will the US military power dominate the world [Archive]

Greg Hennessy

October 19th 03, 04:00 PM

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 13:39:52 GMT, "IO" > wrote:

>BUFDRVR wrote:
>>> EU standard of life is at less equal of the USA one.
>>
>> After having recently spent 10 days in western Europe, I'll disagree
>> using one example; fuel prices. The cost of both gas and diesel in
>> Germany, France, Luxemburg and Belgium was *3-4 times higher*
>
>Fuel price=TAXES= social assistance=better standard of life

Not from where I am sitting.

The productive all across europe get ripped off to buy votes from the idle
and indolent, leaving them with little for their one well being.

One cannot have a 'better standard of life' when the state is confiscating
3/4s of ones lifetime earnings via direct and indirect taxation.

The only people to have a 'better standard of life' are those who spend
their entire existence suckling at the public teat.

greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Greg Hennessy

October 19th 03, 04:00 PM

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:22:27 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:

>Western Europe is a more equalised society.

Which makes everyone equally worse off as a consequence.

> Belgians pay more
>taxes
>and have leass ready money to spend than Americans,

Not surprising given the level of official and unofficial corruption in one
of the worst governed countries in Europe. How long has Marc Dutroux been
on remand awaiting trial for now ? Someone hoping he will die in prison
beforehand perhaps ?

>but in Belgium 4% of people lives below the povery line,

And the Black economy in Belgium is gigantic as a consequence. The so
called 'poverty line' is not a valid comparison given its basis is relative
and not absolute. There are 10s if not 100s of thousands in Belgium who
work outside the system and are not in any official figures.

greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

October 19th 03, 04:48 PM

You are one of the reason because USA is the most hated country of the
world, and i'm not jelous of you *ROTFL*

Denyav

October 19th 03, 04:51 PM

>EU standard of life is at less equal of the USA one.
>
>

Well,for example if you are German with "Germany allergy" sendroms your
official German insurance carrier have to rent a beachfront property in sunny
Florida for you and pay for your expenses to cure your allergy.

But I dont think that my US insurance carrier is going to rent a beachfront
property for me in sunny Hawai or anywhere else to cure my "Northeast allergy"
in my life time.

tom c

October 19th 03, 06:34 PM

"Franck" > wrote in message
...
> Jealousy of what ?? of American way of life !!! let me laugh
>
Yet your reply e-mail is from an American Company. Your news reader is by an
American Company. Seems pretty dammed American to me. Are you sure your not
American?

October 19th 03, 06:47 PM

tom c wrote:
> "Franck" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jealousy of what ?? of American way of life !!! let me laugh
>>
> Yet your reply e-mail is from an American Company. Your news reader
> is by an American Company. Seems pretty dammed American to me. Are
> you sure your not American

*ROTFL*
Probably your car is european or has implemented many japanese and european
technologies. Probably your portable telephone is European or implement many
european technologies. Probably your car hi-fi is or european or japanese
probably your television is japanese or european... I have to continue?

Franck

October 19th 03, 06:58 PM

>Yet your reply e-mail is from an American Company. Your news reader is by
an
>American Company. Seems pretty dammed American to me. Are you sure your not
>American?

wich link between my reader and the quality of the life ???

if you want i have some other exemple but i'm not sure it's the subject :

- my e-mail come from Wanadoo a french company, look you tires may be they
come from french one too ;o)

- Your planes (Boeing, Cessna, Lockheed...), car (Ford, Chrysler),i, boat,
carrier sub-marine (all the boat of the USNAVY in fact)........ are made by
french soft : catia (from dassault systems)

beleive me in france we have electricity, car, plane ;)

Do you want some example of good way of life :

- during school, university... my parents never paid, it's the same thinq
for all the sutdent in france. School is free of charge
- Holidays : 8 weeks /years
- ..........................

I work in US company (IBM), and i know some US citizen who lived in France.
Beleive me, they like the french life. Of course life in US ist also i'm
sure good (exept may be when you need electricity in california) but you're
not the only one country where the life is great

--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

Franck

October 19th 03, 07:04 PM

>........ are made by french soft : catia (from dassault systems)

read made using a french CAD software : catia (from dassault systems)

--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

Chad Irby

October 19th 03, 07:07 PM

In article >,
"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> > Better pay, more freedom, less government...
>
> Americans like to think that they have less government,
> and in financial terms they probably do, but I am always
> surprised how bureaucratic and hierarchical the USA is.

That's odd. The folks I know who moved here from Europe are all
startled at how little the US government impacts on their everyday life.

Meanwhile, you guys have the European Union, which is power-grabbing in
a serious way.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

October 19th 03, 07:09 PM

In article >, "IO" >
wrote:

> BUFDRVR wrote:
> >> EU standard of life is at less equal of the USA one.
> >
> > After having recently spent 10 days in western Europe, I'll disagree
> > using one example; fuel prices. The cost of both gas and diesel in
> > Germany, France, Luxemburg and Belgium was *3-4 times higher*
>
> Fuel price=TAXES= social assistance=better standard of life

Except that doesn't really follow. All that really means is that the
European governments have more of your money.

> Europeans car uses less fuel than american ones. Medium european car
> engine=1400cc medium usa car engine=2000 cc= a lot of more fuel.
> Europeans do less kilometers per year than an americans.

So they have a lower standard of living when it comes to personal
transportation.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

October 19th 03, 07:12 PM

Chad Irby wrote:
> In article >, "IO" >
> wrote:
>
>> BUFDRVR wrote:
>>>> EU standard of life is at less equal of the USA one.
>>>
>>> After having recently spent 10 days in western Europe, I'll disagree
>>> using one example; fuel prices. The cost of both gas and diesel in
>>> Germany, France, Luxemburg and Belgium was *3-4 times higher*
>>
>> Fuel price=TAXES= social assistance=better standard of life
>
> Except that doesn't really follow. All that really means is that the
> European governments have more of your money.
>
>> Europeans car uses less fuel than american ones. Medium european car
>> engine=1400cc medium usa car engine=2000 cc= a lot of more fuel.
>> Europeans do less kilometers per year than an americans.
>
> So they have a lower standard of living when it comes to personal
> transportation.

No idiot the distances in Europe are much less than USA. We also have an
efficient human transportation by railway (HIGH speed train in france spain
italy germany...). USA has diesel loco's europeans electric ones...

Chad Irby

October 19th 03, 07:13 PM

In article >, "IO" >
wrote:

> USA medium family is strangled by debts. Augmented fixed costs (university
> for the childrens, the house, credit card....) are strangling american
> families.

Note that of the three things you mention, two of them are European
problems, too. Unless Europeans don't live in houses or use credit
cards.

And if you're looking for a university education, it's not that
expensive here (unless you go somewhere like Harvard or Yale). Which is
part of the reason we get so many Europeans here in our schools...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

October 19th 03, 07:16 PM

How much you spend every year for the sanitaty insurance? More or less than
you spend for your house?

October 19th 03, 07:16 PM

>
> Note that of the three things you mention, two of them are European
> problems, too. Unless Europeans don't live in houses or use credit
> cards.
>
> And if you're looking for a university education, it's not that
> expensive here (unless you go somewhere like Harvard or Yale). Which
> is part of the reason we get so many Europeans here in our schools...

*ROTFL* For lobotomy? *ROTFL*

Franck

October 19th 03, 07:25 PM

>Unless Europeans don't live in houses or use credit cards.

lol of course, you know what, i live in cave and use candle during night. to
go to my job I use a horse.....

comme on Chad, wake up and open your eyes to see the real world

--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

Alan Minyard

October 19th 03, 07:45 PM

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:22:27 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:

>"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
>
>> example; fuel prices. The cost of both gas and diesel in Germany, France,
>> Luxemburg and Belgium was *3-4 times higher* than the average fuel prices
>in
>> the US. Unless you can show me that the average EU citizen makes 3-4 times
>more
>> than the average US citizen, you have a significant negative impact on
>standard
>> of living.
>
>It's a different balance, as the price difference in fuel is mostly
>because of taxes, and therefore returns in the form of public
>services. So fuel is more expensive, but e.g. health care is
>cheaper and universal. It's all a matter of priorities. Fewer
>people here can afford to drive a big SUV, but who really
>needs one?
>
>Western Europe is a more equalised society. Belgians pay more
>taxes and have leass ready money to spend than Americans,
>but in Belgium 4% of people lives below the povery line, in
>the USA 12.7% (CIA figures). Belgians have a slightly longer
>life expectancy than Americans, a lower infant mortality rate
>at birth, and better education. The UN 'quality of life' ranking
>puts Belgium just ahead of the USA (in 6th and 7th place), which
>means that, all factors considered, there is little difference; its
>more a choice of which factors to emphasize in public policy.

"Better education"? I don't recall a lot of Belgians winning the
latest round of Nobel Prized in physics, medicine, et al. Also note
that the US definition of the poverty rate is middle class in other
countries.

Al Minyard

Franck

October 19th 03, 08:01 PM

Io, not almost but some of them sure.

I think they are all here lol

--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

October 19th 03, 08:02 PM

Franck wrote:
>> Also note
>> that the US definition of the poverty rate is middle class in other
>> countries.
>
> incredible, this man is incredible.
>
> Al did you win a Nobel...no i'm sure not, it's evident

As almost americans he had not seen the rest of the world and is sure that
chinese don't see very well because they have small eyes and other things of
this type

Ron

October 19th 03, 08:16 PM

>>Fuel price=TAXES= social assistance=better standard of life
>
>Not from where I am sitting.
>
>The productive all across europe get ripped off to buy votes from the idle
>and indolent, leaving them with little for their one well being.
>
>One cannot have a 'better standard of life' when the state is confiscating
>3/4s of ones lifetime earnings via direct and indirect taxation.
>
>The only people to have a 'better standard of life' are those who spend
>their entire existence suckling at the public teat.
>
>
>greg

It will be interesting over the next 10 years to see how Western Europe handles
it, as their population ages even more, with much less younger people to help
pay into the system, in proportion to those who are retired and recieving the
benefits of such a social program.

Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

October 19th 03, 08:25 PM

Ron wrote:
>>> Fuel price=TAXES= social assistance=better standard of life
>>
>> Not from where I am sitting.
>>
>> The productive all across europe get ripped off to buy votes from
>> the idle and indolent, leaving them with little for their one well
>> being.
>>
>> One cannot have a 'better standard of life' when the state is
>> confiscating 3/4s of ones lifetime earnings via direct and indirect
>> taxation.
>>
>> The only people to have a 'better standard of life' are those who
>> spend
>> their entire existence suckling at the public teat.
>>
>>
>> greg
>
> It will be interesting over the next 10 years to see how Western
> Europe handles it, as their population ages even more, with much less
> younger people to help pay into the system, in proportion to those
> who are retired and recieving the benefits of such a social program.
>
This is valid without considering the immigrants, also in the United States
WASP (the part of the US population more paragonable to the europeans)
people is becoming older... But the other parts of population are younger...

P.S. what about racial integration?

Tank Fixer

October 19th 03, 08:31 PM

In article >,
says...
> Jealousy of what ?? of American way of life !!! let me laugh
>

yes, we have airconditioning...

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Tank Fixer

October 19th 03, 08:35 PM

In article >, says...
> BUFDRVR wrote:
> >> EU standard of life is at less equal of the USA one.
> >
> > After having recently spent 10 days in western Europe, I'll disagree
> > using one example; fuel prices. The cost of both gas and diesel in
> > Germany, France, Luxemburg and Belgium was *3-4 times higher*
>
> Fuel price=TAXES= social assistance=better standard of life
> Europeans car uses less fuel than american ones. Medium european car
> engine=1400cc medium usa car engine=2000 cc= a lot of more fuel.
> Europeans do less kilometers per year than an americans.

because some of you're counries are smaller than the metopolitan are I
live in.....

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Franck

October 19th 03, 08:36 PM

>yes, we have airconditioning...

yes when electricity facilities works ;)

--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

Tank Fixer

October 19th 03, 08:38 PM

In article >, says...
> How much you spend every year for the sanitaty insurance? More or less than
> you spend for your house?

What kind of insurance ?

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Peter Stickney

October 19th 03, 08:53 PM

In article >,
"Franck" > writes:
>>........ are made by french soft : catia (from dassault systems)
>
> read made using a french CAD software : catia (from dassault systems)

Amusing. When I was busy developing Information Interchange protocols
between CAD systems and documentation systems, (Mid '80s) CATIA was
Boeing's baby, and a troublesome one at that. If they conned
Dassault into buying it, it would have to rank as the Comic Deal of
the century.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Franck

October 19th 03, 08:53 PM

An example

I pay 30$/month for ALL medical assitance (hospital, medecin, drug, glasses,
teeth......). a big party is paid directly bythe french state, the rest by
my medical insurance

you could pay more or less depends of your insurance or the company where
you work. but this a good example. For my US collegue it's not very
expensive vs the same assitance in US country
--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

Greg Hennessy

October 19th 03, 09:08 PM

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 15:45:10 GMT, "IO" > wrote:

>
>> The productive all across europe get ripped off to buy votes from the
>> idle and indolent, leaving them with little for their one well being.
>Whati is this? Nazi-like consideartions
>*ROTFL*

Your inabilty to counter the point is noted. I suggest you do calculate how
much your govt is going to take from you to pay someone elses pension and
then ask yourself whether there will be anyone about to return the favour
when you turn 75 or 80.

greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Greg Hennessy

October 19th 03, 09:08 PM

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 15:48:54 GMT, "IO" > wrote:

>You are one of the reason because USA is the most hated country of the
>world, and i'm not jelous of you *ROTFL*
>

I suggest you check the headers idiot, I live europe the same as what you
do, except I have the misfortune to be in a country which is paying for it.

greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Greg Hennessy

October 19th 03, 09:08 PM

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 18:16:27 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:

>so nobody can object to his imprisonment in itself. It is true that the
>preparation of the trial is taking far too long.
>

Did you ask yourself why, or is it another agusta coverup in the offing ?

> The entire process is
>very bureaucratic and often produces a vast and unmanageable heap of
>documents, which is solemnly put in front of the judges, often in tattered
>carboard boxes! And of course, in this case, continuous infighting between
>the investigating teams, and a political investigation in the way the case
>was handled, have done their share.

I have a pretty reasonable idea of what its like. The Rijkswacht cant wait
to fine a helpless motorist and pocket the proceeds, but when it comes to
dealing with armed gangs with connections @ the justice ministry......

It just cracks me up, Switzerland can manage to run a multi ethnic state
with none of the corrupt inter necine squabbling which characterises
Belgian society in general.

>
>But on the other hand the delay has allowed the initial fury to subside and
>at least cleared the most bizarre conspiracy theories away. I think it is
>now possible (but very difficult) to assemble a jury that can give a
>reasoned judgment on this case.

Methinks Dutroux may meet an unfortunate accident in prison.

