooseFET <kensm...(a)rahul.net> wrote: > Google groups trouble trying 4th time: > > On Aug 10, 8:52 pm, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 10, 5:29 pm, MooseFET <kensm...(a)rahul.net> wrote: > > > > On Aug 10, 11:14 am, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 10, 6:43 am, MooseFET <kensm...(a)rahul.net> wrote: > > > [..] > > > > > > The economy is doing so-so at best. We have a mixed collection of > > > > > measures of it. > > > > > Indications are always mixed--it's quite impossible for all sectors to > > > > simultaneously boom, as many are in competition. > > > > > Overall, growth, inflation, employment, etc. are as good as it gets. > > > > If you're not happy now, you never will be. > > > > You haven't looked closely enough. Right now the US is running a > > > large deficit and has quite low interest rates. These are both things > > > that in the short term stimulate the economy. It is like a car with > > > the gas pressed all the way to the floor and only gets up to 45 MPH. > > > It is a lot faster than I can run but still a lot less that should be > > > expected. > > > Exactly how fast do you think the economy should grow? The Federal > > Reserve Board has been trying to *slow* the economy since mid-2004, > > and that's still their focus today. Perhaps you should e-mail Mr. > > It isn't the growth rate that bothers me. The car is going 45 MPH > that is a reasonable speed. It is the fact that the the foot is so > close to the floor that worries me. But that's wrong--the Federal Reserve isn't stepping on the gas and the pedal isn't anywhere close to the floor: they've been on the brakes since mid-2004. That was my point above. > > Bernanke: > > >http://www.federalreserve.gov/feedback.cfm > > > As for the deficit, I don't like it, but find it hard to understand > > why you think it's related to GDP, or why 3% of GDP would make any > > difference in the short haul. It won't. > > I either don't understand what you are trying to state there or you > are trying to say that something that is well know to be true is > false. I will let you restate the above. The GDP total of goods and services produced in the country. The budget deficit relates to how much more the Federal government spends than it takes in. a) They aren't the same thing. b) The deficit is, in dollars, a small number compared to the economy as a whole, so I don't understand why you think it's significant to the current economy. > > > > > The US has a decreasing size of middle class. The working class is > > > seeing a net loss of standard of living. Most of the middle class is > > > also seeing a decrease in standard of living. The debt is piling up > > > and the average worker age is increasing. None of these are things by > > > them selves would be a major problem but combined they point to a > > > decline. > > > > There is also a serious concentration of power and wealth happening. > > > The trend is towards a small number of companies being a big fraction > > > of the economy. This is never a good thing for the long term survival > > > of an empire. It leads to a fragile situation. With many small > > > companies, a mistake only impacts a small part of the economy. > > > Increasingly, a mistake by a company impacts a larger part of the > > > overal economy. > > > I understand you believe these things. I invite you to show the > > quantitative basis for those beliefs. > > > It would help if you define some of your terms--what is "middle > > class"? > > The middle class usually taken to be the socioeconomic class between > the working class and the upper class. They are the businessmen and > shop keepers etc. Working class are those who work for a wage (ie: > most of the people). Of late, however, the upper end of the labor > class has taken to calling its self middle class. That's not an economic definition, that attempts to divide people based on occupation. What range of incomes qualifies as "middle class" ? > > What is "standard of living"? Do you mean that real wages > > have decreased? > > If they are collecting wages they really aren't middle class taking > the classic definitions. But as many americans would define it, yes > that would be included in the decrease. > > > Kindly show that. Be sure to include benefits-- > > retirement and healthcare in your figures...the result may surprise > > you. > > I doubt it: > > Smart business folks are starting to prepare for the decrease as in:http://www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2005/404.html > > Between 2001 and 2004, there was a 10.5% decrease in the portion of > the middle class that had three months of wages in economic wealth. > > Average household income for working families when adjusted for > inflation was $46,058 in 2000 and has since declined to $44,389. > There has also been a decline in the average value of benifits. > > This article (below) shows the debt or decreases in savings to > maintian the life style.http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0802/p02s01-usec.html?page=1 > > The article below makes the point about the growth being less than > should be expected. The numbers are at the bottom.http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm > > Do you have any figures? Thanks for providing sources, but please note that these are not actual data, these are analyses and observations by people who (hopefully) consulted the data. Given the quality of analysis in the popular press, it's a lot better to get the straight numbers--it avoids many errors. But, of course, it's a lot of work and most people would rather not do it. Since you made the claims, I hoped you could provide the backing for your statements. That said, here's another analysis of the wage situation: http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=246755427121360 (The short take is that wages and the middle class are doing great-- not declining-- _if_ the effect of illegal immigrants (many of whom are poor) are removed from the statistics). Best wishes, James Arthur
From: JosephKK on 14 Aug 2007 01:40
Rich the Philosophizer rtp(a)example.com posted to sci.electronics.design: > On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:46:29 -0700, JosephKK wrote: >> RichD r_delaney2001(a)yahoo.com posted to sci.electronics.design: >>> On Aug 8, Paul Cardinale <pcardin...(a)volcanomail.com> wrote: >>>> > Al Gore is going to look such an idiot in a couple of years. >>>> >>>> And in that time he'll make tons of money from his >>>> investments in carbon-credit brokerage firms. He's not >>>> stupid; he's evil. >>> >>> He's a career pol, with limitless power lust, >>> as do they all. Does that necessarily equate >>> to evil? >> >> I thought limitless power lust was part of the definition of >> evil. > > The definition of evil that I'm familiar with is the overriding of > Free Will. > > http://www.godchannel.com/superdevils.html > > Cheers! > Rich How about that, power lust is all about overriding Free Will. |