In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
Jon can't connect the dots.

Which dots are those? The Republican lackey dots?

I disagree with both of you. You can be both environmentally sensitive
(ie reduce pollution) and be competitive in energy. But you have to
take some risks. I think nuclear power stations are the only feasible
solution, given current technology.

I think you're confused. I'm all for coal.

Try this. It's better than nuclear (pronounce it nucular like your hero).

I don't have a hero, Jon. Got no idea who you're referring to.

http://governor.mt.gov/hottopics/faqsynthetic.asp

Shrug. We're one of the biggest coal exporters. We make money whatever
happens. The idea is to reduce greenhouse gases and other pollutants -
sulphur, nitrous oxides etc. Sure you can create synthetic oil,
whatever, from coal. Also from shale oil, brown coal etc etc. Been
done, tech is well known. The Germans used it way back.

It just costs a ****load of bux per gallon of oil produced. You also
have to trash (often) productive land to get to the stuff, and dispose
of a mountain of waste afterwards. All while competing with someone
else. And then when you burn it, you still produce CO, CO2 etc etc.

I can't quickly find a ref to how much coal California mines, or when
the last mine was started. Bet it's an insignificant tonnage and no new
mine has been opened in decades, tho.

It's a viable alternative, IMO, only when the cost of production of oil
rises a lot. Not, note well, the sale price, but the production cost. I
say this because if someone starts tooling up for a synthetic fuel
price, all the oil guys need to do is drop the price sufficiently to
bankrupt the syn plant, then jack the price up again. Sure, there are
ways round this, but basically you need a guaranteed purchase price.

Converting LNG might well be cheaper.

I regard Japan as competitive in energy because they use it more
efficiently in the production of manufactured goods, which they can
sell abroad to willing customers, and therefore pay for their energy
imports.

Does that include them throwing away all their nearly new crap when they're
done with it?

Why not? They just sell the nearly new crap to other people, Jon. As I
well know, since I worked in the Solomon Is. Nearly every car there was
imported from Japan. Saved buying new ones.

BTW, I agree with Bob Cranz. The Russian heavy lift chemical rockets
are a lot cheaper and on a tonnes lifted to orbit basis a more cost
effective solution than the Space Shuttle. Sure there are failures but
as long as it's cheaper to pay for the failures than the shuttle, so
what? Gotta look at the end result.

The shuttle should be scuttled.

Yeah. About 15 years ago when a Mk 2 orbital delivery platform was
developed. Didn't happen. I wish it had, I still wish it would. But
hey, someone's gonna do it. Might not be the USA, definitely won't be
us - we don't have the size economy to fund it - but someone.


What Jon doesn't seem to get is, I'll use 'best of breed' regardless of
origin. I use an Apple Mac laptop. I use Sun Microsystems servers. If
forced I use Microsoft s/ware but low end servers run Linux. Those
products are competitive in quality & price.

Now that Peter has totally lost this argument, he's referring to me in the
third person. :-)

Hey, you did a dummy spit and said you weren't responding any more. I
took you at your word. Sorry about that. Next time I'll remember that
you have to have the *last* word.

The only person who thinks I've lost the argument, BTW, is you.


I have a lot of old US made machinery. It's still better than some of
the brand new Chinese made stuff. Today I bought a new power drill. I
bought an AEG Fixtec drill. These things are great, got no idea where
it's made but it isn't China.

Wow, you bought a power drill. Well, ok then.

Heh. I spend somewhere in excess of $500K USD per annum on equipment
for work. Some years *lots* more. I'll bet that's in excess of 10X what
you spend on mechanical & electrical equipment pa.

Thinking about it, you guys are still pretty competitive in
oceanography stuff. Pretty niche area. I probably spend about 50% of my
money on US stuff, the rest European. However we're working with the
Chinese on building automated weather stations.

Jon finds it easier to indulge in 'shoot the messenger' than address
the message. It's so much more comfortable that way. Saves thinking.

Still waiting for you to prove your point (not the one on the top of your
head).

Yawn. Ad-hom. Boring.

The USA is *becoming* a **** poor place. I don't like this personally
and I don't like it strategically but there's nothing I can do except
point out the unpalatable facts. You guys simply *cannot* keep up your
current rate of consumption of imports while paying for them with money
borrowed from o/s unless the lenders keep seeing value for money.
You've got the technology, the infrastructure, the skill base and the
depth of capital to do wonderful things, and you're not doing anything
except indulge in wars over pride or oil. It's frustrating and
annoying.

