Jump to content

Aperson

Members
  • Posts

    276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Aperson

  1. quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    ROFL, Are you actually serious? Government financing exploration for oil, drilling, and developing? ROFL. It would be more efficient and would cut down on waste and corruption?


    Sorry for not being clear.

    I meant the goverment should fund the studies on whether or not said fly, caribou etc. will be affected by the drilling or not. Teh oil company would be responsible for the exploration, drilling and devolpment of the well(s). This would cut down on corruption and biased of the studies as there have been other studies down showing that people employed by a business are four times (or somewhere around there) as likely to have a study favourable to that buisness as someone who is independent.

    quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    As far as your statement about how they don't strive for quality goes, here's something to DEBASE that argument completly, would you buy a Honda for $17,000 or would you buy a Ford for $15,000? Would you buy made in China, or would you buy made in Japan?

    Not really, unless you want us to assume that each item has the exact same properities except for the manufacturer, country of origin and/or price. In any event, people do buy things based on brand names....

    Jaguar:

    I doubt that as it dosn't make sence to me on how a country that imports more then it exports (when it comes to gas, oil and electricty for example) would be less affected then the entire world which has an equal import-export amount (duh). In any event I don't think that experiment would be pleasent for anyone.

  2. quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    You CAN NOT force efficiency, just like you CAN NOT force someone to sit down and invent something. Inventions come from need, the greater the need, the greater the invention. When we really start running out of resources, then something new will either come out on the market, or like I said, we will all start plowing the lands.


    Please explain then; why does whenever a goverment make stricter effiency laws, cars that fit them come onto the market.

    quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    PS. Grizzle, when it costs you 3 million to do an "environmental study" about an impact on some fly because you want to drill a new well. Another 50 million to get the permit to build, and another 100 million to pay off the politicans for pollution credits. 1 billion to prospect, construct and develop a well. AND After all that, some enviro-mental can walk onto your property, see that "endangered" fly dead in the mud puddle, start crying, and shut the whole operatino down. Guess what, those new wells, NOT gonna happen.


    Personnaly, I belive that the goverment should fund such endevors. This also has the bonus of reducing the chance of corruption and bias.

    quote:

    Originally posted by Jaguar:

    You will notice that they either A: depend upon us for their successful economies


    It works both ways. The United States is a net importer, therefore unless its peoples' standared of living greatly diminishes, it relies on other countries for raw materials, goods et cetera. If the rest of the world sunddenly stopped supplying the U.S., the U.S. would have very large problems that wouldn't be easily fixed. On the other hand, if the U.S. suddenly disappeared, it would hurt, sure, but the world would more easily recover than the previous example.

  3. A carrot is generally better than a stick, so giving tax-breaks on buying fuel effienct cars is probably better. Granted its less favourable with politicians for reasons that should be obvious.

    And urban-sprawl is going to come back and bite us, hard, in the future unless we start building up instead of out. But that's another thread.

    Also, overweight people are already harressed, just for different reasons, often wholly superfical.

    Unfortunatly with captilism, people in general arn't very good at foresight and so incentives, dis-incentives, whatever, are often necessary to prevent a problem that will arise in the future which would be worse without said regulations.

  4. A person's politicle affiliation has nothing to do with this arguement. Also your exageration do little to help an agruemnt (if at all).

    Communism works well in theory but its implementation and the human element causes problems, to say the least (I recommend Animal Farm for a fictional example of how this happens).

    I would like a link on power plants shutting down due to exceeding pollution rules. And acording to this link power plant's are not having their output affected by pollution rules (Granted agreements and negotiations had to be made).

    On the last point; Strawman's. Grizzel was saying that using a calculator was not appropriate to this arguement and other ways of thinking and logic were required when viewing the problem (his opinion of course). He was not saying anything about "not thinking".

  5. Since quoting everything is just managing to artificly infalte my post size, I'll just respond without them.

    Matchoo:

    First point; That depends on how you want to measure it. If you measure pollution per gallon then you are correct. However, if you measure it per passenger mile than it causes more pollution.

    Second point; agreed, that's why I'm personnaly more in favour of Tax Rebates for things like Hybrids, Solar cells etc.

    Soback:

    See above for the first paragraph.

    I'd have to double-check Canadian immigration policy but I have the feeling your exagerating.. again (which is bad from a logical agrument point of view). Was the military point directed at both Europe and Canada?

    I'll wait for your thread on Tuesday then.