>> And the Black economy in Belgium is gigantic as a consequence. The so
>> called 'poverty line' is not a valid comparison given its basis is
>relative
>> and not absolute. There are 10s if not 100s of thousands in Belgium who
>> work outside the system and are not in any official figures.
>
>This, however, implies that they have *more* money to spend
>than the official figures state, not less!

Not really, I know of eastern europeans in Brussels working for 40-50
eu/day when they can get it. If they can go out and are prepared to work
for that, then the so called 'long term' unemployed can do so also.

>But you are right that the scale of the 'black' economy is problem.
>In general the self-employed and the rich can evade taxes, while
>workers in industry cannot evade full taxation.

I cant say I blame anyone for evading taxes in Belgium when the state takes
over 2/3 of the gross of someone who is self employed.

Like a lot european countries the political will isn't there to do true
reform of the tax system, by broadening the base, removing exemptions for
the special interest groups and lowering the rates.

Here in the UK in 1987 the top rate of tax was lowered from 60 to 40%. The
overall tax take significantly increased as a consequence. Making a lie of
all the socialist drivel about it 'hurting the poor'.

> The government is
>now offering a 'fiscal amnesty' to get some of the money stored
>on foreign bank accounts back into the country, but it remains to
>be seen whether the courts will accept that procedure as lawful.

I heard about that, I cant see anyone being silly enough to fall for it
though.

greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Eric Pinnell

October 19th 03, 09:27 PM

On 19 Oct 2003 19:16:02 GMT, (Ron) wrote:

>It will be interesting over the next 10 years to see how Western Europe handles
>it, as their population ages even more, with much less younger people to help
>pay into the system, in proportion to those who are retired and recieving the
>benefits of such a social program.
>
>Ron
>Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

They've been importing large numbers of workers from Eastern Europe,
and from places like Algeria. NO matter where it's been tried,
Socialism eventually falls on its ass, as more and more taxes are
levied to buy more votes at election time.

Eric Pinnell

(Author, "Claws of The Dragon", "The Omega File")

For a preview, see: http://www.ericpinnell.com and click on "books"

Tank Fixer

October 19th 03, 10:12 PM

In article >,
says...
> >yes, we have airconditioning...
>
> yes when electricity facilities works ;)
>

Worked just fine this summer, what happened in France ?
15K dead from heat?

Besides, where I live we get most of our electrical power from hydro....

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Tank Fixer

October 19th 03, 10:14 PM

In article >,
says...
> An example
>
> I pay 30$/month for ALL medical assitance (hospital, medecin, drug, glasses,
> teeth......). a big party is paid directly bythe french state, the rest by
> my medical insurance
>
> you could pay more or less depends of your insurance or the company where
> you work. but this a good example. For my US collegue it's not very
> expensive vs the same assitance in US country

Medical insurance.

Try adding up what you pay in taxes to the $30 a month.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Franck

October 19th 03, 10:17 PM

>what happened in France ?
>15K dead from heat?

right, I'm surprise by this fact

what happen in USA, more than 12K dead, shot in the street every year. it
seems life is less dangerous in Irak

how many people die in USA each year without any medical assistance ?

--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

Alan Minyard

October 19th 03, 10:46 PM

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 18:09:06 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >, "IO" >
>wrote:
>
>> BUFDRVR wrote:
>> >> EU standard of life is at less equal of the USA one.
>> >
>> > After having recently spent 10 days in western Europe, I'll disagree
>> > using one example; fuel prices. The cost of both gas and diesel in
>> > Germany, France, Luxemburg and Belgium was *3-4 times higher*
>>
>> Fuel price=TAXES= social assistance=better standard of life
>
>Except that doesn't really follow. All that really means is that the
>European governments have more of your money.
>
>> Europeans car uses less fuel than american ones. Medium european car
>> engine=1400cc medium usa car engine=2000 cc= a lot of more fuel.
>> Europeans do less kilometers per year than an americans.
>
>So they have a lower standard of living when it comes to personal
>transportation.

I have a *very* average Ford Taurus station-wagon, and it has a 3
Liter engine. Quite safe and comfortable.

Al Minyard

Chad Irby

October 19th 03, 11:44 PM

In article >,
"IO" > wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
> > In article >, "IO" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Europeans car uses less fuel than american ones. Medium european car
> >> engine=1400cc medium usa car engine=2000 cc= a lot of more fuel.
> >> Europeans do less kilometers per year than an americans.
> >
> > So they have a lower standard of living when it comes to personal
> > transportation.
>
> No idiot the distances in Europe are much less than USA.

Which means you don't need cars with big engines, since you don't
usually go as far. Of course, it certainly brings up "why are gas taxes
so high?"

Oh, right... to pay for all of the other programs that cost you too much.

But if the government wasn't so overwhelming there, they wouldn't need
so much of your money.

> We also have an efficient human transportation by railway (HIGH speed
> train in france spain italy germany...). USA has diesel loco's
> europeans electric ones...

Not mentioning, of course, that since most American railways are
covering three to ten times as much distance, electric trains are a
horrible waste of money (infrastructure costs can kill you for long
runs).

And also not mentioning that some American trains *are* electric (the
short-haul ones).

And for *long* distances (the ones you guys use trains for), we use
these newfangled things called "airplanes," which are pretty cheap to
operate over distances over a couple of hundred miles.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

October 19th 03, 11:48 PM

"IO" > wrote:

> How much you spend every year for the sanitaty insurance?

I suppose you mean "sanitary" insurance.

What the hell is "sanitary" insurance?

Health insurance?

> More or less than you spend for your house?

Much less.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

October 19th 03, 11:49 PM

"IO" > wrote:

> > Note that of the three things you mention, two of them are European
> > problems, too. Unless Europeans don't live in houses or use credit
> > cards.
> >
> > And if you're looking for a university education, it's not that
> > expensive here (unless you go somewhere like Harvard or Yale).
> > Which is part of the reason we get so many Europeans here in our
> > schools...
>
> *ROTFL* For lobotomy? *ROTFL*

You're really lost in all of this, aren't you?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

October 19th 03, 11:52 PM

In article >,
"Franck" > wrote:

> >Unless Europeans don't live in houses or use credit cards.
>
> lol of course, you know what, i live in cave and use candle during night. to
> go to my job I use a horse.....
>
> comme on Chad, wake up and open your eyes to see the real world

Well, since (by your comment above) you seem to think that the claimed
"problems" that Americans have with having to spend money on houses and
credit cards don't seem to impact Europeans...

Of the original complaints (house, credit, college), the only one of the
three that had any weight was Americans having to spend more on higher
education, and that's reasonably minor for most folks - and offset
completely for a lot of people.

So it appears that you *are* living in some sort of cave.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

October 19th 03, 11:54 PM

In article >,
"IO" > wrote:

> As almost americans he had not seen the rest of the world and is sure that
> chinese don't see very well because they have small eyes and other things of
> this type

You know, for such a "fair" group, the amount of pure bigotry and hatred
from the Europeans in this thread is shocking.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

October 19th 03, 11:59 PM

In article >,
"IO" > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > It will be interesting over the next 10 years to see how Western
> > Europe handles it, as their population ages even more, with much less
> > younger people to help pay into the system, in proportion to those
> > who are retired and recieving the benefits of such a social program.
>
> This is valid without considering the immigrants, also in the United States
> WASP (the part of the US population more paragonable to the europeans)
> people is becoming older... But the other parts of population are younger...

Actually, most of the European countries are in deep trouble, even at
current rates of immigration. The ones that are letting in more people
are having severe problems integrating the newcomers (France's problems
with Moslem immigrants, for example). and just "letting people in"
doesn't help if they have no jobs for them to fill (look at the current
long-term unemployment problems in France and Germany).

> P.S. what about racial integration?

Much better over here. Of course, we've had about a half-century more
practice at it.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

October 20th 03, 12:00 AM

In article >,
"Franck" > wrote:

> >yes, we have airconditioning...
>
> yes when electricity facilities works ;)

That would be much funnier if England and Italy hadn't had comparable
blackouts in the last few months...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

October 20th 03, 12:07 AM

In article >,
"Franck" > wrote:

> An example
>
> I pay 30$/month for ALL medical assitance (hospital, medecin, drug, glasses,
> teeth......). a big party is paid directly bythe french state, the rest by
> my medical insurance

You pay a *lot* more than $30 per month.

You see, when they take out that extra 20% or so of your income each
year in taxes, *that's* what pays for that insurance.

So when you say "$30 per month," you mean "$30 per month on top of the
several thousand per year they already take out."

And $6000 per year can pay for some *good* insurance for most folks in
the US... and we get to pick the insurance carrier, so we can choose to
have a less-expensive plan with a moderate deductible, or a very
expensive plan with no deductible at all.

> you could pay more or less depends of your insurance or the company where
> you work. but this a good example.

Can you choose to not pay the government the taxes they take away from
you to pay for everyone's health care?

Thought not...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

October 20th 03, 12:09 AM

In article >,
Greg Hennessy > wrote:

> Here in the UK in 1987 the top rate of tax was lowered from 60 to 40%. The
> overall tax take significantly increased as a consequence. Making a lie of
> all the socialist drivel about it 'hurting the poor'.

....and now some of the British government folks are looking at ways to
get that money back. Like removing the homeowner's exemption for the
capital gains tax - a nasty business for most people.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Tank Fixer

October 20th 03, 01:52 AM

In article >,
says...
> >what happened in France ?
> >15K dead from heat?
>
> right, I'm surprise by this fact
>

You had heard of it then ?

> what happen in USA, more than 12K dead, shot in the street every year. it
> seems life is less dangerous in Irak

It is dangerous being a drug dealer

> how many people die in USA each year without any medical assistance ?

not 15,000.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

ddd

October 20th 03, 04:18 AM

In the mid-1980s, The Boeing Company invested in three-dimensional
CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) technology
for strategic reasons. By the end of that decade, a single strategy for
applying this capability emerged after numerous pilot programs were
conducted.

The pilot programs clearly demonstrated the benefits of modeling
airplane parts as three-dimensional solids in the CATIA (computer-aided
three-dimensional interactive application) system. Developed by Dassault
Systemes of France and marketed by IBM in the United States, CATIA,
along with several Boeing-created applications - allowed Boeing
engineers to simulate the geometry of an airplane design on the computer
without the costly and time-consuming investment of using physical mock-ups.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_computing.html

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> "Franck" > writes:
>
>>>........ are made by french soft : catia (from dassault systems)
>>
>>read made using a french CAD software : catia (from dassault systems)
>
>
> Amusing. When I was busy developing Information Interchange protocols
> between CAD systems and documentation systems, (Mid '80s) CATIA was
> Boeing's baby, and a troublesome one at that. If they conned
> Dassault into buying it, it would have to rank as the Comic Deal of
> the century.
>

John Keeney

October 20th 03, 06:02 AM

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> >>Fuel price=TAXES= social assistance=better standard of life
> >
> >Not from where I am sitting.
> >
> >The productive all across europe get ripped off to buy votes from the
idle
> >and indolent, leaving them with little for their one well being.
> >
> >One cannot have a 'better standard of life' when the state is
confiscating
> >3/4s of ones lifetime earnings via direct and indirect taxation.
> >
> >The only people to have a 'better standard of life' are those who spend
> >their entire existence suckling at the public teat.
> >
> >
> >greg
>
> It will be interesting over the next 10 years to see how Western Europe
handles
> it, as their population ages even more, with much less younger people to
help
> pay into the system, in proportion to those who are retired and recieving
the
> benefits of such a social program.

This last summer while hiking through the Rocky Mountains I passed
many pairs of college students. One pair, to judge by accents and
appearances was a German and an Indian (or Pakistani, at least some
where from the neck of the woods); the portion of the conversation
I caught from this pair was how in the not to distant future every working
German was going to have his very own retiree to support via taxes.

Franck

October 20th 03, 07:46 AM

I don't speak about the last US black out but i speak about lot of small
blackout in California last years
--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

Keith Willshaw

October 20th 03, 07:54 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Franck" > wrote:
>
> > >yes, we have airconditioning...
> >
> > yes when electricity facilities works ;)
>
> That would be much funnier if England and Italy hadn't had comparable
> blackouts in the last few months...
>

England hasnt, there was a small scale blackout that affected
a section of London when a transformer blew.
The power went off at 18.26 BST and was restored at 19.00
the biggest problem was the disruption of power to the underground
and commuter rail systems at rush hour.

Keith

Greg Hennessy

October 20th 03, 09:57 AM

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:46:28 -0500, Alan Minyard >
wrote:

>I have a *very* average Ford Taurus station-wagon, and it has a 3
>Liter engine. Quite safe and comfortable.

I know of one european country where the annual tax (I believe you call it
car tags in your neck of the woods) on a car with a 3 Litre engine would be
round 1500 USD.

greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Greg Hennessy

October 20th 03, 09:57 AM

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:09:09 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> Greg Hennessy > wrote:
>
>> Here in the UK in 1987 the top rate of tax was lowered from 60 to 40%. The
>> overall tax take significantly increased as a consequence. Making a lie of
>> all the socialist drivel about it 'hurting the poor'.
>
>...and now some of the British government folks are looking at ways to
>get that money back. Like removing the homeowner's exemption for the
>capital gains tax - a nasty business for most people.

Tell me about it, its been 'officially' denied of course, but that kite
didnt start flight on its own.

greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Greg Hennessy

October 20th 03, 09:57 AM

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 01:09:33 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:

>
>Only because you are *very* prejudiced against us.

Anything but mate, I just happen to live and pay taxes in one of the few
European countries who has to pick the bill up for everyone else.

On an interpersonal level, I don't have issues with anyone from any
country. However that doesn't extend to the whole corrupt edifice of the EU
and the countries directly benefitting from it.

Belgium being a prime case in point.

>The Swiss hide
>the filth of the world in their safes and secret bank accounts,

Are you saying that privacy is a bad thing ? A lot of the nonsense about
swiss bank accounts comes from EU govts whining about their citizenry
taking positive action to stop their livelihoods being destroyed.

Here in the UK, offshore bank accounts are not an issue. In high tax
jurisdictions they clearly are.

The swiss quite rightly are not going to give up their long cherished
privacy rights for no good reason.

> we
>sent politicians to jail for things that are more or less legal in say
>the UK or USA -- such as taking 'grey' campaign contributions
>from defence contractors -- and we are the corrupt ones? Come on!

You cannot compare that with the bribes dassault paid to secure the F16
contract for example.

Campaign contributions in the US are clearly visible at election time and
here in the UK there are strict capitation limits on how much any candidate
can spend on election expenses.

greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Rob van Riel

October 20th 03, 10:27 AM

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> "IO" > wrote:
>
> > In spite of the mounting HATE against Bush and the American way of life?
>
> The word you're looking for is "jealousy."

If jealousy were the issue, it would have pre-dated Bush and his stuntdriving.

