So please point out where he said he believes in "intelligent life from another planet". Thinking that acknowledging a UFO is the same as the former surely doesn't qualify as intelligent.
Ok, I'll try not to flame you, but you've left a lot of fodder. Firstly, I bought a gas guzzler in 96 and I plan on keeping it for another 10 years. Which is much more environmentally responsible than buying a new high mileage car, especially given that I put a grand total of 5000 miles on it over the last 5 years. So calm down on the gross assumptions about other peoples situations.
Secondly your cost analysis is still wrong for me, and still does not include the total cost per mile of the car, but simply is the fuel cost. There is also wear and tear on the tires, the oil changes, etc. Even with a 30mpg car it is dubious that you can show it as cheaper for the car. Most of those same costs for the bike are already sunk costs (health and maintenance of the bikes engine is a cost of life weather you drive or bike) but I do spend about $40 per year on tires and tubes. And I did not claim to bike 75 miles a day. I claimed that my costs while driving and biking worked out to be a cheaper lifestyle when biking and I took that from my records over 5 years. You claimed that I ride 75 miles a day, and now you are restating it as my claim. That is trolling. And I understand how someone twisting your words around can piss you off. Because that is what you are doing. The main maintenance costs involved with a car are from ownership/insurance/etc, not from per-mile usage. That is perhaps true for you, but not at all true for me.
Note that also unstated is that I can grow a lot of the food (fruits and veggies) that I eat for nearly free, while I cannot do the same for the gas I use. Stop oversimplifying a problem to get to a statistic that you find to be interesting while in actuality is it false.
Like I've pointed out below, I took this data from my books. But I think you are oversimplifying the metabolic process. The body adapts to a bike quite readily, and it is not unusual to see pot bellied bikers, guys who do 150 miles a week commuting. I've noticed that lately I need to cross train to actually lose weight. I eat a pretty good diet and am not inclined to mess with it, as reducing calories in the long run is not a good weight maintenance strategy if the diet is pretty healthy to start with.
While I see your numbers, they bear no resemblance to the car that I drive, so your mileage number is quite high. Also, my behavior changes when I drive. I am much more likely to "swing by" the Home Depot to get a new hose or something. Note that I used empirical data (bookkeeping and gasoline records) to do the comparison, so it is not a controlled scientific experiment. But you still are not providing any analysis that shows biking is more expensive than driving. And if you do that to include food, then you must also include maintenance costs as well as the secondary benefits to biking (ie, no gym membership, commuting = exercising) etc. I'm interested still to see your math, but suspect you to be a troll.
I bike almost exclusively. It works great for me, and I recognize that this has no bearing on how well it works for someone else. I eat for about $8 per day. Before I used my bike I also ate for $8 a day. And I paid for gas, one full tank per week which is approximately $10/day with today's gas prices. So by not driving I save $10/ day. So there is my math, based on 5 years of empirical data. Please share your math because I am interested to see how riding a bike is more expensive than driving.
There is a Swiss language, spoken by something like 15% of the population and only in one region (I think it is Ticino). And there is also Swiss-German which is not German, but is similar. I was travelling with two Swiss women and a German woman, and while the Swiss women spoke to each other they spoke Swiss-German, and neither I nor the German woman could understand. So they would speak German or English for all of us to be able to understand.
Thanks AC. I didn't know there were options out there that I could pay for to improve Windows functionality. Even though I mentioned that I had written my own applications that behaved the way I wanted to, but I guess it would be too much to actually read my posts before you reply to them.
I was always at a loss to explain (to myself) why windows explorer was so hidden in the start menu (this is true for 98, 2000 in my personal experience . . . maybe it got fixed later) . . . you have to Start->Programs->Accessories->Windows Explorer for the most important function on the computer. Huh, do these guys actually use computers? And I was coming from IRIX, and so was also miffed that I couldn't filter on file names or extensions (note that filtering is far different than sorting) by typing "*.[$wantedExtension]" in the filename box. Why isn't this possible? I have written my own extensions to the CFileDialog() that provide this for my applications, but can't get the functionality in Windows Explorer./rant
Here is a list of potential increases to coal generation:
* Low-emission boiler systems (43% efficiency)
* Pressurized fluidized-bed combustion (50% efficiency)
* Integrated gasification combined cycle (52% efficiency)
* Indirectly fired cycles (55% efficiency)
* Gasification/fuel-cell combinations (60% efficiency, or 85% with cogeneration)
from this site.
So the old crappy ones get 33%. I have been a fan of gassification and co generation with the capture and storage of carbon and other by products because it really is "clean coal" at the plant. Of course the mining issue is still there, but with clean energy perhaps we can move our efforts to clean mining.
But please do not exagerate these points, it does little to help as when someone discovers that you are full of sh*t, then your point loses 100% credibility.
I didn't mod GP, but the part that strikes me as the "troll" is the part where you call California left wing, just after the extreme left wing examples above, as if somehow California is left wing in the same way that soviet Russia was. To me that is a troll, because the implicit comparison is invalid. It does very little towards having an informed and informing conversation. Both extremes (left and right) are obviously bad, but in the US and in the Slashdot community there seems to be a name calling mentality which breaks down to: you disagree with me, and I am [right,left] leaning so you must be a [commie hippie,fascist]. I don't see either side of the US political spectrum as being particularly interested in personal freedoms of the general population.
Here in New Mexico there is water shortage, if not actual drought, and municipalities govern the use of water during the hot and dry periods. This does not strike me as "big brother", "left", or "right", but as a pragmatic compromise because for every environmentally conscious person of any political bent there are a few more who will attempt to install new lawns, run sprinklers during the day, and water sidewalks as much as they do plants. I think the thermostat example you bring up falls closer to the water use than to totalitarian regimes, and is not a political issue, but a practical issue.
I think it is dialog, and good communication in general that is breaking down in political/governmental conversation attempts. Why is this? What political party stands for not telling other people how to live period? What political party does not pander to religious groups when making laws (indecency, substance abuse, etc)? I don't see it, but wish that I did. I feel like I am an old time conservative in economic and environmental policies, and a progressive when it comes to social agendas. And by social agendas I mean laws that govern how people live their private lives like same sex marriage, drug use, etc. You know, the ol' moral majority crap.
Nice claim, seems like I read that before. I will draw on sources that I can find on the internet, rather than what's in my library because my library is harder to share with you, of course you'll just refute these anyway, but it's a good exercise for me:
Here is one that gives the tax rate for the oil industry as of 1998. Here is one that demonstrates the House wanting to end the tax breaks that you claim don't exist. Of course with the political state of affairs here I wouldn't put it past congress to waste time with useless regulation, but that is another discussion. Here is one analyzing the oil industries tax breaks as compared to ethanol. Note that I am not a proponent of ethanol and that this information is solely to demonstrate the tax breaks given to oil companies. Here is a bill from 2005 doing more of the same.
Enjoy.
LOL. Yeah, I guess the cynical view. But aside from the big brother or other kind of negative connotations, the people is the collective of voters that do govern the US (in this case). People are a subset. Some people own some corporations, but your mentioning of the people owning corporations is not correct. There are plenty of private corporations owned by just a few people. Even publicly traded corporations are not owned by all people, but by relatively few shareholders. So it's more than just semantics and trying to cast corporations as owned by the people of the US is just wrong. And the 401Ks of slashdotters represent a pretty small percentage of the population as a whole.
Wow that is an interesting inversion. Private company (perhaps publicly traded) = owned by us, and money goes to people. Government = money goes who-knows-where. I see the point, and with the current Government it is valid. But by the intent of our government, Government = the people. Owned by the government = owned by the people. Now I think as little as possible should be owned by "the people" and that people should be able to privately own what they can afford. But please tell me, in what way are these Corporations owned by "us"?
I claim that the oil companies receive what abounts to subsidy (note the word guise in my original post) through tax breaks, federally funded R&D, etc. That is a point of public record, and if you need to find a source then do it. I know it to be so for various resons, and not from the quick googling I did earlier. You are entitled to your beliefs, and if you are living in the US then you are entitled to keep your head in the sand. But that does not change the fact that the oil industry receives a lot of money at the hand of the taxpayer.
I know a lot of people who were laid off at Sandia Labs when the alternative energy research budgets were slashed by Reagan. Yes, we have been using PV, but the large scale government research ended in the early 80s. That is the kind of research that is needed, meanwhile the oil companies enjoy subsidized research and development. The fuels you speak of are those that keep the status quo with big oil. When I think of solar I think of the solar steam turbine now being bandied about once again, which was developed in the 70s at Sandia. Germany is making good use of that research.
Your religion attack is funny, but quite untrue. If I have a religion it is transparency, the kind that says you can see the inner workings, not that they are hidden which is what we have now. There are more alternatives than the ethanol, methanol, and synth petroleum, all of which are non starters.
Yes, that is what would be better . . . that we have transparency, knowing when we spend a dollar what we are spending it on. Unless it is an ideal system it will in the end work out better (if only slightly) for the consumer. In reality these are already being passed on to the consumer (as everything is), but in hidden ways. Sorry for the sloppy prose, I'm busy at work, but this is an interesting topic.
I applaud your research skills, link number 1 in a google for oil subsidies, but you are simplifying what you think of as subsidy. Fact is the oil industry is getting from 20-55 Billion dollars in incentives by way of tax discounts and others, including but not limited to what your linked article covers. That is them having their hands in my pockets, and if you don't see that then I dont think there's any way that I could convince you. As for other industries, I can't make any sweeping generalizations (or would prefer not to), but as I see it any industry that is profitable should not be subsidized, period. That is free market capitalism. There are only a few industries in general that should qualify for subsidy until profitable, energy being one. So I do think that we should continue to subsidize research into biofuel production, wind, and solar power production until such time as they become profitable without the subsidy.
Slashdot Mirror
So please point out where he said he believes in "intelligent life from another planet". Thinking that acknowledging a UFO is the same as the former surely doesn't qualify as intelligent.
Ok, I'll try not to flame you, but you've left a lot of fodder. Firstly, I bought a gas guzzler in 96 and I plan on keeping it for another 10 years. Which is much more environmentally responsible than buying a new high mileage car, especially given that I put a grand total of 5000 miles on it over the last 5 years. So calm down on the gross assumptions about other peoples situations.
Secondly your cost analysis is still wrong for me, and still does not include the total cost per mile of the car, but simply is the fuel cost. There is also wear and tear on the tires, the oil changes, etc. Even with a 30mpg car it is dubious that you can show it as cheaper for the car. Most of those same costs for the bike are already sunk costs (health and maintenance of the bikes engine is a cost of life weather you drive or bike) but I do spend about $40 per year on tires and tubes. And I did not claim to bike 75 miles a day. I claimed that my costs while driving and biking worked out to be a cheaper lifestyle when biking and I took that from my records over 5 years. You claimed that I ride 75 miles a day, and now you are restating it as my claim. That is trolling. And I understand how someone twisting your words around can piss you off. Because that is what you are doing.
The main maintenance costs involved with a car are from ownership/insurance/etc, not from per-mile usage.
That is perhaps true for you, but not at all true for me.
Note that also unstated is that I can grow a lot of the food (fruits and veggies) that I eat for nearly free, while I cannot do the same for the gas I use. Stop oversimplifying a problem to get to a statistic that you find to be interesting while in actuality is it false.
Like I've pointed out below, I took this data from my books. But I think you are oversimplifying the metabolic process. The body adapts to a bike quite readily, and it is not unusual to see pot bellied bikers, guys who do 150 miles a week commuting. I've noticed that lately I need to cross train to actually lose weight. I eat a pretty good diet and am not inclined to mess with it, as reducing calories in the long run is not a good weight maintenance strategy if the diet is pretty healthy to start with.
While I see your numbers, they bear no resemblance to the car that I drive, so your mileage number is quite high. Also, my behavior changes when I drive. I am much more likely to "swing by" the Home Depot to get a new hose or something. Note that I used empirical data (bookkeeping and gasoline records) to do the comparison, so it is not a controlled scientific experiment. But you still are not providing any analysis that shows biking is more expensive than driving. And if you do that to include food, then you must also include maintenance costs as well as the secondary benefits to biking (ie, no gym membership, commuting = exercising) etc. I'm interested still to see your math, but suspect you to be a troll.
I don't think that you are correct in calling Sweden communist.
I bike almost exclusively. It works great for me, and I recognize that this has no bearing on how well it works for someone else. I eat for about $8 per day. Before I used my bike I also ate for $8 a day. And I paid for gas, one full tank per week which is approximately $10/day with today's gas prices. So by not driving I save $10/ day. So there is my math, based on 5 years of empirical data. Please share your math because I am interested to see how riding a bike is more expensive than driving.
petrol != petroleum, which is what GP was responding to. petrol and diesel are both petroleum based, petrol specifically meaning gasoline.
There is a Swiss language, spoken by something like 15% of the population and only in one region (I think it is Ticino). And there is also Swiss-German which is not German, but is similar. I was travelling with two Swiss women and a German woman, and while the Swiss women spoke to each other they spoke Swiss-German, and neither I nor the German woman could understand. So they would speak German or English for all of us to be able to understand.
Odweeds.
Thank god (or Goedle) that they don't have to be both consistent and complete.
election
you must be using a definition of which I was not previously aware.
Thanks AC. I didn't know there were options out there that I could pay for to improve Windows functionality. Even though I mentioned that I had written my own applications that behaved the way I wanted to, but I guess it would be too much to actually read my posts before you reply to them.
I was always at a loss to explain (to myself) why windows explorer was so hidden in the start menu (this is true for 98, 2000 in my personal experience . . . maybe it got fixed later) . . . you have to Start->Programs->Accessories->Windows Explorer for the most important function on the computer. Huh, do these guys actually use computers? And I was coming from IRIX, and so was also miffed that I couldn't filter on file names or extensions (note that filtering is far different than sorting) by typing "*.[$wantedExtension]" in the filename box. Why isn't this possible? I have written my own extensions to the CFileDialog() that provide this for my applications, but can't get the functionality in Windows Explorer. /rant
Here is a list of potential increases to coal generation:
* Low-emission boiler systems (43% efficiency)
* Pressurized fluidized-bed combustion (50% efficiency)
* Integrated gasification combined cycle (52% efficiency)
* Indirectly fired cycles (55% efficiency)
* Gasification/fuel-cell combinations (60% efficiency, or 85% with cogeneration)
from this site.
So the old crappy ones get 33%. I have been a fan of gassification and co generation with the capture and storage of carbon and other by products because it really is "clean coal" at the plant. Of course the mining issue is still there, but with clean energy perhaps we can move our efforts to clean mining.
But please do not exagerate these points, it does little to help as when someone discovers that you are full of sh*t, then your point loses 100% credibility.
I didn't mod GP, but the part that strikes me as the "troll" is the part where you call California left wing, just after the extreme left wing examples above, as if somehow California is left wing in the same way that soviet Russia was. To me that is a troll, because the implicit comparison is invalid. It does very little towards having an informed and informing conversation. Both extremes (left and right) are obviously bad, but in the US and in the Slashdot community there seems to be a name calling mentality which breaks down to: you disagree with me, and I am [right,left] leaning so you must be a [commie hippie,fascist]. I don't see either side of the US political spectrum as being particularly interested in personal freedoms of the general population.
Here in New Mexico there is water shortage, if not actual drought, and municipalities govern the use of water during the hot and dry periods. This does not strike me as "big brother", "left", or "right", but as a pragmatic compromise because for every environmentally conscious person of any political bent there are a few more who will attempt to install new lawns, run sprinklers during the day, and water sidewalks as much as they do plants. I think the thermostat example you bring up falls closer to the water use than to totalitarian regimes, and is not a political issue, but a practical issue.
I think it is dialog, and good communication in general that is breaking down in political/governmental conversation attempts. Why is this? What political party stands for not telling other people how to live period? What political party does not pander to religious groups when making laws (indecency, substance abuse, etc)? I don't see it, but wish that I did. I feel like I am an old time conservative in economic and environmental policies, and a progressive when it comes to social agendas. And by social agendas I mean laws that govern how people live their private lives like same sex marriage, drug use, etc. You know, the ol' moral majority crap.
