"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
...
My point was that some people believe freedom of choice is actually
passed
down from a deity, and this is especially true of cars for some
reason. In
fact, freedom of choice in this country originated with guns.
Period. Nothing to do with a god, although you really touch a nerve
with some people
if you suggest this. :-)

There's a significant difference in the concept and the
implementation which seems to have escaped you...

I don't think so, but it's early yet.

Look, you have to admit that if you sat down with (let's say) 100
people and said "Do you know that you can achieve all your stated
goals (for your next car purchase) with a vehicle that gets 30% better
gas mileage?", there would be some people (and I believe it's a large
percentage) who'd actually say "Holy **** - I really didn't know
that". And, there would be some who'd already done as much research as
they could, and maybe just gathered knowledge over the years, and
really DID need a big pickup truck or SUV.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't let people buy what they want. What
I *am* saying is that I doubt very much that many consumers really
know what they're getting into with SUVs, and would make a different
choice on their own, given the right information. The glut of these
vehicles in used car lots is some indication of this idea.




There's always going to be clueless people around who make poor choices.
The information you mention is there,they just choise to ignore it or not
look for it.
It's not anyone else's duty to tell them how they should live or what
choices they should make,unless they are judged (in a court of law)to be
incompetent to run their own affairs.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Doug Kanter wrote:

"The Real Bev" wrote:
max wrote:
wrote:

That sounds right to me. Who are you to decide what vehicle is right
for someone else? Once you start that process, then we should go take
a look at everything people own and do. Is that ski trip to Colorado
necessary? Or should one drive to a ski resort that's closer? How
about driving the family to the beach every weekend in the summer?
Maybe we should close places like Disneyland, since not only does it
use a lot of unnecessary energy,

And that's how politics in America works.

If someone suggests that SUV's are a bad idea and that we ought to use
less gasoline, the next thing you get is "why do you want to close
disneyland and throw me in jail for going to Steamboat??"

Because that's the end result of one group of people deciding what's moral
for everybody and it's our civic duty to point that out whenever the
opportunity arises.

That's pretty extreme. Here's a more moderate idea. You've seen public
service commercials about forest fires, the dangers of tobacco, etc. You
have no problem with those commercials, and they actually work over a period
of time.

Yeah, I DO have a problem with those commercials, especially if they're made
with tax money. With a few exceptions, such things are so heavy-handed that
they inspire rebellion rather than compliance. I stopped smoking because I
got angry about the idea that the officers of tobacco companies were wearing
$1K suits obtained by selling me my own death a carton at a time. I don't set
fires in forests. I speed when I can get away with it. I tear the tags off
sofa cushions. I don't do drugs because I don't need the kind of damage they
might do, even if they're actually harmless.

So, I'm sure you would have no problem with similar commercials aimed at
informing clueless consumers of things they did not know about vehicles.

You can't inform the clueless of anything worth informing them about. It
doesn't work and just makes them angry. Figure out how to make them learn
rather than absorb propaganda and you might have something.

And, if you considered that to be a form of control, you really need to get
with a good psychologist.

There's a difference between persuasion and control. We already have too many
laws and too much interference with our personal lives. If somebody wants to
control something new, then he better be prepared to relinquish control over
something equivalently pervasive.

Yeah, like THAT will happen.

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== =============
Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely and in a
well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, totally worn out,
and shouting HOLY ****!!! WHAT A RIDE!!!

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

My point was that some people believe freedom of choice is actually
passed down from a deity, and this is especially true of cars for some
reason. In fact, freedom of choice in this country originated with
guns. Period. Nothing to do with a god, although you really touch a
nerve with some people if you suggest this. :-)

You display a complete lack of understanding of the philosophy
underlying the birth of the United States. It appears that you have
never read, or failed to understand, the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created
equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable
rights; that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness; that governments are instituted among men to secure these
rights; that when any form of government becomes destructive of these
ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to
institute a new government..."

In other words: rights *do* come from God. The government is there to
protect the rights that God gave us. If the government is not doing
its job, it's our right to get rid of it, and replace it with
something that will.

Freedom didn't come from a gun; freedom comes from God. But if you
want to *keep* your freedom, it sure helps to have guns. That's how
the colonists got rid of an unsuitable government.


I prefer to think of them as NATURAL,inherent rights,not coming from any
deity,which I do not believe in.
When one is born,the rights are natural,pre-existing.
They exist regardless of any authority.

(The phrase "their creator" could easily be their birth mother)

"God" is entirely a fictional construct.No different than a belief in
magic.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Duane Bozarth wrote:

SoCalMike wrote:

wrote:
The Real Bev wrote:

Buck Turgidson wrote:

I dunno about you dude, but my next car will be a D-8 Catepillar. Ain't
nothing safer than that. Just get in my way....I dare ya'.

You're on!

http://www.kennecott.com/library_photo_gallery4.html upper left picture

Hate to quibble but a D-8 would win.

i think the D8 would get squished.

I think so too...a D8 is roughly 20-22 tons (short) while one of these
goes at about 75,000 lb empty. I think they have a payload of 40-50
tons, so a loaded one would be in the neighborhood of 80-90 tons...