Rob

Chad Irby

October 20th 03, 04:05 PM

In article >,
(Rob van Riel) wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote in message
> >...
> > In article >,
> > "IO" > wrote:
> >
> > > In spite of the mounting HATE against Bush and the American way of life?
> >
> > The word you're looking for is "jealousy."
>
> If jealousy were the issue, it would have pre-dated Bush and his
> stuntdriving.

Jealousy, then.

It's gotten somewhat worse since the current President has taken office,
but it's certainly been an issue.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Alan Minyard

October 20th 03, 06:45 PM

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 22:52:44 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Franck" > wrote:
>
>> >Unless Europeans don't live in houses or use credit cards.
>>
>> lol of course, you know what, i live in cave and use candle during night. to
>> go to my job I use a horse.....
>>
>> comme on Chad, wake up and open your eyes to see the real world
>
>Well, since (by your comment above) you seem to think that the claimed
>"problems" that Americans have with having to spend money on houses and
>credit cards don't seem to impact Europeans...
>
>Of the original complaints (house, credit, college), the only one of the
>three that had any weight was Americans having to spend more on higher
>education, and that's reasonably minor for most folks - and offset
>completely for a lot of people.
>
>So it appears that you *are* living in some sort of cave.

Heck, when I went back to school after my retirement (one can never
have too many degrees) I actually made a profit. My scholarships and
VA compensation more than covered the costs. Any high school grad with
decent grades (2.0 on a 4.0 scale) can easily go to four years of
college for free.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

October 20th 03, 06:45 PM

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:57:14 +0100, Greg Hennessy >
wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:46:28 -0500, Alan Minyard >
>wrote:
>
>
>>I have a *very* average Ford Taurus station-wagon, and it has a 3
>>Liter engine. Quite safe and comfortable.
>
>I know of one european country where the annual tax (I believe you call it
>car tags in your neck of the woods) on a car with a 3 Litre engine would be
>round 1500 USD.
>
>
>
>
>
>greg

Yes, and I pay about $50 for a tag.

Al Minyard

William Wright

October 20th 03, 10:34 PM

Boeing chose CATIA in part because of the offset agreement for the French
AWACS. I don't remember the dollar value of the offset but as I recall it
was more than 100%.

"Franck" > wrote in message
...
> >CATIA was Boeing's baby
>
> Wich surpise, Catia is US Sotfware like Michelin tires !!!
>
> Don't really, Catia is developed in Dassault Aviation in 1983. After
> creation of Dassault Systems and asscociation with IBM to market this new
> software all over the world.
>
> Boeing is one of our customer but not the first one, just one customer
>
> Franck
>
> www.pegase-airshow.com
> www.picavia.com
>
>

Paul J. Adam

October 20th 03, 11:25 PM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> >EU standard of life is at less equal of the USA one.
>
> After having recently spent 10 days in western Europe, I'll disagree using one
> example; fuel prices. The cost of both gas and diesel in Germany, France,
> Luxemburg and Belgium was *3-4 times higher* than the average fuel prices in
> the US. Unless you can show me that the average EU citizen makes 3-4 times more
> than the average US citizen, you have a significant negative impact on standard
> of living.

Disagree on this issue - my daily commute to work is eight miles each
way, in a car that returns sixty miles to the gallon. I buy about
sixty dollars of fuel a month. (Yes, I'm fortunate and others have
longer journeys and/or thirstier vehicles). High fuel prices are an
irritant but (for example) the Common Agricultural Policy puts far
more of a hole in my bank balance than high fuel prices.

If Europe was as dispersed and involved the same routine travel
distances as much of the US seemed to... but it doesn't.

Where the US (and Canada) seems to score is land prices and house
sizes, but that's what I get for living in a crowded island.

--
Paul (overseas)

phil hunt

October 21st 03, 12:35 AM

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:57:14 +0100, Greg Hennessy > wrote:
>>The Swiss hide
>>the filth of the world in their safes and secret bank accounts,
>
>Are you saying that privacy is a bad thing ?

It's neither good nor bad.

>Campaign contributions in the US are clearly visible at election time

So corruption is OK as long as you know it's going on?

>and
>here in the UK there are strict capitation limits on how much any candidate
>can spend on election expenses.

But not on how much contributors can give to political parties.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

BUFDRVR

October 21st 03, 01:24 AM

>Disagree on this issue - my daily commute to work is eight miles each
>way, in a car that returns sixty miles to the gallon. I buy about
>sixty dollars of fuel a month. (Yes, I'm fortunate and others have
>longer journeys and/or thirstier vehicles). High fuel prices are an
>irritant but (for example) the Common Agricultural Policy puts far
>more of a hole in my bank balance than high fuel prices.
>
>If Europe was as dispersed and involved the same routine travel
>distances as much of the US seemed to... but it doesn't.

So you choose not to travel. This could be for personal reasons, or it could
be fuel prices. If its the former, than high fuel prices don't impact your
quality of life, but if its the latter, than they do.

I'm not sure if its the size of our country or weather American just like to
travel our nation by car, but many (high percentage) would feel paying
$4.00US/gallon of gas was a severe negative impact on their quality of life.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Franck

October 21st 03, 07:40 AM

>don't impact your quality of life

no impact of the quality of life for me, I travel a lot in Europe by car or
by plane to visit or assist to the europeen airshow. gas is expensive but
some other thing are less expensive than in US so you could adapt your
budget

be sure my quality of life is great ;)
--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

Marcus Andersson

October 21st 03, 07:56 AM

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> In article >, "IO" >
> wrote:
>
> > BUFDRVR wrote:
> > >> EU standard of life is at less equal of the USA one.
> > >
> > > After having recently spent 10 days in western Europe, I'll disagree
> > > using one example; fuel prices. The cost of both gas and diesel in
> > > Germany, France, Luxemburg and Belgium was *3-4 times higher*
> >
> > Fuel price=TAXES= social assistance=better standard of life
>
> Except that doesn't really follow. All that really means is that the
> European governments have more of your money.
>
> > Europeans car uses less fuel than american ones. Medium european car
> > engine=1400cc medium usa car engine=2000 cc= a lot of more fuel.
> > Europeans do less kilometers per year than an americans.
>
> So they have a lower standard of living when it comes to personal
> transportation.

yeah... this is probably the clearest example for Europeans of the
low standard of living for Americans... you simply cannot live
without a car...
You are forced to sit in your home without being able to go anywhere.
Unless you want to make yourself the trouble of bringing your car with
you, that is.

Marcus Andersson

October 21st 03, 08:31 AM

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> "Franck" > wrote:
>
> > Jealousy of what ?? of American way of life !!! let me laugh
>
> Better pay, more freedom, less government...
>
> Manwhile, in the EU, less of the first two and more of the third.

uhm... the EU does have far too much government... but not nearly as
much as the US...

In the EU (unlike the US) you don't have to make a written application
in three copies plus pay and administrative fee before getting
permission to go to your toilet, for instance.
At least that example isn't *that* far from the truth when it comes to
the situaiton in the US.

Greg Hennessy

October 21st 03, 09:49 AM

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 00:35:53 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

>
>>
>>Are you saying that privacy is a bad thing ?
>
>It's neither good nor bad.
>

I vehemently disagree, privacy is a fundamental human right.

>>Campaign contributions in the US are clearly visible at election time
>
>So corruption is OK as long as you know it's going on?

Thats *not* what I said and you well know it.

greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

phil hunt

October 21st 03, 02:58 PM

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 09:49:50 +0100, Greg Hennessy > wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 00:35:53 +0100, (phil hunt)
>wrote:
>>>Are you saying that privacy is a bad thing ?
>>
>>It's neither good nor bad.
>
>I vehemently disagree, privacy is a fundamental human right.

If I do something illegal, do I have a fundamental human right for
others not to find out?

What about if I do something that's not illegal, but which many
people would be concerned about if they knew it? Do they have a
right to know?

>>>Campaign contributions in the US are clearly visible at election time
>>
>>So corruption is OK as long as you know it's going on?
>
>Thats *not* what I said and you well know it.

No, I don't know it; AFAICT that's what you meant. To clarify, let
me ask you:

a. is it OK for someone to donate a few pounds to a politician?

b. is it OK for someone to donate a few million pounds to a
politician?

c. is it OK for someone to donate a few million pounds to a
politician, and then subsequently for the politician to pass laws
that make the donor richer?

d. does the answer to (b) make any difference if the money comes
from a business (where not all the shareholders necessarily agree
with the donation) rather than an individual?

e. do the answers to (a) and (b) differ if the donation is to a
group of politicians, such as a party, rather than an individual?

f. what about when businesses donate to politicians through a
go-between fund in an (apparent) attempt to disguise what they are
doing?

g. what about when a politician, say a cabinet minister, makes
decisions that favour a company, and then after the politician
retires the company gives him a well-paid consultancy or
non-executive directorship?

h. should companies that donate to politicians be obliged to state
so on the packaging of their prodcuts, so consumers can choose
to buy or not buy them if they wish to?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

ANDREW ROBERT BREEN

October 21st 03, 03:06 PM

In article >,
Greg Hennessy <nntp> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:46:28 -0500, Alan Minyard >
>wrote:
>
>>I have a *very* average Ford Taurus station-wagon, and it has a 3
>>Liter engine. Quite safe and comfortable.
>
>I know of one european country where the annual tax (I believe you call it
>car tags in your neck of the woods) on a car with a 3 Litre engine would be
>round 1500 USD.

OTOH the car tax in .uk on my car and its 3-litre engine is zero (0).
Pre-'73 and thus tax-exempt :)

OT, I know..

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

John Mullen

October 21st 03, 03:14 PM

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Greg Hennessy <nntp> wrote:
> >On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:46:28 -0500, Alan Minyard >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>I have a *very* average Ford Taurus station-wagon, and it has a 3
> >>Liter engine. Quite safe and comfortable.
> >
> >I know of one european country where the annual tax (I believe you call
it
> >car tags in your neck of the woods) on a car with a 3 Litre engine would
be
> >round 1500 USD.
>
> OTOH the car tax in .uk on my car and its 3-litre engine is zero (0).
> Pre-'73 and thus tax-exempt :)
>
> OT, I know..

And the *top* rate of Road Tax on UK cars is GBP165 pa.

http://www.dvla.gov.uk/vehicles/taxation.htm#Private

Never let the facts get in the way of a good anti-European rant though!

And I do agree that UK road fuel is too expensive...

John

Keith Willshaw

October 21st 03, 03:41 PM

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Greg Hennessy <nntp> wrote:
> >On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:46:28 -0500, Alan Minyard >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>I have a *very* average Ford Taurus station-wagon, and it has a 3
> >>Liter engine. Quite safe and comfortable.
> >
> >I know of one european country where the annual tax (I believe you call
it
> >car tags in your neck of the woods) on a car with a 3 Litre engine would
be
> >round 1500 USD.
>
> OTOH the car tax in .uk on my car and its 3-litre engine is zero (0).
> Pre-'73 and thus tax-exempt :)
>
> OT, I know..
>

Really ?

Maybe its time to buy a Rover 3.5 Coupe after all :)

Keith

Greg Hennessy

October 21st 03, 03:48 PM

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:58:48 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

>>
>>I vehemently disagree, privacy is a fundamental human right.
>
>If I do something illegal, do I have a fundamental human right for
>others not to find out?

That's a logical fallacy.

>What about if I do something that's not illegal, but which many
>people would be concerned about if they knew it? Do they have a
>right to know?

If its none of their damned business they have *no* right to know, no
matter how 'concerned' these interfering busybodies may be.

>>>>Campaign contributions in the US are clearly visible at election time
>>>
>>>So corruption is OK as long as you know it's going on?
>>
>>Thats *not* what I said and you well know it.
>
>No, I don't know it; AFAICT that's what you meant. To clarify, let
>me ask you:
>

[Snip another false dilemma]

You cannot claim that campaign contributions are morally equivalent to the
corrupt taking of bribes and overt attempts to destroy evidence and any
attempt at investigation of it.

greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

ANDREW ROBERT BREEN

October 21st 03, 05:37 PM

In article >,
John Mullen > wrote:
>"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> Greg Hennessy <nntp> wrote:
>> >I know of one european country where the annual tax (I believe you call
>it
>> >car tags in your neck of the woods) on a car with a 3 Litre engine would
>be
>> >round 1500 USD.

>> OTOH the car tax in .uk on my car and its 3-litre engine is zero (0).
>> Pre-'73 and thus tax-exempt :)

>> OT, I know..

>And the *top* rate of Road Tax on UK cars is GBP165 pa.

Which isn't exactly punitive, but it's always nice to not pay at all :)

>And I do agree that UK road fuel is too expensive...

Not at all sure I do, though it does make me pause to reflect before
filling a 20-gallon tank.

At least my car, unlike its military aviation namesake, doesn't leak
fuel all over the place (the Supermarine Scimitar was notorious for
that).

Desperately trying to introduce some r.a.m topic into the thread.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

Mike Marron

October 21st 03, 06:10 PM

(Marcus Andersson) wrote:

>uhm... the EU does have far too much government... but not nearly as
>much as the US...

Tell that to the European, UK, Canadian and Australian friends of mine
who immigrated to the U.S. so as to enjoy our MUCH greater freedoms
and opportunities.

>In the EU (unlike the US) you don't have to make a written application
>in three copies plus pay and administrative fee before getting
>permission to go to your toilet, for instance.

If it's such a piece o' cake to go to the toilet over there, then why
do so many Europeans smell like they haven't bathed or brushed
their teeth in months?

>At least that example isn't *that* far from the truth when it comes to
>the situaiton in the US.

Apparently the situation in Europe is a desperate lack of fresh
water that requires all the wussified little folk of perfume-creators
to walk around with body odors and make love to women with
hairy legs and armpits. Ohh babee!

>yeah... this is probably the clearest example for Europeans of the
>low standard of living for Americans... you simply cannot live
>without a car...

Huh? You're the first person I've ever heard say that having an
automobile or two (or three or four...) equates to a "low standard
of living." Thanks for informing me of this revelation, but I still
won't be trading in my dependable Chevy for five year's worth
of unlimited rides on the state-subsidized public transit system
anytime soon.

>You are forced to sit in your home without being able to go anywhere.
>Unless you want to make yourself the trouble of bringing your car with
>you, that is.

1) If you don't understand why Americans opted for "motorcars" and
cheap oil instead of European-style public transportation, then you're
either incredibly naive and ignorant or just plain stupid. Simply
because motorcars are an unnecessary pain to YOU (as parking is
difficult even with your dinky and slow little econoboxes that you
drive over there not to mention your narrow, one-way streets that
appear unpredictably out of nowhere) doesn't mean that we have the
same problem here in the states. And as it has already been mentioned,
a paltry gallon of "petrol" doesn't cost us $5.56 here in the U.S.
either. ****...no wonder you dislike "motorcars" so much!