    Remeber; sweeping generalizations are never right (includng that statement, paradoxically)

  6. quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    By the same token I can say fuel is NOT a luxury, doesn't make it any more affordable however. Without it, I would have no job, no income, could not drive to work, would not fly airplanes. Granted, I could survive as a bum on the street, fishing in the ocean, and build a bonfire on the beach for warmth and cooking. But seriously. Luxury, is whatever is scarce for YOU. You see, people who loot from you, want you to think that exluding air, water, food, shelter, and some rugs to cover yourself with, everything else, is a luxury that you can do without. The same ones that say you should not eat un till everyone has been fed, you should not have a house, till everyone has a roof over their head, you should not have a car, till everyone has one, because THEN, once you buy into that, you are their slave, who works for THEIR benefit, and not your OWN, to make THEM happy, not YOURSELF (when you make others happy, it should make you happy, sounds familiar?). Funny how those things were the foundation of communism, and are the pillars of socialism. When have you heard in capitalism said that you should give away what you make, I haven't, I HAVE however heard it said in communism, and performed in socialism, obtaining the sanction of the person being looted by guilt, that his neighbor is less fortunate.

    First just because you can't afford a car dosn't mean you are automaticly reduced to someone who has to live on the street. I know someone who's parents don't have one and they own a house. Second the "gas guzzeling" tax would only apply to low effiency vehciles and would not apply to high fuel effiency vehciles which would not mean you would not be able to drive anymore.

    quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    Ever heard people saying ".....is a luxury we can not afford right now" when refering to a common place object. That's exactly what they mean, they don't have the budget and can make DO without that object. Some people, CAN NOT make do without gasoline, some can. Some people can afford it, some can't. So if you can't afford it, at a certain point, it becomes a luxury, while for some other guy, he can buy 10 gallons, pour it down the drain without a care, and buy 10 more, is it a luxury for him? Does that mean that just because he is able to waste his money like that, we should punish him for it? I don't think so, I say it's great, because if he can get to that point where he has so much money that he doens't care SO CAN I, (after feeding all my neighbors, providing them with medical care, and a place to live of course, how could I forget).

    Gasoline is not needed for life as a person can make due without having it. Of course it would be harder but it wouldn't cause your death in a few weeks time.

    quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    Like I said, for someone in the dessert, water CAN be a luxury, is it needed for life, yes, is it hard to obtain in the desert, yes, would it be expensive to buy in the desert, yes. Is it a luxury, YES.

    Whoo hoo, semantics.

    It would be if you had more than enough water than is needed to sustain your life. e.g. if you had enough water to water your lawn during a drought.

    Othwerwise what Grizzel said.

  7. quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    To your First point, if you don't support the idea, why even explain why someone would want it? Why rationalize something that CAN NOT be rationalized.

    As it is an important skill in order to understand how people think and to better understand their arguements. And obviosly it can be as I did...

    quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    On your second point. If it was that easy to make a fuel effiecient SUV or a Hummer, then why don't you go ahead and DO it, seriously, open up your own car manufacturing plant, and build fuel efficient SUV's, you think I would pass up a good SUV that gets 50mpg, for the one that gets 15? No rational man would make a bad choice for himself, when he knows it's bad, it's evolution, and self preservation, it's as simple as common sense, if he passes up the 50mpg one, there would be a REASON for it, that outweights losing those 35 miles in gas savings. If you have the most basic rudementary comprehension of physics, you know that to move something requires force, the heavier it is, the more force is needed to move it. The simplest thing IS, the MORE force you need out of an engine the MORE fuel you burn. And the fact is, the fuel efficient or hybrid engines, just DO NOT put out the power needed to MOVE a 4 ton truck or SUV. Here's an example, you can have a car with 100hp engine, and total weight of 1500 lbs, and a car with 500hp engine, total weight 6000 pounds, the car with 100 hp engine will OUTPERFORM the car with a 500 hp one. Just because it's lighter, and it requires LESS horsepower to propell it, therefore LESS fuel. Every 6 pounds cost you about 1 hp, that's the rule of thumb. Why do you think even the crappiest motorcycle will still out accelerate a Ford Mustang. Because power to weight ratio is in motorcycles favor. That's why they can't simply go ahead and build a "fuel efficient" SUV or truck. What they have on the market right now, IS efficient for an SUV or a truck.


