Re: [OT - US/Canada] E-85 - Strategic conservation

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Alan Browne, May 16, 2006.

  1. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
    branches the following occured to me last night.

    The United States spends an incredible amount of money to protect its
    oil supply worldwide as a strategic economic neccesity. It pays in many
    lives as well as taxpayer money.

    Why does the United States not take a "strategic" initiative with
    respect to reducing oil _consumption_? This would mean:

    1) Mandating higher gasoline taxes for gas guzzlers and credits to
    efficient cars.

    With todays technology an RFID can easilly be mated to a vehicle licence
    plate to tell the pump what tax rate/rebate to apply to a particular
    vehicle. This is better than revising CAFE and will self adjust as the
    mpg goal changes every few years. Even set a goal mpg where the
    gasoline is free for vehicles that meet the goal (paid for by the worst
    guzzlers).

    2) Part of thje guzzler tax would go to the "efficient" users, part of
    the taxes would go to funding for more mass transit.

    3) Mandating minimum ethanol content in all gasoline (10%).

    4) Mandating speed governors on vehicles with a radio module that
    receives speed limit data from road side transmitters. The vehcile
    would be allowed a 10 mph above limit buffer, but no more.
     
    Alan Browne, May 16, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:uy9ag.49962$...
    >
    > As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
    > branches the following occured to me last night.
    >
    > The United States spends an incredible amount of money to protect its oil
    > supply worldwide as a strategic economic neccesity. It pays in many lives
    > as well as taxpayer money.
    >
    > Why does the United States not take a "strategic" initiative with respect
    > to reducing oil _consumption_? This would mean:
    >
    > 1) Mandating higher gasoline taxes for gas guzzlers and credits to
    > efficient cars.
    >
    > With todays technology an RFID can easilly be mated to a vehicle licence
    > plate to tell the pump what tax rate/rebate to apply to a particular
    > vehicle. This is better than revising CAFE and will self adjust as the
    > mpg goal changes every few years. Even set a goal mpg where the gasoline
    > is free for vehicles that meet the goal (paid for by the worst guzzlers).
    >
    > 2) Part of thje guzzler tax would go to the "efficient" users, part of the
    > taxes would go to funding for more mass transit.
    >
    > 3) Mandating minimum ethanol content in all gasoline (10%).
    >
    > 4) Mandating speed governors on vehicles with a radio module that receives
    > speed limit data from road side transmitters. The vehcile would be
    > allowed a 10 mph above limit buffer, but no more.
    >

    Because many of the above things go against the grain for our people's idea
    of keeping the government out of our faces....Any politician that pushes
    those kinds of things would be soundly trounced in the next election. I'm
    not saying that the ideas are necessarily bad....I'm just answering your
    question....
     
    William Graham, May 16, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Alan Browne

    RW+/- Guest

    On Mon, 15 May 2006 21:04:26 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

    > As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
    > branches the following occured to me last night.
    >
    > The United States spends an incredible amount of money to protect its
    > oil supply worldwide as a strategic economic neccesity. It pays in many
    > lives as well as taxpayer money.
    >
    > Why does the United States not take a "strategic" initiative with
    > respect to reducing oil _consumption_? This would mean:
    >
    > 1) Mandating higher gasoline taxes for gas guzzlers and credits to
    > efficient cars.
    >


    Why? We already tax the rich and give to the poor, lazy, and gov't
    employee's.

    > With todays technology an RFID can easilly be mated to a vehicle licence
    > plate to tell the pump what tax rate/rebate to apply to a particular
    > vehicle. This is better than revising CAFE and will self adjust as the
    > mpg goal changes every few years. Even set a goal mpg where the
    > gasoline is free for vehicles that meet the goal (paid for by the worst
    > guzzlers).
    >


    As if high prices aren't punishment enough?

    > 2) Part of thje guzzler tax would go to the "efficient" users, part of
    > the taxes would go to funding for more mass transit.
    >


    Oh sure, good idea...not.