2) We don't necessarily need an automobile, er' "motorcar" to go
anywhere. I've used other modes of transportation to get from
point 'A' to point 'B' including taking buses and trains that you
Europeans are so fond of using. Granted, there is somewhat
of a stigma attached to utilizing public transportation (esp. buses)
here in the U.S., but the fact remains that we don't necessarily
need a "motorcar" to go places.

3) Almost every day I use my electric bicycle (designed by Lee
Iacocca) to zip around town while running errands. The level of
workmanship is typically American -- very good quality components
and hugely stylish. But guess what Marcus, due to your oppressive and
draconian laws, my innovative and practical "ebike" is illegal in
Europe and Canada simply because it has a 500 watt motor!

4) Amazingly, in the UK, Europe and Canada any bicycle with more
than a 250-watt motor is outlawed because A) your government doesn't
want y'all to have too much fun and B) any bicycle powered by more
than 250-watts becomes a viable mode of transportation and therefore
must be registered and....you guessed it: TAXED.

5) The way I figure it, Marcus, life is too short to let the *******s
making all the laws get what they want all the time. Be a rebel,
push the envelope, make the traffic cop in the Vauxhall think his
"motorcar" has slowed down as you pass him on your stealthy
"cheater bike" without even pedalling. Now THAT is the American
Way!

Jarg

October 21st 03, 06:55 PM

Oooh, magically cheap insurance, I want some of that!

Jarg
"Franck" > wrote in message
...
> An example
>
> I pay 30$/month for ALL medical assitance (hospital, medecin, drug,
glasses,
> teeth......). a big party is paid directly bythe french state, the rest by
> my medical insurance
>
> you could pay more or less depends of your insurance or the company where
> you work. but this a good example. For my US collegue it's not very
> expensive vs the same assitance in US country
> --
> Franck
>
> www.pegase-airshow.com
> www.picavia.com
>
>

Chad Irby

October 21st 03, 08:08 PM

In article >,
(Marcus Andersson) wrote:

> yeah... this is probably the clearest example for Europeans of the
> low standard of living for Americans... you simply cannot live
> without a car...
> You are forced to sit in your home without being able to go anywhere.

Wow. Talk about odd perceptions...

> Unless you want to make yourself the trouble of bringing your car with
> you, that is.

Not a horrible problem for almost anyone. When "taking your car with
you" is about a third of the cost of doing the same in Europe, it's a
much different situation.

The flip side of that coin is "Europeans have to wait for public
transportation all of the time, and can hardly afford to take their cars
anywhere."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

October 21st 03, 08:43 PM

In article >,
(Marcus Andersson) wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote in message
> >...
> > "Franck" > wrote:
> >
> > > Jealousy of what ?? of American way of life !!! let me laugh
> >
> > Better pay, more freedom, less government...
> >
> > Manwhile, in the EU, less of the first two and more of the third.
>
> uhm... the EU does have far too much government... but not nearly as
> much as the US...

What an odd claim.

The US, at all levels (Federal plus local) employs about eight million
people in the government (add in the military, which would add another
couple of million). Ten million government employees, for a nation of
300 million or so. About one out of thirty people working for the
government, at one level or another.

For comparison, the UK employs about 5 million in their government, for
a population of 60 million. About one out of twelve. And they're not
as burdened as Sweden, which is even further down the "State hires
everyone" road.

> In the EU (unlike the US) you don't have to make a written application
> in three copies plus pay and administrative fee before getting
> permission to go to your toilet, for instance.

Very funny. False, but funny.

> At least that example isn't *that* far from the truth when it comes to
> the situaiton in the US.

Except that it's false...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

John Keeney

October 21st 03, 09:55 PM

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> a. is it OK for someone to donate a few pounds to a politician?

Yes.

> b. is it OK for someone to donate a few million pounds to a
> politician?

Yes.

> c. is it OK for someone to donate a few million pounds to a
> politician, and then subsequently for the politician to pass laws
> that make the donor richer?

Yes, assuming the laws are consistant with the politicans
stated political beliefs.

> d. does the answer to (b) make any difference if the money comes
> from a business (where not all the shareholders necessarily agree
> with the donation) rather than an individual?

No.

> e. do the answers to (a) and (b) differ if the donation is to a
> group of politicians, such as a party, rather than an individual?

No.

> f. what about when businesses donate to politicians through a
> go-between fund in an (apparent) attempt to disguise what they are
> doing?

Acceptable.

> g. what about when a politician, say a cabinet minister, makes
> decisions that favour a company, and then after the politician
> retires the company gives him a well-paid consultancy or
> non-executive directorship?

Acceptable.

> h. should companies that donate to politicians be obliged to state
> so on the packaging of their prodcuts, so consumers can choose
> to buy or not buy them if they wish to?

No.

Gee, ain't freedom a bitch?

Paul J. Adam

October 21st 03, 10:00 PM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> >If Europe was as dispersed and involved the same routine travel
> >distances as much of the US seemed to... but it doesn't.
>
> So you choose not to travel. This could be for personal reasons, or it could
> be fuel prices.

It's largely due to a much smaller country :)

> If its the former, than high fuel prices don't impact your
> quality of life, but if its the latter, than they do.

The former. I think there's a mutual incomprehension between many
North Americans and Europeans about the relative densities of their
countries, and the different viewpoints that suggests. It's not _just_
cheaper fuel that pushes North Americans into huge, lazy-engined
roadsters: it's the frequent necessity for much more travel.

To give an anecdotal example, a friend of mine spent a year in the US
working near Chicago: an hour each way on the freeway was 'routine
commuting' there. Here, it would be 'serious travel - do you really
like that job so much?' Not money so much as time.

> I'm not sure if its the size of our country or weather American just like to
> travel our nation by car, but many (high percentage) would feel paying
> $4.00US/gallon of gas was a severe negative impact on their quality of life.

It certainly would, given current consumption and no adjustment
period, and it would never escape significant impact anyway.

--
Paul (overseas)

Alan Minyard

October 21st 03, 11:03 PM

On 20 Oct 2003 23:56:00 -0700, (Marcus
Andersson) wrote:

>Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
>> In article >, "IO" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > BUFDRVR wrote:
>> > >> EU standard of life is at less equal of the USA one.
>> > >
>> > > After having recently spent 10 days in western Europe, I'll disagree
>> > > using one example; fuel prices. The cost of both gas and diesel in
>> > > Germany, France, Luxemburg and Belgium was *3-4 times higher*
>> >
>> > Fuel price=TAXES= social assistance=better standard of life
>>
>> Except that doesn't really follow. All that really means is that the
>> European governments have more of your money.
>>
>> > Europeans car uses less fuel than american ones. Medium european car
>> > engine=1400cc medium usa car engine=2000 cc= a lot of more fuel.
>> > Europeans do less kilometers per year than an americans.
>>
>> So they have a lower standard of living when it comes to personal
>> transportation.
>
>
>yeah... this is probably the clearest example for Europeans of the
>low standard of living for Americans... you simply cannot live
>without a car...
>You are forced to sit in your home without being able to go anywhere.
>Unless you want to make yourself the trouble of bringing your car with
>you, that is.

What in the world are you babbling about? Except for those of us who
choose to live in rural areas we have access to public transport that
easily meets or exceeds European standards.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

October 21st 03, 11:03 PM

On 21 Oct 2003 15:06:53 +0100, (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN)
wrote:

>In article >,
>Greg Hennessy <nntp> wrote:
>>On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:46:28 -0500, Alan Minyard >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I have a *very* average Ford Taurus station-wagon, and it has a 3
>>>Liter engine. Quite safe and comfortable.
>>
>>I know of one european country where the annual tax (I believe you call it
>>car tags in your neck of the woods) on a car with a 3 Litre engine would be
>>round 1500 USD.
>
>OTOH the car tax in .uk on my car and its 3-litre engine is zero (0).
>Pre-'73 and thus tax-exempt :)
>
>OT, I know..

Having seen pictures of your car, someone should pay you to drive it
:-))))

Al Minyard

BUFDRVR

October 21st 03, 11:59 PM

>yeah... this is probably the clearest example for Europeans of the
>low standard of living for Americans... you simply cannot live
>without a car...
>You are forced to sit in your home without being able to go anywhere.
>Unless you want to make yourself the trouble of bringing your car with
>you, that is.

Wow, talk about cultural ignorance! For nearly every American, having their own
transportation is a benifit, not a burden. I drove two hours last weekend to
visit my sister in college. I *loved* the drive! The scenary was beautiful, I
cranked up my car stereo, bought a 20 oz. soda (which eventually caused me to
stop on my trip) and relaxed. It was me, my 8 cylinder car and a fairly open
highway. I didn't have to make multiple stops (one to redeposit my soda),
didn't have to sit next to a guy smoking one cigarette after another while
listening to a screeming 2 year old. Even if I had the option of public
transportation, I would have driven. Your ignorance of Americans, our passions
and our way of life is glaring.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

phil hunt

October 22nd 03, 12:03 AM

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:48:08 +0100, Greg Hennessy > wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:58:48 +0100, (phil hunt)
>wrote:
>
>>>
>>>I vehemently disagree, privacy is a fundamental human right.
>>
>>If I do something illegal, do I have a fundamental human right for
>>others not to find out?
>
>That's a logical fallacy.

What is?

>>What about if I do something that's not illegal, but which many
>>people would be concerned about if they knew it? Do they have a
>>right to know?
>
>If its none of their damned business they have *no* right to know, no
>matter how 'concerned' these interfering busybodies may be.

Ah, but how do you decide who has a "right" to know?

>>No, I don't know it; AFAICT that's what you meant. To clarify, let
>>me ask you:
>
>[Snip another false dilemma]

It's not a dilemma, it's a genuine attempt to find out what you
think on the subject. Evidently you don't want to tell me; possibly
you don't want to have to work out what your opinions actually
entail.

>You cannot claim that campaign contributions are morally equivalent to the
>corrupt taking of bribes and overt attempts to destroy evidence and any
>attempt at investigation of it.

Maybe I can, and maybe I can't -- I can think of lots of arguments
both ways; but that's rather beside the point since I wasn't
claiming such a thing in the first place.

BTW, *you* can't claim that the rainfall in Manchester is less
than that in London.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

phil hunt

October 22nd 03, 12:08 AM

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:55:27 -0400, John Keeney > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>> c. is it OK for someone to donate a few million pounds to a
>> politician, and then subsequently for the politician to pass laws
>> that make the donor richer?
>
>Yes, assuming the laws are consistant with the politicans
>stated political beliefs.

What if the politician changed his stated beliefs after winning an
election?

>Gee, ain't freedom a bitch?

I can't answer that question, unless you tell me what you mean by
freedom.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

BUFDRVR

October 22nd 03, 12:09 AM

>Wow, talk about cultural ignorance! For nearly every American, having their
>own
>transportation is a benifit, not a burden. I drove two hours last weekend to
>visit my sister in college. I *loved* the drive! The scenary was beautiful, I
>cranked up my car stereo, bought a 20 oz. soda (which eventually caused me to
>stop on my trip) and relaxed. It was me, my 8 cylinder car and a fairly open
>highway. I didn't have to make multiple stops (one to redeposit my soda),
>didn't have to sit next to a guy smoking one cigarette after another while
>listening to a screeming 2 year old. Even if I had the option of public
>transportation, I would have driven. Your ignorance of Americans, our
>passions
>and our way of life is glaring.

I'll also add that I rented a car when I visited Europe earlier in the month
and if you're sticking with public transportation you're missing some great
scenary as well. I drove from Stuttgart to Verdun on the major highways, not
much to see. However, I drove from Verdun to Mons on small back roads. What
great scenary and as a 20th Century European history student (one BA, finishing
MA) I was fasinated by the scenary and the historical signifigance of the sites
I was viewing.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Keith Willshaw

October 22nd 03, 12:20 AM

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
om...
> (BUFDRVR) wrote in message
>...
> > >If Europe was as dispersed and involved the same routine travel
> > >distances as much of the US seemed to... but it doesn't.
> >
> > So you choose not to travel. This could be for personal reasons, or it
could
> > be fuel prices.
>
> It's largely due to a much smaller country :)
>
> > If its the former, than high fuel prices don't impact your
> > quality of life, but if its the latter, than they do.
>
> The former. I think there's a mutual incomprehension between many
> North Americans and Europeans about the relative densities of their
> countries, and the different viewpoints that suggests. It's not _just_
> cheaper fuel that pushes North Americans into huge, lazy-engined
> roadsters: it's the frequent necessity for much more travel.
>
> To give an anecdotal example, a friend of mine spent a year in the US
> working near Chicago: an hour each way on the freeway was 'routine
> commuting' there. Here, it would be 'serious travel - do you really
> like that job so much?' Not money so much as time.
>

A one hour commute really isnt that unsual, when I worked
in London around 1/4 of my co-workers were commuting
much further.

Go to my local rail station (1 hour from Kings Cross) any morning
and you'll see packed trains heading for London every 10 minutes.

Keith

No Spam

October 22nd 03, 03:51 AM

Marcus Andersson wrote:
> yeah... this is probably the clearest example for Europeans of the
> low standard of living for Americans... you simply cannot live
> without a car...
> You are forced to sit in your home without being able to go anywhere.
> Unless you want to make yourself the trouble of bringing your car with
> you, that is.

Marcus, obviously you have never spent much time in the US, or, if you
did, it was on the East coast.

One of the amazing things I noticed when visiting Europe was the smaller
scale. Cities and distances there are much, much smaller than in the US,
primarily due to history.

It's a lot easier to do effective public transportation when your scale
is lots smaller and your people come into a central location in the
morning to work and go back out in the evening to go home. That's also
why public transportation works so well on the US East coast like New
York City.

When you're dealing with groups of cities and suburbs that are literally
a hundred kilometers across (or more), and your house and your work
place can be anywhere within that circle, you can't create a
cost-effective public transportation system. I know lots of people whose
daily commute is well over 50 kilometers (each way) and they only
consider it mildly long. And they're all going in different directions
-there is no "center centre" to which all business people go.

Look, for example, at maps of Los Angeles, San Francisco/Silicon Valley,
Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth. Compare the scale of those metropolitan
areas to London and Paris. I took the Eurostar from London to Paris; it
was lovely. Take that same distance and draw a circle from the major US
cities listed above; you'll not get very far, certainly not to another
large city.

Where I live everyone has a house set on a lot with a reasonable amount
of land around it (typically a half acre -sorry, don't remember the
conversion). The nearest grocery store is a couple of kilometers away,
as are restaurants, shops, etc. We think nothing of going 10-20
kilometers for an errand. It's just that things are more spread out,
whereas whilst I was in London you'd walk by a dozen of those places
between the Tube stop and your walk-up flat.

It's not that one or the other is a lower standard of living, it's that
in one case (Europe) public transportation is cost-effective given the
local topology and in the other case (most of the US) it's not.