    But they already have. Also other companies have made some too. (Google "Hybrid SUV")

    quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    Third point. A guy who makes his millions, is the one who signs his OWN paycheck. Meaning he OWNS that bussiness which nets him that pay, or is at the head of it. Bussinesses profit margins go down, his pay goes down, therefore follows a restructuring to increase profit margins.


    Point, Set and Match to that

    quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    Fourth point. Public transportation is just that, public. Private transportation is PRIVATE. Which efficiency does public transportation tramp exactly? If you are talking about gas efficiency, sure, you can pack 100 people into a bus and move them from point A to point B while burning less fuel. Time saving efficieny, um, no, that would go on private transportations side, comfort efficiency, nope, that's private too, safety (not only do 100 people die if that bus goes down "London anyone", but what about the germs, airborn deseases and such), nope safety goes to private also. We can go on, but you get the point, your own car, beats a bus anytime, it's all about what you are willing to spend, and someone coming out and saying, you can use your own car, but on top of that you PAY us a fee, it's just BS. Who are you to decide which mode I should use, or who are you to decide to impose some kind of tax/fee on whichever mode you disagree with.


    Actually, bussing is safer as less people die per passenger mile: linkage

    Granted, it takes longer but dedicated bus lanes can help that... and if there are less private vehicles then there are less traffic jams.

    quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    And your LAST point. Luxury is not defined as expensive. It's whatever is not easily come by. Water is luxury in a desert, coal is luxury in some poor country in the winter, fuel is luxury where none is found, lumber is luxury where no forests grow. So, when you cram a billion people into one city, water BECOMES a luxury. When you have high demand, low supply for fuel, at a certain point fuel becomes a luxury that not everyone can affod. So, why should you decide, that if I am able to afford something you can not, that I should then pay a dis-insentive tax on that item. Just because you can't afford it, doesn't mean someone else can't. And artificially imposing a fee on that, is not only wrong for ethical reasons, but is bad for economic reasons too.

    Well according to Dictionary.com luxury is something that is not needed to live. Water, on the other hand is, ergo it isn't a luxury and is instead is a necessity.

    EDIT: I'll be able to respond to your other post tomarrow Soback.

  8. Hrm, I wasn't actualy supporting the idea of a gas guzzeling tax, I was just pointing out why someone would think that it is a good idea. Then somehow my agruments turned into that anywho.

    quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    When you have an ARTIFICIAL penalty on buying a big car, that penalty is based on YOUR opinion, and others like you. The person is buying a car that costs him MORE than a smaller one, he is paying MORE to fuel it up, he is paying MORE because he fuels it up more often, he is paying MORE for maintenance, he is paying MORE for insurance because those cars are costlier to fix after an accident, so he pays TONS MORE period, just based on PURE MARKET FORCES.

    YOU, on the other hand, want to stick your hatred opinion and PENALIZE them EVEN MORE on top of everything else.

    I'll assume you menat "you" in general as I never actualy said that I wanted gas guzzeling tax added...

    quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    Are you familiar with PRIVATE JET CHARTER? I'll tell you a little bit about it. It's when people can charter a plane, to take them from place to place. NOT an airliner, but a plane for their own, private use. It can be ONE person, in a jet, going from NY (east coast), to CA (west coast). You have ANY idea how many gallons of fuel that burns? THOUSANDS, you have any idea how much POLUTION that creates? Why don't you start ranting in that case, that there shouldn't be luxiries for people who can afford them. Why don't you stick that person, who is supporting and maintaining HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of jobs when he charters that jet, that's right, he gives ME a job, he gives dispatchers a job, he gives fuelers a job, he gives caterers a job, he gives mechanics a job, and HUNDREDS of other professions that surround that industry, why don't you stick him in a commercial public Jet, and say that it's conservation of resources and reduces pollution. Or why don't you impose $10,000 dollars dis-insentive on every charter flight a plane flies.