Yes, except that it's still the best damn country in the world. Good luck.

Well, second best.......

Meanwhile, California's electricity demand rises, and their generation
capacity doesn't.

Talk to Arnold. I didn't vote for him.

Irrelevant. The power problem far preceded Arnold.

PDW

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

Not silly, but a good point, actually. You can be competitive in energy
or
you can have extreme environmental restrictions. You can't have both.
So
is there a compromise somewhere in the middle?


I disagree with both of you. You can be both environmentally sensitive
(ie reduce pollution) and be competitive in energy. But you have to
take some risks. I think nuclear power stations are the only feasible
solution, given current technology.

If you'll re-read my post, I think you'll see that that is what I was
implying. Neither extreme is feasible or desirable, but somewhere in the
middle exists a workable solution. There is stiff opposition to nuke power,
but it is probably the most effective, cleanest, most environmentally-safe
alternative to fossil fuels today. Given that same technology to which you
refer, I don't think there's much risk involved.

What people - not meaning you - keep forgetting is the cost of the
technology we have *now*. Thousands killed annually in coal mining.
Productive agricultural land trashed. Acid rain. Air pollution.
Radioactive releases (radon). Because we've been doing it for over 100
years, it's ok. By current hypocritical standards, you'd never be
allowed to build a coal fired power plant.

All tech is risky. It always can be improved. Matter of cost-benefit
analysis.

Jon seems a typical Californian. He wants the power for 21C life but
doesn't want to generate it, and *still* wants to complain about
environmental degradation.

Californians want other states to pollute themselves while producing power
for Californians. But don't even think of hydroelectric plans, windmill
farms (they kill the birdies), or nuke plants in CA, nossir.

Let them freeze in the dark. Or broil in the sun. I've never been keen
on people wanting all the benefits while shoving off the costs
elsewhere.

BTW, I agree with Bob Cranz. The Russian heavy lift chemical rockets
are a lot cheaper and on a tonnes lifted to orbit basis a more cost
effective solution than the Space Shuttle. Sure there are failures but
as long as it's cheaper to pay for the failures than the shuttle, so
what? Gotta look at the end result.

But as I pointed out in another post, the Soyuz program simply cannot do
many of the things that the shuttle program can. The expansion of the ISS
is virtually at a standstill while the shuttle program regroups. Some of
the larger parts simply cannot be taken aloft by Soyuz. There is a price to
be paid for utility.

I don't think the shuttle program will regroup. Not in any meaningful
sense. Indeed, from a long distance, I think it should be killed off
and replaced with a Mk 2 version. Call it an engineering prototype
that's reached its limit of usefulness. Don't keep ****ing money down
that rathole. FWIW I think space is a vitally important strategic
activity so it's not that I think the intention is a waste of money,
just the engineering.

But, that's about it. Not my problem if you can't produce stuff I want
to buy and it's got zilch to do with country of origin. Most
manufactured stuff is imported to Australia so I have no axe to grind
one way or the other. I just call it as I see it.

And I agree with most of your points, while taking issue with a few. The US
isn't the leader in producing goods, especially low-tech ones, that we used
to be. And we won't be ever again. But what concerns me most is that we'll
lose the advantage in the areas in which we are dominant unless we begin to
realize that the global competition is not waiting around for us to move.

Yeah, agreed. It's not even necessarily a 1st World vs 3rd World cost
issue, as people like Joe think. High cost European stuff sells pretty
well on its design and ergonomics right next to cheap stuff. High
quality & higher pricing can sell well. Alternatively high tech
automated factories producing stuff that is reliable and cheap is going
to work too. Anything in the middle is going to go to places where the
labour is cheaper.

Actually I'm not anti-US at all. Sometimes exasperated, sometimes
admiring, sometimes anti a particular bit of policy/stupidity, but not
anti-US. I lived over there for a while and I fit in right fine in AZ.
As a NM friend of mine said, tho, I'd rather be drowned in **** than
live in LA. Probably applies to New York, Chicago etc as well. I just
don't like big cities.

I'm offended. Take it back. LA is LA, and it's like no other place on the
globe. Chicago is a garden spot by comparison, gorgeously situated on Lake
Michigan and offering cultural and ethnic benefits not seen anywhere else,
and NYC is a cultural center beyond reproach. LA is a cesspool with
primitive lifeforms incubating in every nook and cranny of the place.

OK, I retract until I see first hand.

