help save the environment!!

is the "Peter Hamilton" solution in that we get a reliable, fail-safe orbital capability - scramjet or whatever - and vitrify the waste and send it into the Sun.

Until we get that, Sellafied scares the sh:t out of me on our tiny island.

Ballard has a model that works both ways.
run water through one way and it separates it into the hydrogen and oxygen, only requires 12 dc to do so.

plugging a car in overnight will supply ample current to do this, the excess can go into making sure the battery is fully charged.

or a solar panel on the roof to supply the extra electrical input required by the car.

to generate the electricity needed for this, you don't need to dam a river to generate electricity with it.

you don't need to burn coal, or oil, nor do you need to use a nuclear plant.

check this posting made earlier, it details how:
https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=178209&messageID=1814552

about a very serious subject. At the moment the UK is costing up the decommissioning of some of the nuclear stations that we've had since the 1950's. There is a LOT of radioactive waste and we have no real idea how to store it for a hundred years, let alone the ten thousand that may be required for some of the longer lived isotopes.

We (the UK) were unlucky enough to catch the very tail-end of the Chernobyl radioactive plume and areas of the country were not permitted to sell meat and milk for a long time. And Kiev is a very long way away from the UK!

When nuclear goes bad - it goes very bad but I accept that being careful should prevent accidents like Three-mile island (yours), Windscale (ours) and Chernobyl (everybody's). But I do believe that we haven't started to pay the environmental costs of nuclear yet and won't until we start decommissioning old reactors in earnest. I also don't believe that we've heard the last of Chernobyl as, at the very least, they have 100,000 tons of radioactive concrete to disspose of.

Just my 2 watts worth

Neil

an agreement signed in the early 70's that was supposed to expire in the 90's and california got the us federal government to get canadian federal government to force the bc government into renewing, at a lower cost that we can generate it.

so yup, we are "forced" into selling the power.

if it was me, I would have charged california 20 times the highest domestic rate., if they didn't want to pay, buy thier water and electricity elsewhere.

I'm the type that don't intimidate.

using a low thrust areodynamic vehicle to lift it into orbit, then boost to drop it into the sun.

gone. no more pollution.

oh, no such lift vehicle. blame nasa ( literally ) they didn't want to wait a decade before launching the first shuttle. the canadian engineers wanted that decade to have one that could use any international airport to launch and powered landing.

the candu reactor design is a "breeder" reactor, it is designed to make weapons grade plutonium in the second core.

core 1, the core you mention, core 2 the waste from core 1 to weapons grade plutonium.

what is regularly ignored in the discussions by both side of the arguement:
the pollution keeps heat in, true.
the pollution keeps heat out. true.

right now these two effects are cancelling each other out. if the pollution continues, then we will create a "nuclear" winter faster than the natural ice age.

right now, the global warming is actually acting in mankinds benefit.
as without it, the arctic area would be much larger. the earth is entering another glacial period.

this is a well publicised geological theory.

studies show that england was completely covered in ice in a matter of 150 years at the beginning of the last ice age.

our recorded history is from within what they are calling an :intergalcial" period.

50,000 years of ice age, 10 thousand of warm, 50 thousand ice age....

this is only an example for ice age length, but it is a strong theory that we are entering an ice age right now, reguardless of the "global warming" pollutions.

I know they stopped it from happening back when the shuttle was being designed.
after all, the canadian areospace industry wanted to design it and were shut down by nasa.

You just dangled a carrot.

It's one that I have always used for dummies, bright as a two watt lightbulb. So your post, referring to a two watt lightbulb, just made it some to mind.

Tha fact is, yes the globe has a natural cycle and creates it's own devestation. We are just multiplying that NATURAL devestation with our own ignorance though.

Oil seeps naturally from teh ocean floor, therefore it is okay for use to increase that destruction.

Volcanoes create harmful gas emissions into the atmosphere, therefore it is okay for us to further increase this natural destruction of the Earth,

The point here is, the Earth has these cycles naturally, many that can wipe out an entire civilation or the human race itself and then start fresh. All we are doing is reducing th etime it takes for the world to naturally eliminate humans from the face of the Earth.

Very clever, and we justify it by saying the Earth will do that eventually, what's wrong with it happening a few thousand or a few million years early if we can enjoy our lives today?

because I'm goth doesn't mean I am incapable of enjoying the outdoors.

since I"m also wiccan, which is fairly tuned to living WITH nature environmental issues are something I care about.

rather than just rant about the damage, I try to be able to present viable alternatives.

just think of the power that the missisippi could generate with the generator/tunnel system I designed.

billions of kilowatts.
continually.
with extremely minimal environmental impact.

The poor buggers used to do a lot of fishing in the Irish sea, which is where Windscale, now Sellafield dumped it's coolant while processing nuclear waste. They've made a big effort in reducing polution now but for several years the levels were way above what we were expected to tolerate.
The long term problems from this episode and others are unknowns. The 'safe' levels we have now are a compromise between no impact and technically achievable. Using areas to dump any waste such as the ocean or land connected to our water tables is predicated on the assumption that the amount of waste compared to the total volume is negligible but obviously the length of time such material is toxic in line with the increasing amount of waste makes that a less than practical argument over time. As a for instance I'm now allowed two portions of tuna a week on account of the high possibility of mercury poisoning if I was to eat more on a regular basis.Still at least it's not radioactive mercury eh.
Yet

We have numbers that say the earth is getting warmer.
We have some numbers that may or may not prove that some of the warming may be down the human impact.
We have two schools of thought on these numbers
1) We are warming the environment and we should spend lots of money reducing said impact and make the world a better place.
2) We aren't warming the environment and we should make lots of profit by not wasting money on anti-pollution methods.

So whose self interest is in your self interest ?

I watched your VP give a press conference in defence of the US reaction to the Rio summit with.
You european fellas want to clean up your industries fine, we are going to become competive in the market place.
That was the position, any science used is to back up the policy, not a reason to form it.

Is something like watching Helen Keller drive.

It's awkward, it's ridiculous, it's nonsensical, it's just something to stand WAAAAAAY back from while pointing and laughing, as they crash and bump around while pretending they meant to do that.

it with people who are as open to argument as I am, but my current position is quite simple.

If we go with we are causing global warming we bring in anti pollution measures, which would be a massive industry sector and we get a cleaner planet, new tech and other benefits even if I'm wrong.
If we do nothing and the no such animal boys are wrong we get to find out whether various sci-fi types are correct. If they are right certain people makes lots of money, blame politicians who are safely out office, reasonably affluent and obviously don't give a shit about anything but their own bottom line.