Marcus Andersson

October 22nd 03, 06:09 AM

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Marcus Andersson) wrote:
>
> > yeah... this is probably the clearest example for Europeans of the
> > low standard of living for Americans... you simply cannot live
> > without a car...
> > You are forced to sit in your home without being able to go anywhere.
>
> Wow. Talk about odd perceptions...
>
> > Unless you want to make yourself the trouble of bringing your car with
> > you, that is.
>
> Not a horrible problem for almost anyone. When "taking your car with
> you" is about a third of the cost of doing the same in Europe, it's a
> much different situation.
>

Say that you're going into town for some shopping... if you have your
car you must remember not to walk too far from where you've parked it
unless you want to walk several miles when it's time to go home again.

And you can't pop in to a restaurant or pub and have a couple of beers
unless you have some designated sober driver.

*horror*

Stephen Harding

October 22nd 03, 06:23 AM

BUFDRVR wrote:
>
> >Wow, talk about cultural ignorance! For nearly every American, having their
> >own
> >transportation is a benifit, not a burden. I drove two hours last weekend to
> >visit my sister in college. I *loved* the drive! The scenary was beautiful, I
> >cranked up my car stereo, bought a 20 oz. soda (which eventually caused me to
> >stop on my trip) and relaxed. It was me, my 8 cylinder car and a fairly open
> >highway. I didn't have to make multiple stops (one to redeposit my soda),
> >didn't have to sit next to a guy smoking one cigarette after another while
> >listening to a screeming 2 year old. Even if I had the option of public
> >transportation, I would have driven. Your ignorance of Americans, our
> >passions
> >and our way of life is glaring.
>
> I'll also add that I rented a car when I visited Europe earlier in the month
> and if you're sticking with public transportation you're missing some great
> scenary as well. I drove from Stuttgart to Verdun on the major highways, not
> much to see. However, I drove from Verdun to Mons on small back roads. What
> great scenary and as a 20th Century European history student (one BA, finishing
> MA) I was fasinated by the scenary and the historical signifigance of the sites
> I was viewing.

Transport is one area I'd say we Americans have missed the boat on.

Every time I'm in Europe, I grow to love the public transport system
more and more, and wish we Americans hadn't destroyed our public transport
infrastructure.

You don't have to wait long for a train or a bus; stations are usually placed
right in the heart of tourist attractions and accommodation, just as it used to
be in the US until post-WWII.

A car is a wonderful gadget, but it is responsible for a lot of social
destruction in the US IMHO. Never mind pollution concerns, just the social
ones. Suburbia, destruction of city centers, traffic congestion,
depersonalization and even fostering of anti-social behavior.

No doubt the car is a wonderful mode of personal transport freedom. Go when
you want at your own pace. Too bad we could not have merged Euro and American
transport paradigms into one. Use the train or bus for our normal, day to day
work/living needs, then hop into the car and head out to Monument Valley or
visit the sis' at college when the opportunity arose.

SMH

David D.

October 22nd 03, 06:26 AM

It's not jealousy but a frustated desire of independance.

Rob van Riel

October 22nd 03, 09:22 AM

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Rob van Riel) wrote:
>
> > Chad Irby > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > In article >,
> > > "IO" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > In spite of the mounting HATE against Bush and the American way of life?
> > >
> > > The word you're looking for is "jealousy."
> >
> > If jealousy were the issue, it would have pre-dated Bush and his
> > stuntdriving.
>
> Jealousy, then.
>
> It's gotten somewhat worse since the current President has taken office,
> but it's certainly been an issue.

It hasn't gotten 'somewhat worse' recently, it has gone from mild envy
to outright hatred. Also, it is no longer limited to traditional
opponents of the US, but has spread to what used to be its allies.
Quite an accomplishment for one man (I leave it to you to decide if
that man is Bush or Bin Laden)

Rob

ANDREW ROBERT BREEN

October 22nd 03, 09:35 AM

In article >,
Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
>> OTOH the car tax in .uk on my car and its 3-litre engine is zero (0).
>> Pre-'73 and thus tax-exempt :)
>> OT, I know..

>Really ?

If it was first registered before 1st Jan 1973 then it's exempt from
VED (road tax).

>Maybe its time to buy a Rover 3.5 Coupe after all :)

Go on, you know you want to...

:)

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

Greg Hennessy

October 22nd 03, 10:47 AM

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:03:43 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:48:08 +0100, Greg Hennessy > wrote:
>>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:58:48 +0100, (phil hunt)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>I vehemently disagree, privacy is a fundamental human right.
>>>
>>>If I do something illegal, do I have a fundamental human right for
>>>others not to find out?
>>
>>That's a logical fallacy.
>
>What is?

The false dilemma you constructed above.

>
>>>What about if I do something that's not illegal, but which many
>>>people would be concerned about if they knew it? Do they have a
>>>right to know?
>>
>>If its none of their damned business they have *no* right to know, no
>>matter how 'concerned' these interfering busybodies may be.
>
>Ah, but how do you decide who has a "right" to know?

Its not for *me* to decide. Its none of my business period.

>>>No, I don't know it; AFAICT that's what you meant. To clarify, let
>>>me ask you:
>>
>>[Snip another false dilemma]
>
>It's not a dilemma, it's a genuine attempt to find out what you
>think on the subject. Evidently you don't want to tell me; possibly
>you don't want to have to work out what your opinions actually
>entail.

My opinions on the subject are as plain as the nose on your face. Govts do
*not* have the right to pry using 'the innocent have nothing to fear' as an
excuse.

>>You cannot claim that campaign contributions are morally equivalent to the
>>corrupt taking of bribes and overt attempts to destroy evidence and any
>>attempt at investigation of it.
>
>Maybe I can, and maybe I can't -- I can think of lots of arguments
>both ways; but that's rather beside the point since I wasn't
>claiming such a thing in the first place.

Oh yes you were, your elaborately constructed 2nd fallacy was clearly
drawing an equivalence between the two.

greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Denyav

October 22nd 03, 04:46 PM

> car is a wonderful gadget, but it is responsible for a lot of social
>destruction in the US IMHO. Never mind pollution concerns, just the social
>ones. Suburbia, destruction of city centers, traffic congestion,
>depersonalization and even fostering of anti-social behavior.

Its almost impossible to disagree.

> Use the train or bus for our normal, day to day
>work/living needs, then hop into the car and head out to Monument Valley or
>visit the sis' at college when the opportunity arose.

Unless you you visit your sister or head out to Monument Valley everday,it
would be a very expensive investment.

Denyav

October 22nd 03, 04:55 PM

>One of the amazing things I noticed when visiting Europe was the smaller
>scale. Cities and distances there are much, much smaller than in the US,
>primarily due to history.

Good observation,commuting distances in Europa are much shorter than US and
thats probably also explains why US driving public prefers big cars with soft
comfortable suspensions whereas Europeans prefer smaller ones with firmer
suspensions.
In Europa car is a device to go from point A to point B,not very much so in US.

Roman J. Rohleder

October 22nd 03, 05:36 PM

(Marcus Andersson) schrieb:

>And you can't pop in to a restaurant or pub and have a couple of beers
>unless you have some designated sober driver.

Next thing that will come up (after that Europeans never brush their
teeth) will be "All Europeans are alcoholics!". #-)

Even midsized cities (>100 000 inhabitants, like Kaiserslautern (the
one with Ramstein AF nearby) and regions have a night bus system by
now..

>*horror*

Indeed.
Gruss, Roman

Stephen Harding

October 22nd 03, 06:06 PM

Denyav wrote:

> > Use the train or bus for our normal, day to day
> >work/living needs, then hop into the car and head out to Monument Valley or
> >visit the sis' at college when the opportunity arose.
>
> Unless you you visit your sister or head out to Monument Valley everday,it
> would be a very expensive investment.

Not every day, but surely every weekend. Doesn't have to be somewhere
grandiose. Even someplace 200 miles away is within "day trip" range
for myself, and many Americans.

A car makes it possible, and it's a nice quality enhancement to ones life.

SMH

phil hunt

October 22nd 03, 06:12 PM

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:47:25 +0100, Greg Hennessy > wrote:
>
>>>You cannot claim that campaign contributions are morally equivalent to the
>>>corrupt taking of bribes and overt attempts to destroy evidence and any
>>>attempt at investigation of it.
>>
>>Maybe I can, and maybe I can't -- I can think of lots of arguments
>>both ways; but that's rather beside the point since I wasn't
>>claiming such a thing in the first place.
>
>Oh yes you were, your elaborately constructed 2nd fallacy was clearly
>drawing an equivalence between the two.

Ah -- I think I understand you now. You seem to think that I'm
trying to use logic to "trap" you into disagreeing with some of your
beliefs. You also, subconsciously, don't think your beleifs would
stand up to the scrutiny of debaste being cast on them -- probably
you have low self esteem, at least in your intellectual abilities --
so a defense mechanism kicks in and you evade the issue.

Oh, BTW, a question isn't a fallacy. A statement (e.g. "2 plus 2 is
4") can be a fallacy, since it might be false. but a question (e.g.
"Is 2 plus 2 equal to 4?") can't, thought it might have an answer of
"no".

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

Jarg

October 22nd 03, 08:57 PM

I'm not sure all Europeans would agree with this view. There are plenty of
enthusiast magazines, clubs, etc there, and I suspect a bit of envy for the
relative affordability of autos in the US.

Jarg

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >One of the amazing things I noticed when visiting Europe was the smaller
> >scale. Cities and distances there are much, much smaller than in the US,
> >primarily due to history.
>
> Good observation,commuting distances in Europa are much shorter than US
and
> thats probably also explains why US driving public prefers big cars with
soft
> comfortable suspensions whereas Europeans prefer smaller ones with firmer
> suspensions.
> In Europa car is a device to go from point A to point B,not very much so
in US.

Greg Hennessy

October 22nd 03, 09:46 PM

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:12:15 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

>>Oh yes you were, your elaborately constructed 2nd fallacy was clearly
>>drawing an equivalence between the two.
>
>Ah -- I think I understand you now. You seem to think that I'm
>trying to use logic to "trap" you into disagreeing with some of your
>beliefs.

I don't have to 'seem' to do anything, your use of the yes/no debating
tactics made it quite clear.

> You also, subconsciously, don't think your beleifs would
>stand up to the scrutiny of debaste being cast on them -- probably
>you have low self esteem

Oh lovely, a usenet psychoanalyst.

>, at least in your intellectual abilities --
>so a defense mechanism kicks in and you evade the issue.

I haven't evaded anything, I have pointed out the clear flaws in your
rhetoric.

>
>Oh, BTW, a question isn't a fallacy.

Oh yes it is, when they make clear use of prejudicial language and false
presumption.

greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Chad Irby

October 23rd 03, 12:16 AM

In article >,
(Marcus Andersson) wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote in message
> >...
> > In article >,
> > (Marcus Andersson) wrote:
> >
> > > Unless you want to make yourself the trouble of bringing your car with
> > > you, that is.
> >
> > Not a horrible problem for almost anyone. When "taking your car with
> > you" is about a third of the cost of doing the same in Europe, it's a
> > much different situation.
>
> Say that you're going into town for some shopping... if you have your
> car you must remember not to walk too far from where you've parked it
> unless you want to walk several miles when it's time to go home again.

"Several miles" for *shopping*?

Geez, if I go "several miles" to shop somewhere, it's to a major (100+
stores) mall. But from my house to the nearest good-sized shopping
center is less than a kilometer, and a major mall with seventy or eighty
stores is about two kilometers. For most everyday needs, there's a
Target (a major department store) right next to the mall. For
groceries, there are three good-sized grocery stores within three
kilometers, and a 24 hour convenience store across the *street*.

And this is not an unusual area.

In most US urban zones, there is so *much* shopping available that you
have to be a fool to walk several miles in trying to do it.

> And you can't pop in to a restaurant or pub and have a couple of beers
> unless you have some designated sober driver.
>
> *horror*

Or unless you call a cab. Or ride a bike, like I do (to the downtown
bar district, a mile and a half from here). Or - oddly enough - walk.

And a "couple" of beers is below the legal limit for most normal-sized
humans.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Regnirps

October 23rd 03, 01:33 AM

A relative had a friend visiting from Italy last spring. He took pictures of
the weirdest things. Each time he'd say he was taing the picture becuase they
didn't have anything like the subject in Italy. The one's I remember are the
school bus and all the folks in hard hats at an overpass construction site.

-- Charlie Springer

Regnirps

October 23rd 03, 01:40 AM

> car is a wonderful gadget, but it is responsible for a lot of social
>destruction in the US IMHO. Never mind pollution concerns, just the social
>ones. Suburbia, destruction of city centers, traffic congestion,
>depersonalization and even fostering of anti-social behavior.

Yeah, freedom is a terrible thing. We need more public transport. Doesn't it
make you feel good to rob Peter so Paul can ride the bus (monorail/light
rail/cable car/ferry/underground)?

-- Charlie Springer

BUFDRVR

October 23rd 03, 01:44 AM

>Say that you're going into town for some shopping... if you have your
>car you must remember not to walk too far from where you've parked it
>unless you want to walk several miles when it's time to go home again.

As opposed to the bus or train stop that is always conviently located near all
your shopping locations? This is absurd, give it up.

>And you can't pop in to a restaurant or pub and have a couple of beers
>unless you have some designated sober driver.
>

Now, personally I don't drink at all if I'm driving, but for 98% of the human
race, two beers over the course of a lunch will not produce a blood alcohal
level that exceeds legal, or safety limits, particularly US beers.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

October 23rd 03, 01:50 AM

>Transport is one area I'd say we Americans have missed the boat on.
>
>Every time I'm in Europe, I grow to love the public transport system
>more and more, and wish we Americans hadn't destroyed our public transport
>infrastructure.

Not me. The example I gave of sitting next to the chain smoker while a child
screams the entire trip that seemed like it was on a train that stopped every
block was my experience coming back from Oktoberfest two weeks ago. I love the
independance and freedom my car gives me. I could take a metro (train) to work
everyday, but it would increase my commute from 20 minutes to 60 minutes. I
sit in my car, listen to the radio at whatever level I'm in the mood for. I
stop-and-go often due to the traffic, but when I do, no one is pushing me to
get in or out of my car. On the way home, I put my sun glasses on, crank up
some music or listen to a sports talk radio program and wind down. Public
transportation? Not for me.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Roman J. Rohleder

October 23rd 03, 02:19 AM

(BUFDRVR) schrieb:

>Not me. The example I gave of sitting next to the chain smoker while a child
>screams the entire trip that seemed like it was on a train that stopped every
>block was my experience coming back from Oktoberfest two weeks ago.

Mmmh. In most german "S-Bahn" systems (commuters train) smoking is
prohibited, you should have called in a chap at the next station to
catch the smoker. Smoking is prohibited in any train station by now,
as it is in most train wagons. Just check the cigarette decal on the
window. Simple, isn´t it?

