"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 32 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

02-05-2007, 08:43 PM

Rod Speed wrote:
> Fred G. Mackey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>
>>The Real Bev wrote
>>
>>>Bill Baka wrote
>
>
>>>>Not to the point of 6 billion people. If we mess the planet up enough then it will be very hard
>>>>to produce food for even a few million. No food ==== no people.
>
>
>>>Why do we NEED 6 billion people?
>
>
>>We don't, but until you start considering forced abortions, genocide
>>and euthenasia, there's not much we can do about the population.
>
>
> We can always let the dregs die of lack of food.

Okay, stop eating then. You've already demonstrated your "dregginess".

>
>
>
>>I've never been to Bangladesh, but New Orleans is (yes, it STILL is) a wonderful place.
>
>
> Irrelevant to whether it makes any sense to keep doing that there.
>

I say let the people decide - if people want to rebuiled NOLA and live
in it, then you can stay the **** out of their business.

I'm not saying the federal gov't should pay for it, but let them
rebuild. IMO, it's the best place in the US to visit for the culture
(as opposed to the nature).

The cuisine and the music are second to none in the world and the vices
aren't half bad either.

>
>
>>but you're the one who repeatedly asked why we "need" 6 billion people.
>
>
> Its a perfectly viable approach if it turns out that increasing
> CO2 levels mean we cant feed all those 6B anymore.
>

Wow - what a fine solution you offer.

> And that can be done without deliberately killing anyone too.
>
>

02-06-2007, 12:52 PM

"Bill Baka" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:TvTxh.59143$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].prodigy. net...
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>
>>> If we mess the planet up enough then it will be very hard to produce
>>> food for even a few million. No food ==== no people.
>>
>> Errrr, perhaps you could explain the science behind that. Considering
>> that we're using only a portion of the available land to produce
>> plenty of food for a few BILLION people, I'm having a bit of a problem
>> seeing how we're going to take 99.9% of the available land out of
>> production. Or maybe "only' 99% gone with a 10% yield for what
>> remains?
>>
>> I think we've found our new Chicken Little, folks... ;-)
>
> Ahhh, Mark, you need to go back to school and work on your math. We will
> probably hit about 9 billion before someone in power realizes that
> "growth" is not a good thing. As far as available land, what kind of crop
> can you plant in the Himalayas? All that land going to waste.
> Bill Baka
If there is a grain of truth to what you are saying the Himalayas and
Siberia will be prime
crop land by then.
Just like Greenland was vineyard country for the Norseman in the last global
warming period.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

02-06-2007, 12:52 PM

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:

> In article <45c8f103$0$1424$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
> Wayne Pein <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> wrote:
>
>>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Try Philadelphia's South Street bridge sometime. It was an open-grid
>>>drawbridge (which is bad enough), but they removed the works decades
>>>ago and filled the grid with concrete. Definitely bike (or at least
>>>road bike) unfriendly.
>>
>>Yes, my bike wouldn't like that :-)
>>
>>It also doesn't like potholes, gravel, sand, ice, snow, black ice, wet
>>leaves, cobblestones, or chip and seal.
>
>
> Then if you want to bicycle commute on real city streets, I think you need a
> better-suited bike. I wouldn't drive a car set up for a racetrack on
> real city streets either.

My road bike has done very well for daily riding here for the past 20
years thanks largely to decent enough roads and a great engine.

Wayne

02-06-2007, 01:01 PM

Fred G. Mackey wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> Fred G. Mackey wrote:
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Not to the point of 6 billion people. If we mess the planet up
>>>>> enough then it will be very hard to produce food for even a few
>>>>> million. No food ==== no people.
>>>>
>>>> Why do we NEED 6 billion people?
>>>>
>>> We don't, but until you start considering forced abortions, genocide
>>> and euthenasia, there's not much we can do about the population.
>>>
>>> Are those options acceptable to you?
>>
>> I was expecting attrition would take care of the problem,
>
> And I was hoping I'd win the lottery. The odds are similar.

OK, instead of "attrition" substitute "starvation". You don't have to
actually kill people deliberately, sometimes they die from other causes.
Sometimes they're not even born.

>> but whatever works...
>
> The means justify the ends?

I'm no trying to justify anything. Why should I?

>> Really, are we better off because we have 6 billion people?
>
> No, but what's the solution? What number is acceptable? Should we get
> the judges for American Idol to winnow the human population down to an
> acceptable number?

Anybody dumb enough to involve himself in any way with crap like that is
overtaxed to decide what he has for breakfast.

> And what is an acceptable number? 1 billion? 500 million?
>
> Who's to say?

Nobody, apparently. If it were actually up to me I guess I'd have to do
some research and make a decision. In the absence of godlike powers, I
submit that we'd be better off with fewer people than we have now.

>> I'm pretty unhappy about traffic,
>
> Oh no.

The hours and minutes of our lives are passing no matter what we're
doing. I'd rather spend mine doing something besides dealing with
slower-and-more-crowded-than-necessary traffic, wouldn't you? Especially
since the reasons for it apparently benefit someone besides the
motorists stuck in traffic.

