"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 19

02-04-2007, 07:31 PM

Fred G. Mackey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Fred G. Mackey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>>>>> And they are banned on any sensibly organised freeway etc.

>>>>>>> Which makes the half of the U.S. that allows bicycles on Interstates less than sensible,
>>>>>>> even though the accident rate is neglible?

>>>>>> Interstates aint freeways.

>>>>> They are in the USA.

>>>> Nope, it aint as black and white as that, even in the USA.

>>> What is the distinction you are trying to make?

>> That all freeways ban bikes and that not all interstates are freeways even in the USA.

> Are you thick?

No need to ask you, you can't even manage the most basic logic.

> What is the distinction between an interstate and a freeway?

I never said a word about that.

>>> For example, I-10 is certainly an interstate and it is certainly a freeway as well - it's even
>>> known as the Katy Freeway in one town that it passes through. What makes it an exception?

>> I JUST said that interstates aint freeways, not that no interstate is a freeway.

> And I'm asking you to explain why you think an interstate is NOT a freeway.

I didnt say I did.

> What is different about I-10 that makes it a freeway?

I JUST said that interstates aint freeways, not that no interstate is a freeway.

>>> Or are you going to claim that it stops being a freeway when you leave town?

>> Nope.

>>> At what point does it transition from being a freeway into being an interstate?

>> Irrelevant to what was being discussed, where bikes are banned.

> The discussion has turned to trying to understand why you claim that interstates are not freeways.

Because quite a few interestates aint freeways, stupid.

02-04-2007, 07:31 PM

Fred G. Mackey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Fred G. Mackey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>>>>> And they are banned on any sensibly organised freeway etc.

>>>>>>> Which makes the half of the U.S. that allows bicycles on Interstates less than sensible,
>>>>>>> even though the accident rate is neglible?

>>>>>> Interstates aint freeways.

>>>>> They are in the USA.

>>>> Nope, it aint as black and white as that, even in the USA.

>>> What is the distinction you are trying to make?

>> That all freeways ban bikes and that not all interstates are freeways even in the USA.

> Are you thick?

No need to ask you, you can't even manage the most basic logic.

> What is the distinction between an interstate and a freeway?

I never said a word about that.

>>> For example, I-10 is certainly an interstate and it is certainly a freeway as well - it's even
>>> known as the Katy Freeway in one town that it passes through. What makes it an exception?

>> I JUST said that interstates aint freeways, not that no interstate is a freeway.

> And I'm asking you to explain why you think an interstate is NOT a freeway.

I didnt say I did.

> What is different about I-10 that makes it a freeway?

I JUST said that interstates aint freeways, not that no interstate is a freeway.

>>> Or are you going to claim that it stops being a freeway when you leave town?

>> Nope.

>>> At what point does it transition from being a freeway into being an interstate?

>> Irrelevant to what was being discussed, where bikes are banned.

> The discussion has turned to trying to understand why you claim that interstates are not freeways.

Because quite a few interestates aint freeways, stupid.

02-04-2007, 07:32 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>>> You don't want to even try to cut down on coal/oil burning plants?
>>
>> Sure, but not by using more resources to build solar panels that won't
>> return the energy (much less the cost) for many years to come.
>
>And it is OK to waste that same Silicon to make tons of
>games/gadgets/cell phones!

First, since silicon is essentially sand, I'm not worried about
running out of it any time soon. Second, photocells use a lot more
than the itty bitty little microscopic junctions in most semiconductor
devices (where a single die the size of a small solar panel might
contain hundreds of microprocessor chips). Third, that doesn't
address the amount of energy and resources necessary to build that
solar panel (or the expense, which is really the issue).

>>> Signs of a hard core Repuglican are starting to show.
>>
>> If by that you mean "pragmatic and practical, rooted firmly in
>> reality", yup. The fact I agree with others that the solar panels are
>> no solution at this point is inarguable.
>
>They are not a single, foolproof solution, but we had better start
>somewhere.

Ahhhhh, the "do something, anything" approach to solving our problems.
No thanks.

