"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong

no spam wrote:
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 would prefer to limit the baby factories somehow, whether trough
education or, if need be, by a fertility inhibitor in the food.
Now the choice would be food and no children or children and starve.
And who gets to pick the breeders? What criteria do we use? Do we only
allow the 'perfect' people to breed?
It isn't a popular subject but over the last 20 years or so we have been
handing out welfare to the lowest achievers and paying them to have more
of the same. The over achievers some times never have kids because they
are the "I want it all" mindset. So our population is coming mainly from
bottom of the barrel. That's "Reverse evolution" to me.

First, you failed to answer my main questions, who gets to pick who breeds?

Whoever controls the military, as in politicians.


Care to comment on the obvious?

Sure, short sighted politicians learned that they could buy their offices by
giving tax dollars to voters and short sighted people who think its cruel to
1) make people work for there free money and 2) to make people live with the
consequences of their actions and bad choices.

Poverty is almost always a result of bad choices. People choose to not work
in school. People choose to have kids when they know they can't afford
them. People choose to drop out of school. People choose to sell drugs to
make a fast buck. People choose to screw up their lives why should I be
FORCED to pay to "fix" their problems?

Bad choices is electing politicians who don't have a clue, or those who
should have retired long ago. I didn't invent welfare but those that are
on it have obviously learned how to milk the system. Now that we have a
glut of school aged children everybody is complaining about not enough
schools, yet nobody is addressing the main issue.
Bill Baka

Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote:
"Bill Baka" wrote in message
news:mnuyh.3316: Are you saying that all things held
equal, adding more
: mass to a vehicle will not change the force
required to
: accelerate said vehicle enough to overcome friction
and
: maintain a constant velocity?
:
:
: peace
: dawg
:
:
: I am saying that once you get the mass up to speed it
matters very
: little how much mass. It would probably be easy to
get stretch limo up
: to 35 MPG as long as it stayed at 65 MPH. The stop
and go of city
: driving negates any improvement to mileage that I
could do or think of
: except to carry some amount of batteries for that
kind of driving.
: Some things are hard to engineer.
: Bill Baka

I may agree with you if this limo was in space but here
on earth with gravity your argument does not hold
water. The more weight (mass affected by the force of
gravity) the more friction and the more energy to
maintain the velocity. If you have your lime at 65mph
and you stop putting energy into it, it will slow down
and stop. The more mass in the limo the faster it
stops. You are simply ignoring friction which is a fact
of life dude. ................ are you a republican?


Seriously it is only a matter of air flow and friction, down here on
earth. I run my car tires at 40 PSI to minimize the effect the tires
have. The weight is on roller or ball bearings so that is kind of a
non-issue. The limo will slow down at a lesser rate than a non-stretched
car due to the extra mass being affected by the air. The same kind of
dynamics apply to my little Mazda and my daughter's newish Kia.
And don't call me a Repuglican. THAT is an insult. Even the limo could
make 30 MPG on the highway if it was geared right and had a lock up
converter.
Side note, since this is a bicycle group that got contaminated.
Talking about efficiency, compare a regular bike with a streamlined
recumbent and the recumbent will always be faster with the same rider
fitness level. Why? Less air to push. Starting, stopping, and hills make
for a great equalizer.
Bill Baka

no spam wrote:

The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make many
decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say.
Nonsense. It is Catholic dogma to excommunicate anybody who challenges the
Pope's primacy. The *nature* of his primacy can be debated, but his

If that were true then it seems to me that 90% of the US Catholics should be
kicked out. They are openly thumbing their noses at him and his teachings
on birth control, divorce and more.

But none of those actions dispute the Pope's primacy. They're simply
sins that should be confessed and repented. Challenging the Pope's
primacy is more akin to telling the Queen of England that she isn't the
rightful heir to the throne.

As I said, I'm not Catholic myself, but I've spent enough time with
practicing Catholics to have learned a thing or two....

Ask them if they are following the teachings of the church on all things.

Most of the ones I know either attempt to follow the church on all
things (and confess their failures), or are actively lapsed and
acknowledge that they were raised in a Catholic tradition but no longer
actively practice.

Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules.
Most of the "religious" people I know, regardless of faith, don't follow
their own rules.

Which is my point. I'm telling you I'm a vegetarian but I eat pork, beef,
chicken and fish. Now am I a vegetarian or not?

Well, that's a different thing -- vegetarianism isn't a matter of faith
-- but I get your meaning.

I can tell you I'm a Catholic (not to pick on them but because we have been
talking about them) but I don't go to mass, have sex outside marriage, use
birth control and support abortion on demand. Now am I a Catholic?