The blurbs say that Kennecott's Cat haulers can carry a 240-ton payload.

Any earth-moving equipment aficionados know who bought out the LeTourneauDozer
people?

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== =============
Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely and in a
well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, totally worn out,
and shouting HOLY ****!!! WHAT A RIDE!!!

FDR wrote:

"The Real Bev" wrote in message
...
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 17:40:35 -0700, The Real Bev
wrote:

Buck Turgidson wrote:

I dunno about you dude, but my next car will be a D-8 Catepillar.
Ain't
nothing safer than that. Just get in my way....I dare ya'.

You're on!

http://www.kennecott.com/library_photo_gallery4.html upper left picture

Hate to quibble but a D-8 would win.

This is a safety contest, right?

More like whose penis size is bigger contest.

Can we use modeling clay?

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== =============
Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely and in a
well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, totally worn out,
and shouting HOLY ****!!! WHAT A RIDE!!!

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

The car
makers can reduce the price a little, but probably make more, since
most customers have no real idea how much cheaper it is to make a
2wd vehicle. And, offer 4wd versions for people who explicitly ask
for them. I don't think many will.

Even more impractical.

Are you saying that offering a selection is impractical? Dealers do
it all the time with pickup trucks, or they'd be out of the truck
business insofar as tradespeople (who use trucks for work) are
concerned.

Why do you think something that is already happening is impractical?




Next you will be calling for a return to the 55mph National Motor
Speed Limit,from 1973.(which worked SO well)[not!]

Nice dodge, but you didn't answer the question. I suggested that
consumers be offered a much different choice when it comes to owning
an SUV. And I pointed out that the choices I'm suggesting are not so
unusual TODAY if you're buying a pickup truck. Or, at least those
choices existed two days ago when a friend of mine bought a new Toyota
Tundra.

Are you saying that choices which already exist are impractical? Or,
are you saying that it would be too much to expect salespeople to
explain the choices?




One can already choose between 2WD and 4WD on many SUVs,and some are even
AWD.(and some ordinary autos,too)

Salespeople will try to sell what's more profitable for THEM,not what's
necessarily the best for the purchaser.It's the buyer's duty to make the
best choice for their own individual circumstances.

It's called "Caveat Emptor,let the buyer beware.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote:
You don't suppose there might be other considerations more important to a
police agency than crash safety? Rapid acceleration and stability at high
speeds spring to mind...

Hmmm....stability at high speeds. I think you just let all the air out of
the "SUVs are safer" theory. This is why we see so many of them in ditches,
waiting for tow trucks. That's where the higher seating level is handy - you
can see over the top of the ditch so you know when the tow truck's arrived.

Gross vehicle weight doesn't make you smarter.

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== =============
Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely and in a
well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, totally worn out,
and shouting HOLY ****!!! WHAT A RIDE!!!

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
6...

The car
makers can reduce the price a little, but probably make more,
since most customers have no real idea how much cheaper it is to
make a 2wd vehicle. And, offer 4wd versions for people who
explicitly ask for them. I don't think many will.

Even more impractical.

Are you saying that offering a selection is impractical?

No, I'm saying that offering a front-drive and a 4WD version of the
same thing
is impractical from the standpoint of building the vehicle.

Why is it practical, then, for pickup trucks to be built with either
4WD or 2WD? Both are available in large quantities, or at least they
were 2 days ago when a friend of mine bought her Tundra, and also
shopped Ford & Chevy dealers on the same street.

Are you saying it's MECHANICALLY impractical, or impractical in a
business sense?



Just replacing a 4WD drivetrain with a FWD drivetrain is not going to
change fuel efficiency significantly.
Then there's the added costs of making and stocking the extra parts and
assemblies.If demand is not enough to cover that and some profit,then it
will not be done.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Rod Speed wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
But, what if you made 3 simple changes to a vehicle, and together they added,
say, 20% more gas mileage?

Fantasy, you cant point to any pair of vehicles that have achieved that.

Ha.

(1) Make it smaller.
(2) Make it out of aluminum and plastic.
(3) Give it a red-light flipper so it never has to stop at stop lights.

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== =============
Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely and in a
well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, totally worn out,
and shouting HOLY ****!!! WHAT A RIDE!!!

"The Real Bev" wrote in message
...


So, I'm sure you would have no problem with similar commercials aimed at
informing clueless consumers of things they did not know about vehicles.

You can't inform the clueless of anything worth informing them about. It
doesn't work and just makes them angry. Figure out how to make them learn
rather than absorb propaganda and you might have something.

By the time someone's old enough to drive, it's too late to help them learn
better learning tactics. That's a job for parents when a child is very
small.


And, if you considered that to be a form of control, you really need to
get
with a good psychologist.

There's a difference between persuasion and control. We already have too
many
laws and too much interference with our personal lives. If somebody wants
to
control something new, then he better be prepared to relinquish control
over
something equivalently pervasive.

A ****load of advertising dollars say otherwise.

"The Real Bev" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote:
You don't suppose there might be other considerations more important to
a
police agency than crash safety? Rapid acceleration and stability at
high
speeds spring to mind...

