Gas Holiday this Summer
-
Shog9 wrote:
We did have it. It ran on tracks. Then cars and gas got cheap, roads got better, and Things Changed. Things, as they so often do, are Changing again...
That was then, and this is now. And mass transit then was efficient only in comparison to the alternatives: walking or animal-drawn carriages.
And if God didn't want a brutal tyrant running the country, then a brutal tyrant wouldn't be running the country...
And you're clearly a fool who doesn't want to think.
-
Shog9 wrote:
We did have it. It ran on tracks. Then cars and gas got cheap, roads got better, and Things Changed. Things, as they so often do, are Changing again...
That was then, and this is now. And mass transit then was efficient only in comparison to the alternatives: walking or animal-drawn carriages.
And if God didn't want a brutal tyrant running the country, then a brutal tyrant wouldn't be running the country...
And you're clearly a fool who doesn't want to think.
Ilíon wrote:
That was then, and this is now.
So... what? Then we cared about getting around efficiently, now we'll pay through the nose? I've got news for you - plenty of people walking today because they can't afford automobiles and don't have access to any other form of transportation. There is a point where public transportation becomes a no-brainer; not saying we're there yet, but we are headed in that direction. Closing your eyes and wishing otherwise doesn't change anything.
Ilíon wrote:
And you're clearly a fool who doesn't want to think.
And you clearly don't want to read. Frankly, i'm disappointed - i expected you to know your history. Let's try a few other examples, actual quotes this time, stop me if i hit one you recognize:
"If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." "640K ought to be enough for anybody" "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
:-\
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
Ilíon wrote:
And you're clearly a fool who doesn't want to think.
I'd guess that Shog puts more thought in one of his average posts that you have in sum of all of yours. :rolleyes:
-
Pierre Leclercq wrote:
Build an adequate number of nuclear plants, and you have all the electricity you will ever need.
Not that I disagree, but along with the nukes comes nuclear waste that needs to be "dealt with". There is no free lunch. <facetious> Of course, if we completely eliminated our need of Middle Eastern oil and let the Arabs and Israelis fight it out to mutual extinction that would be a great place to bury the spent fuel rods. </facetious>
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Not that I disagree, but along with the nukes comes nuclear waste that needs to be "dealt with".
Drop it into the sun, it'll never be noticed.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Americans [Humans-in-general] are incapable of [unwilling to consistently] thinking in terms of real solutions.
As witness:
John Simmons: How about this idea - instead of giving tax breaks to the oil companies, use that money to research alternative fuels or efficient mass transportation.
Whether or not a "gas-tax holiday" is a good idea (it isn't), Mr Simmons' idea is just another reflection of the underlying problem ... refusal to see reality as it really is -- including seeing the significant fact that government "programs" are not going to save us nor solve any important problems. Here are a few realities of which Mr Simmons seems unaware: 1) There is no such thing as "tax breaks to the oil companies." All corporations are legal fictions, they don't really exist, nor do they *ever* pay taxes. Only actual human beings pay taxes. 2) "Alternative fuels" are a bust. If they were not a bust, private interests would already be researching them and would likely have them to market by now. Throwing "government" money into "research[ing] alternative fuels" (or any other like "research") is but another way of conducting corporate welfare ... and, since corporations don't actually exist, this means subsidizing the present and future incomes of the *owners* of the corporations. 3) If there were such a thing as "efficient mass transportation" ("efficiency" taking into account all the wasted time of the potential passengers) ... and if Americans wanted to use mass transit ... we would have it. And it wouldn't have to be subsidized at gun-point. Nor would a free people have to be coerced to use it. The very fact that a thing is subsidized [the taxpayers or general public are being forced, upon pain of death, to financially support it] tells you that it is not efficient, or there is no demand for it, or both. If it were efficient and/or there were a demand for it, it would support itself. Mr Simmons' idea reflects the sort of thinking that Thomas Sowell is discussing[^] in the article to which I linked earlier.
Ilíon wrote:
The very fact that a thing is subsidized [the taxpayers or general public are being forced, upon pain of death, to financially support it] tells you that it is not efficient, or there is no demand for it, or both. If it were efficient and/or there were a demand for it, it would support itself.
Are you under the impression that automobile travel is not heavily subsidized in the U.S??? Could you possibly be unaware that the various levels of government have built and maintained one system of transportation above all others? That special taxes have been levied for no other purpose that to create a road network that is "efficient" only because it is so heavily subsidized???
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Getting it there safely is the trick.
Equally true when it's shipped through major cities on its way to one of the burial grounds. I will admit that launching rockets with a lot of nuclear material aboard might have Putin pissing in his pants. :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ilíon wrote:
And you're clearly a fool who doesn't want to think.
