Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#2831
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >Ford presented evidence in court that the fuel tanks
> >in Pinto were no more likely to rupture ina crash than other
> >contemporary cars.
>
> Too bad their own internal documents not only contradicted this, but talked
> about how many deaths would be worth not installing a part costing a few
> cents.
This is false. No such document related to the Pinto existed. People repeat
this lie so often it has become a "truth." For once can you prove that the
document exists?
Regards,
Ed White
#2832
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >Ford presented evidence in court that the fuel tanks
> >in Pinto were no more likely to rupture ina crash than other
> >contemporary cars.
>
> Too bad their own internal documents not only contradicted this, but talked
> about how many deaths would be worth not installing a part costing a few
> cents.
This is false. No such document related to the Pinto existed. People repeat
this lie so often it has become a "truth." For once can you prove that the
document exists?
Regards,
Ed White
#2833
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >Ford presented evidence in court that the fuel tanks
> >in Pinto were no more likely to rupture ina crash than other
> >contemporary cars.
>
> Too bad their own internal documents not only contradicted this, but talked
> about how many deaths would be worth not installing a part costing a few
> cents.
This is false. No such document related to the Pinto existed. People repeat
this lie so often it has become a "truth." For once can you prove that the
document exists?
Regards,
Ed White
#2834
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnq8o708st@enews1.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> Now, for political reasons it might be a good idea to stop depending upon
> middle east oil. To do that in the short term we'd have to tap our own oil
> sources, like off shore, ANWAR, etc.
On this topic I think that taping these sources would just result in
their depletion and return to foreign sources once dry. I think it
should be a national defense priority to leave this oil in the ground
until it's really needed.
> So, now, what happens when we begin to deploy massive numbers of solar
> panels around the world, how is the environment going to cope with all that
> HEAT??? Well, none of the greens want to answer that question, nor can they
> address where all the space will come from to actually deploy these things.
> Solar power is hugely inefficient in terms of it's actual power generation
> capability vs. space requirements, and production of solar panels is hugely
> toxic.
> Next, where, pray tell, will we place all of the so-called "green" wind
> generating stations, hmmmm???? Oh, not anywhere near a green's home, no sir,
> too unsightly, threatening to birds and the noise, WELL!!!
You are scraping the surface on a bigger aspect of the political
environmental movement. It's essentially anti-energy. What I have seen
is that massive clean energy proposals are fought on environmental
grounds. Because once they are scaled up there are *some*
environmental effects. Generally the ugliness of them is the primary
objection. The end result is staying with coal and other fossil fueled
plants, the status-quo.
> When greens get off their anti-society high horses and start working for
> real conservation maybe then there can be some discourse. All I know is that
> for over 30 years the same zealots have been waving their arms and flapping
> their gums yet have not proposed a single realistic solution. As it is now,
> no one can drill, mine, cut, dam, etc. All venues are off and the greens
> can't propose a single alternative save go live in yurt by the river
> somewhere and live on sprouts. Give me a break!
I'd really wish they focus their efforts on getting 19th century mineral
laws updated so the US tax payer wasn't taken for a ride by elected
officals and their buddies. But that's another story.
Much of the time I wish we could get another president like TR with
regards to conservation. As it sits we seem to get ones that try to
make a good image to the greens while profiting from enviromentally
damaging businesses (Al Gore) to the sort of situation where the
environment is damaged and the US taxpayer gets ripped off. (typical
republican policies)
> Now, for political reasons it might be a good idea to stop depending upon
> middle east oil. To do that in the short term we'd have to tap our own oil
> sources, like off shore, ANWAR, etc.
On this topic I think that taping these sources would just result in
their depletion and return to foreign sources once dry. I think it
should be a national defense priority to leave this oil in the ground
until it's really needed.
> So, now, what happens when we begin to deploy massive numbers of solar
> panels around the world, how is the environment going to cope with all that
> HEAT??? Well, none of the greens want to answer that question, nor can they
> address where all the space will come from to actually deploy these things.
> Solar power is hugely inefficient in terms of it's actual power generation
> capability vs. space requirements, and production of solar panels is hugely
> toxic.