I think that's a symptom of the way our society intertwines faith and
culture. Plenty of people were raised in one Christian tradition or
another, celebrate holidays like Christmas and Easter, but never go to
church, read the Bible, or pray. It works the same way in other
religions -- cultural Jews often break fast on Yom Kippur despite never
going to synagogue, for example, and cultural Hindus celebrate Diwali
despite never going to temple. I've even known non-practicing Muslims to
fast during Ramadan.

My point had very little to do with Catholics in specific. I picked them
because they are world known and I know a little about their religion. My
point was and is you can't condemn a group based on actions of people who
are only claiming to be members of that group.

That I agree with wholeheartedly. I didn't mean to sidetrack you, I only
jumped in to correct some information I knew to be wide of the mark....

R.H. Allen wrote:
Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote:
"Bill Baka" wrote in message
: It would probably be easy to get stretch limo up
: to 35 MPG as long as it stayed at 65 MPH.

I don't know about THAT. You might be able to *design* one that does so,
but you'd probably have to sacrifice a lot of things that are desirable
in a stretch limo. Perhaps engine power, perhaps interior space (to
allow for improved aerodynamics) ... just pulling things off the top of
my head.

Almost. It isn't that hard once you get up to speed to just kick in an
overdrive gear where the engine is loafing along at about 900 RPM for a
V-8. The undercarriage of the limo might need some streamlining and the
tires pumped up to about 40 PSI but it can happen. A full sized car only
takes about 14--15HP to maintain 65 MPH and a V-8 can put out that much
at around 900 RPM. It would have to put out about 90 foot pounds of
torque to make that much power, but with a well tuned engine that should
be no problem. Every engine has an optimum HP Vs. efficiency that could
be graphed, but very few of the car magazines both to show below
2,000RPM. The magazines always put the power at 5,200 RPM and the peak
torque curves in the pages, but I haven't seen one (yet) that shows a
graph of efficiency versus power. I don't care if it makes 100 HP at
6,000 RPM because I almost never go that high unless I have to get out
of the way of a semi or something. The 14 HP thing was for my big
Chrysler so it should be much less for an economy car.

I may agree with you if this limo was in space but here on earth with
gravity your argument does not hold water. The more weight (mass
affected by the force of gravity) the more friction and the more
energy to maintain the velocity.

No. You're neglecting inertia. A moving object tends to keep moving, and
if it's heavy it's harder to stop than if it's light.

That may be over simplifying the problem, but Newton and those other
scientists did get it right, and that was taught way back in grade
school. Inertia makes the limo get crummy mileage in town but makes no
difference at all on the highway unless the driver is always speeding up
and slowing down. The cure for that is simple, just get another driver.

If you have your lime at 65mph
and you stop putting energy into it, it will slow down and stop.

Yes.

Too obvious.

The more mass in the limo the faster it stops.

No. Let's ignore aerodynamic drag for a moment and pretend that the only
force slowing the car down is rolling resistance. The rolling resistance
of a car tire on asphalt is about 3% of the car's weight. Thus, the
deceleration force on a 1000kg car is 300N, and the deceleration force
on a 2000kg car is 600N. By Newton's second law, the first car
decelerates at a rate of 300N / 1000kg = 0.3 m/s^2, and the second
decelerates at a rate of 600N / 2000kg = 0.3 m/s^2. In other words, both
cars slow at the same rate.

If this is done in neutral it will determine the effects of weight on
the tires combined with the actual rolling resistance. Do it with the
transmission in gear and you will really notice the difference of engine
drag.

Rolling resistance does increase with velocity, but on two identical
vehicles it will increase by the same amount for each, so the result
will be the same -- both vehicles will slow at the same rate.

Now it *is* true that the more weight you put on a tire, the larger its
contact patch with the ground. This *might* increase the coefficient of
rolling resistance, but only very slightly if at all (the material the
tire is made from and the surface it's rolling on have far greater
influence on rolling resistance). Let's say it's 3.1% for the heavier
car instead of 3% -- almost certainly an overestimate -- which would
produce a force of 620N. Over the course of a mile, that would require
32,000J of extra energy compared to the lighter car to maintain constant
speed.

Let's say the lighter car gets 30 mpg and both cars transfer energy from
the gasoline to the road at 25% efficiency. There are 120 million joules
in a gallon of unleaded gasoline, so 40 million joules are burnt each
mile. The extra 32,000J the heavier car requires each mile correspond to
128,000J/mile of extra gasoline. Therefore, the extra weight degrades
the car's mileage to 29.9 mpg. The difference of 0.1 mpg may as well be
zero considering that it's an overestimate to begin with, and that other
factors such as driving habits and regular vehicle maintenance (or lack
thereof) make a far greater difference in mileage than that.

I was initially talking about a constant 65 MPH on cruise control or a
very calculating driver who knows how to hold the speed with very little
throttle jockeying.