    > 3) Mandating minimum ethanol content in all gasoline (10%).
    >


    It already is being done, especially in the winter time, problem is there
    is not enough ethanol available for the demand.

    > 4) Mandating speed governors on vehicles with a radio module that
    > receives speed limit data from road side transmitters. The vehcile
    > would be allowed a 10 mph above limit buffer, but no more.


    Unsafe, poor pipe dream, irrational.

    Do your part for yourself, don't impose on me while you are doing it, don't
    expect me to subsidize your sorry ass.

    Most people who aren't foolish know that the money taken away in taxes for
    "special projects/needs" always end up in another fund of an unrelated
    project or line the pockets of their "friends".

    When you go slow to save MPG then for heavens sake stay in the right hand
    lane else you are the cause of others increased driving costs when you back
    up traffic and they try to work their way around you.

    If the cost of fuel is too high for you then take the bus or rapid transit
    depending on where you live, or sell and move closer to work.
     
    RW+/-, May 16, 2006
    #3
  4. Alan Browne wrote:
    >
    > As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
    > branches the following occured to me last night.
    >
    > The United States spends an incredible amount of money to protect its
    > oil supply worldwide as a strategic economic neccesity. It pays in many
    > lives as well as taxpayer money.
    >
    > Why does the United States not take a "strategic" initiative with
    > respect to reducing oil _consumption_? This would mean:
    >
    > 1) Mandating higher gasoline taxes for gas guzzlers and credits to
    > efficient cars.
    >
    ><< Snipped bits out >>
    >
    > 2) Part of thje guzzler tax would go to the "efficient" users, part of
    > the taxes would go to funding for more mass transit.


    Oddly enough, I wrote a paper for my Master's degree almost 40 years ago
    proposing same, although no transfer to "efficient" cars.

    >
    > 3) Mandating minimum ethanol content in all gasoline (10%).


    Ethanol comes about through incentives, economics.
    >
    > 4) Mandating speed governors on vehicles with a radio module that
    > receives speed limit data from road side transmitters. The vehcile
    > would be allowed a 10 mph above limit buffer, but no more.
    >


    There's not a snowball's chance in Hell on this last one, for reasons
    already enumerated.

    Would this latter fly in Canada, or any country represented here?

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, May 16, 2006
    #4
  5. Alan Browne

    Jerry L Guest

    Why? Because the government cannot figure out how to make Air Force
    One fly from Washington DC to California on E-85 fuel __ to allow a
    bike riding-guy from Texas a chance to show he can pedal his bike just
    like the regular bike riders.
    = = =
    Alan Browne wrote:
    > As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
    > branches the following occured to me last night.
    >

    SNIP
    > receives speed limit data from road side transmitters. The vehcile
    > would be allowed a 10 mph above limit buffer, but no more.
     
    Jerry L, May 16, 2006
    #5
  6. Alan Browne

    J. Clarke Guest

    Alan Browne wrote:

    >
    > As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
    > branches the following occured to me last night.
    >
    > The United States spends an incredible amount of money to protect its
    > oil supply worldwide as a strategic economic neccesity. It pays in many
    > lives as well as taxpayer money.
    >
    > Why does the United States not take a "strategic" initiative with
    > respect to reducing oil _consumption_? This would mean:
    >
    > 1) Mandating higher gasoline taxes for gas guzzlers and credits to
    > efficient cars.
    >
    > With todays technology an RFID can easilly be mated to a vehicle licence
    > plate to tell the pump what tax rate/rebate to apply to a particular
    > vehicle. This is better than revising CAFE and will self adjust as the
    > mpg goal changes every few years. Even set a goal mpg where the
    > gasoline is free for vehicles that meet the goal (paid for by the worst
    > guzzlers).


    So how many days do you think it is going to take before a market develops
    in bootleg RFID devices which report to the pump that your Navigator is a
    moped?

    > 2) Part of thje guzzler tax would go to the "efficient" users, part of
    > the taxes would go to funding for more mass transit.


    What is an "efficient user"?

    > 3) Mandating minimum ethanol content in all gasoline (10%).