Most people don't realize that trying to preserve the environment isn't just about saving wildlife, it's about saving people too. I'm so tired of hearing people talk as if saving the environment is just for 1960s drug deluded hippies. The term "tree hugger" is used like a swear by a lot of people. These people don't realize that people need oxygen and clean water and clean land. The environment is a machine that keeps us alive. We need to keep that machine working if WE are going to survive.

I also agree with your sentiments on preserving wildlife for its own sake. When people complain about some of the extreme examples of how human projects were stopped by the government in order to save a species I try to use the loss of some piece of fine art as an analogy. When a species becomes extinct it's like someone destroyed a masterpiece from one of the great artists of the past. We may not absolutely need the works of Reubens or Rambrandt to stay alive but the fact that they exist makes our lives better. The same is true of species of wildlife.

If people don't appreciate that then I try to explain that we need trees in order to breath; we need clean water to drink; we need clean land to grow our food. Usually people take the "see no evil ..." approach and try to just ignore how habitat destruction brings humans closer to extinction.

First of all.........um, never mind. On second thought, I think I'll pass.

But I will ask you this. What is your source of information that President Bush has an interest in a company that will be doing the drilling? What company? And what percentage of interest does President Bush have? And who makes that claim?

And I'll bet a dollar to dirt that you can't answer any of those questions, but you'll continue to make that silly and unfounded claim anyway.

You said, "Most (Americans) don't even know Canada supplies US oil."

I knew that Canada supplied the U.S. with oil. But you probably know that I know.

And the people who make policy know that Canada supplies the U.S. with oil. But you probably know that they also know.

And the folks who are connected with the U.S. oil industry know as well. But you probably know that too.

The people of whom you speak, the ones that don't know that we get a lot of oil from Canada, are the ones who also don't know a hell of a lot about a number of other things as well -- and they're the ones who claim to know what to do or not to do.....and the ones who never offer any real solutions to problems, but only pay lip-service to silly complaints.....and the ones with pie-in-the-sky, la-la-land desires.....and the ones that speak from emotional reactions instead of reasonable and rational planning.....and the ones who continually make stupid, ignorant, and unfounded claims.....and.........

But remind me why we should pay much attention to those folks who don't really know much about what's really going on. If they don't know what's really going on, how can they possibly make any viable suggestions or offer any real solutions?

.
Now don't forget to MAKE YOUR DONATION to that "special interest" that wants to stop all that nasty oil drilling -- and make it a VERY BIG donation. They are, after all, looking out for YOUR best interest, aren't they?

https://secure.wwf.ca/HowYouCanHelp/Donate/Donate.asp?appeal=CD647

Give until it hurts......and then walk to work.

.....and then keep supporting those middle-east, terrorist-loving interests who are currently supplying a lot of the oil that you currently consume.

.....and then do a little math.

Three percent from Alaska, plus another three percent from the Gulf of Mexico, plus another three percent from Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana, plus another three percent from that new find in Canada, plus another three percent from.......

How many "three percents" would it take to replace that 17 percent we get from Saudi Arabia?

No, let's not go there. Let's just keep giving those middle-east, terrorist-loving nice-guys all of our oil money. I'm sure they'll put it to good use.

I was thinking the same thing when I read that the petition was at a WWF site. I'm really pissed at them over taking the World Wrestling Federation's right to use WWF as a trademark. It's not like anyone would mistake wrestling for wildlife. Duh.

But I don't agree with the part about "..the tree-hugging hippie bastards". The tree hugging is a separate issue. Frankly I don't understand why people think that "tree hugging" is a bad thing. A thinking person would have to understand that if we develop every square inch of land then we will run out of oxygen and water. The wildlife is part of the big machine that we need to stay alive. If you don't care about whether caribou habitat is destroyed then you should at least care about whether human habitat is destroyed; and the caribou are part of that human habitat.

Well, maybe he can, but just barely.

If my use of colloquialism annoys you, I'll be exact: his academic performance at Yale is unimpressive to me and when I pledge allegiance to this country it does not include somebody so vastly inferior in intellect.

I still consider his first election suspicious and his re-election a blatant fraud. I live far from Florida and Ohio so I don't have even second-hand accounts of acquaintances, but the publicly broadcast accusations of intimidation of Blacks and of insufficient equipment in districts known to favor the Democratic Party deserve more attention than they were given by all government branches combined. Ergo, conspiracy.

I'm not waiting for proof because I see the accused preventing the gathering of proof and discouraging -- with the power of the office to which he was NOT elected! -- any analysis of evidence that does exist. Tampering with or destroying evidence is a crime, and implies guilt in the matter such evidence involves.

I thought calling W. a marionette would tell you my answers to those questions, but here are my answers exactly:

max: But I will ask you this. What is your source of information that President Bush has an interest in a company that will be doing the drilling?

Abs: He's from Texas, his fortune is in oil, and he has no other distincitve characteristics. In other words, without being the tool of some Big Money, he is, literally, nobody.

max: What company?

Abs: Who's going to do the drilling?

max: And what percentage of interest does President Bush have?

Abs: He doesn't have a percentage, his interest is in keeping the transactions that got him out of Vietnam and into "public service" secret.

max: And who makes that claim?

Abs: I do, on the basis of my observation that he has insufficient intelligence to do anything BUT sell out to the highest bidder. I can imagine no other plausible explanation for his rise to power than being the stooge of somebody very wealthy and much more clever than he is. The man says "nuc-ya-ler" and wants OB-GYN's to "practice their love" with women! And if you've forgotten the debates hosted by Lehrer, he answered EVERY QUESTION about Iraq by [i]whining[/i] about Kerry's suggestion that it was the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time". He went far off-topic to repeat that because, I can only assume, he had nothing else of substance to offer, including any positive qualifications of his own for the role of commander-in-chief.

It's weak to answer questions about oneself with only the weaknesses of one's adversary, don't you agree?

I suspect neither of us believe in clairvoyance. You mentioned the reason for your recent absences in a post to Oz. I read it as I'd been wondering where you'd gone, too.

Still mean the good luck, though. Every little helps!

:)

IN th e70's, Alaska was an established State with residents in several cities. Industry and development had already displaced any wildlife habitats that had existed, for teh most part, long before the pipeline was constructed.

Since that time, there have been several devestating 'accidents' from shipments leaving Alaska, and oil (bilge sludge)has been dunmped in mammoth proportions along the Alaska and BC coastline to reduce the shipping costs when regualted and controlled removal of 'the sludge' costs these companies a lot of money.

