Random Thoughts Thread

[dwightlooi]

3 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

First, I'm not arguing in favor of socialism. I'm arguing in favor of capitalism with strong regulations, and direct oversight in situations where the company is providing a public good.  Private companies should be running grids and health care, but the utilities should be heavily regulated and required to meet certain reliability and resiliency standards.  What happened in Texas is exactly why your "ideal" does not work. It puts profits over people in emergencies, it fails to take appropriate measures to prepare for emergencies (Texas/ERCOT was warned of this exact scenario in 2011 in a comprehensive report, they did NOTHING because it would have cut into their profits) , and then it price gouges customers during the emergency.  ZERO of the other grids that are heavily regulated (and in my opinion still not regulated enough) had the issues ERCOT had.

Now THAT is an oxymoron. A heavily regulated economy is one where the government decides what is produced, when, how and by whom. That is BY DEFINITION a SOCIALIST Economy.

As far as Texas is concerned, they have 11.9 cents kWh electricity rates -- almost half what we pay in the Democratic People's Republic of California. Had they gone with excess generation and grid capacity that is not needed, it won't be 11.9 cents a kWh. I think Texans want low electricity rates and not pay through their noses every month so they can have uninterrupted power for a once in hundred year freeze. If that worries you, you are free to spend your money on a few extra blankets, get a backup generator or, hey, do the Green Boy thing and put in Tesla Powerwalls for $15 grand! Sure as hell beats the GOVERNMENT making everyone spend extra on electricity because GOVERNMENT thinks not losing power for a few days in a hundred years important when you may not.

Edited March 20, 2021 by dwightlooi

[trinacriabob]

@dwightlooi  Why do you come here to constantly argue and debate?

[David]

7 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I will also point out that Amtrak’s annual subsidy is less than the cost of a single highway interchange in a major metro area. 
 

Amtrak’s profits on the North East corridor help fund the rest of the system, though that’s a rather large cross for it to bare and that’s why I’d does need subsidies.

when Amtrak started offering multiple daily trips to DC from Richmond VA, it quickly reached capacity because suddenly people could do easy day trips to the Capital. It wasn’t even high speed.

People will use trains if given good service.
 

Totally agree with that as one who went to college @ Kobe University in Japan. I had a motor bike there but found after the first year of exploring that taking trains was far more efficient for me to see the country over driving.

If the US invested in proper rail service between all major cities, you could easily reduce auto's on the road. have cleaner air and reduce stress for many people on top of changing personal / family costs.

30 minutes ago, trinacriabob said:

@dwightlooi  Why do you come here to constantly argue and debate?

🤔 Maybe cause his wife wins them all and he thinks he can win more here? 🤷‍♂️

[dwightlooi]

32 minutes ago, trinacriabob said:

@dwightlooi  Why do you come here to constantly argue and debate?

Isn't that the whole point of a forum? If you want to just post cat pictures there's Facebook, if you just want to parrot short messages there's Twitter.

[trinacriabob]

35 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

Isn't that the whole point of a forum? If you want to just post cat pictures there's Facebook, if you just want to parrot short messages there's Twitter.

Yes, it is the point of a forum and, even though this thread was probably designed to be less intense, I can't tell someone how to use it.

I don't read your posts because they're just too much.  That's because, when I once did a long time ago, it was a heated thread supporting your belief that replacing air filters on cars is unnecessary.  We don't need to rehash that and I'm not interested in a regurgitation of the facts you presented.  It went on and on and on.  All I know is that, for $ 14.99 or less, I go to a chain auto parts store, come back home, take a screwdriver to loosen up the intake assembly, put it in, and I have peace of mind, which is worth a lot more than $14.99 to me.

Then, more recently, when we've never really interacted before, you come on to tell me, out of the blue, that you think the QM2 (Queen Mary 2), as seen on my signature photo, is piss poor.  And, you were right in that you are entitled to your opinion.  However, in your volley, you inserted that you were assigned to either the Princess Grill or the Queen's Grill to dine.  And the food was below par?  That was a convenient way for you to drop the hint that you popped for among the most expensive cabins on the ship.  The vast majority of QM2 travelers are eating in a massive restaurant with a name the likes of the Britannia or the Columbia (or similar names as the ones on the preceding QE2).  And, here, I'm saving my pennies to travel on it someday in the shortest and least expensive way just to sample this grand ship.

So, what I'm trying to say is that your posting style tries to show that you know it all and also features thinly veiled but noticeable amounts of conspicuous consumption, self-righteous conservatism, and elitism.

Edited March 21, 2021 by trinacriabob

[daves87rs]

2 hours ago, trinacriabob said:

@dwightlooi  Why do you come here to constantly argue and debate?

Honestly, Dwight does make a few interesting points. Good to hear both sides, even if I don’t agree with it.  Good to see a little debate here and there... 🙂 

[surreal1272]

11 hours ago, trinacriabob said:

Yes, it is the point of a forum and, even though this thread was probably designed to be less intense, I can't tell someone how to use it.

I don't read your posts because they're just too much.  That's because, when I once did a long time ago, it was a heated thread supporting your belief that replacing air filters on cars is unnecessary.  We don't need to rehash that and I'm not interested in a regurgitation of the facts you presented.  It went on and on and on.  All I know is that, for $ 14.99 or less, I go to a chain auto parts store, come back home, take a screwdriver to loosen up the intake assembly, put it in, and I have peace of mind, which is worth a lot more than $14.99 to me.