Now if you factor in aerodynamic drag, both vehicles -- being identical
aside from weight -- will face the same drag force. They will expend the
same amount of energy overcoming it to maintain a constant speed.
However, if you let your foot off the gas and coast to a stop, you'll
find the heavier car coasts farther. I refer you back to Netwon's second
law to understand why.

That applies very well to a car doing 65 MPH, but the place where you
will find the answer to the amount of rolling resistance by the tires is
around 20--30 MPH. The bleed off of speed with my big Chrysler was about
40 to 45 seconds with wind resistance being a lesser factor.
Anyone who doubts the effect of the air should take a car out and try it
for themselves.
BTW, the slick looking car may be less aerodynamic than the brick
looking car. Why? Take a look at the underside and see how much junk the
air on the bottom has to go through. Of course auto makers don't expect
people to look there.
Bill Baka

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:29:55 -0500, "R.H. Allen"
wrote:

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:42:04 -0500, "R.H. Allen"
wrote:

You're just describing the centuries-old rift between Catholics and
Protestants (some of whom, primarily Lutherans, still accept the primacy
of the Pope). If I were Catholic I'm sure we could get into a heated
debate about it.
I assume that you somehow mean that SOME Lutherans accept the primacy
of the Pope.
Precisely. Sorry if my wording was confusing. Though I think that to say
they accept the *primacy* of the Pope is a bit strong -- they accept the
doctrine of apostolic succession, which opens the door to papal primacy,
but the degree to which such non-Catholic churches accept primacy varies
(and for the most part, the non-Catholic churches that accept this are
Eastern churches rather than Protestant ones).

While I am not aware of any, and am aware that the three
largest Lutheran churches in the U.S. do not, I guess it could be
true. Like to hear the name of the Lutheran Church and where it is
located. It could be true, but I doubt it.
As I recall, they call themselves Evangelical Lutherans, Evangelical
Catholic Lutherans, or some variation thereof. I guess a specific
example would be the Evangelical Community Church-Lutheran, an offshoot
of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. They follow an episcopal polity,
their priests are ordained according to apostolic succession, and they
won't ordain women until such a time as the Pope okays it. Here's one I
was able to find in Kansas City via Google:

http://www.ecclnet.org/

The answer, then, is no, the major Lutheran Churches do not recognize
the primacy of the Pope.

I made no claims about the major Lutheran churches, only that there
exist some Lutheran churches that accept papal primacy.

Apostolic succession as recognized by the Lutheran churches does NOT
in any way recognize the primacy of the Pope - rather, it is a claim
that the sources of the church go back in succession to Peter. That
does not in anyway make the current Pope his avatar. So, no, apostolic
succession does not equal papal primacy.

Hence my weakening that statement in my last message, though there are
smaller Lutheran churches that do appear, in the information I can find
about them, to make the jump all the way to papal primacy. Aside from
the one I linked to in my last message you'll find a few if you google
"evangelical catholic lutheran", and in the external links section he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Evangelical

Some don't go all the way to papal primacy, but some do. That's all I
ever said.

The small church that you indicated does show deference to the Roman
Catholic church and the Pope. It can't hold some of the listed dogma
and doctrine and hold belief in the primacy of the Pope without
reservation. And while it is evidently HQ'd and started in Missouri, I
rather doubt much connection to the Missouri Synod. If they came from
there, they would have had to reconstitute apostolic succession.

Evidently they did, as apparently it was founded by former members of
the Missouri Synod and explicitly accepts papal primacy and papal
infallibility:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangel...hurch-Lutheran

Of course, it's Wikipedia, but if you click through the sources on the
church's own site I think you'll get pretty much the same picture
painted by Wikipedia.

At any rate, there are evidently folks running around the planet who
call themselves Lutheran, conduct services in a Lutheran tradition, and
accept the primacy of the Pope. All I ever claimed is that such folks
exist. If you don't believe me, fine, you don't have to.

In article ,
wrote:

Practically every police agency in the nation has data indicating that
almost *all* vehicular "accidents" (GOD, I HATE that term) are
AVOIDABLE.

Do they, now?

That means that when "accidents" happen, they happen because drivers
don't want to avoid them.

Hmm. There's a premise and a conclusion... but nothing joining them.

Ergo, most "accidents" happen because the
driver at fault wishes, at some level, for them to happen.

Well, this conclusion appears to follow from the last one, but it's
still out on a little island of fantasy.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Bill Baka wrote:
no spam wrote:
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 would prefer to limit the baby factories somehow, whether trough
education or, if need be, by a fertility inhibitor in the food.
Now the choice would be food and no children or children and
starve.
And who gets to pick the breeders? What criteria do we use? Do
we only allow the 'perfect' people to breed?
It isn't a popular subject but over the last 20 years or so we have
been handing out welfare to the lowest achievers and paying them to
have more of the same. The over achievers some times never have
kids because they are the "I want it all" mindset. So our
population is coming mainly from bottom of the barrel. That's
"Reverse evolution" to me.

