We Are All Spaniards

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
I'm guessing you meant (if you did't have such a propensity for
sniiping
EVERYTHING that sets context we wouldn't have the issue)

Your reading comprehension difficulties are not my problem.

Maybe your writing skills?


Now, we might as well close because the origin of discussion is
lost and it's down to vauge, obtuse snippets.

AMF

Later, SFB.

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
...
Dylan Smith wrote:
It doesn't matter how much - energy will be lost in the process.

Of course it will, but don't neglect conversion
efficiencies and alternative energy sources.

The net efficiency of converting crude oil to gasoline,
distribution down to the individual car at a few gallons
at a time then to locomotion via the piston
engine/transmission/drive train is very poor.

In a fuel cell system, various materials including crude
oil, natural gas, etc. would be converted to hydrogen in
bulk then distributed with less evaporation loss and
converted to locomotion with fuel cell/electric motors
that have a much higher conversion efficiency than the
piston engine/transmission/drive train


Soup to nuts the net conversion of BTU's to mechanical
energy would be better. No violation of thermodynamics,
just modern engineering.

Neither crude oil nor natural gas have to be involved at
all. Solar panels or nucler reactors can supply the
energy to crack water directly.

Finally has been good progress on the Direct Methanol Fuel
Cell which has the advantage of using a low pressure
liquid in the car.

BINGO! You've separated various methods of production (my point about
misleading). One other point is the efficiency of fuel cells (in utilizing
the energy) versus an internal combustion engine. Doomsayers absolutely HATE
that.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:e0B9c.114877$1p.1555417@attbi_s54...
It's certainly possible. On the other hand, it's also possible that
those actions made *more* countries want to side with and support the
soviets. After all, it made siding with *us* seem unacceptable, and
what else was there? So perhaps it greatly strengthened the SU and
greatly extended the cold war.

Interesting hypothesis.

Maybe the sided with the SU because, wel, because they wanted the same kinds
of tyrannies?

Hard to tease the facts out of the fluff on that one, too.

Key word: fluff. Is it becomming the writting style of choice?

"Frank" wrote in message ...

Pick one.


Pick one? How can I know which negotiations you were referring to?



Not all Arabs, specifically the ones that are interested in peace do not.


The ones interested in peace need to restrain those that are not.



Hamas' support dries up as soon as this new state is created and
the people no longer have to pass thru Israeli checkpoints to get to work.


Why was this new Arab state not created between 1948 and 1967?



But if there are then these other would be on them? (That's a real
question btw).


No. Of course not. Why would non-Jordanians appear on any Jordanian voting
roll?



This discussion started about a question of whether one is a
terrorist or a freedom fighter. To me a large part of that issue can be
clarified by whether or not people in these refugee camps have the
right to vote somewhere.


How so? Is it the terrorist or the freedom fighter that has the right to
vote somewhere?



But there supposedly is one coming if agreement can be reached, right?


Yes. Of course, the Israelis would have to agree to die for that agreement
to be reached.



My point/question is that if the Arabs in question are not citizens of
Israel and they are not citizens of Jordan and they have some legitimate
(by agreement) claim on the land then that would support the "freedom
fighter" label.


There is no agreement.



Has it been that long? You'd think they could've made more progress.


Well, when one side is dedicated to the extermination of the other....



But you seem to be saying that there is a basis for these people to
believe they are Palestinians, unless this second Arab state the
Jews agreed to is to be called something else. In which case they
would be something-else-ians.


You're using "Palestinian" as if it was a nationality. It's not, and never
was. The citizens of the second Arab state in Palestine could have chosen
any name for their new state. The citizens of the new Jewish state in
Palestine chose to call their state "Israel", and themselves "Israelis",
instead of Palestinians.



What Arafat turned down was a Swiss cheese map that didn't have a
continuous border to be found. Kinda like saying Chicago and
St. Louis are one country but everything in between is something else.


What Arafat turned down was nearly everything he had been demanding. His
bluff was called. He has no interest in a peaceful Arab state alongside
Israel, he wants all of the Palestine region west of the Jordan River.



You describe it as a starting point. Maybe it was. If so, it strikes me as
not a very good one.


Not very good for whom? Arafat? How can an opening offer of nearly
everything you've demanded not be a good starting point?



To me it looks like a way for Israel to appear to
offer something and then be able say it was the other sides fault for not
taking it. Even though it was a deal they themselves would never agree to
were the situations reversed.


What do you base that on? Israel agreed to a much less advantageous deal 57
years ago.