> Next, where, pray tell, will we place all of the so-called "green" wind
> generating stations, hmmmm???? Oh, not anywhere near a green's home, no sir,
> too unsightly, threatening to birds and the noise, WELL!!!
You are scraping the surface on a bigger aspect of the political
environmental movement. It's essentially anti-energy. What I have seen
is that massive clean energy proposals are fought on environmental
grounds. Because once they are scaled up there are *some*
environmental effects. Generally the ugliness of them is the primary
objection. The end result is staying with coal and other fossil fueled
plants, the status-quo.
> When greens get off their anti-society high horses and start working for
> real conservation maybe then there can be some discourse. All I know is that
> for over 30 years the same zealots have been waving their arms and flapping
> their gums yet have not proposed a single realistic solution. As it is now,
> no one can drill, mine, cut, dam, etc. All venues are off and the greens
> can't propose a single alternative save go live in yurt by the river
> somewhere and live on sprouts. Give me a break!
I'd really wish they focus their efforts on getting 19th century mineral
laws updated so the US tax payer wasn't taken for a ride by elected
officals and their buddies. But that's another story.
Much of the time I wish we could get another president like TR with
regards to conservation. As it sits we seem to get ones that try to
make a good image to the greens while profiting from enviromentally
damaging businesses (Al Gore) to the sort of situation where the
environment is damaged and the US taxpayer gets ripped off. (typical
republican policies)
#2835
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnq8o708st@enews1.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> Now, for political reasons it might be a good idea to stop depending upon
> middle east oil. To do that in the short term we'd have to tap our own oil
> sources, like off shore, ANWAR, etc.
On this topic I think that taping these sources would just result in
their depletion and return to foreign sources once dry. I think it
should be a national defense priority to leave this oil in the ground
until it's really needed.
> So, now, what happens when we begin to deploy massive numbers of solar
> panels around the world, how is the environment going to cope with all that
> HEAT??? Well, none of the greens want to answer that question, nor can they
> address where all the space will come from to actually deploy these things.
> Solar power is hugely inefficient in terms of it's actual power generation
> capability vs. space requirements, and production of solar panels is hugely
> toxic.
> Next, where, pray tell, will we place all of the so-called "green" wind
> generating stations, hmmmm???? Oh, not anywhere near a green's home, no sir,
> too unsightly, threatening to birds and the noise, WELL!!!
You are scraping the surface on a bigger aspect of the political
environmental movement. It's essentially anti-energy. What I have seen
is that massive clean energy proposals are fought on environmental
grounds. Because once they are scaled up there are *some*
environmental effects. Generally the ugliness of them is the primary
objection. The end result is staying with coal and other fossil fueled
plants, the status-quo.
> When greens get off their anti-society high horses and start working for
> real conservation maybe then there can be some discourse. All I know is that
> for over 30 years the same zealots have been waving their arms and flapping
> their gums yet have not proposed a single realistic solution. As it is now,
> no one can drill, mine, cut, dam, etc. All venues are off and the greens
> can't propose a single alternative save go live in yurt by the river
> somewhere and live on sprouts. Give me a break!
I'd really wish they focus their efforts on getting 19th century mineral
laws updated so the US tax payer wasn't taken for a ride by elected
officals and their buddies. But that's another story.
Much of the time I wish we could get another president like TR with
regards to conservation. As it sits we seem to get ones that try to
make a good image to the greens while profiting from enviromentally
damaging businesses (Al Gore) to the sort of situation where the
environment is damaged and the US taxpayer gets ripped off. (typical
republican policies)
> Now, for political reasons it might be a good idea to stop depending upon
> middle east oil. To do that in the short term we'd have to tap our own oil
> sources, like off shore, ANWAR, etc.
On this topic I think that taping these sources would just result in
their depletion and return to foreign sources once dry. I think it
should be a national defense priority to leave this oil in the ground
until it's really needed.
> So, now, what happens when we begin to deploy massive numbers of solar
> panels around the world, how is the environment going to cope with all that
> HEAT??? Well, none of the greens want to answer that question, nor can they
> address where all the space will come from to actually deploy these things.
> Solar power is hugely inefficient in terms of it's actual power generation
> capability vs. space requirements, and production of solar panels is hugely
> toxic.