    What then, will you be doing with all the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who will lose their jobs because an industry is gone (where do you think the socialists get their money to support those who are out of jobs, FROM THOSE WHO HAVE JOBS), just because a private jet is NOT economical. That person, CAN AFFORD to spend that kind of money though. Just like someone buying an SUV, they can AFFORD to. So your extra DI-INSENTIVE, is the ugliest, nastiest, horrible, socialistic way of imposing an aritificial TAX, on people who can afford things, and who GIVE YOU a job. Where do you think that "dis-insentive" is going to go? Let me give you a hint, towards more government programs. And WHO do you think will be picking up the cost of that dis-insentive. You think a guy who finally says, screw that SUV, and buys a hyndai loses and you win? Or do you think that the company making that SUV, goes out bussiness, thousand of people lose their jobs, and will now be supported by YOUR socialist system by the way. And don't try telling me that those people will just switch over to building more efficient cars, because they will NOT. Have you checked the car surplus? Well there's TONS of them UNSOLD, each year. So no, NO NEW workers will be needed at the plants that are already producing smaller cars. (Hmmm... wonder why GM is going out of bussiness) Who do you think would be picking up that $10,000 imposed on private charter, by the same token of thinking that it's wastefull. You think a guy who spends $70,000 a trip, easily, is going to say "hey, it's only $10,000 more, no big deal), or do you think that that the guy who spends that kind of money, probably has some kind of bussiness, whos final product YOU use in your daily life, and now that it costs him MORE for his lifestyle, he will be INCREASING the price of his product to compensate, with YOU as the final guy PICKING UP the tab of your own dis-insentive solution. ROFL


    I think this qualifies as a strawmans aguement... if not than a huge exageration. Why wouldn't they make more fuel effient cars? It mustn't be that hard to add a hybrid engine option to the design of upcoming models of cars. Or are you telling me a company would rather just roll over and die?

    quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    Well, it always cracked me up when a democrat would say (Kerry in this case) that they will lower the taxes for the poor and have higher taxes on the rich. Who own the factories, bussinesses, mines, refineries, petroleum wells, ect... and all the poor applaud, and yell HURRAY. Being too stupid to realize that when that politician increases the taxes on those rich guys, bitting into their profit margins, those same rich guys will increase the prices on their products, and those same poor sobs will ultimatly be the ones who end up paying the increase in tax that they applauded for, out of their own venomous hatred of the rich, who provide them with those same jobs that put bread on their tables and roofs over their heads. The ratio of that however, when you go through the chain reaction, IS: For every dollar increase in taxes, the consumer ends up paying 3 dollars more to maintain the same profit margin for the company. ROFL.

    Well a buisness person making millions of dollars probably shouldn't be upping costs based on their personal earnings. Granted a flat tax is probably better for other reasons.

    quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    Yeah, your dis-insentive is a "great" idea. Now, however, that you should see the whole chain reaction a little more clearly than just big gas guzzlers bad, smaller cars good, I certainly hope you can make an educated decission about what it would REALLY mean, when you say that. Really, FREEDOM, has no comparison, be it personal or economical. US was born a free country, now it's being chained down, and reminds me of a captured wild beast in a zoo, it's sad to see them there sometimes (you can ALWAYS tell which ones were captured and which ones were bred in captivity) just wallowing away.

    This was my idea? And in any event, public transportation trumps personal transportation in effiency in almost ALL forms of comparison and North America really needs to get a system of mass transit similar or greater than Europe's.

    Also I would be interested in the link relating tax increase to dollar increase (or the book).

    quote:

    Originally posted by Matchoo :

    [QB] So if this can be done with gasoline, can it be done with water, natural gas, electricity, phone usage, etc?

    'Lets see, you used 2000 units of natural gas this month, at $.03 each, thats $60.00. Now lets go ahead and add on the the 'dis-incentive' penalty for your 2850 square-foot house. The penalty tax at a rate of one-one thousandth of a cent per unit per square foot comes to $57, making your total gas payment this month $117 even [whoa] . Now, lets Talk about you water bill..... [big Grin] '

    Last Sunday I sold my SUV because it got too expensive. Now I ride the bus to work. Adding a penalty tax to gas is unnecessary because the current price of gas is having the same effect the penalty tax would. [QB]

    I'm generally not one to agree with "slipply slope" agruements but it would certainly open the opportunity to argue for that. (Then again, if anything it should only apply to luxries, which water is not.)

  9. quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    Who are you to decide, to impose, and enforce on me your thinking of what kind of car I should drive? If you don't like the big gas guzzlers, don't buy one. If I do, and can afford one, I should be able to, without anyone imposing their personal likes or dislikes on my way of life.

    What if I tell you I don't like the tiny hybrid cars. What if I think they are unsafe and whoever buys one should pay an extra $5,000 at the time of purchase and higher insurance premiums because if they get into an accident, there's a higher likelyhood of them getting seriously hurt and therefore it will drive up EVERYONE's insurance rate. Whould you like that? Hm....

    First, no one is imposing a choice on you, they would merely be adding an additional dis-incentive (if that's the right word) against buying that type of vehicle.