It has happened for as many years as they have been shipping oil from Alaska for, even tight regulations and high penalities if caught haven't seen it reduced as it actually increases every year.

BUT, comparing Alaska and the NEW proposal is ludicrous. Alaska, as I mentioned before, was still being developed and habitats displaced even though they were still rather undeveloped cities at the time.

In tha case of recent proposals, it is on a piece of land that our two governments have placed under protection, obviously only protected until the US needs it, what a half-a55ed move that was.

It is also smack dab in the middle of a MASSIVE migration area where an estimated 130,000 caibou breed 40,000 off spring each year. This area is also the main seasonal hunting grounds for local Eskimo tribes wh orealy heavily on the Caribou migration to feed and clothe their families.

Disrupting that herd, changing their migration path and thinning the numbers of newborn each year will ultimately lead to these tribes suffering, in the most pristine environment you can imagine.

Now, we also run a greater number of ships through the area, around Alaska and down the BC coastline, thus increasing the bilge dumping further and into even more pristine coastlines for god knows how many mroe years until that area is destroyed like the BC/Alaska costline has been.

It's not speculation, these herds come from all over to that one specific point in Northern Canada to breed, the people in that area rely on these herds and thier lives will be disrupted, it's not a 'what if', scenario, it's a fact, they exist and rely on a herd that WILL be effected.

It's easy to bruish these issues off when some groups in make such a fuss over almost any development in teh world. It's easy to ignore reality when past specific incidents have shown otherwise. But in this case, it's not a hunk of vast wasteland that is home to a few moose and elk. WE are talking about a major breeding grounds and livelihood of those who DO live ther now.

These anumals DO go there, thhey will not be able to if the land is developed AT ALL. People do live there, they will suffer if thie rlivlihood is lost.

Kinda like outsourcing thier food and clothing to another territory.

I live in Alaska.

It is not a wasteland.

At the moment I am against drilling into ANWR because, honestly, there are too many people on this planet, and if we don't get smart NOW about energy efficiency, we're screwed.
I think ANWR should be a forgotten place, dug up in 300 years after someone remembers ooh crude oil works too...

People have lived in Alaska since oh, migration of people from the Asian continent. It's been documented that humans migrated from China/Japan area over the Bering Strait into Alaska, and then trekked south into North America/Canada. Take a look at some old religous items from China/Japan and compare them to the items found in villages scattered all over Alaska.

Right now, I'm working for an ISP who provides Net service to those remote villages. How? Satellite!
Those kids out there in the 300 + people towns acutally can surf..w/ a 600ms delay :P.

There is another petroleum related issue open at this time: the Gas Pipeline.
It is a concept wanted to start in the next 2-5 years, trekking natural gas from the North Slope (drilling) down to lower 48. Run a pipe thru Alaska again, or cut thru Canada? is the question at this time.

To me, THIS would bring more jobs/opportunities. Not ANWR.

Currently Alaska brings almost 80% of its income in through GOVERNMENT spending. Ted Stevens, our Congressman, was part of the Treasury board...he brought money in.
We get our state's money through Govt, Oil revenue, Tourism & Property Tax.
We Alaskans are actually depending on Oil being over $50/barrel to break the state budget even. This is sad.

We have space. Some of it inhabitable. Why dont we use more solar panels? Some people who own cabins along rivers actually use it..it works. One village out away from a grid is using wind power. All the villages out there, off "grid" use generators to create electricity for the village: town hall, church, homes, people. All of those generaters use petrol products. Kerosene is a very popular product for heating oil. All of those villages are petrol based.

here is an article about alt. power for alaska:
http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/051004/loc_20040510001.shtml

Thats my 2 cents.

CuteElf

.
You said, "...was from a comment made on another site on the same subject, by an American citizen, whom I will trust to know more about the leader of his country than I do."

I have to wonder, if you trust an American citizen who is a stranger (so to speak), why you wouldn't trust THIS American citizen, who may very well be one on the most informed American citizens you've met (so to speak) on the Internet?

The answer is because the stranger will support your desired conclusion, while this one will not. It has nothing to do with trust.

And if you suspect some kind of conflict of interest, or some kind of pay back to an old boys club, what would you suggest the President do when it comes to matters of establishing energy policy? Recuse himself from the process? And does that mean that every president must recuse himself from similar circumstances, never getting involved in whatever it is in his background? Or is it just oil men who are corrupt? If Howard Dean (a doctor) had been elected, for example, would he have had a similar conflict of interest and/or an old boys-doctors club pay-back that would warrant he recuse himself from establishing any medical policy? And why stop at the president? What about Congressmen and Senators? What about their past "conflicts of interest" and/or old boys clubs?

Look at your argument, work it out, apply it to all people and all circumstances, and then let me know what your "therefore what" conclusion might be. In my estimation, it appears that it would be to tie the hands of the policy makers -- all policy makers -- because of some perceived conflict or pay-back that could exist because of their past affiliations. In fact, since most of the Senators are lawyers, to avoid a conflict of interest and/or pay-back to their old boys-lawyers club, perhaps they should always recuse themselves from establishing any legal policy? (On second thought, I kinda' like that idea -- lawmakers who can't make law.)

So the way I see it, you're basing your opinion on a "who do you trust" mentality. A stranger who will support your desired conclusion, or an acquaintance who won't?

I was being facetious. "That's a bunch tree-hugging hippie crap!" is an Eric Cartman line...I was just doing my best Cartman.

I agree on the WWF thing...plus, more people knew WWF as the wrestling than the wildlife organization. But, I think they won the trademark because they had been using it in ads and stuff longer and based their case on that.

Personally, I think a bunch of those wrestlers should go let a bunch of raccoons loose on those wildlife guy's houses and take pictures of them killing those poor creatures.

Ya know they would...just like PETA people will put animals down in shelters although killing the animal and then using part of it is a crime to them.

oh well...another bit of humour I attempted that failed...life goes on

.
And very well said.

Moreover, another thing that should dispel the notion that President Bush is catering to the oil industry is the fact that he's been advancing an alternative energy plan throughout his administration. In fact, he's done more than any other administration -- including the "environmentalist" Clinton/Gore administration -- in that regard.

"President Bush says it's time for Congress to do something about high oil prices and dependence on foreign oil. Speaking at an energy conference, the president urged increasing incentives for domestic production, alternative energy research and for buying hybrid vehicles."

- From NPR's All Things Considered, July 2005

"Budgeted $1.7 billion over five years to develop hydrogen and fuel-cell technologies. His 2005 budget includes $7.2 billion in tax incentives over 10 years for alternative and renewable fuels, conservation and efficiency, and emissions-free energy."