> Next, where, pray tell, will we place all of the so-called "green" wind
> generating stations, hmmmm???? Oh, not anywhere near a green's home, no sir,
> too unsightly, threatening to birds and the noise, WELL!!!
You are scraping the surface on a bigger aspect of the political
environmental movement. It's essentially anti-energy. What I have seen
is that massive clean energy proposals are fought on environmental
grounds. Because once they are scaled up there are *some*
environmental effects. Generally the ugliness of them is the primary
objection. The end result is staying with coal and other fossil fueled
plants, the status-quo.
> When greens get off their anti-society high horses and start working for
> real conservation maybe then there can be some discourse. All I know is that
> for over 30 years the same zealots have been waving their arms and flapping
> their gums yet have not proposed a single realistic solution. As it is now,
> no one can drill, mine, cut, dam, etc. All venues are off and the greens
> can't propose a single alternative save go live in yurt by the river
> somewhere and live on sprouts. Give me a break!
I'd really wish they focus their efforts on getting 19th century mineral
laws updated so the US tax payer wasn't taken for a ride by elected
officals and their buddies. But that's another story.
Much of the time I wish we could get another president like TR with
regards to conservation. As it sits we seem to get ones that try to
make a good image to the greens while profiting from enviromentally
damaging businesses (Al Gore) to the sort of situation where the
environment is damaged and the US taxpayer gets ripped off. (typical
republican policies)
#2836
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bnq8o708st@enews1.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
> Now, for political reasons it might be a good idea to stop depending upon
> middle east oil. To do that in the short term we'd have to tap our own oil
> sources, like off shore, ANWAR, etc.
On this topic I think that taping these sources would just result in
their depletion and return to foreign sources once dry. I think it
should be a national defense priority to leave this oil in the ground
until it's really needed.
> So, now, what happens when we begin to deploy massive numbers of solar
> panels around the world, how is the environment going to cope with all that
> HEAT??? Well, none of the greens want to answer that question, nor can they
> address where all the space will come from to actually deploy these things.
> Solar power is hugely inefficient in terms of it's actual power generation
> capability vs. space requirements, and production of solar panels is hugely
> toxic.
> Next, where, pray tell, will we place all of the so-called "green" wind
> generating stations, hmmmm???? Oh, not anywhere near a green's home, no sir,
> too unsightly, threatening to birds and the noise, WELL!!!
You are scraping the surface on a bigger aspect of the political
environmental movement. It's essentially anti-energy. What I have seen
is that massive clean energy proposals are fought on environmental
grounds. Because once they are scaled up there are *some*
environmental effects. Generally the ugliness of them is the primary
objection. The end result is staying with coal and other fossil fueled
plants, the status-quo.
> When greens get off their anti-society high horses and start working for
> real conservation maybe then there can be some discourse. All I know is that
> for over 30 years the same zealots have been waving their arms and flapping
> their gums yet have not proposed a single realistic solution. As it is now,
> no one can drill, mine, cut, dam, etc. All venues are off and the greens
> can't propose a single alternative save go live in yurt by the river
> somewhere and live on sprouts. Give me a break!
I'd really wish they focus their efforts on getting 19th century mineral
laws updated so the US tax payer wasn't taken for a ride by elected
officals and their buddies. But that's another story.
Much of the time I wish we could get another president like TR with
regards to conservation. As it sits we seem to get ones that try to
make a good image to the greens while profiting from enviromentally
damaging businesses (Al Gore) to the sort of situation where the
environment is damaged and the US taxpayer gets ripped off. (typical
republican policies)
> Now, for political reasons it might be a good idea to stop depending upon
> middle east oil. To do that in the short term we'd have to tap our own oil
> sources, like off shore, ANWAR, etc.
On this topic I think that taping these sources would just result in
their depletion and return to foreign sources once dry. I think it
should be a national defense priority to leave this oil in the ground
until it's really needed.
> So, now, what happens when we begin to deploy massive numbers of solar
> panels around the world, how is the environment going to cope with all that
> HEAT??? Well, none of the greens want to answer that question, nor can they
> address where all the space will come from to actually deploy these things.
> Solar power is hugely inefficient in terms of it's actual power generation
> capability vs. space requirements, and production of solar panels is hugely
> toxic.
> Next, where, pray tell, will we place all of the so-called "green" wind
> generating stations, hmmmm???? Oh, not anywhere near a green's home, no sir,
> too unsightly, threatening to birds and the noise, WELL!!!
You are scraping the surface on a bigger aspect of the political
environmental movement. It's essentially anti-energy. What I have seen
is that massive clean energy proposals are fought on environmental
grounds. Because once they are scaled up there are *some*
environmental effects. Generally the ugliness of them is the primary
objection. The end result is staying with coal and other fossil fueled
plants, the status-quo.
> When greens get off their anti-society high horses and start working for
> real conservation maybe then there can be some discourse. All I know is that
> for over 30 years the same zealots have been waving their arms and flapping
> their gums yet have not proposed a single realistic solution. As it is now,
> no one can drill, mine, cut, dam, etc. All venues are off and the greens
> can't propose a single alternative save go live in yurt by the river
> somewhere and live on sprouts. Give me a break!
I'd really wish they focus their efforts on getting 19th century mineral
laws updated so the US tax payer wasn't taken for a ride by elected
officals and their buddies. But that's another story.
Much of the time I wish we could get another president like TR with
regards to conservation. As it sits we seem to get ones that try to
make a good image to the greens while profiting from enviromentally
damaging businesses (Al Gore) to the sort of situation where the
environment is damaged and the US taxpayer gets ripped off. (typical
republican policies)
#2837
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
I suppose it depends on what you use as definition of the sun. Strictly,
the verse implying the sun and the moon certainly comes after plants, but
"light" in general came before that.
The rest of the sequence is not bad, though, is it?
Then there is the question of the definition of a "day".
Does Creationism require a belief in Joshua stopping the sun?
If we had been there in a Sebring convertible with the roof off we could
have seen for ourselves.
As regards a flood, it is interesting that some sort of flood has been
reported in a number of old, unrelated texts, IIRC.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bngrq0$8h4$15@puck.cc.emory.edu...
[...............]
> >Not necessarily. The Bible, and other religious records, have been show
> >to be quite accurate and correlate well with science ..
>
> 100% flat-out wrong. Earth created in 6 days? Plants before sun? Flood
that
> covered the earth? (Where did the water run off to?) Sun stood still?
.........................
the verse implying the sun and the moon certainly comes after plants, but
"light" in general came before that.
The rest of the sequence is not bad, though, is it?
Then there is the question of the definition of a "day".
Does Creationism require a belief in Joshua stopping the sun?
If we had been there in a Sebring convertible with the roof off we could
have seen for ourselves.
As regards a flood, it is interesting that some sort of flood has been
reported in a number of old, unrelated texts, IIRC.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bngrq0$8h4$15@puck.cc.emory.edu...
[...............]
> >Not necessarily. The Bible, and other religious records, have been show
> >to be quite accurate and correlate well with science ..
>
> 100% flat-out wrong. Earth created in 6 days? Plants before sun? Flood
that
> covered the earth? (Where did the water run off to?) Sun stood still?
.........................
#2838
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
I suppose it depends on what you use as definition of the sun. Strictly,
the verse implying the sun and the moon certainly comes after plants, but
"light" in general came before that.
The rest of the sequence is not bad, though, is it?
Then there is the question of the definition of a "day".
Does Creationism require a belief in Joshua stopping the sun?
If we had been there in a Sebring convertible with the roof off we could
have seen for ourselves.
As regards a flood, it is interesting that some sort of flood has been
reported in a number of old, unrelated texts, IIRC.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bngrq0$8h4$15@puck.cc.emory.edu...
[...............]
> >Not necessarily. The Bible, and other religious records, have been show
> >to be quite accurate and correlate well with science ..
>
> 100% flat-out wrong. Earth created in 6 days? Plants before sun? Flood
that
> covered the earth? (Where did the water run off to?) Sun stood still?
.........................
the verse implying the sun and the moon certainly comes after plants, but
"light" in general came before that.
The rest of the sequence is not bad, though, is it?
Then there is the question of the definition of a "day".
Does Creationism require a belief in Joshua stopping the sun?