Hmmm....stability at high speeds. I think you just let all the air out of
the "SUVs are safer" theory. This is why we see so many of them in
ditches,
waiting for tow trucks. That's where the higher seating level is handy -
you
can see over the top of the ditch so you know when the tow truck's
arrived.

Gross vehicle weight doesn't make you smarter.

You win 3 virtual beers.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Even just taking a SUV and eliminating the 4WD and the tires
that are inappropriate for urban use, and changing the shift
points wont do more than a couple of percent at best.

You just chose an arbitrary number, just like I did.

Nope.

Back it up, or accept the fact that we're talking about arbitrary
numbers.

I'm not, I'm using the official govt fuel economy data.

So did whoever it was who rubbed your nose in the
real numbers with the front wheel drive question.

That means you, too.

Wrong again.

Rear-end gear changes, tire changes. Where did you get your
"figures" from?

Those official figures and others usually
conducted by motoring organisations etc.

Show me some. Now.

Those arent visible to other than members.


You're spouting the figures, so you must be a member. Show them. Now.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Does your profession involve automobiles? If yes, in what capacity?

Irrelevant to the official numbers on fuel economy.

But not to your prediction that tires, gear ratios and transmission
programming have insignificant effects on gas mileage.

I never ever said anything like that. I JUST said that you wont
get anything like that completely silly 20% YOU waved around.

As I explained, my number was arbitrary,

Completely silly, actually.

just as yours are.

Wrong again.

Back up your claim that 3-4 mechanical changes won't produce "X",
whatever "X" is. Now.

Go and **** yourself. Now.

Someone else already provided the official numbers with front wheel drive.

There are plenty of other numbers on the other changes.

Even you should be able to find them.


No. You're the one making claims that the numbers on "other changes" are
false. Back up your claims.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I didn't suggest a smaller engine. I suggested a number of other
things, like programming ***SOME*** models of SUVs to shift like a
car instead of a
truck. Let me know if you don't understand this.

What I don't understand is why you think that changing the drive
train from
RWD/4WD to FWD - while keeping the *same* engine - is going to have
some mystical enormous effect on fuel mileage. It just doesn't work
that way.

Who said "mystical"? I believe it's you that's been focused on what a
small difference it would make. But, what if you made 3 simple changes
to a vehicle,

But they are NOT "simple".

and together they added, say, 20% more gas mileage?
Would that be worthwhile if the vehicles werent' turned to crap by
doing so? Sure - maybe eliminating 4WD only adds 1 mpg. Now, add tires
which make sense for how the owner will ACTUALLY use the car.

Most SUV buyers already can pick "street" tires or heavy-duty tires for
off-road,construction or heavy load usage.Off road tires make a horrendous
noise.And one can alreadt choose 2WD or 4WD for most SUVs.But not FWD,as
it's too different from the other drivetrains.Entirely different packaging.

And,
reprogram the transmission so it shifts according to a pattern that
matches how the car is ACTUALLY used. If you don't understand this
last point, just ask. It's real.


Some performance autos can select between sport and "normal" shifting.

SUVs were never intended for fuel economy,there are trade-
offs.Larger,heavier vehicles have lower fuel economies.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Doug Kanter wrote
The Real Bev wrote

So, I'm sure you would have no problem with similar commercials aimed at
informing clueless consumers of things they did not know about vehicles.

You can't inform the clueless of anything worth informing them about. It
doesn't work and just makes them angry. Figure out how to make them learn
rather than absorb propaganda and you might have something.

By the time someone's old enough to drive, it's too late to help them learn
better learning tactics.

Bull****. The military manages that fine, and so do universitys etc.

That's a job for parents when a child is very small.

Thats just one way and is pretty hopless with some stuff like flying.

And, if you considered that to be a form of control, you really need to get
with a good psychologist.

There's a difference between persuasion and control. We already have too
many laws and too much interference with our personal lives. If somebody
wants to control something new, then he better be prepared to relinquish
control over something equivalently pervasive.

A ****load of advertising dollars say otherwise.

Nope.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
wrote in
oups.com:

"That's the real problem, isn't it? People say "I don't mind the low
gas
mileage on this thing I drive. I can afford the gas." In fact, they
should
be saying "Indirectly, my son died in Iraq to protect the oil supply
which
we wouldn't need (someday) if our dicks weren't so wrapped up in the
kinds
of cars we drive".


How much oil was there in Bosnia, when Clinton sent troops there to
die? Or how about Somalia? Did they have much oil? Or Vietnam or
Korea? But suddenly oil is the only reason the US is in Iraq. LOL
Fools like Doug don't learn from history.

They don't read sources other than the socialist-biased major
media,either.If they read some conservative sources,they would know
better.

What are YOUR sources for in-depth news?




I read both "old media" like my local newspaper,CNN online,and conservative
sources like Townhall.com,National Review,and Newsmax(which takes a lot
direct from Associated Press,an "old media" or "MSM" source) and other
links that they crossreference to.