Then, more recently, when we've never really interacted before, you come on to tell me, out of the blue, that you think the QM2 (Queen Mary 2), as seen on my signature photo, is piss poor.  And, you were right in that you are entitled to your opinion.  However, in your volley, you inserted that you were assigned to either the Princess Grill or the Queen's Grill to dine.  And the food was below par?  That was a convenient way for you to drop the hint that you popped for among the most expensive cabins on the ship.  The vast majority of QM2 travelers are eating in a massive restaurant with a name the likes of the Britannia or the Columbia (or similar names as the ones on the preceding QE2).  And, here, I'm saving my pennies to travel on it someday in the shortest and least expensive way just to sample this grand ship.

So, what I'm trying to say is that your posting style tries to show that you know it all and also features thinly veiled but noticeable amounts of conspicuous consumption, self-righteous conservatism, and elitism.

Well said. One look at his Facebook page will tell you all you need to know (even if you can only see his "public" stuff). 

[surreal1272]

16 hours ago, dwightlooi said:

Now THAT is an oxymoron. A heavily regulated economy is one where the government decides what is produced, when, how and by whom. That is BY DEFINITION a SOCIALIST Economy.

As far as Texas is concerned, they have 11.9 cents kWh electricity rates -- almost half what we pay in the Democratic People's Republic of California. Had they gone with excess generation and grid capacity that is not needed, it won't be 11.9 cents a kWh. I think Texans want low electricity rates and not pay through their noses every month so they can have uninterrupted power for a once in hundred year freeze. If that worries you, you are free to spend your money on a few extra blankets, get a backup generator or, hey, do the Green Boy thing and put in Tesla Powerwalls for $15 grand! Sure as hell beats the GOVERNMENT making everyone spend extra on electricity because GOVERNMENT thinks not losing power for a few days in a hundred years important when you may not.

For such a know it all, you sure managed to be wrong about Texas power on just about every front. Their grid and alleged "smart" system was proven an absolutely joke just over a month ago and that's just for starters how utterly horrible their entire system was and and still is.

 

And while you talk about not letting the government decide, you seem to have ZERO problem with letting the industry (in this case electric companies) run it for you, which (btw) includes controlling that SAME government you decry via lobbying and dirty politics. My dad (rest his soul) worked for Duke Energy for almost forty years and I could tell you some stories about the horrors that are the Texas Electrical grid and the folks who run it. It is laughable how off base you are and even more laughable that you bitch about Cali yet continue to live there. Not real smart if you ask me but hey, what do I know. In the end, trying to compare CA with TX, at this point, is like trying to compare a dog turd to a pig turd. Who cares? They're both s***.

Edited March 21, 2021 by surreal1272

[balthazar]

Heart-warming. 

[oldshurst442]

On a similar level, but in the sports world. NHL.

The Colorado Avalanche decided to pay homage to the team they inherited in 1996 this year when the NHL decided that all their teams were to create an alternate jersey.  The Quebec (City) Nordiques moved to Colorado.  Colorado aptly named Avalanche won their first Stanley Cup that very same year they moved to Colorado. Impressive.  

 

 

Edited March 21, 2021 by oldshurst442

[oldshurst442]

Good-Bye cannonball tree! 

 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2021 by oldshurst442

[dwightlooi]

39 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

For such a know it all, you sure managed to be wrong about Texas power on just about every front. Their grid and alleged "smart" system was proven an absolutely joke just over a month ago and that's just for starters how utterly horrible their entire system was and and still is.

 

And while you talk about not letting the government decide, you seem to have ZERO problem with letting the industry (in this case electric companies) run it for you, which (btw) includes controlling that SAME government you decry via lobbying and dirty politics. My dad (rest his soul) worked for Duke Energy for almost forty years and I could tell you some stories about the horrors that are the Texas Electrical grid and the folks who run it. It is laughable how off base you are and even more laughable that you bitch about Cali yet continue to live there. Not real smart if you ask me but hey, what do I know. In the end, trying to compare CA with TX, at this point, is like trying to compare a dog turd to a pig turd. Who cares? They're both s***.

Three things...

(1) Government is not more likely to serve YOUR interest than private enterprise. Ultimately, both serve the interest of the leaders and minions of the organization first and everyone else second.

(2) The difference between Government and Private enterprise is that the latter CANNOT COMPEL the consumption of, or payment for, their product or service on you. Government on the other hand CAN COMPEL you to pay for it through taxation. You do not have to use Microsoft windows or buy power from the private utility company however inconvenient that may be -- you can use Linux or you can get your own generator. If you don't pay your taxes they throw you in jail, seize your assets anyway and shoot you if you resist. Private companies -- even monopolies -- can't do that.

(3) You may say that you can influence government policy with your vote. But there's so many problems with that argument. Firstly, with private companies you have an absolute segregation of choice. You can decide on buying or not buying Tesla's Solar Roof independently of eating at MacDonalds or getting an iPhone. With government you are forced to vote on a one size fits all package from two political parties that encompasses everything. You don't like the way this party's appointee runs the power grid, but you don't like the way the other runs abortion, guns control, healthcare, immigration, education or whatever else... So do you really have the freedom to decide on this specific issue? I don't think so. Secondly, with Private Enterprise your choice is exclusively yours. If you decide that you want to screw Texan power companies, you can get your own generator, solar panels and a Tesla Powerwall. You, and you alone, CAN decide to do that. If you decide that you want to vote against for the gay promising to reform your municipal utility, it is diluted by millions of other voters may not vote for the same guy.

I believe that we should be largely an "on your own society" and government should be there to provide national defense, public safety, basic infrastructure and a legal frame work. Anytime something can plausibly be done by private or government entities it should be totally private -- and that includes energy, transportation, healthcare and education.

[trinacriabob]

A recurrent random thought based on waking up and opening up my homepages ...

Why is it that, when a poisonous snake or other dangerous creature has made its way into someone's supposedly locked home and into the news, it's somewhere in Australia?  Ta-da.  About 9 out of 10 times.

[David]

2 hours ago, trinacriabob said:

A recurrent random thought based on waking up and opening up my homepages ...