"Generate an additional 1 million barrels a day by developing oil fields in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR). The development would be limited to 2,000 acres of the 19 million-acre park in Alaska. Change regulations to encourage improvements to refineries."

"Fund research into nuclear fusion."

"Raised Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for SUVs, vans, and pickups for the first time in 10 years, saving 1 billion barrels of gas over 10 years. Subsidize weatherization of low-income homes."

- From Business Week

More from the White House:

- Tax Incentives For Hybrid Vehicle Owners

- Extending Tax Credits To Clean-Diesel Vehicles

- Increase Domestic Energy Production In Environmentally Responsible Ways

- Simplify Rules So Existing Refineries Can Expand Their Capacity

- Build New Refineries To Meet Growing Demand

- President Bush Is Leading The Way On Hydrogen Fuel

- Ethanol Is An American-Grown Alternative To Foreign Crude Oil

- Biodiesel Delivers Critical Benefits Without Oil

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/energy/

- Developing Clean and Secure Energy Through Hydrogen Fuel

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050525.html

And like I said, President Bush has done more than any other administration -- including the "environmentalist" Clinton/Gore administration -- to advance an alternative energy plan.

.
In one message you said, "Most (Americans) don't even know Canada supplies US oil!"

I simply agreed with you, but elaborated on it a bit.

You then said, "Your comments make the majority of America seem inferior in your eyes. A pretty arrogant and very ignorant comment actually."

Well, if mine do, so do yours. But I merely suggested that people who don't know about something, although they certainly have a right to voice an opinion, shouldn't be relied upon to plan and/or establish policy. You wouldn't want someone like me to plan your open-heart surgery, would you, since I don't know the first thing about it? And that's why we have a representative form of government, not a true democracy. (So you're wrong on that count as well.)

You then said in your subsequent message, "A good deal of your population can't find Canada on a globe for crying out loud..."

Sorry, dude. But TOHSE comments qualify for the charge you made against me, and they "make the majority of America seem inferior in your eyes.....A pretty arrogant and very ignorant comment actually." But that's a pretty typical Oz sentiment.

Your comments really are pretty pathetic, and are no more than your usual lame attempt to argue simply for the sake of arguing. It's no wonder I place so little credence in what you have to say. Your head is planted so far up your back-side that the only thing you can see is......

They are called "smaller". We've been here before in the SUV thread, though, and will no doubt be here again.

It's interesting that the Mercedes Smart - http://www.smartlondon.co.uk/new_car.asp?cid=1 will be launched in the US very soon but they're wimping out of marketing the version in the link in favour of one specially designed for the US market - a "Smart SUV" for the world's most wasteful consumer nation. It will probably be around the same size as the Toyota RAV4 or Honda CR-V.

Very few people will bother to by "just another small SUV" whereas they might have bought the truly different and an innovative opportunity to drive public opinion will probably be lost. The miracle of Free Market and Capitalism working for YOU.

By the way, we have gas at nearly $6/US gal, tiny roads, horrendous traffic james and we still have SUVs everywhere.

People will pay an awful lot for their status symbol and the only way out of the trap is to change public opinion. But I'm not going to give up my phallic symbol until you do!

since I've known the other person since 1997 ( 2 years before becoming member here ) your assumption that they are a stranger and you are an aquaintance is a bit off the mark.
to use those terms the application of them would have to be reversed. :)

and yup, all polititions should be divested of all thier personal holdings until they are DEAD and burried as soon as they enter politics.
that would be the only way to make sure they were not prone to old boy network influence.

but then if you got every politition in the worldinto one city, I would nuke it as fast as I possibly could.
kill em all. they are corrupt.
they are NOT to be trusted.
don't matter where they are from or who they are.

for all I know bush might actually own shares in the company trying to get drilling rights.
he might absolutely detest the guy that owns it.
but bush's money comes from oil, any decision that he influences in benefit of oil is suspect.

are his corporate holdings in public records?

I've watched as the priemire of bc got convicted of doing exactly what I'm suggesting bush be watched for, making a deal that benefits him financially. ( Bill Vander-Zalm on a multi million dollar realestate deal with the province, he owned the land the province bought, at his decision )

People read into the part of my post that is so easy to take a stand against. Which is normal human habit I think -- people love to argue about something.

However there was a very significant *BUT* in there.

The "BUT" being -- a fact that we (as in the WORLD's people, not just specific countries) are dependant on fossil fuels for our modern way of life.

So then what is the solution to them that satisfies the environmentalists and the reality of life that we need these fuels.

There seems to be no solution that appeases anyone, I'm not saying I promote willful destruction of our environment -- hell around my state, I'm the first one in the car or at various functions looking at all the building and cutting down of forest/woods and screaming that its nuts.

But I fancy myself a realist too -- I keep hearing about hybrids and I keep reading about how "one day" our energy source will be clean burning alternatives, etc. "one day this" or "in the future that" or "soon this.." blah....how long is "soon" or "one day" it seems to be decades.

It just seems like everyone is just talking -- and not doing.

Ideas are proposed for methods of drilling that preserve as much as possible the environment in remote places like the arctic but people don't wanna hear it -- it's damaging the environment. As mentioned beforehand, there is the "wind mill" type generation method but people don't like to look at them. Its like ok people...if you are gonna be so bold as to use the fuels in your day to day life yet shot down every idea for cleaner energy then I just call you a hypocrit.

Granted I use my fair share of energy -- but I'm also not passing myself off as an environmentalist either. Like some people I know do -- then they themselves waste more energy than I do -- its funny. I'm anal about turning off lights -- my house is dark often when I'm home by myself. I have one thing I'm guilty of -- I leave my TV on while I'm using the computer.

I recycle, I do the minimal little things to not be a slob to the environment (don't litter, keep my car in good shape so the emissions are the cleanest they can be, as mentioned -- don't waste electicity needlessly, etc.).

But its like we need this energy from somewhere TODAY, the world's population is increasing -- thus its energy demands.

I know this whole rant probably sounds funny from an American (ie. the country that uses -- by itself about 1/4th of the ENTIRE PLANET'S energy per year).

I can only do my part and influence friends and family members to do their's (especially the kids in the family, they'll turn every electronic device in the house on at once and not even think about it).

I also think that some of why we are advancing so slowly in the "alternative" fuels market -- isn't as much as we don't have the know-how or technology, its big business that intentionally stalls it.

You gotta remember there is HUGE *HUGE* dollars in the world wide petroleum market -- you got cars, which relates to dealerships, auto mechanics (on electric cars what good is a mechanic who is trained only in traditional combustion engine cars?), etc. etc..