Either way, Israel has shown it is no more interested in peace than
the Arabs.


Actually, Israel has shown it's far more interested in peace than the Arabs.
You need to study the actual history of the region and conflict, not just
the propaganda.



It is definitely in Sharon's interest to keep provoking more
attacks. His power comes from NOT giving up any land.


What land are you referring to? Israeli territory or the "occupied lands"?



It's a shame groups
like Hamas play right into his hands. But ultimately Israel has more
opportunity to resolve this.


What more could they do?



What I find so ironic about this whole mess is that of all the peoples
of the world, Jews should understand what it means to be displaced,
occupied, and otherwise oppressed.


Have the Jews displaced or oppressed anyone?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
What Arafat turned down was nearly everything he had been
demanding. His bluff was called. He has no interest in a peaceful
Arab state alongside Israel,

Bingo. For the same reason, peace with various militant "Palestinian"
terrorist groups is impossible.

Neither do any of the local Arab states want such an arrangement. They
do not want to lose the boogieman they use to divert attention from
their domestic failures.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

In article , Doug Carter wrote:
Neither crude oil nor natural gas have to be involved at
all. Solar panels or nucler reactors can supply the
energy to crack water directly.

And there's the rub - nuclear reactors, which the sheeple are so afraid
of! You can have the best, safest nuclear reactor design, that's
demonstrably less harmful by orders of magnitude than a coal-fired power
station, yet it'll never get built because people are too afraid. They
all think Chernobyl, when Chernobyl was really a product of abysmal
design. Or go on about Three Mile Island, despite not a single person
being injured in the TMI accident (thanks to reactor design that wasn't
anything remotely as atrocious as the Soviet ones).

Fuel cells are undoubtedly better than the ICE (for the reasons you
state, and you can realistically use regenerative braking in a vehicle
to get some of the energy back instead of dumping it as heat).
Additionally, the fuel cell is essentially an "abstraction layer" - once
you have your transport network powered by fuel cells, and, say, we
figure out nuclear fusion, you don't have to change everyone's cars -
you just make the H2 with your new energy source. But the rub is even
fusion contains that scary "N" word.

As for solar power, photovoltaic cells are still pretty inefficient, and
are a long way from being a viable way to get the hydrogen.

So the rub with the hydrogen economy that at least in the forseeable
future, it's just the oil economy in disguise. Hopefully what it will do
is allow us to diversify our energy sources...but we're still a long way
off from that.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Dylan Smith wrote:

And there's the rub - nuclear reactors, which the sheeple are so afraid
of! You can have the best, safest nuclear reactor design, that's
demonstrably less harmful by orders of magnitude than a coal-fired power
station, yet it'll never get built because people are too afraid.

I saw accident figures for the U.S. back in the mid 70s. At that time, solar
power was the most dangerous power source in the country. This was due to the
fact that most of the installers were amateurs. Most of the accidents involved
someone falling off the roof of a house. At that time, there was an average of
two fatalities each year due to nuclear power, all construction accidents. Since
we don't seem to be building any more plants, I would assume the rate is now 0.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

Martin Hotze wrote:

give me some examples where or why people suffer (materially) more in Austria,
Italy, Switzerland, Germany, France, UK, Australia than in the USA.

Whoops!

Should I have said "the West", rather than the United States?

AFAIK, though, only Switzerland has a higher standard of living than
the U.S., with many of the EU countries otherwise in a practical tie
for that honor.

Rob, who has lived in Switzerland...

Frank wrote:

You may want to be a little careful here. That house you describe is no
longer affordable unless you have 2 wage earners.

*I*BTD. One wage earner here, family of six. Gorgeous 4-bedroom home
in the Portland suburbs.

Also, Europe does not have vast tracts of unused land next to cities to
parcel off into 1/4 acre lots.

Actually, they do, but they cordon it off for silly things like
farming and forestry. Imagine that.

Rob

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 17:03:48 -0000, Dylan Smith wrote:

And there's the rub - nuclear reactors, which the sheeple are so afraid
of! You can have the best, safest nuclear reactor design, that's
demonstrably less harmful by orders of magnitude than a coal-fired power
station, yet it'll never get built because people are too afraid.

and you, no, the next couple of generations, have to deal with the waste.

As for solar power, photovoltaic cells are still pretty inefficient, and
are a long way from being a viable way to get the hydrogen.

so we have to make it more efficient.
efficience allone is not enough. You only have one planet to destroy.

#m
--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html