> and it's worse in other places. I don't want
>> every square inch of the earth covered with people and buildings, do
>> you?
>
> Nope, but I live in an area where traffic is pretty much non-existent.
> I've lived in places where it was a real problem, but it's quite an
> eye-opener to hear people bitch about it here. You'd think the world
> was coming to an end because during "rush hour" you sometimes don't make
> it through an intersection until you've waited through an entire
> light-cycle.

See my previous paragraph.

> I see no alternative.
>
> Open your eyes.

Definitely makes aiming easier.

>>>> Repeat: why do we need 6 billion people? I think we were a lot
>>>> better off when we had far fewer people, maybe it could be that way
>>>> again.
>>>
>>> Nice idea, but who would you kill?
>>
>> Well, NOT the few hundred people I actually know. People who don't know
>> how to merge onto a freeway. People who stand in doorways wondering
>> where they should go. People who expect everybody else to support their
>> children. People who deliberately buy a lot of luxury goods and then
>> declare bankruptcy. People who drive obliviously because they're
>> talking on the phone. Lots of others...
>
> Well, all of those people have problems, but do they really deserve
> execution?

Yeah, they do. Remember, they're total strangers. At the least, their
stupidity shouldn't be rewarded.

>>>>>> Plenty of areas that were much more viable in the past are still
>>>>>> inhabited
>>>>>> today, and that was done using bugger all in the way of technology,
>>
>> > I've never been to Bangladesh,
>>
>> It's situated perfectly for the disastrous floods that happen every few
>> years, resulting in drowning, famine, poverty and rock concerts for
>> Bangladesh relief. It's not like it's a surprise or anything, and
>> sensible people would have moved long ago.
>>
>>> but New Orleans is (yes, it STILL is) a wonderful place.
>>
>> Sure it is (or was), but just how much should each of us contribute to
>> reconstructing it so the next incarnation of Katrina can wipe it out again?
>
> If it weren't for political corruption, there never would have been a
> serious problem in the first place.

You believe that only corruption makes structures fall apart? Do not
attribute to malevolence that which can be explained by stupidity.
"Hey, it can't happen here. Those levees are good for a 100-year storm."

> I'll agree that we should subsidize it through the federal gov't, but
> I'm more than willing to subsidize it through my tourist dollars (but
> NOT during Mardi Gras).

OK, I'll spend my tax money elsewhere and YOU rebuild NO.

> Katrina was never the problem. The problem was that the levees broke.
> If you missed that fact, then there's no hope for your understanding of
> the situation.

Yeahyeahyeah. And they broke because there was a lot of water pushing
them off their moorings, right? Where did the water come from?
Spontaneous generation? If you build below sea level, sooner or later
you're going to get wet.

>>> A tragedy occurred there, but remember that nearly 300,000 people were
>>> killed in Asia as a result of the tsunami a couple of years ago.
>>> Katrina pales in comparison to that. Should we just extreminate
>>> everyone in SE Asia?
>>
>> Not our problem.
>
> But there's a lot of people living there and you already proclaimed that
> 6 billion people in this world is a problem. Make up your mind. Should
> we exterminate them pro-actively?

No, unless you can think up a really GOOD reason to do it that nobody
can argue with. How about just paying people NOT to have children. Not
penalties for having them, just rewards for being childless.

>>> Or should we be more passive about it - refuse to trade with them,
>>> refuse to offer aid when disaster strikes?
>>
>> How about making the aid contingent on their doing something with it to
>> ensure they'll never need it again?
>
> It seems to me that stabilizing the earth's tectonic plates would be a
> project that would bankrupt the economies of 100 earths.

How about just passing a law that you can't use government/insurance
money to build in flood plains? I'm pretty sure that would be easier.

>> I'd go along with that policy for
>> floods along the Mississippi River, too.
>
> Okay - but be sure you build a port and an economy that replaces that of
> the Mississipi Delta first.

Build floatable strucures. Next?

>>>>>>> Nah, too much trouble.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> The real reason we arent stupid enough to cripple
>>>>>> economys for something that is clearly readily fixable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even the dutch managed to work out how to do something about sea
>>>>>> levels.
>>>>
>>>> What's wrong with the Dutch?
>>>
>>> Nothing - what makes you think that statement suggests something is
>>> wrong with them?
>>
>> He said "Even the Dutch," which would seem to imply that even a people
>> as <negative adjective> as the Dutch had figured out a solution to the
>> flooding problem.
>
> You have snipped your own words. Why? It's too late in the evening for
> me to research them and throw them back in our face.

Those were Rod's words. Why do you think we share a face?

>>> Perhaps the Netherlands shouldn't be populated either. Is that what
>>> you are suggesting? Should we nuke them?
>>
>> Huh? They've solved their problem without our help or money (we don't
>> have to actually support them, do we?). Why should we nuke them?
>>
>>>>> Change your handle to "ostrich".
>>>>
>>>> Hey, maybe the sky ISN'T falling...
>>>
>>> Maybe it's not, but you're the one who repeatedly asked why we "need"
>>> 6 billion people.
>>
>> Um, I suppose there's a connection there...
>
> Oh - the sky is falling because they're are too many people (and to
> quote Richard Pryor, "I have no place to ride my horsie").
>
> So who do we exterminate?
>
> Who do we kill?