I'd guess that Shog puts more thought in one of his average posts that you have in sum of all of yours. :rolleyes:
-
Ilíon wrote:
That was then, and this is now.
So... what? Then we cared about getting around efficiently, now we'll pay through the nose? I've got news for you - plenty of people walking today because they can't afford automobiles and don't have access to any other form of transportation. There is a point where public transportation becomes a no-brainer; not saying we're there yet, but we are headed in that direction. Closing your eyes and wishing otherwise doesn't change anything.
Ilíon wrote:
And you're clearly a fool who doesn't want to think.
And you clearly don't want to read. Frankly, i'm disappointed - i expected you to know your history. Let's try a few other examples, actual quotes this time, stop me if i hit one you recognize:
"If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." "640K ought to be enough for anybody" "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
:-\
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Shog9 wrote:
And you clearly don't want to read.
I read -- and responded to -- exactly what you wrote. Your response to what I'd written[^] was: "And if God didn't want a brutal tyrant running the country, then a brutal tyrant wouldn't be running the country..." and now you want to whine because I responded to *that* just as it deserved.
modified on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 3:30 PM
-
Pierre Leclercq wrote:
Build an adequate number of nuclear plants, and you have all the electricity you will ever need.
Not that I disagree, but along with the nukes comes nuclear waste that needs to be "dealt with". There is no free lunch. <facetious> Of course, if we completely eliminated our need of Middle Eastern oil and let the Arabs and Israelis fight it out to mutual extinction that would be a great place to bury the spent fuel rods. </facetious>
True, there is no free lunch ... the denial of this is implicit in Mr Simmons' idea (and some of the other responses) for solving the problem. But, regarding nuclear waste: the French and the Japanese (and I think British) generate a lion's share of the electricity they use via the nuclear route. Do they glow in the dark?
-
Shog9 wrote:
And you clearly don't want to read.
I read -- and responded to -- exactly what you wrote. Your response to what I'd written[^] was: "And if God didn't want a brutal tyrant running the country, then a brutal tyrant wouldn't be running the country..." and now you want to whine because I responded to *that* just as it deserved.
modified on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 3:30 PM
Then tell me my friend, do you really believe that you - and i - have no role in how this country is run? That we should accept the current state of affairs as the best possible situation for all involved? Do you accept the choices of the mob over your own judgment, or bite your tongue when you see madness and say to yourself, "if what i consider sanity were feasible, it would already be universal, therefore i am wrong and they are right"? Because that doesn't sound like you at all. Not the persona you project onto this forum at least.
Last modified: 19mins after originally posted -- Hoho! So you modify your post after i reply rather! Well, you still fail. I quoted the bit of your post i replied to, and altered the subject to reflect my interpretation of what you were saying. At this point, you've replied twice, and twice failed provide anything of relevance to what i said - so if you *can* read and *do* read then what you lack must be understanding.
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
-
True, there is no free lunch ... the denial of this is implicit in Mr Simmons' idea (and some of the other responses) for solving the problem. But, regarding nuclear waste: the French and the Japanese (and I think British) generate a lion's share of the electricity they use via the nuclear route. Do they glow in the dark?
Ilíon wrote:
Do they glow in the dark?
Soon enough... Radioactive Waste Leaking into Champagne Water Supply[^] Japan's nuclear waste will spill from new plant's chimney[^] British Nuclear Waste in the Irish Sea[^]
-
Ilíon wrote:
- If there were such a thing as "efficient mass transportation" ("efficiency" taking into account all the wasted time of the potential passengers) ... and if Americans wanted to use mass transit ... we would have it.
We did have it. It ran on tracks. Then cars and gas got cheap, roads got better, and Things Changed. Things, as they so often do, are Changing again...
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
You won't stop till Chris enforces a MaxLength for the subject line, will you? :rolleyes:
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com link -
You won't stop till Chris enforces a MaxLength for the subject line, will you? :rolleyes:
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com link -
There is a max length. I've hit it. Several times... ;P
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Shog9 wrote:
There is a max length. I've hit it. Several times...
