Apollo 11 Lunar landing - 40th aniversary

On 2009-07-28 09:45:23 -0700, frank said:

Yeah, tell me about fiscally conservative Republicans.

Lessee, how about the Iraq war with $10s of billions of reconstruction
aid wasted, a total in the trillions (about as much or less than the
needs for national health care) with no end in sight.

You know its going to eclipse the costs for the Vietnam war, and we
remember how that one turned out didn't we? If you're not old enough,
we lost. Bluntly, we shouldn't have been there, but it started with
the last days of the Eisenhower Administration. Got worse as things
went on.

Actually, not the last days of the Eisenhower Administration, but right
from the start of the Eisenhower Administration, post Dien Bien Phu and
the French withdrawal in 1954. That was where the initial US support of
the Diem regime began to be expanded. The responsibility for the
manipulative planning for this lies with the brothers Dulles, John
Foster and Allan.
The brothers Dulles were also responsible for most of the Central
American & Caribbean intrigue, which included, but was not limited to
what happened in Cuba and the Dominican Republic.

Kennedy inherited the post McCarthy era reality of of full involvement
hidden behind smoke and mirrors. This was the age of "The Ugly
American" . To keep Diem's head above water Kennedy had to increase the
levels of military advisors until in 1963 the revolt of the Generals
resulted in the killing of Diem & his brother Nhu. Kennedy resolved to
extricate the US at that stage as we were not in a full scale war and
the South Vietnam government was unstable. Six weeks later Kennedy was
dead.

Johnson inherited the mess, with McNamara orchestrating the expansion
after the fabrication of Gulf of Tonkin Incidents 1 & 2, giving him the
alibi to go ahead and step into the quagmire.


Don't forget, TARP was a Bush idea to bail out the screw up that was
done by Republican Wall Street Bankers over a long time under his
oversight.

Yup.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2009-07-28 09:47:24 -0700, (Ray Fischer) said:

Savageduck wrote:
(Ray Fischer) said:
Savageduck wrote:
(Ray Fischer) said:
Savageduck wrote:
(Ray Fischer) said:
Savageduck wrote:
(Ray Fischer) said:
Savageduck wrote:
(Ray Fischer) said:
Savageduck wrote:
(Ray Fischer) said:
To that all I have to say is: Sucks to be you, then.


My Tax dollars, both California Income Tax and Gasoline Tax dollars are
what I contribute to the maintenance and construction of California
Highways, Hwy 101 included. So I pay my share.

No, you don't.

I pay my California Income Tax,

A complete non sequitur.

Only if you edit my response so it reads out of context, (here again is
the full quote)

"I pay my California Income Tax, and every time I fill my (and I know
you don't want hear this) gas tank a percentage of the State fuel tax
is directed to highway maintenance. I also pay property Taxes. CalTrans
is more than happy to have my meagre contribution to spend wherever.
That includes CalTrans projects in and around the Bay area, the L.A.
basin and the Capitol metro area.
So I pay my share."


The fact that you pay taxes does NOT mean that you pay your "fair
share". It only means that you pay some of the cost. Ju7st like
everybody else in the state.

So according to your argument, you don't pay your "fair share" either.

Maybe. Maybe not. I haven't made any claim one way or the other.

You did. In fact your whine about the HSR is that you'll have to
contribute to a project which you won't use very often. But that's
the nature of living in society and I showed how YOU benefit from
others paying for projects that they don't use.

You might want to explain to those truckers & other Californian
drivers, you do not consider that the road use & fuel taxes they pay,
(quote reinserted) as part of their share of the cost of using the
California Highways. The truckers also have to deal with road taxes
based on axle weight and freight carried.


It appears that your only "argument" is to lie about what I think.

I haven't lied about what you think. You have spelt out what you think.
It is clear to all who have read any of the various discussions which
have developed around what you think.
All I have done is rephrased the stance you have so obviously taken.
....and you might have noticed I have managed to do so without
descending to the usual infantile verbal sniping regardless of your
provocation.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Electric cars pollute big time.

Another rightard falsehood.

So where does the power come from?

Don't play stupid. There's a big difference between "no pollution"
and "pollute big time".

60% of the electricity in this country is
produced by burning coal.....So, when you drive your electric car
100 miles, 60 of those miles will be accomplished by burning coal.

Which means that 60% of of an electric car's energy comes from fossil
fuels as opposed to 100% for a gasoline-powered car.

Are you laboring under the misconception that the only fossil fuel in use is
coal?

No.

And which is cleaner, coal, which is mostly carbon and whose combustion
product is mostly CO2, or oil, which contains a lot of hydrogen and whose
combustion product is mostly water?

The biggest combustion product from burning refined gasoline is CO2.
Water is way, way down the list.

It seems you don't know how to do the arithmetic, so let me try to

You're not smart enough to be condescending.

Not necessary to be particularly smart when arguing with someone who
knows so little :-)

In a hydrocarbon molecule there is
always more than twice as much hydrogen as carbon.