Your having a problem with children? Too bad for for you.

>some music or listen to a sports talk radio program and wind down. Public
>transportation? Not for me.

I enjoy it everytime I visit a foreign city. Rome is great by bus or
by metro, as is London, Berlin or any major german city. Personally, I
commuted 10 years (for high school/Gymnasium( - it was affordable,
comfortable, easy to relay. In the morning train I slept, on the train
back I made my homework, read or fooled around with my friends.

I wish I could do this again...

>BUFDRVR

Gruss, Roman

phil hunt

October 23rd 03, 03:04 AM

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:46:10 +0100, Greg Hennessy > wrote:
>
>I haven't evaded anything, I have pointed out the clear flaws in your
>rhetoric.

Oh for ****s sake! It wasn't rhetoric, it was inquisition[1]. Are
you always this defensive? In real life, do you assume anyone you're
having a conversation with is out to get you?

[1] but not in the Spanish sense.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

Stephen Harding

October 23rd 03, 09:22 AM

BUFDRVR wrote:

> >Transport is one area I'd say we Americans have missed the boat on.
> >
> >Every time I'm in Europe, I grow to love the public transport system
> >more and more, and wish we Americans hadn't destroyed our public transport
> >infrastructure.
>
> Not me. The example I gave of sitting next to the chain smoker while a child
> screams the entire trip that seemed like it was on a train that stopped every
> block was my experience coming back from Oktoberfest two weeks ago. I love the
> independance and freedom my car gives me. I could take a metro (train) to work
> everyday, but it would increase my commute from 20 minutes to 60 minutes. I

That's pretty typical of American thinking. But increasingly, we're going to
find that car is making demands on us that we aren't going to like. In some
areas, that's already the case.

There are people spending 4 hours or more in their cars for round trip commutes
to work! That's by no means typical, but as the numbers of cars proliferate,
the congestion increases.

It is not unusual now for me to be able to ride my bike to work in the exact
same time it takes to drive, due to congestion on the main road. In many
communities, you MUST have a car to get around and it's not a particularly
people friendly experience getting out and about. Given American's propensity
for obesity, heavy car use isn't especially healthy either.

Socially, I note in Europe how much more people friendly cities and towns are
than American ones. That's because European centers are set up for people, while
American ones are for the convenience of cars. Some American city centers have
undergone renovation that are quite nice, but those renovations have tended to
be more restrictive of car movement in them.

> sit in my car, listen to the radio at whatever level I'm in the mood for. I
> stop-and-go often due to the traffic, but when I do, no one is pushing me to
> get in or out of my car. On the way home, I put my sun glasses on, crank up
> some music or listen to a sports talk radio program and wind down. Public
> transportation? Not for me.

Sure it's great. I love my truck, and I have no problem driving miles and miles
and miles. But for me, it's not a great driving experience just going to work.
In fact it can be a source of irritation and annoyance, and becoming moreso in
many places.

I'll save my enjoyable driving experiences as you describe above for a genuine
trip/vacation/excursion rather than the work commute. For that, I actually
prefer my bicycle, and besides a great mental state such as you describe coming
from its use, I also gain some health benefits, and restrict my contribution to
pollution as well. Not too shabby.

SMH

Stephen Harding

October 23rd 03, 09:31 AM

Regnirps wrote:

> > car is a wonderful gadget, but it is responsible for a lot of social
> >destruction in the US IMHO. Never mind pollution concerns, just the social
> >ones. Suburbia, destruction of city centers, traffic congestion,
> >depersonalization and even fostering of anti-social behavior.
>
> Yeah, freedom is a terrible thing. We need more public transport. Doesn't it
> make you feel good to rob Peter so Paul can ride the bus (monorail/light
> rail/cable car/ferry/underground)?

Yes that's what is being done in the name of diversity in transport choices.

But that's the sort of thing government does. Wile *most* car infrastructure
costs (roads, bridges) come from fuel taxes, not all of it does. Some comes
from local property or state taxes which is in effect a type of robbery.

But given automobile users aren't paying the *full* cost of automobile usage,
we're all passing the buck when we pay to drive our cars to some degree.

Health costs associated with pollution being the biggie, and car use is a
significant part of that.

I'm very much in favor of stealing money from the fuel tax fund to support
bus, train transport, and especially the conversion or "banking" of rail
corridors into bike lanes and paths. It's good long term policy.

SMH

Greg Hennessy

October 23rd 03, 11:12 AM

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 03:04:32 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:46:10 +0100, Greg Hennessy > wrote:
>>
>>I haven't evaded anything, I have pointed out the clear flaws in your
>>rhetoric.
>
>Oh for ****s sake! It wasn't rhetoric, it was inquisition[1].

One example of many.

" is it OK for someone to donate a few million pounds to a
politician?"

Clearly a rhetorical question.

> Are
>you always this defensive? In real life, do you assume anyone you're
>having a conversation with is out to get you?
>

Hmmm I wonder why you felt the need to tell me that.

greg

--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Marcus Andersson

October 23rd 03, 12:20 PM

(Regnirps) wrote in message >...
> > car is a wonderful gadget, but it is responsible for a lot of social
> >destruction in the US IMHO. Never mind pollution concerns, just the social
> >ones. Suburbia, destruction of city centers, traffic congestion,
> >depersonalization and even fostering of anti-social behavior.
>
> Yeah, freedom is a terrible thing. We need more public transport. Doesn't it
> make you feel good to rob Peter so Paul can ride the bus (monorail/light
> rail/cable car/ferry/underground)?
>
> -- Charlie Springer

You need to rob someone in order to be able to go from point A to
point B?
Geez... things are apparently even worse than I thought.

I have a good idea though, which might decrease the need for robberies
in the future. You could raise the tax on gas and use that revenue to
improve the transportation system. Everyone benefits. I mean, who can
be against a tax which is completely voluntary to pay? And why not
lower the income tax at the same time as you increase the gas tax?

phil hunt

October 23rd 03, 02:34 PM

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:12:59 +0100, Greg Hennessy > wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 03:04:32 +0100, (phil hunt)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:46:10 +0100, Greg Hennessy > wrote:
>>>
>>>I haven't evaded anything, I have pointed out the clear flaws in your
>>>rhetoric.
>>
>>Oh for ****s sake! It wasn't rhetoric, it was inquisition[1].
>
>One example of many.
>
>" is it OK for someone to donate a few million pounds to a
>politician?"
>
>Clearly a rhetorical question.

A rhetorical question is one that isn't looking for an answer. I
clearly was looking for an answer to the questions I asked, so they
weren't rhetorical.

>> Are
>>you always this defensive? In real life, do you assume anyone you're
>>having a conversation with is out to get you?
>
>Hmmm I wonder why you felt the need to tell me that.

To get you to realise how you come across (at least to me).

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

Jim Yanik

October 23rd 03, 04:41 PM

Stephen Harding > wrote in
:

> Regnirps wrote:
>
>> > car is a wonderful gadget, but it is responsible for a lot of
>> > social
>> >destruction in the US IMHO. Never mind pollution concerns, just the
>> >social ones. Suburbia, destruction of city centers, traffic
>> >congestion, depersonalization and even fostering of anti-social
>> >behavior.
>>
>> Yeah, freedom is a terrible thing. We need more public transport.
>> Doesn't it make you feel good to rob Peter so Paul can ride the bus
>> (monorail/light rail/cable car/ferry/underground)?
>
> Yes that's what is being done in the name of diversity in transport
> choices.
>
> But that's the sort of thing government does. Wile *most* car
> infrastructure costs (roads, bridges) come from fuel taxes, not all of
> it does. Some comes from local property or state taxes which is in
> effect a type of robbery.

Except that even those without autos benefit from roads;fire,medical,and
police arrive by motor vehicle,food,medicines and other consumer goods are
delivered by road transport.IMO,no robbery.

Or do you want the EMTs to wait for the next tram,and then walk the rest of
the way to your home when you are in urgent need of medical care?
(carrying all their kit,what little they can.)

--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
jyanik-at-kua.net

Stephen Harding

October 23rd 03, 05:13 PM

Jim Yanik wrote:

> Except that even those without autos benefit from roads;fire,medical,and
> police arrive by motor vehicle,food,medicines and other consumer goods are
> delivered by road transport.IMO,no robbery.

What about people with no children paying for schools? People without boats
paying for public boat ramps? Paying for government to insure people who live
of flood plains or barrier island? People who don't care for music paying for
summer concerts on the town common?

There's always someone who isn't going to like having their tax dollars spent
on something. It is effective robbery for them, even if there is a public
good in it somewhere.

> Or do you want the EMTs to wait for the next tram,and then walk the rest of
> the way to your home when you are in urgent need of medical care?
> (carrying all their kit,what little they can.)

I don't think there is any shortage of roads in the US. Perhaps ones with
too many potholes, but ones that can be driven for public service if needed.

SMH

B2431

October 23rd 03, 08:07 PM

>From: Stephen Harding

<snip>

>There are people spending 4 hours or more in their cars for round trip
>commutes
>to work!

<snip>

It never ceases to amaze me how some people would rather spend hours in their
own vehicle rather that 30 minutes in public transport. A rather extreme
example of this lunacy was seen after the last Los Angeles earthquake. The
trains were used almost to capacity for a few days then usage dropped rapidly
to near prequake level. People living outside the city simply preferred sitting
in their own vehicles for hours.

There are areas in the U.S. where the infrastructure MUST be built to the point
where the majority of travel is done by public transport. Southern California,
NYC etc come to mind. The pollution, damage to the environment etc is un
healthy. The time spent commuting could be spent with family. The net reduction
of petroleum products import would more than enough to justify realignment.

I am not saying confiscation of vehicles is the way to go, but putting major
parts of metropolitan areas off limits to noncommercial and nonpuplic transport
shout work nicelly.

The hard part is getting politicians willing to be voted out of office.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

BUFDRVR

October 23rd 03, 10:52 PM

>You need to rob someone in order to be able to go from point A to
>point B?
>Geez... things are apparently even worse than I thought.
>

Come down off you narrow minded Euro-centric high horse........

>I have a good idea though, which might decrease the need for robberies
>in the future. You could raise the tax on gas and use that revenue to
>improve the transportation system. Everyone benefits. I mean, who can
>be against a tax which is completely voluntary to pay? And why not
>lower the income tax at the same time as you increase the gas tax?

It has been suggested, however our transportation system is used extensively by
corporations in moving their goods. Any hike in gas prices, either for taxes
or market increase will mean an increase in prices.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Greg Hennessy

October 23rd 03, 11:14 PM

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:34:48 +0100, (phil hunt)
wrote:

>>Clearly a rhetorical question.
>
>A rhetorical question is one that isn't looking for an answer.

That's only a partial definition.

> I
>clearly was looking for an answer to the questions I asked, so they
>weren't rhetorical.

You weren't werent looking for any answer, you were seeking to pigeon hole
on the basis of deliberately loaded questioning.

>>Hmmm I wonder why you felt the need to tell me that.
>
>To get you to realise how you come across (at least to me).

Ahhh, more usenet psychoanalysis.

greg
--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
The Following is a true story.....
Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Jim Yanik

October 24th 03, 01:17 AM

Stephen Harding > wrote in
:

> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>> Except that even those without autos benefit from
>> roads;fire,medical,and police arrive by motor vehicle,food,medicines
>> and other consumer goods are delivered by road transport.IMO,no
>> robbery.
>
> What about people with no children paying for schools?

Well,either we educate the children,or pay for their welfare or crime after
they cannot earn a living.It's called "pay it forward",I believe.

People without
> boats paying for public boat ramps?
That provides the access if they want to get a boat and use it on a public
lake.

Paying for government to insure
> people who live of flood plains or barrier island?

Actually,the gov't doesn't insure them,the private insurance companies do.

People who don't
> care for music paying for summer concerts on the town common?
>
> There's always someone who isn't going to like having their tax
> dollars spent on something. It is effective robbery for them, even if
> there is a public good in it somewhere.
>
>> Or do you want the EMTs to wait for the next tram,and then walk the
>> rest of the way to your home when you are in urgent need of medical
>> care? (carrying all their kit,what little they can.)
>
> I don't think there is any shortage of roads in the US. Perhaps ones
> with too many potholes, but ones that can be driven for public service
> if needed.
>
>
> SMH
>

Unless they are so crowded that the EMTs or Fire Dept cannot arrive in time
to do any good.But,roads DO benefit all residents;Clear benefits.

--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
jyanik-at-kua.net

Regnirps

October 24th 03, 05:28 AM

Stephen Harding wrote:
snip

<<But given automobile users aren't paying the *full* cost of automobile usage,
we're all passing the buck when we pay to drive our cars to some degree.

Health costs associated with pollution being the biggie, and car use is a
significant part of that.

I'm very much in favor of stealing money from the fuel tax fund to support
bus, train transport, and especially the conversion or "banking" of rail
corridors into bike lanes and paths. It's good long term policy. >>

Hmmm. I'll bet a good analysis would show the health benefits of auto transport
far outweigh the health costs, especially when compared to realistic
alternatives. There used to be 30,000 gallons of horse urine spilled in New
York City every day and though car collisions are dangerous, they don't kick
you in the head.

The improved earning power and standard of living allowed by independent autos
undoubtedly improves health care affordability and availablity.

Besides, not only does the train refuse to stop at the grocery store on the way
home, there is no place to put a weeks goods if it did. Worst of all, the train
only goes where the tracks go. What do you do when jobs and preferred types of
housing shift? Around here (Seattle area) the local annointed dream up ways to
penalize those who want to live outside "Rapid Transit" corridors.

Oh, yeah. Those old rail beds are almost allways on easments through private
property that is to be returned to the owner's use if the rails are removed.
The Legislatures get involved and steal the land for that massive number of
people who want to bike to work in the rain through the back yards of the lower
income families.

-- Charlie Springer

Regnirps

October 24th 03, 05:41 AM

Stephen Harding wrote:

<<That's pretty typical of American thinking. But increasingly, we're going to
find that car is making demands on us that we aren't going to like. In some
areas, that's already the case. >>

snip

You must be at a University. Faculty? Grad student? I know a Stanford physicist
you should talk to. This has been his field for the last 30 years. For
instance, he can give you The Five Reasons Commuter Lanes Don't Work and how
traffic engineers know how to fix most of the problems if the politicians would
let them. There is no looming catastrophe and we are not running out of
resources.

Here is a good question.

If you spread all the mining and digging and such from all of human history out
over the land area of the Earth, how many inches deep do you think we have gone
in the "exploitation" of resources?

-- Charlie Springer

Steve Hix

October 24th 03, 06:59 AM

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> It never ceases to amaze me how some people would rather spend hours in their
> own vehicle rather that 30 minutes in public transport.

Would that I had that choice.