Ah well, we're gonna make a lot of money exporting LNG to whoever has
the money to pay for it, and before long we'll make a lot of money
exporting uranium too. We already make lots from exporting coal and
iron ore. Energy & resource poor, we're not. Pity we can't manage to
build efficient manufacturing but hey, as long as we can afford to pay
for our imports......

So can we.

So far, because foreign govts buy your bonds......

I'm not sure where you got the idea we were running out of
money, but we aren't.

Actually, you are. You're in debt. It's getting bigger not smaller.

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...ionalDebt.html

Has some really interesting graphs.

We have proportionately more resources than you guys
do, and we get paid handsomely for them. And despite being toppled from the
pinnacle of the world's manufacturing heap, we still mfr. a great number of
goods and technology. We're far from hurting. Despite being burdened by a
consumptive war, we are still in very good shape. You've overgeneralized
out situation, and failed to realize that we're far from in trouble. Yet.

Agree. But you're heading into trouble and have been for a while. I
don't make the mistake of assuming that a trend will continue, but the
first step to changing one is the realisation that there is a problem.

I don't look at your GDP, really. I look at your terms of trade. Reflex
for me as we're a middle sized place with a lot of raw materials and
have developed an export focus, with a floating exchange rate. Your net
foreign debt is still growing.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ENG407A.html

An interesting read, in hindsight, because things haven't crashed -
yet. However, living beyond ones means sooner or later ends.

I'm out of here for a few days so carry on the argument without me. Got
a ship arriving back after a 10 week research cruise, people to greet,
gear to fix, money to spend................

PDW

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
news

"Scotty" wrote in message
...
I have a 'sales tax exempt number', will that also work
on
your new Fed. sales tax.

Huh-uh. In fact I'm proposing that those of you who've
been sales tax
exempt should have an additional 5% tacked on just to make
up for all the
sales tax you didn't pay before.

What about churches and other non=profit groups?

Tax 'em big, by God. Or not by God. Whatever.

Max

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
k.net...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Lady Pilot" wrote in message
news:BQNPf.122940$4l5.106735@dukeread05...

"Bob Crantz" wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote:
Did you take your morning does of Xanax today, Bob?

With grapefruit juice!

Tsk, tsk, Bob. Read the label...

You caught that one. Good job.

Obviously you and LP have used Xanax. For those of us who haven't, mind
filling us in?

Max
I have never used Xanax or any drug for mental disorders. I want to
experience my disorders full blown!

He

http://www.fhma.com/grapefruit.htm

Eye opener isn't it?

Drink up.

Max

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

"Scotty" wrote in message
...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

But the poor are taxed more heavily! Cigarette taxes,
booze taxes,
lotteries, gambling taxes, motel room taxes - it all
adds up!


Rich folks don't drink or smoke?

That's not my statement, Scoot. Pete, I think, said that.

No, not me. I agree with you on that one.

BTW, Australia introduced a GST at 10% a few years ago. So far, and I
emphasise so far, it seems to be working relatively well. Foodstuffs
are exempt but pretty well nothing else.

Tell Doug--he believes a federal ST will tank the economy.

Max

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

What people - not meaning you - keep forgetting is the cost of the
technology we have *now*. Thousands killed annually in coal mining.
Productive agricultural land trashed. Acid rain. Air pollution.
Radioactive releases (radon). Because we've been doing it for over 100
years, it's ok. By current hypocritical standards, you'd never be
allowed to build a coal fired power plant.

Americans as a rule tend to overreact. Three Mile Island was an example.
No one died from that accident, AFAIK, but it is still touted as the primary
reason to scratch nukes as a power source. Funny, but no one mentions
Chernobyl, which was far, far worse. But the technology in that reactor is
one which we've never embraced, and never will.

All tech is risky. It always can be improved. Matter of cost-benefit
analysis.

It may become a matter of turning on the lights or not.

Let them freeze in the dark. Or broil in the sun. I've never been keen
on people wanting all the benefits while shoving off the costs
elsewhere.

Californians believe they are special.


I don't think the shuttle program will regroup. Not in any meaningful
sense. Indeed, from a long distance, I think it should be killed off
and replaced with a Mk 2 version. Call it an engineering prototype
that's reached its limit of usefulness. Don't keep ****ing money down
that rathole. FWIW I think space is a vitally important strategic
activity so it's not that I think the intention is a waste of money,
just the engineering.