    Which accomplishes what other than a farm subsidy?

    > 4) Mandating speed governors on vehicles with a radio module that
    > receives speed limit data from road side transmitters. The vehcile
    > would be allowed a 10 mph above limit buffer, but no more.


    So how long do you think it will be before people discover that putting some
    tinfoil around the antenna or cutting the wire to it causes the governor to
    respond as if it is in an area where control has not yet been implemented?

    Sure, you can come up with counterstrategies. In every case they will cost
    more to implement than they will cost to defeat.


    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, May 16, 2006
    #6
  7. Alan Browne

    no_name Guest

    Alan Browne wrote:
    >
    > As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
    > branches the following occured to me last night.
    >
    > The United States spends an incredible amount of money to protect its
    > oil supply worldwide as a strategic economic neccesity. It pays in many
    > lives as well as taxpayer money.
    >
    > Why does the United States not take a "strategic" initiative with
    > respect to reducing oil _consumption_?


    'Cause the guys in the White House didn't get rich from encouraging
    conservation.

    98% of everything these clowns do boils down to maximizing oil company
    profits [the other 2% is makin' sure they don't have to pay any taxes on
    those profits].
     
    no_name, May 16, 2006
    #7
  8. Alan Browne

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    Single answer to all your questions:

    We don't have leaders in the US, we have gutless sacks of shit who are
    bought and paid for by big corporations and special interests. The current
    administration, whose "energy policy" was based on consumption, is merely
    the latest in a very long line of totally inept hacks when it comes to doing
    anything about the energy habits of the US. We need leaders, we get Nixon,
    Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. If's fucking embarassing.
     
    Kinon O'Cann, May 16, 2006
    #8
  9. "J. Clarke" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Alan Browne wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
    >> branches the following occured to me last night.
    >>
    >> The United States spends an incredible amount of money to protect its
    >> oil supply worldwide as a strategic economic neccesity. It pays in many
    >> lives as well as taxpayer money.
    >>
    >> Why does the United States not take a "strategic" initiative with
    >> respect to reducing oil _consumption_? This would mean:
    >>
    >> 1) Mandating higher gasoline taxes for gas guzzlers and credits to
    >> efficient cars.
    >>
    >> With todays technology an RFID can easilly be mated to a vehicle licence
    >> plate to tell the pump what tax rate/rebate to apply to a particular
    >> vehicle. This is better than revising CAFE and will self adjust as the
    >> mpg goal changes every few years. Even set a goal mpg where the
    >> gasoline is free for vehicles that meet the goal (paid for by the worst
    >> guzzlers).

    >
    > So how many days do you think it is going to take before a market develops
    > in bootleg RFID devices which report to the pump that your Navigator is a
    > moped?
    >
    >> 2) Part of thje guzzler tax would go to the "efficient" users, part of
    >> the taxes would go to funding for more mass transit.

    >
    > What is an "efficient user"?
    >
    >> 3) Mandating minimum ethanol content in all gasoline (10%).

    >
    > Which accomplishes what other than a farm subsidy?
    >
    >> 4) Mandating speed governors on vehicles with a radio module that
    >> receives speed limit data from road side transmitters. The vehcile
    >> would be allowed a 10 mph above limit buffer, but no more.

    >
    > So how long do you think it will be before people discover that putting
    > some
    > tinfoil around the antenna or cutting the wire to it causes the governor
    > to
    > respond as if it is in an area where control has not yet been implemented?
    >
    > Sure, you can come up with counterstrategies. In every case they will
    > cost
    > more to implement than they will cost to defeat.
    >

    And they don't endear us to the government, either. In the early 80's they
    stopped selling 100+ octane gasoline, and my perfectly good, fairly new, BMW
    motorcycle began to ping horribly. I made several minor engine
    modifications, (stronger centrifugal advance springs, for example) but I
    couldn't get the pinging to stop. So, I had to trade it in for a new model.
    This didn't endear me to the government. It constituted the only sacrifice I
    ever expected to make toward being friendly to the environment. - A
    sacrifice of several thousand dollars.....Now, when they ask me to buy
    environmentally friendly vehicles, I tell them to "shove it".....
     