People I don't like. Next?

--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.

02-06-2007, 01:02 PM

Arnold Walker <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
> 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:

>>>> If we mess the planet up enough then it will be very hard to
>>>> produce food for even a few million. No food ==== no people.

>>> Errrr, perhaps you could explain the science behind that. Considering that we're using only a
>>> portion of the available land
>>> to produce plenty of food for a few BILLION people, I'm having a
>>> bit of a problem seeing how we're going to take 99.9% of the
>>> available land out of production. Or maybe "only' 99% gone with a
>>> 10% yield for what remains?

>>> I think we've found our new Chicken Little, folks... ;-)

>> Ahhh, Mark, you need to go back to school and work on your math. We will probably hit about 9
>> billion before someone in power realizes
>> that "growth" is not a good thing. As far as available land, what kind of crop can you plant in
>> the Himalayas? All that land going to waste.

> If there is a grain of truth to what you are saying the Himalayas and Siberia will be prime crop
> land by then.

Nope, hopelessly useless for mechanised agriculture.

> Just like Greenland was vineyard country for the Norseman in the last global warming period.

Nothing like. The world's moved on with mechanised agriculture.

You may well see areas that have had a problem in russia and poland etc do well tho.

02-06-2007, 01:06 PM

The Real Bev wrote:

>
> Every arterial road should be designed to move traffic as quickly as
> possible. Anything less wastes time and gasoline.

There is no free lunch on speed. Speed on an arterial means longer waits
trying to enter the arterial. If you examine the average travel speed
(accounting for stops) on most roads you will find it to be quite slow.
There is only the illusion of speed between stop lights.

>
> Except for those designed as revenue-generators, traffic light systems
> are generally designed to move vehicles as efficiently as possible.
> Slower-than-normal vehicles disrupt the entire system, which is not only
> inefficient, it's rude.

Sorry, the default speed of a road at a given point is the speed of the
slowest user, whether that user be a stopped bus or other delivery
vehicle, vehicle slowed or stop for a ped, or a vehicle who by its
nature is slow. This is a transportation democracy, though some think
its an autocracy.

Wayne

02-06-2007, 01:45 PM

Mark Hickey wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> I'd hope there was some advantage -- it seems silly to save wear on
>> cheap brake linings by wearing out expensive engine and clutch parts.
>
> On the road, you betcha... but on the race track, you try to save your
> brakes by using engine braking.

More reserve capacity in the engine than in the brakes? Why not make
thicker pads?

> Home of the $795 ti frame

Has this always been the price? I suppose I could google for old sigs,
but I'm lazy...

--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.

02-06-2007, 01:48 PM

dgk wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:50:41 -0800, The Real Bev
> <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> People who don't know how to merge onto a freeway.
>
> Hee hee. My pet peeve. "Hey *******, why do you think that it's called
> an ACCELERATION LANE!"

Is that what it's called? I always thought it was called the
"accelerate to 45 and merge regardless of the current occupant, then
proceed to the fast lane without increasing speed lane".

--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.

02-06-2007, 01:59 PM

Stephen Harding wrote:
> Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote:
>
>> If you had any clue as to how your jexus was concocted you would be
>> human but instead you are a brainwashed little mother****er bent on
>> bringing Armageddon to the world. **** you christian. Hope you get
>> your traitor bike selling ass flattened on the road by a truck. You
>> are on the side of the murdering mother****ers and need the same end
>> as the murders dish out.
>
> Valium can be your friend!
>
> Valium *really* needs to be your friend!
>
>
> SMH

AAAH,
The benefits of cross posting.
Bill

02-06-2007, 02:08 PM

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:55:36 GMT, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> Wrong cubed. Running the engine at high RPM is what sucks the gas so
>> fast. Back to physics school for you.
>
> So my '69 Alfa coupe should have had worse gas mileage than my uncle's
> Lincoln? At what speed? Best I could recall, I could get around 30 mpg
> as long as I kept it in the sweet zone, from about 20 mph to a bit
> over 70 mph. He was happy to get 15 at any speed.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

It is a matter of engine size, RPM, and stroke. A piston and steel pin
plus the weight of the connecting rod is over a pound. Now think of 4,
6, or even 8 of those being accelerated back and forth about 50 times
each second and how much energy is lost. Lower RPM equals more mileage
down to the point where the engine can't put out enough torque and not
beat up the rod bearings. That can be as low as 900 RPM with a big
engine. With my big Chrysler it takes about 14 HP to hold 60 MPH, and
with my present gearing it is running at about 1,800 RPM and 14 MPG.
If I had a stick with the overdrive that could be 30 MPG at about 1,000
RPM. A 440 is a torque monster at low RPM's.
Physics.
Bill Baka