    Second, that arguement is flawed. "Gas Guzzeling" vehicles are proven to have poor gas effiency and so put a strain on resources and, of course, pollute more. That is fact, not a personal opinion. The idea that hybrid cars are more dangerous is not based on fact and no studies I know of have proven them more dangerous. (Actually, SUVs, one of the worst gas guzzeling offenders, are probably less safe due to the relativily high rollover chance) If it was however, then insurance companies would probably make you pay more for much the same reason I'll get to pay high levels of insurance since I'm a male teenager.

    quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    P.S. The way socialism blends with capitalism, is since that system CAN NOT systain itself, it leaches off of the wealth capitalism produces, and therefore cripples it. So NO, the combination of two systems is not better.

    A pure captilistic goverment would be interesting in how it works and how long it lasts.

    EDIT: I should add that Hybrids aren't limited to small cars and every car should really have the option of having a hybrid engine. A 30% increase in fuel effiency for a few extra grand is a really dumb thing to say "no" to, especially with the way gas prices are going.

  10. quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    Why would you want to "penalize" someone TWICE.

    To further reduce the number of people driving said vehicle. This could also get car manufacturers to make more fuel efficient cars of any type.

    quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    Artificially penalizing them on top of market forces is just smacks of a socialist system. That's why I am so serious. As you know, that system has been tried time and time again, and each time it has failed, with drastic consequences for the people living under it.

    Even the United States dosn't operate under a pure capitalistic system (as far as I know anyways) and a blending between two systems may produce a better result than a pure socialist or pure capitalist system.

    quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    Rome has failed because of it.

    I've heard quite a few theories on why Rome fell, and I have a feeling its a bit more complex than that.

  11. quote:

    Originally posted by Darkling:

    quote:

    Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr:

    No its not. They've just moving data. The game does not handle real-time positional updates.

    I've been involved in Fleet battles involving over 100 ships in the game, and while you're right, a lot of the explosions, movement graphics and so on, is all estimated and not actual real time, it still "Works" and generally the team with the best combination of strategy & ships will prevail.


    From my understanding of "massive" fleet battles, lag usually ends up as the winner.
  12. I didn't find the easy setting to hard, harder than most "easy" difficulties. Granted I had to restart once as I didn't know the second weapon had a shotgun and I can't use the normal fire on either gun to kill the damn bugs.

    Otherwise, its a neat game and there are scenes with alot of bugs.

    My main gripe is that the weapon sounds are rather weak sounding and your squad members do little to help when you have to get the energy cell.

  13. From the first article.

    quote:

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has decided that "no offer that can help alleviate the suffering of the people in the afflicted area will be refused," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

    quote:

    Russia has offered boats and aircraft. On Wednesday, Russian president Vladimir Putin offered to send a group of military special forces specializing in search and rescue to the region. That offer was rejected by the State Department.

    Commenting on the lack of foreign after the American goverment just refused it (contradicting themselves in the meantime) is just silly. This is basicly saying "we don't want your help" and if the U.S. goverment keeps rejecting foreign aid offers than I have little sympathy if people say: "But never helped during hurrican Kantrina".

    On article 2 and 4:

    Some people have poor morals and others are just bigots.

  14. Sorry, I mis-understood what you asked.

    The attacks probably can't be tranced any further (assuming they arn't coming from China)than China if the Chinese goverment dosn't release the logs. Which could be for a variety of reasons: They don't want to admit the attacks are coming from within their borders; they are hiding them as a form of support for the attacks, they are just paranoid in general or they are still deciding whether or not to yet. And, as has already been pointed out, there isn't any concrete evidence until the server logs are released.

    In any case the attacks could very well be coming from any other country.

  15. Its quite simple. The person or group performing the DoS attack routes the packets, commands whatever through several different computers, often in different countries in order to confuse tracing attempts. So someone (in any country) could choose China as a part of the route. If China gets blamed, all the better.

    Of course, someone in China could be doing the DoS attacks, but it'd be rather stupid to not use a path out of the country your in.

    China also could be turning a blind eye to anything passing through if they feel it could benifit them.

  16. quote:

    On a side note though, You could say that God was on Israel's side during the several wars, when they beat the crap out of all their Arab Neighbors and seized additional land, or you could say that they were VERY lucky. Throughout Israel's history they seem to have gotten VERY lucky in wars against much more powerfull enemy's. I guess it's all just dumb luck and God had nothing to do with it right.

    Or said israelies had better military tactics, etc. than their Arab neighbors.

×
×
  • Create New...