I have a 43mi each way commute. (I started out 7mi from the office, made
one move to 25mi from the office, and successive site moves by companies
[2] I've worked for for the past 25 years has increased the distance to
the current value.)

I carpool, and the ride is 45 minutes, each way. 1.5 hours total.

If I take transit, the trip is 1:20, not counting waiting for the
shuttle connection to/from the office, another 20 minutes each way.
(And $55/wk in tickets, or $145.75 for a monthly pass.)

So 3:20 spent traveling to/from work, and I don't count walking to/from
the train station, about a mile from my house. No thanks. (I suppose I
could take the bus, instead of CalTrain, but that would mean about 3:30
each way, and four transfers.)

> A rather extreme
> example of this lunacy was seen after the last Los Angeles earthquake. The
> trains were used almost to capacity for a few days then usage dropped rapidly
> to near prequake level. People living outside the city simply preferred
> sitting in their own vehicles for hours.

Stephen Harding

October 24th 03, 01:51 PM

Jim Yanik wrote:

> Stephen Harding > wrote in
>
> > Paying for government to insure people who live of flood plains or
> > barrier island?
>
> Actually,the gov't doesn't insure them,the private insurance companies do.

Check out the National Flood Insurance Program (Fed Gov't).

Basically they extend insurance to people living in uninsurable
locations like flood plains of major rivers (e.g. Miss/Mo Rivers)
or barrier islands.

Without the program, businesses and housing wouldn't be built there
because of the high insurance costs.

And yes, it's a losing effort. Mother Nature is relentless.

SMH

Stephen Harding

October 24th 03, 02:17 PM

B2431 wrote:

> I am not saying confiscation of vehicles is the way to go, but putting major
> parts of metropolitan areas off limits to noncommercial and nonpuplic transport
> shout work nicelly.
>
> The hard part is getting politicians willing to be voted out of office.

I think all of what you say is true. The problem is that much of the cost
of automobile usage is hidden. Environmental and health damage, cost of
foreign policies to promote cheaper oil, etc., don't get placed on the
private motor vehicle.

But you've got to admit, the personal freedom of private transport, and
all the infrastructure that supports it, is highly addictive.

In fact, it's gained "rights" status, and is one of the characteristics
that defines us as Americans!

SMH

Stephen Harding

October 24th 03, 02:29 PM

Regnirps wrote:

> Stephen Harding wrote:
>
> <<That's pretty typical of American thinking. But increasingly, we're going to
> find that car is making demands on us that we aren't going to like. In some
> areas, that's already the case. >>
>
> snip
>
> You must be at a University. Faculty? Grad student? I know a Stanford physicist

Former UMass/Amherst computer science dept programmer. Now part-timer and
self-employed technical writer and programmer. [Anyone looking to hire a tech
writer??]

> you should talk to. This has been his field for the last 30 years. For
> instance, he can give you The Five Reasons Commuter Lanes Don't Work and how
> traffic engineers know how to fix most of the problems if the politicians would
> let them. There is no looming catastrophe and we are not running out of
> resources.

I pretty much agree with that, although I'm skeptical of politically limited
solutions to traffic problems.

Oil will run out probably sometime in the next 100 years, but by the time it
does, I suspect fuel cell technology running on straight H2 (rather than the
initial gasoline) will be meeting energy needs for centuries to come.

> Here is a good question.
>
> If you spread all the mining and digging and such from all of human history out
> over the land area of the Earth, how many inches deep do you think we have gone
> in the "exploitation" of resources?

Lots of earth [earth] surface area with very small volume of earth dug over
history, so I'd be surprised if it came to anything more than 1/1000th of an
inch!

But will the correct answer speed my commute to work?

SMH

Ralph Savelsberg

October 24th 03, 03:13 PM

Stephen Harding wrote:

> Regnirps wrote:
>
>
>>Stephen Harding wrote:
>>
>><<That's pretty typical of American thinking. But increasingly, we're going to
>>find that car is making demands on us that we aren't going to like. In some
>>areas, that's already the case. >>
>>
>>snip
>>
>>You must be at a University. Faculty? Grad student? I know a Stanford physicist
>>
>
> Former UMass/Amherst computer science dept programmer. Now part-timer and
> self-employed technical writer and programmer. [Anyone looking to hire a tech
> writer??]
>
>
>>you should talk to. This has been his field for the last 30 years. For
>>instance, he can give you The Five Reasons Commuter Lanes Don't Work and how
>>traffic engineers know how to fix most of the problems if the politicians would
>>let them. There is no looming catastrophe and we are not running out of
>>resources.
>>
>
> I pretty much agree with that, although I'm skeptical of politically limited
> solutions to traffic problems.
>
> Oil will run out probably sometime in the next 100 years, but by the time it
> does, I suspect fuel cell technology running on straight H2 (rather than the
> initial gasoline) will be meeting energy needs for centuries to come.
>

<snip>

I have refrained from participating in this discussion before, but I
certainly have some doubts about your remark about H2.
I know H2 has some wonderful advantages. If you allow it to react with
oxygen in a fuel cell you get electricity and water. Zer pollution.
Fantastic! Also, you can store far more energy by using it to dissociate
water into O2 and H2 than by storing it in a battery for instance.
Great! However, the big question that very few people seem to be able to
answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the H2 should come
from? I'm sure you're aware that H2 is not something you can dig up
from the ground. Perhaps our hope should lie with nuclear fusion, though
that's not without its own problems either.
In my opinion H2 not the answer to a possible energy/environmental
crisis. Focussing on H2 is just replacing one problem with another.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

> SMH
>

Jim Yanik

October 24th 03, 03:59 PM

Ralph Savelsberg > wrote in
:

>
> I have refrained from participating in this discussion before, but I
> certainly have some doubts about your remark about H2.
> I know H2 has some wonderful advantages. If you allow it to react with
> oxygen in a fuel cell you get electricity and water. Zer pollution.
> Fantastic! Also, you can store far more energy by using it to
> dissociate water into O2 and H2 than by storing it in a battery for
> instance. Great! However, the big question that very few people seem
> to be able to answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the
> H2 should come from? I'm sure you're aware that H2 is not something
> you can dig up from the ground. Perhaps our hope should lie with
> nuclear fusion, though that's not without its own problems either.
> In my opinion H2 not the answer to a possible energy/environmental
> crisis. Focussing on H2 is just replacing one problem with another.
>
> Regards,
> Ralph Savelsberg
>

Until we develop nuclear fusion,we can use nuclear fission.

We must put more effort into waste disposal and 'burning' of hi-level
wastes.And put all the waste into the Yucca Repository until those
techniques are developed.

--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
jyanik-at-kua.net

Stephen Harding

October 24th 03, 04:54 PM

Ralph Savelsberg wrote:

> I have refrained from participating in this discussion before, but I
> certainly have some doubts about your remark about H2.

Come on Ralph! Everyone is OT on r.a.m these days! Go ahead! Be
naughty! Do it! In fact...let's bash French fuel cell technology!!!

> Great! However, the big question that very few people seem to be able to
> answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the H2 should come
> from? I'm sure you're aware that H2 is not something you can dig up
> from the ground. Perhaps our hope should lie with nuclear fusion, though
> that's not without its own problems either.
> In my opinion H2 not the answer to a possible energy/environmental
> crisis. Focussing on H2 is just replacing one problem with another.

There's so dogone much H2 around that its use for energy is almost as
attractive as splitting atoms in the long term.

But yes, those H and O atoms really like to stick together, and the
energy it takes to coax them apart is problematic at the moment.

But I really think this technology is going to fly...and probably
nuclear power will triumph over the long haul.

SMH

Ralph Savelsberg

October 24th 03, 05:33 PM

Stephen Harding wrote:

> Ralph Savelsberg wrote:
>
>
>> I have refrained from participating in this discussion before, but
>> I certainly have some doubts about your remark about H2.
>>
>
> Come on Ralph! Everyone is OT on r.a.m these days! Go ahead! Be
naughty!
> Do it! In fact...let's bash French fuel cell technology!!!
>
In fact I stopped posting alltogether a few months ago. The irritation
over the stupidity being expressed by people from both sides of the
Atlantic (and some other parts of the world as well) had begun to
outweigh the enjoyment I got from many of the discussions and
interesting exchanges of ideas/information. Anyway, I'm back now.
It's not the fact that its off-topic that stopped me from getting
involved in this thread, but its title.

>
>> Great! However, the big question that very few people seem to be
>> able to answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the
>> H2 should come from? I'm sure you're aware that H2 is not
>> something you can dig up from the ground. Perhaps our hope should
>> lie with nuclear fusion, though that's not without its own
>> problems either. In my opinion H2 not the answer to a possible
>> energy/environmental crisis. Focussing on H2 is just replacing
>> one problem with another.
>>
>
> There's so dogone much H2 around that its use for energy is almost as
attractive as splitting atoms in the long term.
>
> But yes, those H and O atoms really like to stick together, and the
> energy it takes to coax them apart is problematic at the moment.
>
> But I really think this technology is going to fly...and probably
> nuclear power will triumph over the long haul.
>
>
> SMH
>

I realise that truly `green' types of energy simply aren't enough.
Wind-power is suitable for some situations, as is electricity from solar
panels. In some cases biomass can be a nice addition, but even a
combination of these on any realistic scale cannot satisfy all our
energy needs. We will run out of fossile fuels in the future. That's
simply a matter of consuming them faster than they are being produced.
As for nuclear technology I tend to be somewhat pessimistic. We will
also run out of useful fissionable materials, although on a longer
timescale than the fossile fuels. And then there is the issue with the
waste. Jim Yanik has great hopes for future technology to do the trick,
but I'm not so sure. Fission might be the only thing to keep us going
until fission comes along, but
who knows how long it will take to get nuclear fusion working properly?
For know the energy it takes to create an environment suitable for
fusion exceeds the energy you get from the fusion. Knowbody really knows
how big a tokomak must be before you could expect it to actually deliver
energy.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

phil hunt

October 24th 03, 06:15 PM

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:14:42 +0100, Greg Hennessy > wrote:
>
>> I
>>clearly was looking for an answer to the questions I asked, so they
>>weren't rhetorical.
>
>You weren't werent looking for any answer,

Not true

>you were seeking to pigeon hole
>on the basis of deliberately loaded questioning.

Not true either

>>>Hmmm I wonder why you felt the need to tell me that.
>>
>>To get you to realise how you come across (at least to me).
>
>Ahhh, more usenet psychoanalysis.

Nope, not that time.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

Chad Irby

October 25th 03, 01:34 AM

In article >,
Stephen Harding > wrote:

> Check out the National Flood Insurance Program (Fed Gov't).
>
> Basically they extend insurance to people living in uninsurable
> locations like flood plains of major rivers (e.g. Miss/Mo Rivers)
> or barrier islands.
>
> Without the program, businesses and housing wouldn't be built there
> because of the high insurance costs.
>
> And yes, it's a losing effort. Mother Nature is relentless.

They've gotten smarter about it, though. In a lot of places, you can
insure *once* in a given area, and will only be given the money if you
never build anything there again.

Quite a few city parks being created by this.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Seraphim

October 25th 03, 12:34 PM

Stephen Harding > wrote in news:3F994B53.FACA123
@cs.umass.edu:

> Ralph Savelsberg wrote:

>> Great! However, the big question that very few people seem to be able to
>> answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the H2 should come
>> from?

Natural gas. Mix methane (CH4) and very hot steam (H20) to produce Carbon
Dioxide (CO2) and Hydrogen (H2). This is a very well known process, and is
(was?) commonly used in the industrial production of chemicals.

>> I'm sure you're aware that H2 is not something you can dig up
>> from the ground. Perhaps our hope should lie with nuclear fusion, though
>> that's not without its own problems either.
>> In my opinion H2 not the answer to a possible energy/environmental
>> crisis. Focussing on H2 is just replacing one problem with another.
>
> There's so dogone much H2 around that its use for energy is almost as
> attractive as splitting atoms in the long term.
>
> But yes, those H and O atoms really like to stick together, and the
> energy it takes to coax them apart is problematic at the moment.

The energy will always be probematic if water is the only thing used. The
energy it takes to free the hydrogen will be equal to the energy you get by
running it through your fuel cell, assuming that there is no energy is lost
in the process (very unlikely). Now, there are ways around this. You can
introduce something else (like Methane above) which tends to help. Or you
can use 'cheap' energy, like solar or nuclear.

Tank Fixer

October 25th 03, 06:02 PM

In article >, rjrgroups6
@gmx.net says...
> (Marcus Andersson) schrieb:
>
> >And you can't pop in to a restaurant or pub and have a couple of beers
> >unless you have some designated sober driver.
>
> Next thing that will come up (after that Europeans never brush their
> teeth) will be "All Europeans are alcoholics!". #-)
>
> Even midsized cities (>100 000 inhabitants, like Kaiserslautern (the
> one with Ramstein AF nearby) and regions have a night bus system by
> now..
>

A very good one at that.

Never had a problem getting around when Uncle has decided to send me
there.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Tank Fixer

October 25th 03, 06:05 PM

In article >, says...
> Regnirps wrote:
>
> > > car is a wonderful gadget, but it is responsible for a lot of social
> > >destruction in the US IMHO. Never mind pollution concerns, just the social
> > >ones. Suburbia, destruction of city centers, traffic congestion,
> > >depersonalization and even fostering of anti-social behavior.
> >
> > Yeah, freedom is a terrible thing. We need more public transport. Doesn't it
> > make you feel good to rob Peter so Paul can ride the bus (monorail/light
> > rail/cable car/ferry/underground)?
>
> Yes that's what is being done in the name of diversity in transport choices.
>
> But that's the sort of thing government does. Wile *most* car infrastructure
> costs (roads, bridges) come from fuel taxes, not all of it does. Some comes
> from local property or state taxes which is in effect a type of robbery.
>
> But given automobile users aren't paying the *full* cost of automobile usage,
> we're all passing the buck when we pay to drive our cars to some degree.
>
> Health costs associated with pollution being the biggie, and car use is a
> significant part of that.
>
> I'm very much in favor of stealing money from the fuel tax fund to support
> bus, train transport, and especially the conversion or "banking" of rail
> corridors into bike lanes and paths. It's good long term policy.

However my city has extended that policy to converting road lanes to
bicycle lanes. Now we have unused portions of road and the traffic goes
even slower, producing even more polution.
--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Peter Twydell

October 25th 03, 07:09 PM

In article >, B2431
> writes
>>From: Stephen Harding
>
><snip>
>
>>There are people spending 4 hours or more in their cars for round trip
>>commutes
>>to work!
>
><snip>
>
>It never ceases to amaze me how some people would rather spend hours in their
>own vehicle rather that 30 minutes in public transport. A rather extreme
>example of this lunacy was seen after the last Los Angeles earthquake. The
>trains were used almost to capacity for a few days then usage dropped rapidly
>to near prequake level. People living outside the city simply preferred sitting
>in their own vehicles for hours.
>
The opposite also applies. I live outside London, and used to use public
transport to get to work. The trip took 80 minutes on a good day,
including 10 minutes walk to my local station. I had to change trains
twice, which meant standing on a freezing cold platform in wintertime,
and sweating unbelievably on the underground in summer. Overcrowding was
a daily occurrence all year round. Any train problems meant
unpredictable delays.
Add to that the fact that I had to pay around GBP 1000 for the privilege
(we are talking the late 80's here), plus being 6'6" and 18 stone (250
pounds) meant comfort wasn't something I found too often.