Why is it that, when a poisonous snake or other dangerous creature has made its way into someone's supposedly locked home and into the news, it's somewhere in Australia?  Ta-da.  About 9 out of 10 times.

Australia has the largest known lethal amount of spiders including a lethal spider that jumps out of trees to bite its victims and is known for many deaths in that country.

Interesting to know is that Mexico has the highest number of lethal instects, animals, etc. followed by Brazil and then Australia.

QUOTE: Which country has the most venomous animals? Surprisingly, it’s not Australia but Mexico with 80, followed by Brazil with 79 and then Australia with just 66 (they just happen to be more potent).

Countries With The Most Venomous Animals – Brilliant Maps

[oldshurst442]

                > "And then Australia with just 66"<

 

Yeah, just 66 species...

Considering ALL of Canada, let alone Quebec where I reside, has only but a handful of venomous animals and from those maybe 1 or 2 could be deadly.  

I dont think "just" is a viable descriptive adjective to downplay Australia's rank...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2021 by oldshurst442

[daves87rs]

8 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

On a similar level, but in the sports world. NHL.

The Colorado Avalanche decided to pay homage to the team they inherited in 1996 this year when the NHL decided that all their teams were to create an alternate jersey.  The Quebec (City) Nordiques moved to Colorado.  Colorado aptly named Avalanche won their first Stanley Cup that very same year they moved to Colorado. Impressive.  

 

 

This will go great with my other Avs jersey! I lived on the edge while in college wearing my Avs jersey during the playoffs in Hockeytown back in the day.. (still a Wings fan of course!)

[oldshurst442]

3 minutes ago, daves87rs said:

This will go great with my other Avs jersey! I lived on the edge while in college wearing my Avs jersey during the playoffs in Hockeytown back in the day.. (still a Wings fan of course!)

     YEAH!  I BET!  LOL

Claude Lemieux...ex Hab player was THE reason for all that heated Detroit/Colorado rivalry.  And what a fun ride that was.

And now his son is playing with that same dirty shytyness  with the Rangers.  

And Claude would be one of MANY reasons why I say the Habs are such a hypocritical hockey club and why I hate them so.  

I cheer for the Bruins because the Bruins actually have always played CANADA hockey. 

Meaning:

CANADA hockey IS intimidation.

CANADA hockey IS separating the player from the puck (with clean hits)

CANADA hockey IS defending your fellow teammate when the refs dont wanna call the right call on the ice.

And the Bruins do NOT shy away from that. They wear THAT style of play with pride. 

Detroit does also. And the many other NHL teams as well.  But the HABS hockey club like to say they are above all that...but they aint...  

 

 

 

[trinacriabob]

I have never had a thing for most of Oceania.

Especially when planes got better and they decided to make the trip from LAX or SFO nonstop.  I can't sit on a plane, in the economy cabin, for 14 hours.  My limit is about 11 or 12.

The thought of going somewhat appealed to me when I was younger and they used to do it in 2 segments:  Los Angeles to Honolulu, and Honolulu to Australia (SYD, MEL, etc.)

However, as far as Oceania goes, I might like to go to places like Bora Bora or Pago Pago.

Bora Bora - French Polynesia

Pago Pago - American Samoa

[ykX]

I have been at local dealership over the weekend.  Saw first Mach 1.  Was fully loaded and dealer marked it up another $10k as "market adjustment" up to $70k total.  Simply crazy.

 

[David]

Seems Toyota MIGHT be planning a competative piece to go up against the Ford Bronco and Jeep Wrangler. 

Toyota Trailhunter.

New Toyota Trailhunter Ready To Battle Ford Bronco And Jeep Wrangler? | CarBuzz

[surreal1272]

15 minutes ago, David said:

Seems Toyota MIGHT be planning a competative piece to go up against the Ford Bronco and Jeep Wrangler. 

Toyota Trailhunter.

New Toyota Trailhunter Ready To Battle Ford Bronco And Jeep Wrangler? | CarBuzz

Which they could have easily already done had they not stopped making the FJ Cruiser and improving upon it (like its horrible rear visibility). Could have even kept the name going and saved some pennies on new naming rights.

2 hours ago, ykX said:

I have been at local dealership over the weekend.  Saw first Mach 1.  Was fully loaded and dealer marked it up another $10k as "market adjustment" up to $70k total.  Simply crazy.

 

"Market adjustment" is just a fancy term for "price gouging".

20 hours ago, trinacriabob said:

A recurrent random thought based on waking up and opening up my homepages ...

Why is it that, when a poisonous snake or other dangerous creature has made its way into someone's supposedly locked home and into the news, it's somewhere in Australia?  Ta-da.  About 9 out of 10 times.

Because everything in Australia wants to kill and/or eat you, that's why. Even the Koalas will give you that look if you're not careful.

[ccap41]

On 3/20/2021 at 7:36 PM, trinacriabob said:

@dwightlooi  Why do you come here to constantly argue and debate?

Do you ask the other the same question...? 

[ccap41]

17 hours ago, daves87rs said:

This will go great with my other Avs jersey! I lived on the edge while in college wearing my Avs jersey during the playoffs in Hockeytown back in the day.. (still a Wings fan of course!)

Redwings fan?!?

Back when we were in the same division and it was a great rivalry, home games against Detroit were known as "punch a Redwings fan in the face day". 🤣

2 hours ago, ykX said:

I have been at local dealership over the weekend.  Saw first Mach 1.  Was fully loaded and dealer marked it up another $10k as "market adjustment" up to $70k total.  Simply crazy.

 

That's just absurd. It's a cool car and all but there's no reason for a market adjustment on a Mach 1, imo. I just cannot see it holding its value without a Shelby name on it. 