Both Townhall and National Review have a lot of good stuff on politics and
economics,stuff that the MSM(mainstream media) fail to mention,or downplay.
They also tend to make more sense than MSM,put forth more rational
arguments.
Now,some of them DO go nuts on religious material,which I just ignore.


They have certainly gone over the Middle East topics and pointed out where
MSM has deceived,or misinformed the citizentry.Like Iraq's WMD material,and
the "Bush lied" nonsense.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

The Real Bev wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote

But, what if you made 3 simple changes to a vehicle,
and together they added, say, 20% more gas mileage?

Fantasy, you cant point to any pair of vehicles that have achieved that.

Ha.

This is no laughing matter, gorgon bitch.

(1) Make it smaller.
(2) Make it out of aluminum and plastic.
(3) Give it a red-light flipper so it never has to stop at stop lights.

Those aint the changes he waved around, stupid.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Does your profession involve automobiles? If yes, in what
capacity?

Irrelevant to the official numbers on fuel economy.

But not to your prediction that tires, gear ratios and
transmission programming have insignificant effects on gas
mileage.

I never ever said anything like that. I JUST said that you wont
get anything like that completely silly 20% YOU waved around.

As I explained, my number was arbitrary,

Completely silly, actually.

just as yours are.

Wrong again.

Back up your claim that 3-4 mechanical changes won't produce "X",
whatever "X" is. Now.

Go and **** yourself. Now.

Someone else already provided the official numbers with front wheel
drive. There are plenty of other numbers on the other changes.

Even you should be able to find them.

No.

Yep.

You're the one making claims that the numbers on "other changes" are false.

Lie.

Back up your claims.

Go and **** yourself. Now.

Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Even just taking a SUV and eliminating the 4WD and the tires
that are inappropriate for urban use, and changing the shift
points wont do more than a couple of percent at best.

You just chose an arbitrary number, just like I did.

Nope.

Back it up, or accept the fact that we're talking about
arbitrary numbers.

I'm not, I'm using the official govt fuel economy data.

So did whoever it was who rubbed your nose in the
real numbers with the front wheel drive question.

That means you, too.

Wrong again.

Rear-end gear changes, tire changes. Where did you get your "figures"
from?

Those official figures and others usually
conducted by motoring organisations etc.

Show me some. Now.

Those arent visible to other than members.

You're spouting the figures,

Lie. I just ****ed on YOUR stupid fantasy about 20%

so you must be a member. Show them. Now.

Go and **** yourself. Now.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

Now, here's a way for the government to get involved only slightly,
and the car makers to make MORE money on SUVs. The government should
find an incentive (bludgeoning, in other words) to get the car
makers to offer the same SUVs, but with power trains which more
closely approach "normal". "Not like a truck", in other words. The
power train design is the PRIMARY reason these vehicles get such bad
mileage. Give customers the same physical, boxy shape they want,
same choice of motors, but with front wheel drive. The car makers
can reduce the price a little, but probably make more, since most
customers have no real idea how much cheaper it is to make a 2wd
vehicle. And, offer 4wd versions for people who explicitly ask for
them. I don't think many will.





Ah,you want GOVERNMENT to engineer autos.
That's really efficient...yup.Sure.

I've trimmed away all but the important paragraph, above. Show me
where I said the government should engineer cars.




You want govenrment to "bludgeon" automakers to make what government
decides they should make. In order for gov't to decide what to force them
to make,they essentailly are"designing" it.

Your words;
Now, here's a way for the government to get involved only slightly,
and the car makers to make MORE money on SUVs. The government should
find an incentive (bludgeoning, in other words) to get the car
makers to offer the same SUVs, but with power trains which more
closely approach "normal". "Not like a truck", in other words.

Gov't would decide "normal",or whatever they think should fit *their*
desires.That is clearly Soviet-style planning.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

The part of ANWR they want to drill in is a desolate miserable place,not
any "pristine wilderness".
And where they already have drilled,the wildlife is doing fine.

Doing fine, until they're not.




They have had many years and the herds have increased.In fact,one article I
read showed how the animals have BENEFITTED from the pipeline and human
"interference".

Even Car and Driver Magazine did an article on ANWR,where the oil companies
want to drill.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .


Except that they are not getting OUR "oil money",which is going to
Canada,Venezuela,and Mexico.


Cut it out already, will ya?

Supplied Domestically 38.2 %
Canada 9.2 %
Saudi Arabia 8.0 %
Venezuela 7.8 %
Mexico 7.0 %
Nigeria 4.5 %
Iraq* 3.7 %
United Kingdom 2.9 %
Norway 2.4 %
Colombia 2.7 %
Angola 2.0 %
All Other Countries 11.6 %




Well,then by your numbers,the ME is only getting ~12% of US money spent on
petroleum.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"So, you actually believe that changes in the price of oil are
connected with
PHYSICAL REALITY, such as shortages, higher demand from China, or
hurricanes
which MIGHT cause damage to refineries? "

Absolutely. Supply and demand works just fine in the oil market. But
that wasn't my point. My point was that you've once again shown how
you like to spout off on topics you know absolutely nothing about, as
evidenced by this post:

" "I know what you're saying, but speculators only make money when
prices
move. "


Care to address that, smarty pants? Obviously, you have no clue to the
fact that speculators on oil can make profits whether it goes up, down
or sideways. But you don't let little points like that stop you from
trying to tell us all how things work, do you Doug?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Gort" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"FDR" wrote in message
...


Maybe if our commander in chief wasn't constantly hurting himslef on
bikes and pretzels, could speak like somebody with a Yale education
and wasn't trying to run this country into the ground by spending
the USA credit card all the time, he'd ahve more respect.



David Letterman sometimes runs a short feature called "George Bush -
Wordsmith" Actual video clips of George, with absolutely NO comments
added. Recent quote:

"Some of these people have actually been trained to disassemble.
That means to not tell the truth".

The show overlaid text of the definition of "disassemble", just in
case anyone wasn't sure.

Actually, that word is correct. Disassemble is to take apart, and
some sure do that with the truth.

Perhaps, but you know damned well that George could NEVER have come up
with such an interesting use of a word, although "nookular" is kind of
funny after the 8 millionth repetition.




And Jimmy Carter had the same problem,IIRC.
By far a much worse President.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"FDR" wrote in
news

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Gonzo" wrote in
:

"PaPaPeng" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:04:10 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

Well be sure to stick our asses in the air and wait for the next
attack so we can get your permission to go after the source next
time.


The US was free from problems with Muslims since its founding until
9-11.

Not true.
Bin Laden alone made several attacks on the US and US overseas
embassies and military well before 9-11. Remeember the FIRST WTC
bombing,when CLINTON
was President? Or the two Embassy bombings or the USS Cole bombing?

A scan of the National Geographic back issues should give a
good idea good prevailing relationships that had existed through
time.

Oh,yeah,that's a -great- source for political data. (not!)


So what were the events that led to 9-11 that spawned the
current mess? Physically 9-11 did appear out of thin air.

No,it did not.Not considering the previous attacks,like WTC-bombing
#ONE.


But there
was a lot happening prior to that would cause a bunch of
technologically naive Arabs to learn enough to fly a plane and
crash them with deadly effect. You cannot defeat a billion of
angry muslims to prevent another attack. So you must work out a
political solution and neither going to war or building space age
defences is going to do it.

Going to war will turn Iraq to a democratic state,and already is
fostering democratic changes in other ME states.

But will it be a positive democratic state? If they elect an asshole
as their leader, then we are in just as bad a situation as before.
Eemocracy does not equal a positive result necssarily. Hey, we have a
Democracy here and look, it got us Bush as President.

Thankfully.
Otherwise,we would have surrendered to Islamic fanaticism shortly after
Kerry was elected.And surrendered to the UN,too.

Instead we are just generating more Islamic fanaticism. Thanks George!


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim, give up on this moron. He thinks he's a renaissance man who knows
about everything. But everytime he opens his mouth, he's made an ass
of himself in several newsgroups. Now he thinks he knows more about
what consumers want and how to build cars than the auto manufacturers.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

I believe most of the US-imported oil currently comes from Canada
and Venezuela.And Mexico.

Supplied Domestically 38.2 %
Canada 9.2 %
Saudi Arabia 8.0 %
Venezuela 7.8 %
Mexico 7.0 %
Nigeria 4.5 %
Iraq* 3.7 %
United Kingdom 2.9 %
Norway 2.4 %
Colombia 2.7 %
Angola 2.0 %
All Other Countries 11.6 %


The numbers aren't hard to find online, but who cares? If it were
true, that would eliminate Curious George's only remaining reason
for our presence in Iraq. We can't have that happening - reality
shifting based on actual physical facts.




Ah,you don't know what the real facts are.
And you are mistaken about the Iraq war being about oil,along with
many of your other assumptions.

Well, let's see.....

1) Save the Iraqi people from further violence caused by their evil
leader. We succeeded at that. But, we've broken open a hornet's nest,

Iraq already was a "hornet's nest".Daddam had agreements with Al-Queda to
operate in side Iraq as long as they didn't operate against Iraq.Iraq
supported terrorism,gave shelter and safe harbor to terrorists,and was
working on WMD.

and Iraqis are being killed pretty much every day. And, we've done
pretty much NOTHING in places like Africa where genocide was taking
place right on television.

Ask yourself why the *UN* or even the Euros ignore Africa.(or Bosnia) But
the UN -did- have many resolutions against Iraq,and were corrupted by the
Oil-for-Food program into inaction.
After 9-11,Iraq would be a haven for terrorism.
Al-Queda is not just there for the heck of it.


I wonder why we ignored those other
countries. Maybe because we already have all the sorghum we need?

2) Deal with terrorism: You will now say "Well, you haven't seen a
terrorist attack in this country since we cleaned up Iraq, right?" My
response: They'll do it whenever they want, just as they did in London
a couple of days ago.

3) Deal with WMDs. Let's not even go there, OK?

4) Contain Saddam. No. He was already contained.

No,he was not,even the Duelfer Report agreed that he wans't deterred by UN
sanctions.If you actually READ it,and not just news reports of sound bytes
from it.