I agree on all points. The Mk2 shuttle is apparently in the works, but the
real benefits of the spacecraft seem to get nixed regularly in favor of
cheaper, but older and inferior technology. An example: a heat shielding
material was developed some years ago that would make the sort of accident
that killed Columbia almost impossible. It was a solid (not tiled) hard
surface of very durable, continuous material. But it was expensive, and
some felt the Mk2 shuttle would never come to fruition, so the heat
shielding material research was scrapped. If the Mk2 shuttle is to become a
reality, it will have to utilize a self-launch capability, wherein it can
take off from a runway with scramjets, and then convert to some type of
thrusters usable in space. Complex, but as you imply the weak link of the
shuttle program in its current iteration is the launch mode with the huge
external tank and all the plumbing. It's costly, inefficient, and
hazardous.


I'm offended. Take it back. LA is LA, and it's like no other place on
the
globe. Chicago is a garden spot by comparison, gorgeously situated on
Lake
Michigan and offering cultural and ethnic benefits not seen anywhere
else,
and NYC is a cultural center beyond reproach. LA is a cesspool with
primitive lifeforms incubating in every nook and cranny of the place.

OK, I retract until I see first hand.

It would be a grievous error to judge American cities by LA. We have some
losers, but LA leads the pack by a wide margin. Some of our cities are
gorgeous and amazingly efficient. San Francisco, for example, is a rather
European-looking city with more aesthetic visual stimulation than the brain
can accommodate in anything under a week's visit. Denver, despite its
****ty air quality, has some fine points, and an impressive mountain range
to its western side. Seattle is also beautiful, if frequently cloudy and
wet. San Diego is among the prettiest cities anywhere, and the weather is
near perfect. I love Chicago, but I'm prejudiced--I live an hour and
one-half from it. Miami is another cesspool--avoid it.

Actually, you are. You're in debt. It's getting bigger not smaller.

Our government is in debt. Most of the private sector does quite well,
thanks, but that's probably because it is constantly changing and adapting.
Some segments of the private sector are hurting, such as the US auto
industry. Labor rates are too high, and American auto companies haven't
quite got it figured out yet that people want reasonably-priced,
economically-operated automobiles, but they want them to be reliable,
dependable, and worth something when it comes time to resell. Toyota has
that one figured out about as well as anyone.

Agree. But you're heading into trouble and have been for a while. I
don't make the mistake of assuming that a trend will continue, but the
first step to changing one is the realisation that there is a problem.

We'd be well-advised not to look to our illustrious government for the
solutions to that problem.


I don't look at your GDP, really. I look at your terms of trade. Reflex
for me as we're a middle sized place with a lot of raw materials and
have developed an export focus, with a floating exchange rate. Your net
foreign debt is still growing.

It is indeed. And that is troubling to most Americans.

An interesting read, in hindsight, because things haven't crashed -
yet. However, living beyond ones means sooner or later ends.

I'm out of here for a few days so carry on the argument without me. Got
a ship arriving back after a 10 week research cruise, people to greet,
gear to fix, money to spend................

I think we've flogged this dead horse sufficiently. Ciao.

Max

I was just kidding. Perhaps you need a hero.

The coal tech I mentioned is actually cheaper than oil by quite a bit.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
Jon can't connect the dots.

Which dots are those? The Republican lackey dots?

I disagree with both of you. You can be both environmentally sensitive
(ie reduce pollution) and be competitive in energy. But you have to
take some risks. I think nuclear power stations are the only feasible
solution, given current technology.

I think you're confused. I'm all for coal.

Try this. It's better than nuclear (pronounce it nucular like your hero).

I don't have a hero, Jon. Got no idea who you're referring to.

http://governor.mt.gov/hottopics/faqsynthetic.asp

Shrug. We're one of the biggest coal exporters. We make money whatever
happens. The idea is to reduce greenhouse gases and other pollutants -
sulphur, nitrous oxides etc. Sure you can create synthetic oil,
whatever, from coal. Also from shale oil, brown coal etc etc. Been
done, tech is well known. The Germans used it way back.

It just costs a ****load of bux per gallon of oil produced. You also
have to trash (often) productive land to get to the stuff, and dispose
of a mountain of waste afterwards. All while competing with someone
else. And then when you burn it, you still produce CO, CO2 etc etc.

I can't quickly find a ref to how much coal California mines, or when
the last mine was started. Bet it's an insignificant tonnage and no new
mine has been opened in decades, tho.