>>> I have a 5" solar panel that powers my portable AM/FM/Shortwave radio
>>> quite nicely. That was a small effort on my part to obtain the
>>> mini-panel to power the radio, even up to LOUD, and I never have to
>>> worry about buying batteries and adding to the dumps overflowing mess of
>>> disposables.
>>
>> Or you can simply use a radio that's plugged into the wall and
>> probably consume no more than a few cents worth of electricity a month
>> to power that portable radio (even at very loud volumes). Try funding
>> a solar panel on that (after looking up "opportuntity cost" and
>> understanding the concept, which may be a "Republican thing", of
>> course, since it's not subject to debate or spin).
>
>It would be very hard to find a plug in at the park my grandkids like to
>go to, and I am opposed to disposable batteries.

So do what I did - buy a radio with a crank. Doesn't require leaving
it in the sun all day, and can be recharged any time you like with
just a bit of finger/wrist exercise.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $795 ti frame

02-04-2007, 07:32 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>>> You don't want to even try to cut down on coal/oil burning plants?
>>
>> Sure, but not by using more resources to build solar panels that won't
>> return the energy (much less the cost) for many years to come.
>
>And it is OK to waste that same Silicon to make tons of
>games/gadgets/cell phones!

First, since silicon is essentially sand, I'm not worried about
running out of it any time soon. Second, photocells use a lot more
than the itty bitty little microscopic junctions in most semiconductor
devices (where a single die the size of a small solar panel might
contain hundreds of microprocessor chips). Third, that doesn't
address the amount of energy and resources necessary to build that
solar panel (or the expense, which is really the issue).

>>> Signs of a hard core Repuglican are starting to show.
>>
>> If by that you mean "pragmatic and practical, rooted firmly in
>> reality", yup. The fact I agree with others that the solar panels are
>> no solution at this point is inarguable.
>
>They are not a single, foolproof solution, but we had better start
>somewhere.

Ahhhhh, the "do something, anything" approach to solving our problems.
No thanks.

>>> I have a 5" solar panel that powers my portable AM/FM/Shortwave radio
>>> quite nicely. That was a small effort on my part to obtain the
>>> mini-panel to power the radio, even up to LOUD, and I never have to
>>> worry about buying batteries and adding to the dumps overflowing mess of
>>> disposables.
>>
>> Or you can simply use a radio that's plugged into the wall and
>> probably consume no more than a few cents worth of electricity a month
>> to power that portable radio (even at very loud volumes). Try funding
>> a solar panel on that (after looking up "opportuntity cost" and
>> understanding the concept, which may be a "Republican thing", of
>> course, since it's not subject to debate or spin).
>
>It would be very hard to find a plug in at the park my grandkids like to
>go to, and I am opposed to disposable batteries.

So do what I did - buy a radio with a crank. Doesn't require leaving
it in the sun all day, and can be recharged any time you like with
just a bit of finger/wrist exercise.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $795 ti frame

02-04-2007, 07:34 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Religious people are hopeless.

Yeah, just look at the poor owner and coach of the Colts. A couple
real failures, those two.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $795 ti frame

02-04-2007, 07:34 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Religious people are hopeless.

Yeah, just look at the poor owner and coach of the Colts. A couple
real failures, those two.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $795 ti frame

02-04-2007, 07:55 PM

In article <45c61908$0$27070$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, Wayne Pein wrote:
>Don Klipstein wrote:
>
>> What I see as the best use of bike racks on buses is for getting bike
>> users through bike-unfriendly bridges, also a few tunnels that I think are
>> no better for bikes than plenty of bridges!
>
>There is no such thing as a bike unfriendly bridge or road. It's people
>who are friendly or unfriendly, and they choose be either way.

How about Philadelphia's "George Platt Bridge"? Narrow lanes and hardly
anyone moving slower than significantly above the posted speed limit!

How about the "Ben Franklin Bridge" between Philadelphia and Camden?
Signs state a restriction of bikes to the walkway which is only open some
hours of the day. One day I hit that bridge behind schedule and cops were
there and they told me I had to wait for a bus or taxi that would take my
bike!

How about the "Walt Whitman Bridge" between southern portion of
Philadelphia and southern portion of Camden, and being a portion of I-76?
I am surely under the impression that this one is "motor vehicles only"!