I changed jobs and drove 35 miles each way every day, which took 40
minutes on average, as I was going the opposite way to the London-bound
traffic. No more colds, no more cracking vertebrae from sitting on
unsuitable seats, no more standing with a crick in my neck. And the
company paid the petrol (there was a tax liability, though).

It just goes to show how false generalisations can be.

>There are areas in the U.S. where the infrastructure MUST be built to the point
>where the majority of travel is done by public transport. Southern California,
>NYC etc come to mind. The pollution, damage to the environment etc is un
>healthy. The time spent commuting could be spent with family. The net reduction
>of petroleum products import would more than enough to justify realignment.
>
>I am not saying confiscation of vehicles is the way to go, but putting major
>parts of metropolitan areas off limits to noncommercial and nonpuplic transport
>shout work nicelly.
>
>The hard part is getting politicians willing to be voted out of office.
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

Keith Willshaw

October 25th 03, 07:32 PM

"Seraphim" > wrote in message
.. .
> Stephen Harding > wrote in news:3F994B53.FACA123
> @cs.umass.edu:
>
> > Ralph Savelsberg wrote:
>
> >> Great! However, the big question that very few people seem to be able
to
> >> answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the H2 should come
> >> from?
>
> Natural gas. Mix methane (CH4) and very hot steam (H20) to produce Carbon
> Dioxide (CO2) and Hydrogen (H2). This is a very well known process, and is
> (was?) commonly used in the industrial production of chemicals.
>

Why not just use the methane directly and not incur
all the losses conversion brings with it ?

Keith

Chad Irby

October 26th 03, 01:56 AM

In article >,
Seraphim > wrote:

> Stephen Harding > wrote in news:3F994B53.FACA123
> @cs.umass.edu:
>
> > Ralph Savelsberg wrote:
>
> >> Great! However, the big question that very few people seem to be able to
> >> answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the H2 should come
> >> from?
>
> Natural gas. Mix methane (CH4) and very hot steam (H20) to produce Carbon
> Dioxide (CO2) and Hydrogen (H2). This is a very well known process, and is
> (was?) commonly used in the industrial production of chemicals.

But the big problem for the eco-types is all of the C02.

If you're going to make that, you might as well just use gasoline.

Now, if this new algae-based process of making H2 works out, we'll get
H2 with a net *reduction* of C02.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

October 26th 03, 01:58 AM

In article >,
Tank Fixer > wrote:

> However my city has extended that policy to converting road lanes to
> bicycle lanes. Now we have unused portions of road and the traffic goes
> even slower, producing even more polution.

Bike lanes are interesting. I saw a study a while back that suggests a
net *increase* in car/bike accidents when bike lanes are present.

Of course, I live in Orlando, the most dangerous US city for bikes and
pedestrians, so it's a fairly moot point...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Steve Hix

October 26th 03, 03:12 AM

In article >,
Chad Irby > wrote:

> In article >,
> Tank Fixer > wrote:
>
> > However my city has extended that policy to converting road lanes to
> > bicycle lanes. Now we have unused portions of road and the traffic goes
> > even slower, producing even more polution.
>
> Bike lanes are interesting. I saw a study a while back that suggests a
> net *increase* in car/bike accidents when bike lanes are present.

That information has been out there since at least the early 1970s, from
of all places some studies done for the L.A.W. (League of American
Wheelmen, which was one of the very first bicycle advocacy organizations
from the 1890s.)

> Of course, I live in Orlando, the most dangerous US city for bikes and
> pedestrians, so it's a fairly moot point...

Steve Hix

October 26th 03, 03:13 AM

In article >,
Chad Irby > wrote:

> In article >,
> Seraphim > wrote:
>
> > Stephen Harding > wrote in news:3F994B53.FACA123
> > @cs.umass.edu:
> >
> > > Ralph Savelsberg wrote:
> >
> > >> Great! However, the big question that very few people seem to be able to
> > >> answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the H2 should come
> > >> from?
> >
> > Natural gas. Mix methane (CH4) and very hot steam (H20) to produce Carbon
> > Dioxide (CO2) and Hydrogen (H2). This is a very well known process, and is
> > (was?) commonly used in the industrial production of chemicals.
>
> But the big problem for the eco-types is all of the C02.

You can scrub out the CO2 by trapping it by forming carbonate (CaCO3?).

> If you're going to make that, you might as well just use gasoline.
>
> Now, if this new algae-based process of making H2 works out, we'll get
> H2 with a net *reduction* of C02.

Cite? Sounds interesting.

Chad Irby

October 26th 03, 04:14 AM

In article >,
Steve Hix > wrote:

> In article >,
> Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> > Now, if this new algae-based process of making H2 works out, we'll get
> > H2 with a net *reduction* of C02.
>
> Cite? Sounds interesting.

<http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,54456,00.html>

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Steve Hix

October 26th 03, 05:06 AM

In article >,
Chad Irby > wrote:

> In article >,
> Steve Hix > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Chad Irby > wrote:
> >
> > > Now, if this new algae-based process of making H2 works out, we'll get
> > > H2 with a net *reduction* of C02.
> >
> > Cite? Sounds interesting.
>
> <http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,54456,00.html>

thanks!

Peter Stickney

October 26th 03, 05:15 AM

In article >,
Seraphim > writes:
> Stephen Harding > wrote in news:3F994B53.FACA123
> @cs.umass.edu:
>
>> Ralph Savelsberg wrote:
>
>>> Great! However, the big question that very few people seem to be able to
>>> answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the H2 should come
>>> from?
>
> Natural gas. Mix methane (CH4) and very hot steam (H20) to produce Carbon
> Dioxide (CO2) and Hydrogen (H2). This is a very well known process, and is
> (was?) commonly used in the industrial production of chemicals.

Erm... The Methane comes from where, exactly? Right now there are 2
sources - underground pockets, and Bovine Ddigestive tracts. The
underground sources have teh advantage of being commercially viable,
but incurs the same environmental damage as drilling for petroleum,
adn it's much riskier to store and transport. I'd rather be next to a
nuclear power plant than an LNG storage facility. Since the idea of
cracking Methane to get Hydrogen is to reduce the amount og Co2 being
generated, this method also has no advantages. The C02 is still being
created, It's just occuring at your Hydrogen Generating Plant rather
than in the car engine, or space heater, or whatever. Hydrogen,
whether in gaseous or liquid form, has lousy engery density, as well.
You can gat about 10 times the BTUs (Kilocalories)/gubic ft/meter
[liter/gallon] using kerosene or gasoline. Frankly, you'd be better
off just burning the Methane.

>
>>> I'm sure you're aware that H2 is not something you can dig up
>>> from the ground. Perhaps our hope should lie with nuclear fusion, though
>>> that's not without its own problems either.
>>> In my opinion H2 not the answer to a possible energy/environmental
>>> crisis. Focussing on H2 is just replacing one problem with another.
>>
>> There's so dogone much H2 around that its use for energy is almost as
>> attractive as splitting atoms in the long term.
>>
>> But yes, those H and O atoms really like to stick together, and the
>> energy it takes to coax them apart is problematic at the moment.
>
> The energy will always be probematic if water is the only thing used. The
> energy it takes to free the hydrogen will be equal to the energy you get by
> running it through your fuel cell, assuming that there is no energy is lost
> in the process (very unlikely). Now, there are ways around this. You can
> introduce something else (like Methane above) which tends to help. Or you
> can use 'cheap' energy, like solar or nuclear.

100% efficiency isn't just Very Unlikey, it's Bloody Impossible.
Don't they teach these kids Thermogoddamics any more?

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Regnirps

October 26th 03, 05:18 AM

Here is a little cold H20 for th hydrogen crowd.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/energy/

Check out where the hydrogen will come from.

-- Charlie Springer

Seraphim

October 26th 03, 12:59 PM

(Peter Stickney) wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Seraphim > writes:
>> Stephen Harding > wrote in news:3F994B53.FACA123
>> @cs.umass.edu:
>>
>>> Ralph Savelsberg wrote:
>>
>>>> Great! However, the big question that very few people seem to be
>>>> able to answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the H2
>>>> should come from?
>>
>> Natural gas. Mix methane (CH4) and very hot steam (H20) to produce
>> Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Hydrogen (H2). This is a very well known
>> process, and is (was?) commonly used in the industrial production of
>> chemicals.
>
> Erm... The Methane comes from where, exactly?

I would assume that it comes from the same place it has always come from.

> Right now there are 2
> sources - underground pockets, and Bovine Ddigestive tracts. The
> underground sources have teh advantage of being commercially viable,
> but incurs the same environmental damage as drilling for petroleum,
> adn it's much riskier to store and transport. I'd rather be next to a
> nuclear power plant than an LNG storage facility. Since the idea of
> cracking Methane to get Hydrogen is to reduce the amount og Co2 being
> generated, this method also has no advantages. The C02 is still being
> created, It's just occuring at your Hydrogen Generating Plant rather
> than in the car engine, or space heater, or whatever.

Well, first half the hydrogen is comming from water, so you've converted
1 mol CH4 into 4 moles H2 and 1 mol CO2. Now, its been a while sence I
had chemistry, but IIRC Delta_H of formation of water is around -240
kJ/mol (240 * 4 = -960), and Delta_H of combustion of methane is -890
kJ/mol. So if you have a good source of superheated steam (eg a nuclear
power plant) its a pretty good deal.

As for the CO2 still being produced. Its a lot easier to do something
with one large source than it is to do with millions of tiny ones.
Traping the carbon (most likely in the form of calcium carbonate) would
be a heck of a lot easier in a big stationary plant than a tiny moveing
car.

> Hydrogen,
> whether in gaseous or liquid form, has lousy engery density, as well.

*This* is probably the single biggest hurdle faceing a hydrogen car.
Lousy is somewhat of an understatement.

> You can gat about 10 times the BTUs (Kilocalories)/gubic ft/meter
> [liter/gallon] using kerosene or gasoline.

IIRC its more like 5 or 6 times for liquid H2 vs gasoline, but the point
still stands.

>>>> I'm sure you're aware that H2 is not something you can dig up
>>>> from the ground. Perhaps our hope should lie with nuclear fusion,
>>>> though that's not without its own problems either.
>>>> In my opinion H2 not the answer to a possible energy/environmental
>>>> crisis. Focussing on H2 is just replacing one problem with another.
>>>
>>> There's so dogone much H2 around that its use for energy is almost
>>> as attractive as splitting atoms in the long term.
>>>
>>> But yes, those H and O atoms really like to stick together, and the
>>> energy it takes to coax them apart is problematic at the moment.
>>
>> The energy will always be probematic if water is the only thing used.
>> The energy it takes to free the hydrogen will be equal to the energy
>> you get by running it through your fuel cell, assuming that there is
>> no energy is lost in the process (very unlikely). Now, there are ways
>> around this. You can introduce something else (like Methane above)
>> which tends to help. Or you can use 'cheap' energy, like solar or
>> nuclear.
>
> 100% efficiency isn't just Very Unlikey, it's Bloody Impossible.
> Don't they teach these kids Thermogoddamics any more?

If I have a glass of water, and let it sit in perfectly isolated system
(no energy loss), are you suggesting that the few molocules of water that
turn into oxygen and hydrogen, and then back into water, will, if given
enough time, cause the energy of the system to decrease?

Alan Minyard

October 26th 03, 04:39 PM

On 26 Oct 2003 12:59:46 GMT, Seraphim > wrote:

(Peter Stickney) wrote in
:
>
>> In article >,
>> Seraphim > writes:
>>> Stephen Harding > wrote in news:3F994B53.FACA123
>>> @cs.umass.edu:
>>>
>>>> Ralph Savelsberg wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Great! However, the big question that very few people seem to be
>>>>> able to answer (myself included) is where the energy to make the H2
>>>>> should come from?
>>>
>>> Natural gas. Mix methane (CH4) and very hot steam (H20) to produce
>>> Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Hydrogen (H2). This is a very well known
>>> process, and is (was?) commonly used in the industrial production of
>>> chemicals.
>>
>> Erm... The Methane comes from where, exactly?
>
>I would assume that it comes from the same place it has always come from.
>
>> Right now there are 2
>> sources - underground pockets, and Bovine Ddigestive tracts. The
>> underground sources have teh advantage of being commercially viable,
>> but incurs the same environmental damage as drilling for petroleum,
>> adn it's much riskier to store and transport. I'd rather be next to a
>> nuclear power plant than an LNG storage facility. Since the idea of
>> cracking Methane to get Hydrogen is to reduce the amount og Co2 being
>> generated, this method also has no advantages. The C02 is still being
>> created, It's just occuring at your Hydrogen Generating Plant rather
>> than in the car engine, or space heater, or whatever.
>
>Well, first half the hydrogen is comming from water, so you've converted
>1 mol CH4 into 4 moles H2 and 1 mol CO2. Now, its been a while sence I
>had chemistry, but IIRC Delta_H of formation of water is around -240
>kJ/mol (240 * 4 = -960), and Delta_H of combustion of methane is -890
>kJ/mol. So if you have a good source of superheated steam (eg a nuclear
>power plant) its a pretty good deal.

Nuclear plants do not produce super-heated steam.

Al Minyard

Keith Willshaw

October 26th 03, 05:37 PM

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Oct 2003 12:59:46 GMT, Seraphim > wrote:

>
> Nuclear plants do not produce super-heated steam.
>

True for BWR's and PWR's , not true for gas cooled reactors.

Keith

Peter Stickney

October 30th 03, 02:31 AM

In article >,
"Franck" > writes:
>>CATIA was Boeing's baby
>
> Wich surpise, Catia is US Sotfware like Michelin tires !!!

Careful about that one - Michelins have been made in teh U.S. since
sometime in the late 1910s/early 1920s. The factory is/was near
Boston, Massachusetts. :)

> Don't really, Catia is developed in Dassault Aviation in 1983. After
> creation of Dassault Systems and asscociation with IBM to market this new
> software all over the world.

That would explain why they'd go into a sniveling snit when they'd
announce a data format change that boke the interchage standards, but
wouldn't do anything about it. I guess they didn't want to show their
lack of influence over the developers.

> Boeing is one of our customer but not the first one, just one customer

More than "just one customer", I'd say. The timeframe put them in the
position of being one of the first really large installations. (The
period I was involved with this was from 'bout 1986-89).

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster