zapatos

Automatic transmissions are fast, but the change gears when they want to, not when you want them to. By changing gears manually you have more control over how the car performs. Changing gears in a race car is very fast also, but I've never seen a comparison of gear shifting between manual and automatic.

Yes, I stepped into this and described the situation as I saw it, and I expected a response. So, no problem there. My objection is not that I feel you are badgering me, but that you are judging me unfairly. Either I was correct in my analysis or I wasn't, and if you thought I was not correct I fully expected you to say so. What I didn't expect was that you would not only decide I was wrong, but that you would conclude I was being dishonest and biased. The above points you made were not refuting what I said, they were suggesting that what I said was based on my dishonest or biased analysis. That of course was a possibility, but why make that assumption? Since I didn't feel I was being dishonest, I took objection to your portrayal of me. Actually what I was doing was supporting mooeypoo's right to draw the conclusion she did. And I decided to support mooeypoo because when I read what Anders had said I concluded that she interpreted that statement correctly. I thought you were quite harsh in criticizing mooeypoo for responding to the words Anders actually wrote in that post instead of interpreting what he really must have meant based on the entire thread. The primary onus for clear communications lies with the speaker. Had you criticized mooeypoo for reaching the conclusion she did at the same time you criticized Anders for not being clear in his post, I would have said nothing. I realize you don't feel there was anything to criticize Anders for, which is why I started my first post with "I'm not so sure she got it wrong.". No hard feelings though. I was happy to get the chance to argue with you as I find you and a few others on this site (e.g. iNow) to be a real challenge. I know that if I don't make a good argument you guys will rip me a new one. You guess correctly. EDIT: Oops! I started this post a couple of hours ago and just now got back to it. I apologize if this was too far off topic. I also hope you leave this here.

Har har!! This thread is getting better by the post.

Last night I had a dream that a hamburger was eating me!!

So then you want to store the ice in the tropics?

I don't know what part of the world you are from, but pretty much every scientist I have ever met or heard of is an internet user.

My mistake for not putting [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] around the word 'leap'. If I interpreted his words incorrectly it can be simply resolved by him telling me otherwise. Since me acknowledging from the outset that this could simply be a 'misunderstanding' is not enough for you, after this post I'll gladly fall on my sword. Did you read any of my previous post? If not, let me repeat one part of it: "I feel Anders is most likely not pro-slavery." If you have managed to interpret my posts in such a negative manner, I have to believe that you harbor some prejudices yourself.

I thought it was being awake that had that effect on some men.

You may want to reread the posts. I never said his position was unclear, I simply suggested he may have misspoke in his most recent post. You on the other hand, said: So please don't accuse me of 'making excuses', and doing so by attributing your quote to me. Regardless, I feel Anders is most likely not pro-slavery. But if he misspeaks the penalty should go to him, not to the person who responds to what he said.

I responded properly to the words he wrote. I acknowledged in my first sentence that this could just be a misunderstanding. I then went on to explain why I interpreted it the way I did. It is a bunch of crap that I should be criticized by you for doing so. Tell me, is Romney for or against universal health care? First he said yes, then he said no. I myself will avoid commenting on it so as to avoid expecting him to reconcile one comment with another. Yes, I saw that but thank you for posting it again. How is that different from interpreting him as con-slavery again? You acknowledged that his position wasn't clear. As a wise man once said, "You don't get to choose their position for them and expect that to reconcile with reality."

Yes, this just may be a misunderstanding. Ok, good point. Well, yes, I did think he meant *abolition* of slavery created the disparity. It was completely consistent with his statement "...it is just not possible to grant women the right to an abortion without simultaneously taking away the rights of the fetus. Just like rights were taken away from business owners and apartment owners in order to give other people "civil rights". He is saying 'taking away the rights of the fetus' is 'Just like... taking rights away rights from business owners'. I know he thinks taking the rights from the fetus is wrong, so how do I interpret that other than that taking the rights away from business owners is wrong? I made the leap myself that if taking rights away from business owners to give civil rights to others was bad, then taking the rights away from business owners (who own slaves) to give 'civil' rights to others (slaves) was bad. I think I interpreted him corretly. It is not my fault if he misspoke. I feel like I am too. Given that he is supportive of 6" probes being inserted in women's vaginas and forced sterilization of women my interpretation of his postion did not seem unreasonable to me. I guess we are both being selective in which things we see.

I'm not so sure she got it wrong. Anders specifically equated Civil Rights with slavery two sentences after stating that Civil Rights took rights away from business owners: I did not, however, see where he limited Civil Rights to 1964-1965. It seems to me that slavery was very much a Civil Rights issue. I believe Anders is indeed suggesting that you have to take rights away from business owners to give people civil rights, and you have to take rights away from slave owners in order to give rights to slaves.

So you said. I guess I'm old fashioned. I choose not to take the word of some anonymous person on the internet who cannot cite any reputable sources to support his assertions. Whether I think we will sit twiddling our thumbs or harness fusion energy in 2013, thus solving the world's energy problems, is irrelevant. zapatos, with the Bugs Bunny avatar, is not a reputable source. Lovely story. Convenient for you that it has a happy ending. But it is irrelevant. I could tell a story that does not have a happy ending. Here is an example... As supplies of cheap energy dwindle, suppliers of oil, seeing the writing on the wall, begin to hoard their reserves resulting in worldwide recession. Politicians refuse to act in a timely manner, thus driving us over the energy cliff. Countries that did not have the economic ability to build solar and wind infrastructure struggle to meet food demands and hundreds of thousands starve. Local economies are in shambles as northern cities struggle to provide heat for their citizens. Tourist destinations are empty. Millions freeze in Russia. Local conflicts break out all over the world. China and the United States threaten a worlwide conflict as they both covet the oil and natural gas remaining in the Middle East. Thank goodness that people were working on this issue in the year 2012. They were finding more efficienct routes to work, buying hybrid cars, and countries were investing in alternative energy sources. Because of their foresight, the gap between fossil fuel depletion and the rise of sufficient alternative energy sources only lasts about 10 years. Unfortunately millions die in that time, and the world experiences economic stagnation for decades as the transition from fossil fuels to alternatives is completed. iDevonian -- Your optimism is not enough. Until we have sufficient evidence to the contrary, my scenario should be considered as likely as yours.

Maybe so, but is that really a problem? What percentagoe of those trees are grown as a crop for the purpose of making paper pulp? If the tree is grown as a crop then harvesting it is no more damaging than harvesting sweet corn. CO2 is simply recycled. Since reforestation is common in much of the world where non-crop trees are harvested for paper pulp, what is the net loss of biomass due to harvesting trees for paper manufacture? Simply pointing out that 35% of harvested trees are used for paper manufacture gives us no indiation that a problem even exists, much less what the extent of the problem may be.

As far as M31 is concerned, that galaxy is still visible because it is in our local group and is therefore not subject to expansion from our perspective. Generally speaking, the first place I'd look for an explanation is in your calculations. You are indicating that 13.7 billion years is enough time. This would seem to indicate that you have some idea of their acceleration rate, distance, etc. Perhaps if you supplied the method you used to determine that they should be out of sight by now we could determine if that is the source of the explanation. It might be possible that you did not include in your calculation early inflation, expansion rate, acceleration rate, how long acceleration has been occurring, distances to other galaxies, light that is in transit toward us (and still arriving) that was generated prior to the galaxy's recession rate exceeding c, etc.

Why do you find this satisfying? Do you mean that you find this to be the most likely scenario? Did you find support from religious texts that this may be the case?

You continue to equate my questioning how soon alternatives can replace fossil fuels, with denying that fossil fuels are a limited resource. The two are not equivalent. When I ask how soon alternatives can replace oil, telling me how fast oil is being depleted is not a useful answer. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand. If oil was being depleted by 2% per year, that would not allow me to conlude that alternatives were growing at a comparable replacement rate. It might turn out to be that way, but it might also be more or less.

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

Ok. So when you said there is plenty of evidence, you meant there is plenty of evidence but you just will not or cannot provide it. Got it. Ok. So "oil production going up since 2009" is not at odds with your statement that "Oil production in the US has been on the decline for some time now". Got it. Excellent. Thanks. This is just the kind of information I was hoping to see.

I realize a good estimate would be tough to come by, but are you aware of any projections (that seem reasonable to you) of when the US might obtain that volume of energy from solar?

Fine. Then let's talk about this factual statement of yours: If this is a factual statement, please provide that evidence. Don't provide evidence that oil is being depleted, everyone already knows that and it is moot. And don't provide evidence that Spain get 12% of their electricity from solar. Neither one supports your statement of fact that "alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future". Is this another one of your facts? According to index mundi, oil production has been on the rise in the US since 2009, and according to this But that is neither here nor there. This also does not address the role alternatives will fill in the future. Again, not relevant. Moving the goalposts. 'Overtake in a couple of generations' is not the same as "alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future". Strawman. I never said it would. I never claimed you did. The idea of efficiency did not come up until this post. Irrelevant. No one is arguing that fossil fuels are not limited. Irrelevant. No one is arguing that we don't have to accept alternatives. That statement is a huge problem and exemplary of this whole discussion. You are drawing conclusions with insufficient data. I even told you what data was missing and you still ignored it. Irrelevant. Appeal to emotion. Strawman. I am not, and never said I was, ignoring the inevitable.

The dishonest misdirection in your posts is getting old. You cannot support assertions such as: "It is possible to run on hydro-electric alone" with statements such as: "burning so much fossil fuel will add way too much CO2" If you want to argue that pollution is bad, go right ahead, although I don't think many people are going to take the opposite position. But if you are going to make positive assertions, please be prepared to back them up or admit you are wrong. Hand waving is not going to fool too many people into not noticing that you are moving the goalposts. Your whole argument can be summarized as "I can prove there is a solution by proving there is a problem". Not all problems have solutions, or at least not complete solutions. Claiming I am too ignorant to understand does not prove your point either. You have provided zero evidence that alternatives energy sources will be able to replace current energy sources, and you have not provided anything other than your opinion regarding a date when alternative energy sources will have replaced current energy sources. Pointing out that funding for alternative energy sources occurs everday, does not bolster your position that "There is plenty of evidence that alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future". Similarly, simply putting money in the bank everday does not allow me to claim I will die a millionaire. I would also need to project how much I am saving each day and how long I expect to live.

Yes, you can generate electricity from the fan so that some of the energy can be converted into electrical energy. But why would you want to?

These didn't really offer any data regarding evidence that alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future. This one indicates that "one of the most advanced countries in the development of solar energy, and it is one of the European countries with the most hours of sunshine... committed to achieving a target of 12 percent of primary energy from renewable energy by 2010". If one of the 'most advanced' in solar is up to 12% I don't find that this bolsters your argument that "alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future". Roughly the same capacity as Spain. Again, I don't find that this bolsters your argument that "alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future". Are you saying that nuclear is a renewable resource? Can you explain that please? Bottom line is that based on how I would define 'near future', I see no evidence that alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future. Perhaps if you could give an approximate date when you expect alternatives to replace fossil fuels? Nice. An actual projection from your link: Do you think that "could provide all global energy needs by 2090" supports your assertion that "fracking is already obsolete"?