How about the "Commodore Barry Bridge" crossing the Delaware River a
little ways south of Philadelphia, with a little gritty city on the PA
side with the name of Chester? No walkway, no bikeway, lanes almost
harrowingly narrow, trucks and buses restricted to right lane, and slower
traffic only slightly exceeds the posted 45 MPH speed limit? So
bike-unfriendly that I never checked for "motor vehicles only" signs that
I suspect exist.

- Don Klipstein ([Only registered and activated users can see links. ])

02-04-2007, 07:57 PM

William Souden wrote:
> So tell us, Rod, what are your definitions of interstates and
> freeways? I will even give you some leeway so you tel us you meant to
> say not all interstates are freeways.

Well, it seems to me that he's just being an ass since he refuses to
explain what he means.

I suppose he's talking about interstates which charge tolls. Not living
in New Jersey or states which do that, I wasn't familiar with any. A
google search reveals that tolls CAN be charged on interstates that were
built with state funds prior to the creation of the interstate highway
system.

So a very small percentage (primarily in the NE) of the nearly 50,000
miles interstates cover are allowed to charge tolls.

02-04-2007, 08:00 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] >,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>says...
>> The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>> > Wayne Pein wrote:
>> >> Don Klipstein wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> What I see as the best use of bike racks on buses is for getting
>> >>> bike users through bike-unfriendly bridges, also a few tunnels that
>> >>> I think are no better for bikes than plenty of bridges!
>> >>
>> >> There is no such thing as a bike unfriendly bridge or road. It's
>> >> people who are friendly or unfriendly, and they choose be either way.
>> >
>> > I don't think that's true. To accommodate more and more traffic, a
>> > number of roads have been widened just enough to provide two lanes of
>> > traffic each way with NO additional space between the cars and the
>> > curb. No matter how friendly a driver might be, there isn't enough
>> > space to pass a bicyclist without moving into the next lane, which is
>> > probably already occupied by a car. This is dangerous for everybody,
>> > and most bicyclists stay off such roads.
>>
>> And they are banned on any sensibly organised freeway etc.
>
>Which makes the half of the U.S. that allows bicycles on Interstates
>less than sensible, even though the accident rate is neglible?

Sounds to me that you are considering shoulders. One hazard to cyclists
there is passing cars stopped on the shoulder (easy enough to do by
walking the bike around such cars to the right). Another hazard to
cyclists is cars that just developed emergencies requiring them to pull
out of the traffic onto the shoulder if a shoulder is available - and
drivers handling such emergencies may not be looking out too well for
cyclists on the shoulder. Thirdly, the shoulder does not exist everywhere
- and is lacking on many bridges!

- Don Klipstein ([Only registered and activated users can see links. ])

02-04-2007, 08:00 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] >,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>says...
>> The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>> > Wayne Pein wrote:
>> >> Don Klipstein wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> What I see as the best use of bike racks on buses is for getting
>> >>> bike users through bike-unfriendly bridges, also a few tunnels that
>> >>> I think are no better for bikes than plenty of bridges!
>> >>
>> >> There is no such thing as a bike unfriendly bridge or road. It's
>> >> people who are friendly or unfriendly, and they choose be either way.
>> >
>> > I don't think that's true. To accommodate more and more traffic, a
>> > number of roads have been widened just enough to provide two lanes of
>> > traffic each way with NO additional space between the cars and the
>> > curb. No matter how friendly a driver might be, there isn't enough
>> > space to pass a bicyclist without moving into the next lane, which is
>> > probably already occupied by a car. This is dangerous for everybody,
>> > and most bicyclists stay off such roads.
>>
>> And they are banned on any sensibly organised freeway etc.
>
>Which makes the half of the U.S. that allows bicycles on Interstates
>less than sensible, even though the accident rate is neglible?

Sounds to me that you are considering shoulders. One hazard to cyclists
there is passing cars stopped on the shoulder (easy enough to do by
walking the bike around such cars to the right). Another hazard to
cyclists is cars that just developed emergencies requiring them to pull
out of the traffic onto the shoulder if a shoulder is available - and
drivers handling such emergencies may not be looking out too well for
cyclists on the shoulder. Thirdly, the shoulder does not exist everywhere
- and is lacking on many bridges!

- Don Klipstein ([Only registered and activated users can see links. ])