    William Graham, May 16, 2006
    #9
  10. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    J. Clarke wrote:

    > Alan Browne wrote:
    >
    >
    >>As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
    >>branches the following occured to me last night.
    >>
    >>The United States spends an incredible amount of money to protect its
    >>oil supply worldwide as a strategic economic neccesity. It pays in many
    >>lives as well as taxpayer money.
    >>
    >>Why does the United States not take a "strategic" initiative with
    >>respect to reducing oil _consumption_? This would mean:
    >>
    >>1) Mandating higher gasoline taxes for gas guzzlers and credits to
    >>efficient cars.
    >>
    >>With todays technology an RFID can easilly be mated to a vehicle licence
    >>plate to tell the pump what tax rate/rebate to apply to a particular
    >>vehicle. This is better than revising CAFE and will self adjust as the
    >>mpg goal changes every few years. Even set a goal mpg where the
    >>gasoline is free for vehicles that meet the goal (paid for by the worst
    >>guzzlers).

    >
    >
    > So how many days do you think it is going to take before a market develops
    > in bootleg RFID devices which report to the pump that your Navigator is a
    > moped?


    If a "Moped" comes to the pump, the pump will allow it x gallons. That
    RFID code is suspended for 24 hours.


    >
    >
    >>2) Part of thje guzzler tax would go to the "efficient" users, part of
    >>the taxes would go to funding for more mass transit.

    >
    >
    > What is an "efficient user"?


    It begins with a choice of an efficient vehicle. If you _really_ need a
    larger vehicle, you'll certainy be willing to pay for it.


    >
    >
    >>3) Mandating minimum ethanol content in all gasoline (10%).

    >
    >
    > Which accomplishes what other than a farm subsidy?


    See other posts. Asked and answered.
    >
    >
    >>4) Mandating speed governors on vehicles with a radio module that
    >>receives speed limit data from road side transmitters. The vehcile
    >>would be allowed a 10 mph above limit buffer, but no more.

    >
    >
    > So how long do you think it will be before people discover that putting some
    > tinfoil around the antenna or cutting the wire to it causes the governor to
    > respond as if it is in an area where control has not yet been implemented?


    The next layer of this is enforcement of course. Much like if you sell
    cigarettes untaxed or sell moonshine.

    >
    > Sure, you can come up with counterstrategies. In every case they will cost
    > more to implement than they will cost to defeat.


    Since there are a lot of counterstrategies it would appear that they
    payoff. For example, last time I was in Munich, the subway had no
    attendants or turnstiles. You paid, you punched the right number of
    lines for the distance and off you went. From time to time there is an
    inspection party. Big fines for cheating...

    The real point is not all the implementation details, but the
    recognition that left to their own freewill, most people will continue
    to waste energy prolifically. It is quite easy to turn that off.

    Cheers,
    Alan

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
     
    Alan Browne, May 17, 2006
    #10
  11. Alan Browne

    RW+/- Guest

    On Tue, 16 May 2006 17:40:09 GMT, no_name wrote:

    > Alan Browne wrote:
    >>
    >> As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
    >> branches the following occured to me last night.
    >>
    >> The United States spends an incredible amount of money to protect its
    >> oil supply worldwide as a strategic economic neccesity. It pays in many
    >> lives as well as taxpayer money.
    >>
    >> Why does the United States not take a "strategic" initiative with
    >> respect to reducing oil _consumption_?

    >
    > 'Cause the guys in the White House didn't get rich from encouraging
    > conservation.
    >


    Heh, you're forgetting Kennedy and many other Dem's who own or are major
    investors in oil. There are more D's then R's who have interests in oil.

    > 98% of everything these clowns do boils down to maximizing oil company
    > profits [the other 2% is makin' sure they don't have to pay any taxes on
    > those profits].


    The feds get more money off a gallon of gas then does the major oil
    companies and they don't have to do anything to "earn" it they just stick
    it to you, as does most state gov't entities. Worse yet as the price goes
    up their share increases dramatically more than does the oil companies.