But that's just my own theory.

I guess I need to create a car that has a vacuum near your bum and pulls your flatuence for fuel...then make a tasty beer that makes you have gas build-up, eh?

nothing more enticing than the thought of never having to pay for a liquid of which you don't enjoy the smell and flavor.

I can see...build a van...call it...the Gastro...or...Fartrip...hahaha

.
Actually, contrary to popular belief (and apparently your belief), most of President Bush's wealth came from his partial ownership and later sale of the Texas Rangers Baseball team. He didn't really make that much money (if any) in the oil business. So you are quite mistaken when you suggest his money came from (or still comes from) the oil business.

By law, all the president's assets must be held in a blind trust. And also by law, the manager of that blind trust has full and total discretion over all investment decisions and may not inform the president or the president's people about any aspect of those investment decisions, the type of holdings, and/or the fund's performance.

You might say that he should be divested of all personal holdings, but then he would be sitting on a pile of cash that could create some handsome interest income depending on how the interest rates are established. So whether he has cash or stock or bonds or any combination, it doesn't really matter.

And unless you can show that the manager of this blind trust is violating the law, and there has been absolutely no reason to believe such a thing, the president has neither any knowledge or control over his own assets. The same has applied to all U.S. presidents, and there's never been any hint that the "blind trust" has been revealed to any of them.

You said, "... for all (you) know, (President) Bush might actually own shares in the company trying to get drilling rights".

Well, for all you know he might not. And for all you know is exactly the same as what the president knows -- which is nothing.

Are the holdings made public, you ask? Well, then it wouldn't be "blind", would it? And if you and I knew how his assets were invested, so would the president, don't you think? And that's illegal.

But your sentiment of eliminating all politicians might be closer to my political preferences. Whether they are eliminated or their influence over individuals is eliminated, the result would be the same. So while you would kill them, I would just neuter them and make them impotent to @#$%* me over.

Are you really a closet Libertarian calling for total individual freedom from all politicians' influence over us? If so, perhaps we agree after all?

Doctors, lawyers, accountants and other professions common to many in Congress and Senate, do not need to drill deep into the Earth to do their jobs. This is a relevant difference because such professional relationships involve [i]only[/i] the patient, legal client, or financial client, respectively. An oil drilling operation that emits subsonic vibrations, physically impedes migratory routes to a rare species' main breeding ground, and directly threatens the livelihood of indigenous people who stand to gain nothing from such an operation is a much different scenario, morally, because of the parties who are adversely affected against their will by the decisions of people who have not consulted them.

So, if we do not trust you, it is not a matter of blind faith in facts that support an arbitrary, pre-determined whim, but rather that the facts you mention are secondary to the fundamental issue, which is rights, something you admirably defend in the case of your own money.

But George Bush has already had his request to allow drilling in ANWR refused, and shows willingness to hide his wish ever more surreptitiously amid other measures which are topically unrelated, and therefore ought to be considered separately.

I am not sre if yo uare reading other posts either.
The reason people responded to the volcanoe comment is because all of your other comments there were alredy answered in this thread I think.

Firstly, you say that everyone is dependant on fossil fuels around the world....

The problem isn't the burning of fossil fuels as a whole, it's the EMISSIONS control and collection, recycling of those emissions into less harmful gases that will help. IN European countries they have made these moves a long time ago, and at great INITIAL expense. There are factories that collect and refine emissions and provide them to farmers for enriching soils. There is one company I saw on TV a while back that actually collects and refines gases into water, that is then used by a neighbouring farm. There are better ways to control our emissions and stil have fossil fuel burning enterprises that are responsible for their emissions, usually recovering any initial costs in a short time. THIS is what is being propsed for companies in the USA, BUsh refused to have any tests conducted with US corporations, but wants the tests to be performed on these European countries instead, the ones with far lower environmental impact. As always, he wants to shin ethe light on the clean players and turn focus from his own. It will be easy to dent the importance that way I am sure.

You keep HEARING about hybrids and electric cars. I keep seeing Hybrids and electric cars, the majority of BC's bus system is hydrogen powered, by Ballard Fuel cells. It's not speak, it's action. Now how do we convince Americans to follow suit when Bush is still just poking his head out of denial hole? Ford makes SUV's that are hybrids, but there's something about a quiet motor that seems to scare many Americans, perhaps because it doesn't sound louder then thier neighbours.

Yes ideas are propsed for safer drilling, they also have strict laws regarding the dumping of waste bilge sludge by the tankers, but they dump into the oceans and shores of the Alaska, BC corridor anyway to save a few bucks. It's just paying lip service to the environmentalists. They are still destroying the coastlines and oceans without acare because money is FAR more important.

THe fact that you save energy by not wasting it in your home is great, who cares if others don't, YOU DO, now maybe once a TREND catches on, other people will wake up. Just like cleaning up after your dog, nobody would think of it at one time, now everyone does it. TO take THAT to an extreme, I have been on a logging road and seen people clean up after their dogs in the BUSH! (No I wouldn't bother).

As for car manufacturers and mechanics. ALL mechanics retrain continuously throughout thier career, just as IT people do too. I have been trained for 4 years and then went back for two more years of fuel injection and advanced fuel training, because cars were all switched to fuel injection and Natural Gas became important and then it was Air Care training after all that.

Just as anyone in ANY industry faces, you need to stay current on changes in technology in order to remain employed, that is not a case that can be disputed.

Cars dealers are EAGER to bring alternate fuels and technology into the market, it creates a far higher profit margin for the manufacturer.

They have all the working and daily drivable engines and cars you can imagine, but if people wont buy them, they can't afford to sell them. WHile some markets have jumped on the idea, the US is a MAJOR market for all vehicle manufacturers and if people won't buy hybrids or electric cars due to fear or inferiority, then they aren' t going to fill the showrooms with them.

So these things DO exist, environmental laws ARE ignored, factories DO burn fossil fuels resposibly.

Why don't yours?
FUD - Fear Uncertainty and Doubt, a seller's worst nightmare.

EDIT: I forgot the windmill comments.

Windil farms are all over the place, not built in front of people's windows though. They are in large barren areas along the state highways, they are in airport fields, they are in farmland, they are not intrusive and they do work very well all over the word as an alternate source of a great deal of power. What's uglier? A Gas fired power plant or a field of 100' tall windmills, they actually look pretty cool! Tall, slender poles with three blades collecting wind power. Don't picture Demark's old fashioned wooden windmills with a fat lady baking bread outside, they've changed.