And, his lousy
attitude gave us one of the best development and training environments
the Air Force could've hoped for. Fly over all day long, bomb the
snots out of radar installations with pretty much NO loss of life,
test new electronics and munitions without any complaints from anyone
about upsetting endangered frogs in the American desert - perfect.

Here's something fishy. Your president began waving his dick and
making threats about 6 months before the invasion. One moment, his
sitters were insinuating that they didn't trust the U.N. to achieve
anything meaningful with Iraq. The next moment, your president would
say he was giving the U.N. one last chance to do whatever it is he
wanted them to do. So: "They're pansies and we don't believe in their
abilities, but we'll sit and wait".

Meanwhile, he gave the so-called enemy plenty of time to get ready.
Something stinks. There was a reason for waiting so long, and it is
NOT the "it takes time to plan an invasion" nonsense.




Heck,Clinton gave Iraq plenty of time to "get ready";UN sanctions were in
effect for 12 YEARS before we finally decided that nothing was being
achieved by them.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Ford Prefect wrote in
news


Rod Speed wrote:

Ford Prefect wrote

Buck Turgidson wrote


Imagine the 300 billion (probably end up close to 600 billion) used
for alternative energy research instead of spending it on the war,
Halliburton, etc. Had we spent the money there, we wouldn't need
these sultans, emirs, ayatollahs, etc.


The problem is that much of the alternative energy options are easy
for the individual to use, but difficult for the mega corps to
control distribution. There is no money in it for them if you or I
can produce our own power, heat & fuel.


Mindless conspiracy theory.

The reality is that it just aint practical to 'produce our own power,
heat & fuel' and that amount of money wouldnt do anything useful on
that.

Even say replacing all S facing roofs with solar cells wouldnt do it.



Depends on your usage of energy, insulation etc. We built a solar
powered house totally off the grid in Canada with only eight 100 watt
panels and a small back up generator. The fuel costs averaged less
than $10.00 per month from November to March. We calculated adding
four to more panels would have made the generator an expensive door
stop.


What works in Canada is not always going to work in other locations.
I also wonder what you had to give up to achive such economy.
TANSTAAFL.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in
:

Jim Yanik . wrote:
wrote:

What we should be doing is exploring for more oil in any reasonable
place. And that includes ANWR, which should have been done a long time
ago, if it were not for the environmental whackos.

It's whacko to expect ANWR would solve our oil problems.

Every little bit helps.


The part of ANWR they want to drill in is a desolate miserable place,not
any "pristine wilderness".

False. It is hardly miserable, it is not desolate (it is in
fact teaming with life), and it is as close to "pristine
wilderness" as can be found anywhere in North America.

Not the part they want to drill in.It's barren ice sheet and marsh.
With lots of nasty flies.

Even Car and Driver Magazine had an article on it.They went there,too.

I've been there, I've seen it and touched it. You are lying.

And where they already have drilled,the wildlife is doing fine.

Well ain't that odd... we've got 30 years of biology studies
done by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish
and Wildlife Service, which say that is not true.

What makes *you* say the biologists are wrong?

BTW, of the dozens of credible biologists who have done field
work on the North Slope (all paid with oil money and all
studying ways to produce more oil), there are virtually *none*
that say we can develop oil in ANWR without serious
environmental impact that should be avoided.

I say "virtually", because there is exactly 1 such biologist,
though he has been thoroughly discredited. Matthew Cronin
insists that all of the other dozens of biologists are wrong and
mis-interpreting the data. *He* is a whacko, and if you spout
the same nonsense he does, so are you.


Never heard of the guy.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

The Real Bev wrote:
Yeah, I DO have a problem with those commercials, especially if they're made
with tax money. With a few exceptions, such things are so heavy-handed that
they inspire rebellion rather than compliance. I stopped smoking because I
got angry about the idea that the officers of tobacco companies were wearing
$1K suits obtained by selling me my own death a carton at a time. I don't set
fires in forests. I speed when I can get away with it. I tear the tags off
sofa cushions.

Ok, I was with you right up until that last line. If everyone engaged
in such irresponsible behavior as tearing off sofa tags, where would
it all end? Would mattresses be next?!

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote
The Real Bev wrote

So, I'm sure you would have no problem with similar commercials aimed
at informing clueless consumers of things they did not know about
vehicles.

You can't inform the clueless of anything worth informing them about.
It doesn't work and just makes them angry. Figure out how to make them
learn rather than absorb propaganda and you might have something.

By the time someone's old enough to drive, it's too late to help them
learn better learning tactics.

Bull****. The military manages that fine, and so do universitys etc.

No. The military changes ouward behavior, but does not affect how you learn.
And, if you don't know how to learn by the time you reach "universitys", as
you call them. you're in for trouble.


A ****load of advertising dollars say otherwise.

Nope.

So, the ads on TV - companies spend all that money just for one. Right?

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
...
My point was that some people believe freedom of choice is actually
passed
down from a deity, and this is especially true of cars for some
reason. In
fact, freedom of choice in this country originated with guns.
Period. Nothing to do with a god, although you really touch a nerve
with some people
if you suggest this. :-)

There's a significant difference in the concept and the
implementation which seems to have escaped you...