    Mrs. Johnson, wife of Pres Johnson owned Haliburton, still has a major
    share, as do many other Dem's.
     
    RW+/-, May 17, 2006
    #11
  12. Alan Browne

    RW+/- Guest

    On Tue, 16 May 2006 14:14:21 -0400, Kinon O'Cann wrote:

    > Single answer to all your questions:
    >
    > We don't have leaders in the US, we have gutless sacks of shit who are
    > bought and paid for by big corporations and special interests. The current
    > administration, whose "energy policy" was based on consumption, is merely
    > the latest in a very long line of totally inept hacks when it comes to doing
    > anything about the energy habits of the US. We need leaders, we get Nixon,
    > Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. If's fucking embarassing.


    Reagan was a leader, can't say much for the rest. Well maybe one good thing
    for Clinton, he popularized the "Monica" and made it acceptable and far
    easier to get. ;)
     
    RW+/-, May 17, 2006
    #12
  13. Alan Browne

    RW+/- Guest

    On Tue, 16 May 2006 20:41:12 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

    > J. Clarke wrote:
    >
    >> Alan Browne wrote:
    >>
    >>>As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
    >>>branches the following occured to me last night.
    >>>
    >>>The United States spends an incredible amount of money to protect its
    >>>oil supply worldwide as a strategic economic neccesity. It pays in many
    >>>lives as well as taxpayer money.
    >>>
    >>>Why does the United States not take a "strategic" initiative with
    >>>respect to reducing oil _consumption_? This would mean:
    >>>
    >>>1) Mandating higher gasoline taxes for gas guzzlers and credits to
    >>>efficient cars.
    >>>
    >>>With todays technology an RFID can easilly be mated to a vehicle licence
    >>>plate to tell the pump what tax rate/rebate to apply to a particular
    >>>vehicle. This is better than revising CAFE and will self adjust as the
    >>>mpg goal changes every few years. Even set a goal mpg where the
    >>>gasoline is free for vehicles that meet the goal (paid for by the worst
    >>>guzzlers).

    >>
    >> So how many days do you think it is going to take before a market develops
    >> in bootleg RFID devices which report to the pump that your Navigator is a
    >> moped?

    >
    > If a "Moped" comes to the pump, the pump will allow it x gallons. That
    > RFID code is suspended for 24 hours.
    >
    >>
    >>>2) Part of thje guzzler tax would go to the "efficient" users, part of
    >>>the taxes would go to funding for more mass transit.

    >>
    >> What is an "efficient user"?

    >
    > It begins with a choice of an efficient vehicle. If you _really_ need a
    > larger vehicle, you'll certainy be willing to pay for it.
    >
    >>
    >>>3) Mandating minimum ethanol content in all gasoline (10%).

    >>
    >> Which accomplishes what other than a farm subsidy?

    >
    > See other posts. Asked and answered.
    >>
    >>>4) Mandating speed governors on vehicles with a radio module that
    >>>receives speed limit data from road side transmitters. The vehcile
    >>>would be allowed a 10 mph above limit buffer, but no more.

    >>
    >> So how long do you think it will be before people discover that putting some
    >> tinfoil around the antenna or cutting the wire to it causes the governor to
    >> respond as if it is in an area where control has not yet been implemented?

    >
    > The next layer of this is enforcement of course. Much like if you sell
    > cigarettes untaxed or sell moonshine.
    >
    >>
    >> Sure, you can come up with counterstrategies. In every case they will cost
    >> more to implement than they will cost to defeat.

    >
    > Since there are a lot of counterstrategies it would appear that they
    > payoff. For example, last time I was in Munich, the subway had no
    > attendants or turnstiles. You paid, you punched the right number of
    > lines for the distance and off you went. From time to time there is an
    > inspection party. Big fines for cheating...
    >
    > The real point is not all the implementation details, but the
    > recognition that left to their own freewill, most people will continue
    > to waste energy prolifically. It is quite easy to turn that off.
    >


    Yeah, let's all return to the dark age.
     