[Drew Dowdell]

On 3/20/2021 at 5:11 PM, dwightlooi said:

Now THAT is an oxymoron. A heavily regulated economy is one where the government decides what is produced, when, how and by whom. That is BY DEFINITION a SOCIALIST Economy.

As far as Texas is concerned, they have 11.9 cents kWh electricity rates -- almost half what we pay in the Democratic People's Republic of California. Had they gone with excess generation and grid capacity that is not needed, it won't be 11.9 cents a kWh. I think Texans want low electricity rates and not pay through their noses every month so they can have uninterrupted power for a once in hundred year freeze. If that worries you, you are free to spend your money on a few extra blankets, get a backup generator or, hey, do the Green Boy thing and put in Tesla Powerwalls for $15 grand! Sure as hell beats the GOVERNMENT making everyone spend extra on electricity because GOVERNMENT thinks not losing power for a few days in a hundred years important when you may not.

I think the reason that people who follow your agenda are so angry all the time is that none of the fact ever support your narrative.  You want something to be true, you write these long screeds to support your agenda, but when someone starts looking at facts, you get angry because your whole argument falls apart.

A recap on "facts" you've gotten wrong so far:

1. The reason behind the high cost of California energy prices - Plenty of other states have green energy, Pennsylvania included. My power rates are actually below the national average and I use green power at my house. The green energy requirement is not the reason for high California energy costs, a fail experiment with unbridled capitalism is.

2. Passenger usage of High Speed or Medium Speed rail - Where Amtrak has fast and regular service, it generally operates at or near capacity. Passenger rail is good for most trips up to 500 miles. The Europeans and Japan use 400 miles as their standard, but given the horrid hub-and-spoke system we have here in the US, 500 miles is more appropriate. You cannot locate a major metro area anywhere in this country that is not within 500 miles of another major metro. NO ONE is suggesting HSR for transcontinental trips. HSR is for short to medium haul trips where the train can beat an airplane in door to door time.  Even on relatively slow routes like Portland - Seattle, Amtrak takes around 40% of all passengers up against ALL THE OTHER AIRLINES THAT HAVE SERVICE. Amtrak moves 811 thousand passengers and all airlines combined move 1.3 million between those two city pairs... the difference is that Amtrak also serves stops in between that the airlines do not. You complain about Amtrak's subsidy, but Airlines get their airports subsidized and we also pay airlines to run nearly empty flights through the Essential Air Services program. For example, we pay Boutique Airlines to run 4 flights daily out of Altoona PA because there is no major airport within a 2 hour drive.  Amtrak runs 2 trains daily through Altoona and moves 18,848 riders a year.... Boutique only moves 10,010.  In nearby Johnstown, which also has Amtrak service, the Federal government is paying $866 - $966 per passenger to subsidize flights out of Johnstown.  The EAS cost $300m in 2013 (the last year I can find data) to move far fewer people than Amtrak does with its $1.9B. 

3. Healthcare - Your entire cause and effect is false.  You blame it on the government when in fact it is entirely caused by the system the private insurance companies set up for negotiating rates. 

Quote

Now THAT is an oxymoron. A heavily regulated economy is one where the government decides what is produced, when, how and by whom. That is BY DEFINITION a SOCIALIST Economy.

You're so blinded by your agenda that you can't even see that is not what I even suggested. I said that companies that provide a public utility, like electricity, should be heavily regulated. Furthermore, you've got the socialism boogieman on the brain so much that you don't even know the definition of socialism!!! You just call anything you don't like or don't understand socialism. It's like Joe McCarthy reincarnate.

Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or by the community as a whole.  

I suggested that if the grid is not government owned, that it needs to have heavy oversight by the government to make sure reliability standards are met. For something as critical to the health and wellbeing of the general citizenry, it is exactly the governments job to make sure the grid runs well. 

Quote

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

On 3/20/2021 at 5:11 PM, dwightlooi said:

As far as Texas is concerned, they have 11.9 cents kWh electricity rates -- almost half what we pay in the Democratic People's Republic of California. Had they gone with excess generation and grid capacity that is not needed, it won't be 11.9 cents a kWh. I think Texans want low electricity rates and not pay through their noses every month so they can have uninterrupted power for a once in hundred year freeze. If that worries you, you are free to spend your money on a few extra blankets, get a backup generator or, hey, do the Green Boy thing and put in Tesla Powerwalls for $15 grand! Sure as hell beats the GOVERNMENT making everyone spend extra on electricity because GOVERNMENT thinks not losing power for a few days in a hundred years important when you may not.

It wasn't a once in 100 year event! They had a similar event in 2011 and were warned back then about the measures they should have taken to avoid a repeat. I have excess capacity (no one does excess generation, that would be wasteful, generation is kept on standby) AND I'm using green energy AND I'm only paying 13.9c/KwH... more than 50% of that is in grid charges NOT GENERATION CHARGES.   And I just got my bill today, so you can see what my rates are:

 My generation rate is 6.7c/kWh... so lets go to Houston and find a green energy contract... 

Oh look! It's basically the SAME EXACT PRICE.  So, if the generation rates are the same, we can see that the difference between the two rates is entirely in the grid charges... that difference is 2c/kWh... or... $20 a month to not die from the cold during an ice storm.  And that is assuming you are correct on the total charges in Texas... considering your track record for getting basic facts correct, even that is suspect.

On 3/21/2021 at 10:45 AM, dwightlooi said:

(3) You may say that you can influence government policy with your vote. But there's so many problems with that argument. Firstly, with private companies you have an absolute segregation of choice. You can decide on buying or not buying Tesla's Solar Roof independently of eating at MacDonalds or getting an iPhone. With government you are forced to vote on a one size fits all package from two political parties that encompasses everything. You don't like the way this party's appointee runs the power grid, but you don't like the way the other runs abortion, guns control, healthcare, immigration, education or whatever else... So do you really have the freedom to decide on this specific issue? I don't think so. Secondly, with Private Enterprise your choice is exclusively yours. If you decide that you want to screw Texan power companies, you can get your own generator, solar panels and a Tesla Powerwall. You, and you alone, CAN decide to do that. If you decide that you want to vote against for the gay promising to reform your municipal utility, it is diluted by millions of other voters may not vote for the same guy.