The volcano story is still meaningless, but I can understand being frustrated by the types who just whine, and refuse every alternative because there is [i]some[/i] cost. There is a name for people like that: atavist. Their "solution", whether or not they state it, or even understand it would be to live like Neanderthals, huddled in caves, oops, burning wood for warmth!

The simple answer, which would work beautifully, is to power 100% electric vehicles using -- brace yourself -- nuclear power. The fact is, there are millions of square miles of worthless desert inhabited only by Native Americans whose ancestors were moved there [i]against their will in the first place![/i] So letting them have their true ancestral homes back, in order to store nuclear waste in -- irony of ironies, a proper [i]wasteland[/i]! -- would solve two problems at once.

But it sounds too good to be true, so nobody will ever try it.

Without any sarcasm: good for you for doing your part, but learning the true statistical dangers of nuclear power as it compares to the dangers of other power sources, then spreading what you learn, has the potential to move the entire nation away from these silly chemical combustion processes. What you said about requiring power is true, but the unstated assumption that it must be released from a chemical reaction with electricity as the catalyst is totally false. Golf carts run on little batteries, and there is no physical or technological barrier to increasing the scale to fit all sizes of passenger vehicles.

Actually there is technical limitations that stop them from becoming viable in automotive use.

THey are 6V deep cycle batteries. Very expensive and with a short life span. They run a golf cart by powering a small armatuer, which wouldn' twork in a car. You would need a trailer just to carry the batteries, and armature that generated enough power to do a city speed limit would be bug, expensive and would drain the battery too fast.

Electric cars run on a completely different technology than a golf cart, but you did have a point.

Electric cars do exist, ballard fuel cell cars (hydrogen power), in fact they run city buses on them too.

Yes old-boys-clubs exist everywhere. Employers rely on them, I rely on my OWN 'old-boys-club everyday.

Lets just call them personal contacts shall we, personal influences even, perhaps personal obligations to keep your standing?

This is NOT acceptable in a position of a countries leader though. Bush SHOULD ignire those alliances, as should senators and law makers. We must HOPE that the people we elect have some form of rational thought outside their peer groups. THat they woul dcat on what's best for the nation and not be influenced by what's best for them or their cronies.

No government is able to truly achieve this, no politician is ALWAYS straight up and not considering personal or monetary gain or his supporters when making decisions. But in the case of Bush, it appears to be BLATANT favoritism, something nobody should EVER see in their leaders whom they trust to make decision based on THEIR OWN best interests and those of the majority of the people, instead of the few who support their cause.

After the 'Haliburton invasion of Iraq', it is hard for ANY country's people to see GWB as a fair and just man who has the best interests of others in mind, ahead of his own 'people'.

Off topic, did you know that the City Of New Westminster sold the land from the old BC Pen to a private developer for a mere 4 million dollars?

How many brown paper bags of money do you think foloed THAT deal! As it turns out, the development contractor had most of his family working for the city at the time. That has turned into a multi-BILLION dollar development, mostly VERY expensive private nursing homes(condos) with a New West's best view of the Fraser and Mount Baker. PRIME real estate.

They apparently sold it cheap becaus eth edevloper arranged to clear and develop the land himself, yeah right. Make that many BIG brown paper bags full of money that probalby still flow through the family pockets to this day.

But hey, politicians are fair, just and unbiased in their decisions as they put the people and the city ahead of personal gain.
Sure...and that new flying car factory on Granville Street is gonna do well too.

Actually he didn't INHERIT them did he? Wasn't the big issue that HE pulled HIS money out of a company that HE drove into the ground and other investors lost millions? Didn't he then use THAT money 'gained from oil' to then invest in teh Texas Rangers?

Was that not his THIRD major business dealing with his oil money? Hadn't he already sunk companies before? Doesn't he OWE the industry? Doesn't the industry 'fuel' his campaigns? Doesn't his family have a vested interest in oil? Or is he NOT a Texan who has family and friends from decades of success in the oil business.

I think that the Texas Rangers was a quick investment, he pulle dmoney from a sinking ship and invested it before he sunk with everyone else.

But GWB didn't inherit the Rangers, he wasn't GIVEn the Rangers, he spent millions of dollars he obtained in the OIL industry to do so.

The Ford Windstar would work , the Toyota ECHO would work, The Ford Escape would work, Honda's Insight, Legacy and Element would all work.

Not sure about Buick's Allure though, not too much alluring about a fart car but Chevy's BLAZER would work.

Hummer's would have to be renamed, Rimjob's.

Pontica would need a few minor badge changes, Grand AM could become Grand Ass, Sunfire would become Assfired, but Saturn's RELAY would work well.

Chrysler's Crossfire/Assfire would work but the PT Cruiser would need to become the Toot Cruiser.

Come to think of it, very few changes to badging and marketing would be needed. And we could tell Americans their cars still run on GAS, just to keep them happy.

PLUS, if fuel was gained by flatulence, GWB would actually be able to contribute something useful to the world for once. Paul Martin would be in constant exploration and everyone accuse dof having their head up their a*s could claim that thye were lookig for fuel.

You have not understood or read any of my comments as you so very clearly state in your last post.

If you had any form of comprehension you would have noted that while I credit Bush for FINALLY getting off his butt and accepting that humans contribute to global warming, it is merely LIP-SERVICE because he is not prepared to allow further investigation IN America. 'Sure I think more tests need to be conducted as to what the effects are (one step forward) but you can't collect data or conduct tests on Americans corporations' the largest manufacturers and polluters on earth (two steps back).

So yes, GWB does recognize that humans conmtribute to global warming, but he's not taking it seriously at all and in fact he refuses to allow US companies to participate in the tests, therefore he is merely paying LIP-SERVICE to the eco-concious.

Sorry, I can't offer you a pop-up book here, so you will probably miss the point and reach some other misguded and illogical conclusion again.

"Which one you really "believe" must depend on which one you want to use to validate your lame arguments. You are too selective for convenience sake, and one of your arguments actually invalidates the other.

Typical Max, arguing for Bush's sake -- but in this case, you're arguing a comment that you completely misunderstood or failed to comprehend through your Bush-blurred glasses.

it was Ottawa that had title to BC Pen.
federal prison. :)
and the sale was prior to us becoming independant from england, so it could have even been done via queen's order.

we are lucky the developer didn't apply to the queen for a 99 year lease for $1.00
that was a possibility.

if it was new-west that sold it, kind of prooves my all polititiopns are corrupt doen't it?

Max,
nope me not a libertarian. I'm a sadistic, Dominant Goth that follows Druidic principals.
( kill em all let the gods sort them out )
shoplifting? dead.
speeding? dead
jaywalking? dead
don't matter, one sentence for all crimes, let the gods sit in judgement.

and how is that different when it's alqueda instead of the ira?
not to be nasty but even in the early 80's they were bombing transit around there.
( my younger sister was one train behind a kings cross bombing in the early 80's )

www.acpropulsion.com

The limitations are not technical, but financial, thus subject to market forces, which are remaining stagnant for reasons you've already mentioned. But there's even less justification to stick with fossil fuel considering how much power and duration can be had in this totally electric car.

YOu are right, and I almost posted that a while back but couldn't find the info online. I was=tched the SAE test video of that and it didn't just beat the Viper, it walked on it.

Mind you, this is a bit misleading, it will only beat the Viper on a 1/4 mile, after that the Viper leave it behind.

The technology has been proven beyond ANY doub now though, no matter what they do to electric cars, there is always someone who says, 'They won't go very far, they aren't fast enough in traffic, they take too long to recharge.'

The one you are referring to, I believe, has a 40 minute full charge. Smaller slower cars would be more along the 20 minutes line now, they go a LOT farther than before and can accelerate just as any gas powered car. One ocmplaint has been that it's too easy to speed, as you don't realize the acceleration without engine noise. BMW had started looking at ways to ADD some rpm noise ot the cars so people will get a more netural feeling of speed and of when they are going TOO fast.

Nice post, thanks for the link. The only one I've seen was at the SAE website and I couldn't post it as it requires a login.

Oz wasn't inconsistent, you have merely taken him out of context to avoid addressing the issues he raises. Oz's use of the word [i]finally[/i] ("George Bush has finally admitted that human emissions MAY have an impact on the progression of global warming. He agrees that more testing and inspection into the causes and impact of the issue is to be conducted.") defines that context beyond doubt to anybody literate in English. The context and meaning are the same as the other sentence you quote from Oz: "HE is merely paying lip-service to the environmentally conscious."

The fact is, Max, that altering or evading previous government decisions for the use of ALL the land in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is necessary before oil can be extracted. But changing laws that govern the entire populace in order to profit a small minority of shareholders is not consistent with the laissez-faire capitalist ideals that you and I share.

Among the most common arguments for keeping that area pristine are variations on the interest in keeping it pristine for the sake of that lands' inhabitants. Another argument I have is that changing laws to accomodate market forces is as much a violation of economic principle as changing laws to restrict market forces. Libertarians often miss the hypocrisy of affording extra freedoms to a select minority, but not this one. Republicans like to justify every measure that favors the rich with the claim that jobs will be created, but I don't believe them. I knew when Bush offered his ridiculous tax refund that it would hurt the economy, not help it, because he hadn't reined in spending [i]first[/i] -- it doesn't take Alan Greenspan to figure that! Unfortunately, Greenspan has said the very same thing, and with little more effect than when I say it.

Yes, it was given to the city of NEw West who then truned it over. It was ORIGINALLY being sought after by BCIT, but they found room in downtown Vancouver and opened their Aircraft division in Richmond (close to the airport where it makes sense).

The reason I mentioned it was because of your crooked politicians comments, it was all over the local rags when I was living by Labatts.

As for the name insinuations, get used ot it. If you are different than others you will always be tagged, that's how our US peers seem to be able to relate to each other and understand who they need to liste to and who doesn't count. You shoud see all the political tags I've acquired here, too many to list that's for sure. Especially for someone who take NO political stand on any specific party as I don't like any of them enough to become a Canadian citizen and vote for them.

I voice my political opnions on a case by case basis, GWB burned that bridge and I wouldn't trust teh guy as far as I could kick his a**, I would love to find out how far that would be.

Nobody is good in all areas, but most don't screw the world, thier country and citizens on a global scale the way Bush does.

Max, you can start asking for all my links and proof anytime, (I'm used to it now)but don't expect me to play that game anymore. No links are valid unless in favour of your choice anyway, there's no point in providing information if th eother person woul dnever even consider it (remember you only believe Bush and all else is garbage).

Jaqui, while I know you jest somewhat, your theory would see yourself ina grave very quickly too I'm sure. Unless you are claiming your are a pure saint that has never comitted a crime, even by other people's standards.

It's something Max has done for years now, and most of us are used to it. Uet don't EVER try and take his post out of context, in fact even if you directly wuote him, you will be told it's out of context, even if you include the entire post he still says it's out of context. It's just Max, you'll get used to it as time passes.

As for your comments regardng changing agreements to suit industry, you're right, that's the first argument I saw too.

But even if we DO allow pacts and international treaties and agrements to be ignored (much like Saddam did with the sanctione and the US did when it came to th eOFF program and inspecting goods bound for Iraq to begin with), the impact on the population of that area supercedes a handshake in my eyes. Political BS is one thing, but one we are used to, reducing the potential of a nations people is second only to Saddam's torture of citizens. What's the difference? In the best interests of another country's government, an area that is used to sustain human life will be jeopardized.

To reflect on your assumption of the size of the area in question and the impact on the wildlife.

The AREA is massive, the ZONE for the drilling is smack dab right in the middle of the Caribou breeding grounds and encompasses the majority of that breeding gounds. That specific area is also where people hunt to feed families, not thousands of hectares away, that is a HUGE protected area, yet the area propsed is very small and very much the epicenter of the breeding, feeding, hunting ground for 130,000 Caribou and the residents who rely on them. It's not like they are all gpoin gto move several thousand hectares in teh other direction and continue as they did every other day.

While the area is immense, I think you need to get a better grasp of Canada's wilderness and begin to realize how much is strictly uninhabitable. They choose these regions for a reason, they CAN survive and feed and breed and even hunt there, that doesn't mean they can do the same inother parts of the region though.

.
Yea, right.

If GWB is only paying "lip service" to the envoronmental crowd, then don't claim to suggest he's admitting to anything. If you want to claim he's admitting to man-caused global warming, don't call it lip-service.

Nothing was taken out of context, and the messages are right there to be seen by all.

Typical Oz, wanting it both ways.

is used to pump water I've been told. (from oregon, north cal, over mountains, in aqueducts and city grids, and out to farm fields)

if they would raise the price at the head end of water systems, would both pay for the projects and encourage conservation, reducing energy use.

there are alot of windmills here but only in 3-4 spots. despite having no emissions, they kill birds who fly into them (best wind places are passes that funnel the wind, and birds thru).