    RW+/-, May 17, 2006
    #13
  14. Alan Browne

    ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 17 May 2006 02:20:58 GMT, RW+/- wrote:

    >> The real point is not all the implementation details, but the
    >> recognition that left to their own freewill, most people will continue
    >> to waste energy prolifically. It is quite easy to turn that off.

    >
    > Yeah, let's all return to the dark age.


    No thanks. Some of us are too en-light-ened to join you. :)
     
    ASAAR, May 17, 2006
    #14
  15. Alan Browne

    Andrew Venor Guest

    Jerry L wrote:
    > Why? Because the government cannot figure out how to make Air Force
    > One fly from Washington DC to California on E-85 fuel __ to allow a
    > bike riding-guy from Texas a chance to show he can pedal his bike just
    > like the regular bike riders.
    > = = =


    The E-85 Gasoline/Ethanol blend is a fuel for internal combustion
    engines. So you won't see it used on Air Force One, or any other jet
    turbine powered aircraft.

    However this September the US Air Force will flight test a B-52 bomber
    with two if its' engines using a new synthetic fuel that can be made
    from domestic hydrocarbon sources like natural gas, coal, or oil shale.

    http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123020290

    ALV

    > Alan Browne wrote:
    >
    >>As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
    >>branches the following occured to me last night.
    >>

    >
    > SNIP
    >
    >>receives speed limit data from road side transmitters. The vehcile
    >>would be allowed a 10 mph above limit buffer, but no more.

    >
    >
     
    Andrew Venor, May 17, 2006
    #15
  16. Alan Browne

    RW+/- Guest

    On Tue, 16 May 2006 22:46:08 -0400, ASAAR wrote:

    > On Wed, 17 May 2006 02:20:58 GMT, RW+/- wrote:
    >
    >>> The real point is not all the implementation details, but the
    >>> recognition that left to their own freewill, most people will continue
    >>> to waste energy prolifically. It is quite easy to turn that off.

    >>
    >> Yeah, let's all return to the dark age.

    >
    > No thanks. Some of us are too en-light-ened to join you. :)


    :)
     
    RW+/-, May 17, 2006
    #16
  17. Alan Browne

    J. Clarke Guest

    Alan Browne wrote:

    > J. Clarke wrote:
    >
    >> Alan Browne wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>As this thread has splintered into a variety of useful and useless
    >>>branches the following occured to me last night.
    >>>
    >>>The United States spends an incredible amount of money to protect its
    >>>oil supply worldwide as a strategic economic neccesity. It pays in many
    >>>lives as well as taxpayer money.
    >>>
    >>>Why does the United States not take a "strategic" initiative with
    >>>respect to reducing oil _consumption_? This would mean:
    >>>
    >>>1) Mandating higher gasoline taxes for gas guzzlers and credits to
    >>>efficient cars.
    >>>
    >>>With todays technology an RFID can easilly be mated to a vehicle licence
    >>>plate to tell the pump what tax rate/rebate to apply to a particular
    >>>vehicle. This is better than revising CAFE and will self adjust as the
    >>>mpg goal changes every few years. Even set a goal mpg where the
    >>>gasoline is free for vehicles that meet the goal (paid for by the worst
    >>>guzzlers).

    >>
    >>
    >> So how many days do you think it is going to take before a market
    >> develops in bootleg RFID devices which report to the pump that your
    >> Navigator is a moped?

    >
    > If a "Moped" comes to the pump, the pump will allow it x gallons. That
    > RFID code is suspended for 24 hours.
    >
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>>2) Part of thje guzzler tax would go to the "efficient" users, part of
    >>>the taxes would go to funding for more mass transit.

    >>
    >>
    >> What is an "efficient user"?

    >
    > It begins with a choice of an efficient vehicle. If you _really_ need a
    > larger vehicle, you'll certainy be willing to pay for it.
    >
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>>3) Mandating minimum ethanol content in all gasoline (10%).

    >>
    >>
    >> Which accomplishes what other than a farm subsidy?