First, you failed to answer my main questions, who gets to pick who
breeds?

Whoever controls the military, as in politicians.


Care to comment on the obvious?

Sure, short sighted politicians learned that they could buy their
offices by giving tax dollars to voters and short sighted people who
think its cruel to 1) make people work for there free money and 2)
to make people live with the consequences of their actions and bad
choices. Poverty is almost always a result of bad choices. People choose to
not work in school. People choose to have kids when they know they
can't afford them. People choose to drop out of school. People
choose to sell drugs to make a fast buck. People choose to screw up
their lives why should I be FORCED to pay to "fix" their problems?

Bad choices is electing politicians who don't have a clue, or those
who should have retired long ago. I didn't invent welfare but those
that are on it have obviously learned how to milk the system.

That will happen with any welfare system with some of them.

Now that we have a glut of school aged children

No you dont.

everybody is complaining about not enough schools,

No they arent.

yet nobody is addressing the main issue.

Wrong again.

In article , Wayne Pein wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:

In article , Wayne Pein wrote:


Oh no, here we go again! "Giving" cyclists their own lane is like
putting American Indians on their own reservations. It's really being
friendly to motorists.


How then do you rate what all has happened to the West Philadelphia
portion of Walnut Street?

That street used to have 3 lanes, except 4 during evening rush hour,
all westbound. The street is one way westbound with the right curb lane
in the past being a traffic lane during evening rush as opposed to being a
parking lane.

Now the curb lane is a parking lane 24/7. The next-rightmost lane is
now a bike lane. The remaining two traffic lanes got widened (the
previously designated lanes were on the narrow side) due to one traffic
lane being restricted to bikes.

So now that the parking got increased at a time when Phi8ladelphia
decided to tolerate double parking, the bike lane sometimes has cars
parked on it.

OK, so here's a situation where it was made worse for both street users.

When I find times that the bike lane is lacking double parked cars, it
sure is a lot easier for bikes than it was before the bike lane was put in
place. All Philadelphia needs is a little traffic law enforcement.

Even with the usual rate of double parked cars, Walnut St is a little
more favorable for bikes than before. Yoy snipped out where I said that
to say Walnut Street got worse for both street users. For reference, the
article where I said that and which you above quoted in part is


Let me tell you what life for me on a bike is like on a busy
Philadelphia street without a bike lane if the lanes are on the narow
side. This is the current situation on the portion of Chestnut Street
west of 38th. Roughly once a year a car grazes me or a car's right side
mirror taps my posterior!

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , Wayne Pein wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:


In article , Wayne Pein wrote:

Oh no, here we go again! "Giving" cyclists their own lane is like
putting American Indians on their own reservations. It's really being
friendly to motorists.


How then do you rate what all has happened to the West Philadelphia
portion of Walnut Street?

That street used to have 3 lanes, except 4 during evening rush hour,
all westbound. The street is one way westbound with the right curb lane
in the past being a traffic lane during evening rush as opposed to being a
parking lane.

Now the curb lane is a parking lane 24/7. The next-rightmost lane is
now a bike lane. The remaining two traffic lanes got widened (the
previously designated lanes were on the narrow side) due to one traffic
lane being restricted to bikes.

So now that the parking got increased at a time when Phi8ladelphia
decided to tolerate double parking, the bike lane sometimes has cars
parked on it.

OK, so here's a situation where it was made worse for both street users.


When I find times that the bike lane is lacking double parked cars, it
sure is a lot easier for bikes than it was before the bike lane was put in
place.

Where lanes are narrow I use the full lane and force motorists to wait
behind me. So for me, there is no easier or harder roads. There is
always plenty of room for my 2 foot wide bike.

Wayne

Rod Speed wrote:
Bill Baka wrote:
Bad choices is electing politicians who don't have a clue, or those
who should have retired long ago. I didn't invent welfare but those
that are on it have obviously learned how to milk the system.

That will happen with any welfare system with some of them.

Now that we have a glut of school aged children

No you dont.

everybody is complaining about not enough schools,

No they arent.

yet nobody is addressing the main issue.

Wrong again.

You must not live anywhere near California.
My grandkids have to attend schools that are not only substandard but
where guns have been found on students. The reason my kids are affected
comes from a greedy real estate developer who has had a plot of dirt
with a sign saying "Proposed school". Somebody should have told these
jerks that the houses will be proposed until they build the "proposed"
school. The "Proposed" park got built, but now that a few hundred houses
have been sold to family types the schools are overcrowded and the
"proposed" school has not yet started. Of course a few blocks away a
horde of Mexicans is building still more houses.
I would say that is a problem with the county officials either
completely blowing it, or getting their pockets lines to ignore the obvious.
Bill Baka