I don't think so, but it's early yet.

Look, you have to admit that if you sat down with (let's say) 100
people and said "Do you know that you can achieve all your stated
goals (for your next car purchase) with a vehicle that gets 30% better
gas mileage?", there would be some people (and I believe it's a large
percentage) who'd actually say "Holy **** - I really didn't know
that". And, there would be some who'd already done as much research as
they could, and maybe just gathered knowledge over the years, and
really DID need a big pickup truck or SUV.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't let people buy what they want. What
I *am* saying is that I doubt very much that many consumers really
know what they're getting into with SUVs, and would make a different
choice on their own, given the right information. The glut of these
vehicles in used car lots is some indication of this idea.




There's always going to be clueless people around who make poor choices.
The information you mention is there,they just choise to ignore it or not
look for it.
It's not anyone else's duty to tell them how they should live or what
choices they should make,unless they are judged (in a court of law)to be
incompetent to run their own affairs.

You're right. Nothing should be done. No effort should be made.

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"max" wrote in message
...


The problem is most of our petroleum imports go to motor fuel and,
Americans simply refuse (other than a tithe of weirdos "Liberals"
and other assorted Unamerican dweebs) to make any of the necessary
behavioral, purchasing or use pattern changes necessary to reduce
our fuel consumption.

It's even worse than you think. I used to think the refusal to
change was a matter of laziness, until I asked someone why he was
considering a huge pickup truck, even though he towed nothing and
hauled nothing - no need for such a vehicle. His response was that
this was America and he had a god-given right to own anything he
wanted.

Well,that IS the truth.It's supposedly a free country.
It's their money to spend.

Or are you one of those who believe that government should determine
what people can or can't own?

My point was that some people believe freedom of choice is actually
passed down from a deity, and this is especially true of cars for some
reason.

Well,I dislike SUVs too,but if those owners choose to pay the high gas
prices,and drive a road barge,that's their choice.I don't -like- it,but
that's just my opinion.Some SUV owners DO have good reason to own/operate
them.I REALLY dislike the idea of government or "democracy" telling people
what they can or can't own,among a few other governmental assaults on
freedom.

In fact, freedom of choice in this country originated with
guns.

I'm in agreement on this.

Period. Nothing to do with a god, although you really touch a
nerve with some people if you suggest this. :-)


I agree with this,too.
Far too many religious people want everyone else to live by -their-
religion. Many cannot even acknowledge it,either.

This is interesting. We're agreeing on more than one thing. WTF?

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
. 86...

The car
makers can reduce the price a little, but probably make more,
since most customers have no real idea how much cheaper it is to
make a 2wd vehicle. And, offer 4wd versions for people who
explicitly ask for them. I don't think many will.

Even more impractical.

Are you saying that offering a selection is impractical?

No, I'm saying that offering a front-drive and a 4WD version of the
same thing
is impractical from the standpoint of building the vehicle.

Why is it practical, then, for pickup trucks to be built with either
4WD or 2WD? Both are available in large quantities, or at least they
were 2 days ago when a friend of mine bought her Tundra, and also
shopped Ford & Chevy dealers on the same street.

Are you saying it's MECHANICALLY impractical, or impractical in a
business sense?



Just replacing a 4WD drivetrain with a FWD drivetrain is not going to
change fuel efficiency significantly.
Then there's the added costs of making and stocking the extra parts and
assemblies.If demand is not enough to cover that and some profit,then it
will not be done.

Well, my premise is that if car salespeople expend 1/10th the effort that I
saw with the woman at the Toyota dealership, maybe a few customers might
make better choices. She knew I was going to buy SOMETHING from her. She
took an extra half hour to make sure that what I bought would meet my needs.
A half a friggin hour.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Even just taking a SUV and eliminating the 4WD and the tires
that are inappropriate for urban use, and changing the shift
points wont do more than a couple of percent at best.

You just chose an arbitrary number, just like I did.

Nope.

Back it up, or accept the fact that we're talking about
arbitrary numbers.

I'm not, I'm using the official govt fuel economy data.

So did whoever it was who rubbed your nose in the
real numbers with the front wheel drive question.

That means you, too.

Wrong again.

Rear-end gear changes, tire changes. Where did you get your "figures"
from?

Those official figures and others usually
conducted by motoring organisations etc.

Show me some. Now.

Those arent visible to other than members.

You're spouting the figures,

Lie. I just ****ed on YOUR stupid fantasy about 20%

so you must be a member. Show them. Now.

Go and **** yourself. Now.

That settles that. Other than the 12 pack you've been working on all day,
you have NO valid source for YOUR guesses. At least I acknowledge that I've
been guessing.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
The Real Bev wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote

But, what if you made 3 simple changes to a vehicle,
and together they added, say, 20% more gas mileage?

Fantasy, you cant point to any pair of vehicles that have achieved that.

Ha.

This is no laughing matter, gorgon bitch.

(1) Make it smaller.
(2) Make it out of aluminum and plastic.
(3) Give it a red-light flipper so it never has to stop at stop lights.