    >
    > See other posts. Asked and answered.
    >>
    >>
    >>>4) Mandating speed governors on vehicles with a radio module that
    >>>receives speed limit data from road side transmitters. The vehcile
    >>>would be allowed a 10 mph above limit buffer, but no more.

    >>
    >>
    >> So how long do you think it will be before people discover that putting
    >> some tinfoil around the antenna or cutting the wire to it causes the
    >> governor to respond as if it is in an area where control has not yet been
    >> implemented?

    >
    > The next layer of this is enforcement of course. Much like if you sell
    > cigarettes untaxed or sell moonshine.
    >
    >>
    >> Sure, you can come up with counterstrategies. In every case they will
    >> cost more to implement than they will cost to defeat.

    >
    > Since there are a lot of counterstrategies it would appear that they
    > payoff. For example, last time I was in Munich, the subway had no
    > attendants or turnstiles. You paid, you punched the right number of
    > lines for the distance and off you went. From time to time there is an
    > inspection party. Big fines for cheating...
    >
    > The real point is not all the implementation details, but the
    > recognition that left to their own freewill, most people will continue
    > to waste energy prolifically. It is quite easy to turn that off.


    If the majority of the people want to "waste energy prolifically" then why
    should the democratically elected government deny them this?

    Seems to me that you want to go around telling other people how to live
    their lives because you disapprove of their evil ways.

    What is wrong with "wasting energy prolifically"? Thrift will just delay
    the inevitable, not prevent it.


    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, May 17, 2006
    #17
  18. Alan Browne

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "RW+/-" <> wrote in message
    news:Touag.3877$343.1673@trnddc06...
    > On Tue, 16 May 2006 14:14:21 -0400, Kinon O'Cann wrote:
    >
    >> Single answer to all your questions:
    >>
    >> We don't have leaders in the US, we have gutless sacks of shit who are
    >> bought and paid for by big corporations and special interests. The
    >> current
    >> administration, whose "energy policy" was based on consumption, is merely
    >> the latest in a very long line of totally inept hacks when it comes to
    >> doing
    >> anything about the energy habits of the US. We need leaders, we get
    >> Nixon,
    >> Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. If's fucking embarassing.

    >
    > Reagan was a leader, can't say much for the rest. Well maybe one good
    > thing
    > for Clinton, he popularized the "Monica" and made it acceptable and far
    > easier to get. ;)


    Reagan as a complete moron who fired anyone who dared to tell him the truth.
    Take David Stockman, his first budget director. Stockman told Reagan that
    his economic plan, which consisted of tax cuts and drastically increased
    spending, would result in histori deficits and be damaging to the country.
    He was fired. Guess what happened? Reagan was a disaster for the country; it
    was he who started the US down the road of massive debt in order to fund
    that very stupid and very costly arms race for no good GD reason.
     
    Kinon O'Cann, May 17, 2006
    #18
  19. Alan Browne

    RW+/- Guest

    On Wed, 17 May 2006 07:38:58 -0400, Kinon O'Cann wrote:

    > "RW+/-" <> wrote in message
    > news:Touag.3877$343.1673@trnddc06...
    >> On Tue, 16 May 2006 14:14:21 -0400, Kinon O'Cann wrote:
    >>
    >>> Single answer to all your questions:
    >>>
    >>> We don't have leaders in the US, we have gutless sacks of shit who are
    >>> bought and paid for by big corporations and special interests. The
    >>> current
    >>> administration, whose "energy policy" was based on consumption, is merely
    >>> the latest in a very long line of totally inept hacks when it comes to
    >>> doing
    >>> anything about the energy habits of the US. We need leaders, we get
    >>> Nixon,
    >>> Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. If's fucking embarassing.