I believe that we should be largely an "on your own society" and government should be there to provide national defense, public safety, basic infrastructure and a legal frame work. Anytime something can plausibly be done by private or government entities it should be totally private -- and that includes energy, transportation, healthcare and education.

You're sooooo close to the point. We need major election reform to abolish the winner take all system and even better, the electoral college so that third parties can spring up and be competitive. You'll hate this idea because the country is far more liberal than our recent elections would show because of the finger on the scale that the Electoral College and Winner Take All system bring.  If those two systems were abolished, suddenly the 40-whatever percent of Republican voters in California would matter, and they would be balanced by the 40-whatever percent of Democratic voters in Texas+Oklahoma+Nebraska (roughly the same population, combined, as California).  But you'll fight that push towards fairness because you know in the end that your agenda will lose.

TL:DR:  Stick to engines and transmissions because on everything else you're

 

 

[loki]

30 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I think the reason that people who follow your agenda are so angry all the time is that none of the fact ever support your narrative.  You want something to be true, you right these long screeds to support your agenda, but when someone starts looking at facts, you get angry because your whole argument falls apart.

A recap on "facts" you've gotten wrong so far:

1. The reason behind the high cost of California energy prices - Plenty of other states have green energy, Pennsylvania included. My power rates are actually below the national average and I use green power at my house. The green energy requirement is not the reason for high California energy costs, a fail experiment with unbridled capitalism is.

3. Healthcare - Your entire cause and effect is false.  You blame it on the government when in fact it is entirely caused by the system the private insurance companies set up for negotiating rates. 

.....

Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or by the community as a whole.  

I suggested that if the grid is not government owned, that it needs to have heavy oversight by the government to make sure reliability standards are met. For something as critical to the health and wellbeing of the general citizenry, it is exactly the governments job to make sure the grid runs well.

Drew, quoting definitions like i used to... lol    SEMANTICS!!!!!!

perhaps dwight is using a different/older def, perhaps like here brittanica "Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources." 

Control... if regs basically say they can only do certain things, that's indirect control, no?

further down in the entry
......"Meanwhile, the socialist parties of Europe were modifying their positions and enjoying frequent electoral success. The Scandinavian socialists set the example of “mixed economies” that combined largely private ownership with government direction of the economy and substantial welfare programs, and other socialist parties followed suit. Even the SPD, in its Bad Godesberg program of 1959, dropped its Marxist pretenses and committed itself to a “social market economy” involving “as much competition as possible—as much planning as necessary.” Although some welcomed this blurring of boundaries between socialism and welfare-state liberalism as a sign of “the end of ideology,” the more radical student left of the 1960s complained that there was little choice between capitalism, the “obsolete communism” of the Marxist-Leninists, and the bureaucratic socialism of western Europe."

furthur down
"If socialism has a future, it may well lie in some form of market socialism. Market socialism promises neither the utopia of the early socialists nor the brave new world that Marx and his followers envisioned as the fulfillment of history. But it does promise to promote cooperation and solidarity rather than competitive individualism, and it aims at reducing, if not eliminating, the class divisions that foster exploitation and alienation."

BIG POINT
Socialism is anti individualist, it is only collectivist, capitalism allows people to act in collectivist ways, but socialism does not allow individualism.
like pointed out here in more brittanica

"Collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism. The least collectivist of these is social democracy, which seeks to reduce the inequities of unrestrained capitalism by government regulation, redistribution of income, and varying degrees of planning and public ownership. In communist systems collectivism is carried to its furthest extreme, with a minimum of private ownership and a maximum of planned economy. "

communism from google "a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs." political.... not economic?! but socialism above was a social and economic, but brittanica calls communism "Communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property ....."  Differences that cause these arguments en masse, for, I know... I've used them for a long time.

and doesn't the electric company in california basically have an enforced monopoly on the market? yeah, sure, getting a startup company to push them out is near impossible because of the cost, .... if only nukes were subsidized /kwhr like solar and others, we wouldn't have anything else for base power because of the safety and tech advances since the 50's.... similar to how France's ~70% power is from nukes and waste is near nothing because of recycling, right?

...was this you, or someone else? ...quoting the preamble is the purpose of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Constitution ... where does it say that in the state's constitution? also, purpose, not powers.

I may have had more in my tank to write here, but i'll check responses later and try to be on point.    ...i miss the politics forum. lol

[dwightlooi]

@ Drew Dowdell

To put it concisely... here's the difference between You and I.

(1) You believe that greedy individuals and greedy companies are not doing you any favors, hence GOVERNMENT is often a better alternative.

(2) I believe that GOVERNMENT is also greedy organization comprised of greedy bastards, hence it is practically always a worse alternative because it has the power to compel its will upon you through fines, imprisonment and executions.

(3) In short, you trust the ruling authorities and their minions to fight for the welfare of the people, I trust the individual person to fight and win for himself. That is why you are a leftist and I am not.

(4) That... and of course... you believe in that Climate Change is man made and highly abnormal; I believe that Climate Change is natural and the current changes are not exceptional.

Edited March 22, 2021 by dwightlooi

[ykX]

So what happened to No Politics rule? ....

[dwightlooi]

5 minutes ago, ykX said:

So what happened to No Politics rule? ....

He who makes rule gets to decide what it means?