Not by weight. One carbon atom weighs six times as much as a hydrogen
atom.

Oh dear. I had no idea your problem was so serious. You are so far
from having the slightest clue here that when you did look this up on
the web you couldn't even tell the difference between an accurate web
page and one written by a self-inflated ignoramus.

Also the dispute isn't about the composition of a hydrocarbon. It's
about whether as you claimed carbon dioxide is by far the biggest
combustion product of a hydrocarbon.

If you really do want to talk about comparative weight rather than
size, then by all means let's do that. Take the molecular weights of
carbon dioxide and water and multiply by their relative presence in
the combustion of gasoline. Note that you will need to look things up
rather carefully this time, because everything you've said so far on
the topic has been rubbish. If you're old enough to have teenage kids
at school you might ask them to help you, because this is basic stuff
you'll find in any school chemistry textbook.

After you've done that you should be able to explain why your
original claim about carbon dioxide being by far the biggest
combustion product of a hydrocarbon was nonsense.

--
Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems frank wrote:
On Jul 28, 3:36?am, Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Electric cars pollute big time.

Another rightard falsehood.

So where does the power come from?
Don't play stupid. ?There's a big difference between "no pollution"
and "pollute big time".
60% of the electricity in this country is
produced by burning coal.....So, when you drive your electric car
100 miles, 60 of those miles will be accomplished by burning coal.

Which means that 60% of of an electric car's energy comes from fossil
fuels as opposed to 100% for a gasoline-powered car.

Are you laboring under the misconception that the only fossil fuel in use is
coal?
No.
And which is cleaner, coal, which is mostly carbon and whose combustion
product is mostly CO2, or oil, which contains a lot of hydrogen and whose
combustion product is mostly water?
The biggest combustion product from burning refined gasoline is CO2.
Water is way, way down the list.

It seems you don't know how to do the arithmetic, so let me try to
explain in qualitative terms. In a hydrocarbon molecule there is
always more than twice as much hydrogen as carbon. But there is
exactly twice as much hydrogen in a water molecule as there is carbon
in a carbon dioxide molecule. By Avogadro's Law those molecular
numbers translate directly into gaseous volumes.

Can you see the implication of that for the relative quantities of
water vapour and carbon dioxide resulting from the combustion of a
hydrocarbon?

If you didn't learn that in school chemistry you could always have
looked it up before publishing your opinion on the subject.

--
Chris Malcolm

Irrelevant. Obviously you don't live in SoCal. Its the carbon that
causes the pollution. Carbon. End products like CO2.

You know the brown **** you fly through on landing.

sigh Another one who slept through school chemistry classes. That
brown **** isn't CO2 because CO2 is invisible.

--
Chris Malcolm

"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...

After you've done that you should be able to explain why your
original claim about carbon dioxide being by far the biggest
combustion product of a hydrocarbon was nonsense.

You can clean all the crap out of coal after you burn it, but you can't get
rid of the CO2. And that means that it won't help the global warming
problem.....so, long term, electric cars won't help very much, unless you
can find a better way to make your electricity. Nuclear power is a better
way. I have nothing against electric cars, but you will have to use nuclear
power for the electricity before they are a true long term solution to the
problem.

Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems frank
wrote:
On Jul 28, 3:36?am, Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ray Fischer
wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Electric cars pollute big time.

Another rightard falsehood.

So where does the power come from?
Don't play stupid. ?There's a big difference between "no pollution"
and "pollute big time".
60% of the electricity in this country is
produced by burning coal.....So, when you drive your electric
car 100 miles, 60 of those miles will be accomplished by
burning coal.

Which means that 60% of of an electric car's energy comes from
fossil fuels as opposed to 100% for a gasoline-powered car.

Are you laboring under the misconception that the only fossil
fuel in use is coal?
No.
And which is cleaner, coal, which is mostly carbon and whose
combustion product is mostly CO2, or oil, which contains a lot of
hydrogen and whose combustion product is mostly water?
The biggest combustion product from burning refined gasoline is
CO2. Water is way, way down the list.

It seems you don't know how to do the arithmetic, so let me try to
explain in qualitative terms. In a hydrocarbon molecule there is
always more than twice as much hydrogen as carbon. But there is
exactly twice as much hydrogen in a water molecule as there is
carbon in a carbon dioxide molecule. By Avogadro's Law those
molecular
numbers translate directly into gaseous volumes.

Can you see the implication of that for the relative quantities of
water vapour and carbon dioxide resulting from the combustion of a
hydrocarbon?

If you didn't learn that in school chemistry you could always have
looked it up before publishing your opinion on the subject.

--
Chris Malcolm

Irrelevant. Obviously you don't live in SoCal. Its the carbon that
causes the pollution. Carbon. End products like CO2.

You know the brown **** you fly through on landing.

sigh Another one who slept through school chemistry classes. That
brown **** isn't CO2 because CO2 is invisible.