    >>
    >> Reagan was a leader, can't say much for the rest. Well maybe one good
    >> thing
    >> for Clinton, he popularized the "Monica" and made it acceptable and far
    >> easier to get. ;)

    >
    > Reagan as a complete moron who fired anyone who dared to tell him the truth.
    > Take David Stockman, his first budget director. Stockman told Reagan that
    > his economic plan, which consisted of tax cuts and drastically increased
    > spending, would result in histori deficits and be damaging to the country.
    > He was fired. Guess what happened? Reagan was a disaster for the country; it
    > was he who started the US down the road of massive debt in order to fund
    > that very stupid and very costly arms race for no good GD reason.


    Do you ever deal with realities, or do you just like spouting the party
    line? Tax cuts sprouted a great economic boom which resulted in more tax
    revenue. Yes, congress over spent once the monies came in.

    The arms race resulted in the downfall of the Soviets, freedom for many, it
    was done for that purpose.
     
    RW+/-, May 17, 2006
    #19
  20. Alan Browne

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "RW+/-" <> wrote in message
    news:VlEag.7445$mU6.5911@trnddc07...
    > On Wed, 17 May 2006 07:38:58 -0400, Kinon O'Cann wrote:
    >
    >> "RW+/-" <> wrote in message
    >> news:Touag.3877$343.1673@trnddc06...
    >>> On Tue, 16 May 2006 14:14:21 -0400, Kinon O'Cann wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Single answer to all your questions:
    >>>>
    >>>> We don't have leaders in the US, we have gutless sacks of shit who are
    >>>> bought and paid for by big corporations and special interests. The
    >>>> current
    >>>> administration, whose "energy policy" was based on consumption, is
    >>>> merely
    >>>> the latest in a very long line of totally inept hacks when it comes to
    >>>> doing
    >>>> anything about the energy habits of the US. We need leaders, we get
    >>>> Nixon,
    >>>> Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. If's fucking
    >>>> embarassing.
    >>>
    >>> Reagan was a leader, can't say much for the rest. Well maybe one good
    >>> thing
    >>> for Clinton, he popularized the "Monica" and made it acceptable and far
    >>> easier to get. ;)

    >>
    >> Reagan as a complete moron who fired anyone who dared to tell him the
    >> truth.
    >> Take David Stockman, his first budget director. Stockman told Reagan that
    >> his economic plan, which consisted of tax cuts and drastically increased
    >> spending, would result in histori deficits and be damaging to the
    >> country.
    >> He was fired. Guess what happened? Reagan was a disaster for the country;
    >> it
    >> was he who started the US down the road of massive debt in order to fund
    >> that very stupid and very costly arms race for no good GD reason.

    >
    > Do you ever deal with realities, or do you just like spouting the party
    > line? Tax cuts sprouted a great economic boom which resulted in more tax
    > revenue. Yes, congress over spent once the monies came in.
    >
    > The arms race resulted in the downfall of the Soviets, freedom for many,
    > it
    > was done for that purpose.


    The Soviet Union was doomed whether or not we engaged them in an arms race.
    They were broke.

    The so-called economic boom was a result of government spending, and not a
    result of tax cuts. Go figure: the government spends trillions, and, for a
    short time, the economy looked better. The bill came due during Bush 1, and
    his ineptness eventually cost him his job.

    What party line? Which party do you think I belong to? I spout reality as I
    see it, and I don't believe it's biased in any way. Did Reagan bankrupt the
    country? Did Reagan put us $5 trilion in debt? Did Reagan spend money like a
    druken trillionaire? Don't blame congress on this one; Reagan signed the
    budget. What Reagan did was bad, but what Dumbya is dong now, with a
    compliant congress is far worse. Question: how many vetoes can we credit to
    Dumbya for spending plans, or anything else? Tell me that reality!
     
    Kinon O'Cann, May 17, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    648
    Silverstrand
    Sep 2, 2005
  2. MonkeyMunx
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    812
    Guest
    Jan 5, 2004
  3. iNetEnterprise
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,377
    iNetEnterprise
    Jul 16, 2005
  4. Clive Start

    Sidewinder Strategic Commander software

    Clive Start, Sep 21, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    3,707
    gamer47
    Sep 5, 2011
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    The Iphone As A Strategic Weapon

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Mar 26, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    630
    Simon
    Mar 27, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page