In this case, I suppose the absence of mention of any politician, political party, legislative agenda or election results makes it a philosophical discussion -- on green energy, transportation, climate change and healthcare -- rather than a political one?

[Drew Dowdell]

22 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

@ Drew Dowdell

To put it concisely... here's the difference between You and I.

(1) You believe that greedy individuals and greedy companies are not doing you any favors, hence GOVERNMENT is often a better alternative.

(2) I believe that GOVERNMENT is also greedy organization comprised of greedy bastards, hence it is practically always a worse alternative because it has the power to compel its will upon you through fines, imprisonment and executions.

(3) In short, you trust the ruling authorities and their minions to fight for the welfare of the people, I trust the individual person to fight and win for himself. That is why you are a leftist and I am not.

(4) That... and of course... you believe in that Climate Change is man made and highly abnormal; I believe that Climate Change is natural and the current changes are not exceptional.

No, the difference between you and I is that you think your beliefs are fact and should be treated as such. So far for you, facts are whatever you want them to be to support your position. Also, as you've consistently misrepresented what I've said, I also have better reading comprehension skills (#1, #2, and #3 are vastly incorrect appraisals of my stance).  #4 is disproven by science.... yes climate change can be natural, it can also be man-made, and the more we learn about the climate system the more apparent the irreversible damage is happening. 

6 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

He who makes rule gets to decide what it means?

In this case, I suppose the absence of mention of any politician, political party, legislative agenda or election results makes it a philosophical discussion -- on green energy, transportation, climate change and healthcare -- rather than a political one?

Wow! You DO understand.  There has been no mention of a particular political candidate. There is no slurs being used. The closest things to politics we've really discussed are the need for election reform (which while the methods may differ, I think both sides agree on the need for), and even then I balanced both sides.

We can make anything political if we want to... conversely, we can take the politics out of philosophical discussions as we have for the past few pages and have genuinely good arguments. 

But even with that, I will not hesitate to call out falsehoods, lies, and propaganda especially when used to support an agenda. 

[Drew Dowdell]

28 minutes ago, loki said:

Drew, quoting definitions like i used to... lol    SEMANTICS!!!!!!

and doesn't the electric company in california basically have an enforced monopoly on the market? yeah, sure, getting a startup company to push them out is near impossible because of the cost, .... if only nukes were subsidized /kwhr like solar and others, we wouldn't have anything else for base power because of the safety and tech advances since the 50's.... similar to how France's ~70% power is from nukes and waste is near nothing because of recycling, right?

...was this you, or someone else? ...quoting the preamble is the purpose of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Constitution ... where does it say that in the state's constitution? also, purpose, not powers.

I may have had more in my tank to write here, but i'll check responses later and try to be on point.    ...i miss the politics forum. lol

I had a hard time following what the point you were trying to make here was, but I'll address the points here that I do understand.

There is a difference between the Electric company that services your house and the electric company that generates the electricity and the electric company that operates the grid. The grids are often non-profit entities regulated by the state and fed.  The local power utilities are the ones who bill you... they are private companies and they are regulated by the states. The generation companies aren't really regulated by anyone except in terms of pollution control. 

I am all in favor of nuke power... I think a national program of Nuke, rooftop solar, and wind would make the national grid as green as can be.  Use modern breeder reactors and pebble bed reactors that are self regulating and nuke power would be super safe with nearly no waste.  The problem is the NIMBYs.... no one wants a reactor in their back yard because of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima. It is the sad truth about the future of nuke power in the US.  It's like how the Olds V8 diesel killed the passenger diesel market in the US.

The purpose is to ensure the general welfare.  Grids cross state lines (out of necessity, see also: Texas and what happens when you don't), so under the commerce clause, the grids are covered under the federal powers.  The Feds were basically powerless during the Texas power outage for that exact reason... the best they could do is send generators and blankets.  If it were any other state, there would be federal action at the grid level. 

[dwightlooi]

2 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

No, the difference between you and I is that you think your beliefs are fact and should be treated as such.  Also, as you've consistently misrepresented what I've said, I also have better reading comprehension skills (#1, #2, and #3 are vastly incorrect appraisals of my stance).  #4 is disproven by science.... yes climate change can be natural, it can also be man-made, and the more we learn about the climate system the more apparent the irreversible damage is happening. 

LOL... #1, #2 and #3 are very accurate appraisals only perhaps too concise and generalized for your liking.

As to #4 I have already articulated why I do not believe the Global Warming hogwash many times, but here's the very concise version.

(1) The Earth had been warmer with half the CO2 and much colder with 10x the CO2 in the air.

(2) As a matter of fact, ice core samples have shown that temperatures did not track CO2 levels going back beyond when Dinosaurs walked the Earth.

(3) Hence, it is bogus to conclude that today's climate is either exceptional or  linked to CO2 in general (much less man made CO2).

[balthazar]

44 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

I believe that GOVERNMENT is also greedy organization comprised of greedy bastards, hence it is practically always a worse alternative because it has the power to compel its will upon you through fines, imprisonment and executions.

Don't forget; and with NO outside oversight and almost zero accountability.

[trinacriabob]

46 minutes ago, ykX said:

So what happened to No Politics rule? ....

This is a tough call ... the discussion could be construed as one about economic policy, if they wanted to frame it that way.

[Drew Dowdell]

2 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

LOL... #1, #2 and #3 are very accurate appraisals only perhaps too concise and generalized for your liking.

As to #4 I have already articulated why I do not believe the Global Warming hogwash many times, but here's the very concise version.

(1) The Earth had been warmer with half the CO2 and much colder with 10x the CO2 in the air.

(2) As a matter of fact, ice core samples have shown that temperatures did not track CO2 levels going back beyond when Dinosaurs walked the Earth.

(3) Hence, it is bogus to conclude that today's climate is either exceptional or  linked to CO2 in general (much less man made CO2).