They can probably solve the bird thing, perhaps by raising the windmills. they have become very competitive with regular electric plants.

nano-particles are also making solar cells much cheaper, more efficient, should be out shortly.

chinese have a 'melt down free' reactor design in the works that keeps fuel separated in pellets, they can't get any close, produce heat, can't melt down even if coolant evaporates. I don't think it's ready as they're building a bunch of regular nuke plants.

btw, burning hydrogen is not pollution free.
It really ticks me off when ignorant news reports claim it is.

burning hydrogen and oxygen DOES form water but burning hydrogen in cars burns it with AIR, not OXYGEN and air is 70% nitrogen, small (relatively) amounts of nitrous oxides form like in regular car emissions.

electric cars are 70% efficent use of fuel from fuel cells, vs 30-40% for combustion engines. so even tho hydrogen will cost more, it will be about same per mile.

modified fuel cells can be made that burn methanol directly to electricity with only water and CO2, the methanol can be formed from water separated hydrogen, and is much easier to store in tanks; racing cars use methanol currently.

the actual range:

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_FAQs/FAQ_cars.htm

The same page will also show that it's RPM limited to 102, but can be geared to hit 140mph, if beating a Viper for more than 1320 feet [i]really[/i] mattered!

When I'm driving on the freeway, I stop to eat or pee before I go 250 miles, so if I had to plug in the car, that would be a minor annoyance compared to the unavoidable use of public restrooms. I suppose yours are clean up there in Canadise, but down here they stink like hell.

The word on the street is that it's faster than a Viper. While it did beat a Viper 1/4 mile, the same test showed the Viper leave it behind on an oval after many tweaks and tunes, each time it was quicker to get going but the Viper wiped it in the long run.

I use my IPL# to log into the SAE site, they have a few similar vids you can watch. I'm just really reluctant to pass on my ID though as my licence could be jeopardized, they are REALLY picky about that stuff because of other proprietary test data available and recall info that isn't made public.

But it is quick and pretty damn cool, but the PRICE TAG!!! OUCH!!!! :p

It is more of a paradigm of what's possible.

Your failure to consider context is evidenced by your incorrect use of the plural, Max. Oz was making a single point, which is that GWB doesn't like the environment enough to protect it with anything more than lip service. And I'll add to that, evasive pseudo-scientific fraud is also a Bush administration favorite ingredient.

I read Oz's posts and understood that although GWB has [i]finally[/i] admitted the possibility that human emissions may have an environmental impact, Bush did so only after resisting the preponderance of scientific data more than reason and fact permit, and then signing on to a major international study of such impact only on the condition of excluding his own country, which we already know burns more fossil fuel per capita than any other nation and would thus be the [i]most important[/i] country to study, if one assumes that climate change provoked by pollution is potentially [i]a problem[/i]. These facts, considered [i]together, in [b]context[/b][/i], lead directly and logically to no other conclusion than that "HE (GWB) is merely paying lip-service to the environmentally conscious."

I've disagreed with Oz's pragmatism before. He thinks paying "progressive" taxes make him less likely to be mugged, and that makes it OK for the government to play Robin Hood. I think that's a protection racket if it worked that way, that it doesn't work that way, but that more importantly paying extortion money is [i]wrong[/i]. But I've never seen Oz contradict [i]himself[/i].

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=175589&messageID=1789661

I have seen you both cheer for laissez-faire capitalism, so I have to ask, in this case, where is the [i]free[/i] market?

When the government decides who gets to have the supply for a known demand, I say the benefit to the public of so-called competitive business is a farce.

.
I'm not gonna' go round-and-round with either you or Oz. I find it a contradiction to claim one of those things in one message, while claiming the other in a different message. It's a stupid game that he plays -- not basing his opinions on clear and concise principle. One must either think that GWB is paying only lip-service to environmental issues or he's not. There is no in-between, and it should remain consistent among the various arguments, regardless of how it might be applied.

It's also both a contradiction and hypocritical to criticize me for saying the exact same thing that he said, something else he's done.

Of course, Oz won't agree. But if you don't see it that way, I suppose we'll just have to agree to see it differently.

The End

The IRA is different than Al Qaeda. Terrorism is always wrong, but Brits will admit that the Northern Irish have some legitimate grievance against the crown.

In the case of Al Qaeda, after WW2, Truman was distracted by the "Soviet menace" and allowed US [i]and British[/i] oil mines in Arab/Muslim countries to be nationalized by opportunistic dictators who did not recognize civilized definitions of property. Their successors have done nothing to introduce civilization to that part of the world.

The IRA represents (badly) people who have a legitimate complaint related to British/Protestant occupation. Al Qaeda represents (badly) people who [i]do not have any legitimate complaints outside their own countries[/i]. The most grievous sin committed against Muslims is Islam itself.

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?PromoFeature=discussion&PromoByPassed=1&forumID=8&threadID=178448

After 1/4 mile both vehicles exceeded legal freeway speeds enough to get a night or more in jail, not just a fine. I'm sorry if you felt misled, but I stand by my claim, which I'll clarify: a T-Zero would be as good for [i]legal[/i] travel as anything else that's made right now.

I have no doubt the videos are very impressive, but like you said, the important thing is the proof of concept, and the numbers do that for me well enough.

What Absolute said.

As for the extortion, while I don't want to side track too badly;

The reason I don't see it as 'proteection money' or extortion is the same reason you don't see it that way when your country spends hundred's of billions of your tax dollars protecting YOU from harm either. The government taxes us in order to pay for public services such as our protection. If that is also influenced by criminals being given living expenses and that in some small way helps reduce crime in my city and increase my personal safety, then that's fine.

They are not extorting protection money, in my eyes, though. Taxes are supposed to be for these services that make our countries better places to live than many others.

That is without my main belief that everyone deserves some right to life and many people do NEED support, especially when they too have worked hard and paid taxes for years. Some people just run into hard luck, and I have no problem with a portion of my tax money helping them out.

The key point is that it doesn't bother me, therefore nobody is extorting anything from me. I understand that's what taxes in Canada support, I'mnot Canadian, I can always go home or even move elsewhere, such as the US for example.

But I choose to make this my home, therefore you can say that I accept the terms of the 'EULA' willingly. Nobody forced me to use the software. ;)

Sometimes there's so much going on here you misread things. I didn't realize you said LEGAL limit, as in a daily driver.

I've had several people say "hey it's faster then a Viper!" on another board and in person too, but that's what they were boastign when the test was conducted. But really it isn't, just the 1/4 and a wee bit more, then the Viper is in it's power band and literally takes off.

But for city driving, it's more than you could possibly ever need. Then again, I think the McLaren F-1 would be a lovely daily driver. I'll have to build a Countache kit soon, doesn't look like I'll be getting an original one for some time now. :)

Maybe Santa, but that fat dork keeps letting me down too.