Those aint the changes he waved around, stupid.


It wouldn't matter WHAT changes I suggested. You're too hammered to agree
with anything except watching Caddy Shack 3 times in a row.

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

What I don't understand is why you think that changing the drive
train from
RWD/4WD to FWD - while keeping the *same* engine - is going to have
some mystical enormous effect on fuel mileage. It just doesn't work
that way.

Who said "mystical"? I believe it's you that's been focused on what a
small difference it would make. But, what if you made 3 simple changes
to a vehicle,

But they are NOT "simple".

and together they added, say, 20% more gas mileage?
Would that be worthwhile if the vehicles werent' turned to crap by
doing so? Sure - maybe eliminating 4WD only adds 1 mpg. Now, add tires
which make sense for how the owner will ACTUALLY use the car.

Most SUV buyers already can pick "street" tires or heavy-duty tires for
off-road,construction or heavy load usage.Off road tires make a horrendous
noise.And one can alreadt choose 2WD or 4WD for most SUVs.But not FWD,as
it's too different from the other drivetrains.Entirely different
packaging.

Try getting some dealers to switch tires for you on a new vehicle. :-) If
you're shopping at a place that specializes in trucks, they'll be prepared
for this. But, most "civilian:" dealerships? Fuggetaboutit. Like pulling
teeth.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Does your profession involve automobiles? If yes, in what
capacity?

Irrelevant to the official numbers on fuel economy.

But not to your prediction that tires, gear ratios and
transmission programming have insignificant effects on gas
mileage.

I never ever said anything like that. I JUST said that you wont
get anything like that completely silly 20% YOU waved around.

As I explained, my number was arbitrary,

Completely silly, actually.

just as yours are.

Wrong again.

Back up your claim that 3-4 mechanical changes won't produce "X",
whatever "X" is. Now.

Go and **** yourself. Now.

Someone else already provided the official numbers with front wheel
drive. There are plenty of other numbers on the other changes.

Even you should be able to find them.

No.

Yep.

You're the one making claims that the numbers on "other changes" are
false.

Lie.

Back up your claims.

Go and **** yourself. Now.


You must have this information right at your fingertips, hillbilly. Let's
see it.

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

Now, here's a way for the government to get involved only slightly,
and the car makers to make MORE money on SUVs. The government should
find an incentive (bludgeoning, in other words) to get the car
makers to offer the same SUVs, but with power trains which more
closely approach "normal". "Not like a truck", in other words. The
power train design is the PRIMARY reason these vehicles get such bad
mileage. Give customers the same physical, boxy shape they want,
same choice of motors, but with front wheel drive. The car makers
can reduce the price a little, but probably make more, since most
customers have no real idea how much cheaper it is to make a 2wd
vehicle. And, offer 4wd versions for people who explicitly ask for
them. I don't think many will.





Ah,you want GOVERNMENT to engineer autos.
That's really efficient...yup.Sure.

I've trimmed away all but the important paragraph, above. Show me
where I said the government should engineer cars.




You want govenrment to "bludgeon" automakers to make what government
decides they should make. In order for gov't to decide what to force them
to make,they essentailly are"designing" it.

Your words;
Now, here's a way for the government to get involved only slightly,
and the car makers to make MORE money on SUVs. The government should
find an incentive (bludgeoning, in other words) to get the car
makers to offer the same SUVs, but with power trains which more
closely approach "normal". "Not like a truck", in other words.

Gov't would decide "normal",or whatever they think should fit *their*
desires.That is clearly Soviet-style planning.

Well, based on the fact that people are dumping SUVs left and right, I'd say
the manufacturers have done absolutely NO research into what people want.
Don't you think they could use a kick in the ass? Maybe not legislation, but
threats of same. And, brief tax breaks if they agree to get their heads out
of their asses.

Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
The Real Bev wrote

So, I'm sure you would have no problem with similar commercials
aimed at informing clueless consumers of things they did not know
about vehicles.

You can't inform the clueless of anything worth informing them
about. It doesn't work and just makes them angry. Figure out how
to make them learn rather than absorb propaganda and you might
have something.

By the time someone's old enough to drive, it's too late to help
them learn better learning tactics.

Bull****. The military manages that fine, and so do universitys etc.

No.

Yep.

The military changes ouward behavior, but does not affect how you learn.

Bull****.

And, if you don't know how to learn by the time you reach
"universitys", as you call them. you're in for trouble.

They do however use a different approach
to learning than is used in schools.

That's a job for parents when a child is very small.

Thats just one way and is pretty hopless with some stuff like flying.

Deleting that from the quoting aint gunna make it go away.

And, if you considered that to be a form of control, you really need to
get with a good psychologist.

There's a difference between persuasion and control. We already have too
many laws and too much interference with our personal lives. If somebody
wants to control something new, then he better be prepared to relinquish
control over something equivalently pervasive.

A ****load of advertising dollars say otherwise.

Nope.

So, the ads on TV - companies spend all that money just for one.
Right?

Wrong. The spend that to get suckers to buy THEIR
product over the products of their competitors.