1# I trust no large organization... not companies, not governments, not non-profits, not churches, none.  Small groups of committed people can do good works, but when they get too large, the mission gets blurred.  I think the only way to protect the individual is to have the large groups hold each other accountable and for smaller groups to take shots at the large groups when possible... so government must regulate industry, and industry must report on government largess or corruption. Companies do put profits over people and over people's lives. It is the job of the government to reign that in. 

On Global climate change, it's been years since they made the realization that it was the oceans that were warming faster than expected and more proof came out in 2019. All of you climate change deniers waving your hands about air temperatures love to ignore the temperature of the water which is taking 90% of the increases and also increasing in acidity, killing ocean life.  This is changing weather patterns and causing sea levels to rise. Many coastal cities are already experiencing the effects. 

So deny it all you want and wave your hands in the air.... that way we'll be able to see you when you slowly slide beneath the water. 

 

[dwightlooi]

7 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I am all in favor of nuke power... I think a national program of Nuke, rooftop solar, and wind would make the national grid as green as can be. 

Good to hear that you are for the ONLY energy source to have the energy density and persistence to power a post oil & gas civilization. Whether or not we believe that there is ANY need to reduce carbon emissions, there will come a time when fossil will become more costly than their alternatives as easily accessible reserves are depleted. When that happens, securing access to Uranium reserves will be the center of geopolitics... it's better that we start now that later.

BTW, breeder reactors CAN blow up and melt down albeit not as easily as boiling water reactors of the 60s. As a matter of fact, they are a huge pain in the ass to refuel or decommission because they are molten metal cooled reactors. Their primary advantage is that the create fissile products that are subsequently fissile material and are hence much more fuel efficient.

Truly safe reactors are the helium cooled reactors driving gas turbines on the primary loop. Helium does not carry radioactivity worth a damn even if it escapes and the fuel matrix is self moderating such at an unmitigated failure shuts down the fissile reaction without intervention. Their downside of course is that they have much lower power density.

[Drew Dowdell]

2 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

Good to hear that you are for the ONLY energy source to have the energy density and persistence to power a post oil & gas civilization. Whether or not we believe that there is ANY need to reduce carbon emissions, there will come a time when fossil will become more costly than their alternatives as easily accessible reserves are depleted. When that happens, securing access to Uranium reserves will be the center of geopolitics... it's better that we start now that later.

BTW, breeder reactors CAN blow up and melt down albeit not as easily as boiling water reactors of the 60s. As a matter of fact, they are a huge pain in the ass to refuel or decommission because they are molten metal cooled reactors. Their primary advantage is that the create fissile products that are subsequently fissile material and are hence much more fuel efficient.

Truly safe reactors are the helium cooled reactors driving gas turbines on the primary loop. Helium does not carry radioactivity worth a damn even if it escapes and the fuel matrix is self moderating such at an unmitigated failure shuts down the fissile reaction without intervention. Their downside of course is that they have much lower power density.

Oh yea, I was talking about the pebble bed reactors that are self regulating.  Breeder reactors are an unfortunate necessity to deal with the waste from traditional reactors. Breeder reactors are extremely expensive, so I would figure out what ratio of traditional reactor to breeder reactor we needed to deal with the waste and only build enough of those to cope with the waste. 

I do think that hydrogen fusion has potential, but at this point they have only been able to power a single light bulb because it takes almost as much energy to run the thing as it generates.

[dwightlooi]

6 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Companies do put profits over people and over people's lives. It is the job of the government to reign that in. 

All of you climate change deniers waving your hands about air temperatures love to ignore the temperature of the water which is taking 90% of the increases and also increasing in acidity, killing ocean life... So deny it all you want and wave your hands in the air.... that way we'll be able to see you when you slowly slide beneath the water.

(1) GOVERNMENT does not put it's own interest, that of its leaders and those of its minions over that of the people and their lives? Now, that's bona fide naïvety through and through. And, who reigns government in but us right wing, small government, capitalist pigs? Left wing Liberal types are all too willing to shower Government with more involvement, more power and more TRUST.

(2) Again, the planet had been warmer than it is today and the world didn't end or become irreparable. As a matter of fact the last two times it was warmer, the Dark Ages ended and the Minoans thrived, respectively. That's the real inconvenient truth isn't it?

[trinacriabob]

On 3/20/2021 at 1:29 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

I like the Defenders, but I have only ever gotten 40k out of them at best.... so that's why I keep buying them because I use that treadlife warranty. 

I'm not going to do math, but, yes, with that sort of tread life, you'd use the warranty.  

I'm going to guesstimate that the break-even zone for a set of tires with an 80,000 mile warranty is about 60,000 miles.  That puts the vast majority of buyers in a situation where they have no incentive or need to use the warranty.

Over the years, I've been told by some of the guys in tires at Costco that the Defenders go the distance on most vehicles (maybe not the full extent of the warranty) but, on some (types of) vehicles, they don't deliver the expected results.

[Drew Dowdell]

3 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

(1) GOVERNMENT does not put it's own interest, that of its leaders and those of its minions over that of the people and their lives? Now, that's bona fide naïvety through and through. And, who reigns government in but us right wing, small government, capitalist pigs? Left wing Liberal types are all too willing to shower Government with more involvement, more power and more TRUST.

(2) Again, the planet had been warmer than it is today and the world didn't end or become irreparable. As a matter of fact the last two times it was warmer, the Dark Ages ended and the Minoans thrived, respectively. That's the real inconvenient truth isn't it?

 

1) I said large organizations I do not trust. The federal government is a large organization.  Right wing wants just as much control over the individual, if not more. 

2) You're only counting air temps right?  Did you just ignore the whole thing about water temps and water acidity going up?  If so, Go buy property on the Miami coast then.... or oceanfront in Virgina Beach.... or any other beach.  My parents live on property 9ft above sea level.... I know I'm not inheriting anything.