I should have known :-)
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
My latest book : C++/CLI in Action / Amazon.com link -
Because as usual, the politicians are completely out of touch with reality. A gas tax holiday will have no significant impact on the price of a gallon of gas, and it's a temporary measure. Americans don't want band-aid fixes and political pandering in the quest for votes. They want real solutions. How about this idea - instead of giving tax breaks to the oil companies, use that money to research alternative fuels or efficient mass transportation.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001I was not even thinking about the efficiency of such a scheme. I was thinking about the authority that Ms. Clinton or Mr. McCain would have this summer to implement this scheme. Here is what I think about it. Investment bankers speculating on commodities is not supply and demand. If commodities are not traded as securities on exchanges and are traded only on physical delivery, then prices will come down dramatically. US has one of the lowest gas prices; most other countries tax gas far more than the US does. I think that $3 a gallon is not that bad at all. 18% tax to build road infrastructure is great, no need to change it. Maybe, the taxes for fuels for personal transport can be made higher to encourage use of public transport; but a differential tax rate will bring in administrative overhead and corruption. Using fuel efficient vehicles, car pooling, working a couple of days from home every week, use mass transit to commute to work, switching off heating, cooling, lights, computers etc. when you do not use them are all personal changes that can make a significant dent to energy demand. Instead of making some adjustments in personal life, a vast majority want the government to bring them some magic solution.
-
Then tell me my friend, do you really believe that you - and i - have no role in how this country is run? That we should accept the current state of affairs as the best possible situation for all involved? Do you accept the choices of the mob over your own judgment, or bite your tongue when you see madness and say to yourself, "if what i consider sanity were feasible, it would already be universal, therefore i am wrong and they are right"? Because that doesn't sound like you at all. Not the persona you project onto this forum at least.
Last modified: 19mins after originally posted -- Hoho! So you modify your post after i reply rather! Well, you still fail. I quoted the bit of your post i replied to, and altered the subject to reflect my interpretation of what you were saying. At this point, you've replied twice, and twice failed provide anything of relevance to what i said - so if you *can* read and *do* read then what you lack must be understanding.
Citizen 20.1.01
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Shog9 wrote:
An angry, ill-considered response is worse than none at all.
Shog9 wrote:
Then tell me my friend, do you really believe that you - and i - have no role in how this country is run? That we should accept the current state of affairs as the best possible situation for all involved? Do you accept the choices of the mob over your own judgment, or bite your tongue when you see madness and say to yourself, "if what i consider sanity were feasible, it would already be universal, therefore i am wrong and they are right"?
And now, my friend, in even *asking* that question, you engage in misrepresentation. I really do have to wonder whether you actually read the post[^] to which you responded with that eminently stupid conflation of two quite un-like things (blatant governmental compulsion and a voluntary market economy).
-
Ilíon wrote:
Do they glow in the dark?
Soon enough... Radioactive Waste Leaking into Champagne Water Supply[^] Japan's nuclear waste will spill from new plant's chimney[^] British Nuclear Waste in the Irish Sea[^]
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Ilíon: Do they [citizens of nations making extensive use of nuclear power] glow in the dark? Mike Mullikin: Soon enough...
So, are we ... the human race living the "modern lifestyle" ... ultimately screwed? *Must* our civilization collapse and the vast majority of the human race now living die? 0) Our entire technological civilization ... and the very lives of billions of human beings ... depends upon abundant and relatively cheap energy. We *cannot* "turn back the clock;" we *must* have our technology and we must have the energy to run it ... else we die. 1) Fossil fuels (*) clearly will not last forever. And, this doesn't begin to address pollution from fossil fuels. 2) According to Greens (and/or Chicken Little types), we "cannot" use nuclear fission ... and in any event, ultimately, it is also limited; uranium is also a "non-renewable resource." 3) We haven't figured out how to harness nuclear fussion. 4) "Alternate energy sources" (and "cutting back") are cosmetic window dressing serving only to distract attention from the points above. 4a) Many of these "alternate energy sources" are actually energy sinks -- we put more energy (from other sources, generally fossil fuels) into the process than we can get out. (*) If indeed, *all* the energy sources we call "fossil fuels" are indeed non-renewable. I have a bit of doubt that this is true of petroleum ... Though, if petroleum does actually get replenished, and if we extract it faster than it can be replenished, the effect works out the same in the long run.
-
Pierre Leclercq wrote:
Build an adequate number of nuclear plants, and you have all the electricity you will ever need.
Not that I disagree, but along with the nukes comes nuclear waste that needs to be "dealt with". There is no free lunch. <facetious> Of course, if we completely eliminated our need of Middle Eastern oil and let the Arabs and Israelis fight it out to mutual extinction that would be a great place to bury the spent fuel rods. </facetious>
Well the global warming (the major pollution problem nowadays) is not caused by nuclear wastes. Use your car and you pollute the entire planet. At least nuclear wastes can be safely sealed and stored in well defined locations. And we're talking about fission there, which by the way has been vastly improved over the last 3 or 4 decades. Just wait for fusion, and we'll have our free lunch... I am always amazed the us never signed the kyoto agreement arguing this would slow the us economy. Why did they not build nuclear plant, and significantly reduce their emissions? This is all bad PR for the US, and this is a big deal how people around the world have a wrong perception of this country.