Nice claim, seems like I read that before. I will draw on sources that I can find on the internet, rather than what's in my library because my library is harder to share with you, of course you'll just refute these anyway, but it's a good exercise for me:
Here is one that gives the tax rate for the oil industry as of 1998.
Here is one that demonstrates the House wanting to end the tax breaks that you claim don't exist. Of course with the political state of affairs here I wouldn't put it past congress to waste time with useless regulation, but that is another discussion.
Here is one analyzing the oil industries tax breaks as compared to ethanol. Note that I am not a proponent of ethanol and that this information is solely to demonstrate the tax breaks given to oil companies.
Here is a bill from 2005 doing more of the same.
Enjoy.
LOL. Yeah, I guess the cynical view. But aside from the big brother or other kind of negative connotations, the people is the collective of voters that do govern the US (in this case). People are a subset. Some people own some corporations, but your mentioning of the people owning corporations is not correct. There are plenty of private corporations owned by just a few people. Even publicly traded corporations are not owned by all people, but by relatively few shareholders. So it's more than just semantics and trying to cast corporations as owned by the people of the US is just wrong. And the 401Ks of slashdotters represent a pretty small percentage of the population as a whole.
100% of the shares are owned by people. Theres a difference between people and the people, and that is a big difference.
Wow that is an interesting inversion. Private company (perhaps publicly traded) = owned by us, and money goes to people. Government = money goes who-knows-where. I see the point, and with the current Government it is valid. But by the intent of our government, Government = the people. Owned by the government = owned by the people. Now I think as little as possible should be owned by "the people" and that people should be able to privately own what they can afford. But please tell me, in what way are these Corporations owned by "us"?
I claim that the oil companies receive what abounts to subsidy (note the word guise in my original post) through tax breaks, federally funded R&D, etc. That is a point of public record, and if you need to find a source then do it. I know it to be so for various resons, and not from the quick googling I did earlier. You are entitled to your beliefs, and if you are living in the US then you are entitled to keep your head in the sand. But that does not change the fact that the oil industry receives a lot of money at the hand of the taxpayer.
I know a lot of people who were laid off at Sandia Labs when the alternative energy research budgets were slashed by Reagan. Yes, we have been using PV, but the large scale government research ended in the early 80s. That is the kind of research that is needed, meanwhile the oil companies enjoy subsidized research and development. The fuels you speak of are those that keep the status quo with big oil. When I think of solar I think of the solar steam turbine now being bandied about once again, which was developed in the 70s at Sandia. Germany is making good use of that research.
Your religion attack is funny, but quite untrue. If I have a religion it is transparency, the kind that says you can see the inner workings, not that they are hidden which is what we have now. There are more alternatives than the ethanol, methanol, and synth petroleum, all of which are non starters.
Yes, that is what would be better . . . that we have transparency, knowing when we spend a dollar what we are spending it on. Unless it is an ideal system it will in the end work out better (if only slightly) for the consumer. In reality these are already being passed on to the consumer (as everything is), but in hidden ways. Sorry for the sloppy prose, I'm busy at work, but this is an interesting topic.
So, by pointing out those two (obviously flawed) examples, you think that oil is not subsidized in the US?
In addition to the GP link (which is a good one) here is another. Or you could try googling "oil subsidies" and start from there.
I applaud your research skills, link number 1 in a google for oil subsidies, but you are simplifying what you think of as subsidy. Fact is the oil industry is getting from 20-55 Billion dollars in incentives by way of tax discounts and others, including but not limited to what your linked article covers. That is them having their hands in my pockets, and if you don't see that then I dont think there's any way that I could convince you. As for other industries, I can't make any sweeping generalizations (or would prefer not to), but as I see it any industry that is profitable should not be subsidized, period. That is free market capitalism. There are only a few industries in general that should qualify for subsidy until profitable, energy being one. So I do think that we should continue to subsidize research into biofuel production, wind, and solar power production until such time as they become profitable without the subsidy.