It's a viable alternative, IMO, only when the cost of production of oil
rises a lot. Not, note well, the sale price, but the production cost. I
say this because if someone starts tooling up for a synthetic fuel
price, all the oil guys need to do is drop the price sufficiently to
bankrupt the syn plant, then jack the price up again. Sure, there are
ways round this, but basically you need a guaranteed purchase price.

Converting LNG might well be cheaper.

I regard Japan as competitive in energy because they use it more
efficiently in the production of manufactured goods, which they can
sell abroad to willing customers, and therefore pay for their energy
imports.

Does that include them throwing away all their nearly new crap when
they're
done with it?

Why not? They just sell the nearly new crap to other people, Jon. As I
well know, since I worked in the Solomon Is. Nearly every car there was
imported from Japan. Saved buying new ones.

BTW, I agree with Bob Cranz. The Russian heavy lift chemical rockets
are a lot cheaper and on a tonnes lifted to orbit basis a more cost
effective solution than the Space Shuttle. Sure there are failures but
as long as it's cheaper to pay for the failures than the shuttle, so
what? Gotta look at the end result.

The shuttle should be scuttled.

Yeah. About 15 years ago when a Mk 2 orbital delivery platform was
developed. Didn't happen. I wish it had, I still wish it would. But
hey, someone's gonna do it. Might not be the USA, definitely won't be
us - we don't have the size economy to fund it - but someone.


What Jon doesn't seem to get is, I'll use 'best of breed' regardless of
origin. I use an Apple Mac laptop. I use Sun Microsystems servers. If
forced I use Microsoft s/ware but low end servers run Linux. Those
products are competitive in quality & price.

Now that Peter has totally lost this argument, he's referring to me in
the
third person. :-)

Hey, you did a dummy spit and said you weren't responding any more. I
took you at your word. Sorry about that. Next time I'll remember that
you have to have the *last* word.

The only person who thinks I've lost the argument, BTW, is you.


I have a lot of old US made machinery. It's still better than some of
the brand new Chinese made stuff. Today I bought a new power drill. I
bought an AEG Fixtec drill. These things are great, got no idea where
it's made but it isn't China.

Wow, you bought a power drill. Well, ok then.

Heh. I spend somewhere in excess of $500K USD per annum on equipment
for work. Some years *lots* more. I'll bet that's in excess of 10X what
you spend on mechanical & electrical equipment pa.

Thinking about it, you guys are still pretty competitive in
oceanography stuff. Pretty niche area. I probably spend about 50% of my
money on US stuff, the rest European. However we're working with the
Chinese on building automated weather stations.

Jon finds it easier to indulge in 'shoot the messenger' than address
the message. It's so much more comfortable that way. Saves thinking.

Still waiting for you to prove your point (not the one on the top of your
head).

Yawn. Ad-hom. Boring.

The USA is *becoming* a **** poor place. I don't like this personally
and I don't like it strategically but there's nothing I can do except
point out the unpalatable facts. You guys simply *cannot* keep up your
current rate of consumption of imports while paying for them with money
borrowed from o/s unless the lenders keep seeing value for money.
You've got the technology, the infrastructure, the skill base and the
depth of capital to do wonderful things, and you're not doing anything
except indulge in wars over pride or oil. It's frustrating and
annoying.

Yes, except that it's still the best damn country in the world. Good
luck.

Well, second best.......

Meanwhile, California's electricity demand rises, and their generation
capacity doesn't.

Talk to Arnold. I didn't vote for him.

Irrelevant. The power problem far preceded Arnold.

PDW

Why do the States have income taxes, even though most have a
sales tax, Max?

Scotty

"Peter Wiley" wrote

What people - not meaning you - keep forgetting is the
cost of the
technology we have *now*. Thousands killed annually in
coal mining.
Productive agricultural land trashed. Acid rain. Air
pollution.
Radioactive releases (radon). Because we've been doing it
for over 100
years, it's ok. By current hypocritical standards, you'd
never be
allowed to build a coal fired power plant.

All tech is risky. It always can be improved. Matter of
cost-benefit
analysis.


Can wipe out entire towns, also.

http://www.shulersnet.com/coalcracker/fire.htm

Scotty

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...
I love Chicago, but I'm prejudiced--I live an hour and
one-half from it.

Ever been on 'the loop; during rush hour?



Labor rates are too high, and American auto companies
haven't
quite got it figured out yet that people want
reasonably-priced,
economically-operated automobiles,


Is that why half the cars on the road are big SUVs?
Have you niticed the car ads touting the 'bigger is better'
?



S