He apparently doesn't know the difference between CO2 and smog.

Further, anybody who thinks that CO2 per se is "pollution" wasn't paying
attention in biology either.

Chris Malcolm wrote:

Irrelevant. Obviously you don't live in SoCal. Its the carbon that
causes the pollution. Carbon. End products like CO2.

You know the brown **** you fly through on landing.

sigh Another one who slept through school chemistry classes. That
brown **** isn't CO2 because CO2 is invisible.


It's not the CO2 but it (brown stuff) is, partially, carbon.

It is also partially nitrogen.

Reactions of hydrocarbons, as well as carbon particulates, generate
carbon compounds that make haze. Nitrogen compounds react with oxygen and
ozone in a cycle to produce brown NO2.

Haze also includes sulfur compounds.

Here in central Illinois haze was almost entirely of sulfur origin.
Reducing car emissions had no effect at all on it. Literally the
day that regulations prohibited use of high sulfur coal, the
haze was mostly gone and has not returned. A small further improvement
came with reduction of sulfur in diesel fuel.

Doug McDonald

(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Electric cars pollute big time.

Another rightard falsehood.

60% of the electricity in this country is
produced by burning coal.....So, when you drive your electric car 100 miles,
60 of those miles will be accomplished by burning coal.

Which means that 60% of of an electric car's energy comes from fossil
fuels as opposed to 100% for a gasoline-powered car.

Actually no. Looking at the latest fuel mix (2008) for my residential
power company:
Biomass 2%
Coal 7%
Hydroelectric Generation 77%
Natural Gas Generation 3%
Nuclear Generation (BPA-supplied) 10%
Other Generation 1%

That means that for me only 10% would come from fossil fuel. As wind,
solar, and other technologies are becoming more widespread this ratio
will shift further away from fossil fuel.

Denmark is getting 20% of its power from wind energy, Portugal and Spain
over 10%. Norway is getting its power to over 98% (yes, that is over
ninetyeight percent!) from hydroelectrical plants, in Canada it's 61%,
Brazil 85%, Sweden 45%. Or have you ever heard of
http://www.desertec.org ?
Using fossil fuel to generate electricity is becoming so obsolete very
fast.

And even in the US the future is arriving slowly: in 2008 for the first
time ever the US was generating more wind power than small Germany,
which is only about the size of Washington and Oregon combined.

jue

"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
...
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Electric cars pollute big time.

Another rightard falsehood.

60% of the electricity in this country is
produced by burning coal.....So, when you drive your electric car 100
miles,
60 of those miles will be accomplished by burning coal.

Which means that 60% of of an electric car's energy comes from fossil
fuels as opposed to 100% for a gasoline-powered car.

Actually no. Looking at the latest fuel mix (2008) for my residential
power company:
Biomass 2%
Coal 7%
Hydroelectric Generation 77%
Natural Gas Generation 3%
Nuclear Generation (BPA-supplied) 10%
Other Generation 1%

That means that for me only 10% would come from fossil fuel. As wind,
solar, and other technologies are becoming more widespread this ratio
will shift further away from fossil fuel.

This may be true for you, but here in the US, around 55 to 60 % of our
electricity comes from burning coal.....This is also improving with time,
but we still have a long way to go, and we use more electricity than any
other country on Earth, so global warming due to CO2 emissions is a big
problem, in spite of your country's excellent record. It's high time we
started to use nuclear power to generate our electricity.



Denmark is getting 20% of its power from wind energy, Portugal and Spain
over 10%. Norway is getting its power to over 98% (yes, that is over
ninetyeight percent!) from hydroelectrical plants, in Canada it's 61%,
Brazil 85%, Sweden 45%. Or have you ever heard of
http://www.desertec.org ?
Using fossil fuel to generate electricity is becoming so obsolete very
fast.

And even in the US the future is arriving slowly: in 2008 for the first
time ever the US was generating more wind power than small Germany,
which is only about the size of Washington and Oregon combined.

jue

"Bill Graham" wrote:
"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message

Actually no. Looking at the latest fuel mix (2008) for my residential
power company:
[...]
That means that for me only 10% would come from fossil fuel. As wind,
solar, and other technologies are becoming more widespread this ratio
will shift further away from fossil fuel.

This may be true for you, but here in the US, around 55 to 60 % of our
electricity comes from burning coal.

Sorry, I am living near Everett, WA, USA. The fuel mix I quoted is for
the Snohomish County PUD:
http://www.snopud.com/energy/pwrsour...p=1878#fuelmix

This is also improving with time,
but we still have a long way to go, and we use more electricity than any
other country on Earth, so global warming due to CO2 emissions is a big
problem, in spite of your country's excellent record.

Let's just say there are regions which are somewhat progressive and then
there are regions which are somewhat more backwards.

It's high time we
started to use nuclear power to generate our electricity.

This on the other hand had been recognized as a particularly bad idea a
few decades ago, if not on 28 March 1979 then at the very least on 26
April 1986.

jue