If we had been there in a Sebring convertible with the roof off we could
have seen for ourselves.
As regards a flood, it is interesting that some sort of flood has been
reported in a number of old, unrelated texts, IIRC.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bngrq0$8h4$15@puck.cc.emory.edu...
[...............]
> >Not necessarily. The Bible, and other religious records, have been show
> >to be quite accurate and correlate well with science ..
>
> 100% flat-out wrong. Earth created in 6 days? Plants before sun? Flood
that
> covered the earth? (Where did the water run off to?) Sun stood still?
.........................
#2839
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
I suppose it depends on what you use as definition of the sun. Strictly,
the verse implying the sun and the moon certainly comes after plants, but
"light" in general came before that.
The rest of the sequence is not bad, though, is it?
Then there is the question of the definition of a "day".
Does Creationism require a belief in Joshua stopping the sun?
If we had been there in a Sebring convertible with the roof off we could
have seen for ourselves.
As regards a flood, it is interesting that some sort of flood has been
reported in a number of old, unrelated texts, IIRC.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bngrq0$8h4$15@puck.cc.emory.edu...
[...............]
> >Not necessarily. The Bible, and other religious records, have been show
> >to be quite accurate and correlate well with science ..
>
> 100% flat-out wrong. Earth created in 6 days? Plants before sun? Flood
that
> covered the earth? (Where did the water run off to?) Sun stood still?
.........................
the verse implying the sun and the moon certainly comes after plants, but
"light" in general came before that.
The rest of the sequence is not bad, though, is it?
Then there is the question of the definition of a "day".
Does Creationism require a belief in Joshua stopping the sun?
If we had been there in a Sebring convertible with the roof off we could
have seen for ourselves.
As regards a flood, it is interesting that some sort of flood has been
reported in a number of old, unrelated texts, IIRC.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bngrq0$8h4$15@puck.cc.emory.edu...
[...............]
> >Not necessarily. The Bible, and other religious records, have been show
> >to be quite accurate and correlate well with science ..
>
> 100% flat-out wrong. Earth created in 6 days? Plants before sun? Flood
that
> covered the earth? (Where did the water run off to?) Sun stood still?
.........................
#2840
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Actually, humans as we know t hem have been around how long?
And who said that the five days preceding were 'days' as we know them...?
Wasn't time a bit different in the first microseconds of Big Bang? Or maybe
Fred Hoyle was right and then where do we start?
;-)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bngrh4$8h4$14@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <7cwmb.25220$e01.49323@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> >
> >>> I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
> >>> they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
> >>> alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
> >>> alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
> >>> is far older than established science claims, older than your
> >>> creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
> >>>
> >>> For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
> >>> alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments
that
> >>> go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
> >>> ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
> >>> creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
> >>
> >> All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
> >> occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
> >> And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
> >
> >It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
> >of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
> >Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
> >as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
> >etc etc...
> >
> >
> Yes, but creationists insist the universe is only 6000 years old.
Biblical
> infallability, you know.
And who said that the five days preceding were 'days' as we know them...?
Wasn't time a bit different in the first microseconds of Big Bang? Or maybe
Fred Hoyle was right and then where do we start?
;-)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bngrh4$8h4$14@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <7cwmb.25220$e01.49323@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <3F9A6C91.5030809@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> >
> >>> I especially like how they try to explain away the dinosaurs. That
> >>> they lived 6000 years ago. There are acient monuments built to star
> >>> alignments older than that. (The pyramids of giza for one) There is
> >>> alot of real evidence that civilization (and the knowledge/technology)
> >>> is far older than established science claims, older than your
> >>> creationists claim the dinosaurs are.
> >>>
> >>> For instance the kind of real evidence I speak of are things like star
> >>> alignments of various acient monuments around the world. Monuments
that
> >>> go under water, on ground that hasn't been dry land since the last
> >>> ice age, etc and so forth. Come up with hard stuff like that for
> >>> creation. Not just the bible says so, so it is.
> >>
> >> All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
> >> occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
> >> And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.
> >
> >It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
> >of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
> >Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
> >as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
> >etc etc...
> >
> >
> Yes, but creationists insist the universe is only 6000 years old.
Biblical
> infallability, you know.