[Drew Dowdell]

@dwightlooi - I have to ask... what is the motivation of the Global Climate Change cabal? What ends are they trying to reach? Why commit a fraud on a global scale for no reason... there's gotta be a reason.... how will climate scientists and NOAA profit from this?

[surreal1272]

I'm just saying...

[dwightlooi]

22 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Oh yea, I was talking about the pebble bed reactors that are self regulating.  Breeder reactors are an unfortunate necessity to deal with the waste from traditional reactors. Breeder reactors are extremely expensive, so I would figure out what ratio of traditional reactor to breeder reactor we needed to deal with the waste and only build enough of those to cope with the waste. 

I do think that hydrogen fusion has potential, but at this point they have only been able to power a single light bulb because it takes almost as much energy to run the thing as it generates.

Waste has never been really a problem, there are plenty of arid places to dump them so they won't ever get into the ground water. The reason people don't build breeder reactors any more is because they are a pain to start up, shut down and refuel. The whole thing must be filled with molten sodium, if the reaction stops the sodium solidifies and the reactor is literally "bricked". The the question becomes how to you remove the molten sodium coolant without overheating the fuel rods or how do you remove the fuel rods without solidifying the sodium? The way the Russians did it on the Alfa submarines was to refuel and actively operating reactor. Another way to to bring a megawatt class arc furnace alongside so you can keep the reactor on life support while you do it.

Actually, we have NEVER successfully fused atomic Hydrogen in a reactor. Both magnetic confinement and laser inertial reactors use Tritium and Deuterium fuel. Also, a fundamental problem with fusion is how you capture the energy released. Let's say you have a chamber within which you get a fuel pellet hot enough and under enough pressure to fuse. You can MEASURE that rather easily, but capturing the energy to do anything is a different story. In a fission reactor you have a very hot core of solid matter and you simply run a coolant through it then use it drive a turbine either directly or on a secondary circuit. But with either a laser chamber or a Tokamak toroid, there is no way to run a coolant into the insides and outside is not exactly designed to conduct heat and run a turbine either. Think of it has running your car in your garage and trying to get energy from that engine indirectly from from outside your house. It's contorted at best and mostly futile by design.

[surreal1272]

42 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

(2) Again, the planet had been warmer than it is today and the world didn't end or become irreparable. As a matter of fact the last two times it was warmer, the Dark Ages ended and the Minoans thrived, respectively. That's the real inconvenient truth isn't it?

Must be why 99% of the folks who ACTUALLY study and have degrees in such fields, say the exact opposite of what alleged engineers say.. 

2 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

Waste has never been really a problem, there are plenty of arid places to dump them so they won't ever get into the ground water.

Are you high?

 

Seriously.

1 hour ago, ykX said:

So what happened to No Politics rule? ....

(Hand raised all the way up in the back of the classroom)

OOOOH! OOOOOH! I KNOW!!!

[Drew Dowdell]

4 minutes ago, dwightlooi said:

Waste has never been really a problem, there are plenty of arid places to dump them so they won't ever get into the ground water. The reason people don't build breeder reactors any more is because they are a pain to start up, shut down and refuel. The whole thing must be filled with molten sodium, if the reaction stops the sodium solidifies and the reactor is literally "bricked". The the question becomes how to you remove the molten sodium coolant without overheating the fuel rods or how do you remove the fuel rods without solidifying the sodium? The way the Russians did it on the Alfa submarines was to refuel and actively operating reactor. Another way to to bring a megawatt class arc furnace alongside so you can keep the reactor on life support while you do it.

And that's why none of us can take you seriously when you're not talking about engines or transmissions. 

[A Horse With No Name]

3 hours ago, ccap41 said:

Redwings fan?!?

Back when we were in the same division and it was a great rivalry, home games against Detroit were known as "punch a Redwings fan in the face day". 🤣

That's just absurd. It's a cool car and all but there's no reason for a market adjustment on a Mach 1, imo. I just cannot see it holding its value without a Shelby name on it. 

Agree completely. Would also punch a Redwings fan in the face any day of the week. 

Humor to divert from our debate...

[A Horse With No Name]

Northern ireland...

Japan...

[dwightlooi]

22 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

@dwightlooi - I have to ask... what is the motivation of the Global Climate Change cabal? What ends are they trying to reach? Why commit a fraud on a global scale for no reason... there's gotta be a reason.... how will climate scientists and NOAA profit from this?

For the Government types it's an excuse to pass laws, make regulations and divert funds to get industries to come to them to beg for relief, favors or handouts, thereby empowering and enriching themselves and their buddies?

For people in White Coats it's billions of dollars in funding, adoration and maybe a prize from Stockholm vs losing your tenure, being ostracized and having no money?

For Celebrities, Media morons and Joe the Tree Hugger its a convenient avenue to feel good about themselves and have others feel good about them?

It's like the Medieval Church really... the Kings are for power through the Divine Right of Kings supported by the Church. The Wise Men was for it for legitimacy, patronage and not being burned at the stake. The Low Born are for it because serfdom sucked and it was comforting to think that they are servants to God and the promise of eternity, rather than slaves to their lords and clergy!

[A Horse With No Name]

[dwightlooi]

29 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Must be why 99% of the folks who ACTUALLY study and have degrees in such fields, say the exact opposite of what alleged engineers say.. 

Are you high?

Because when they don't say that or they lose their jobs, get ostracized and get no money for their labs? And, when they do they get tenure, get acclaimed and are showered with billions of research money?

No, I am not high. Compared to other pollutants Nuclear Waste has never really been a problem even though environmental types like to make it the boogieman. Nuclear waste is COMPACT and SOLID. And, regardless of how toxic and/or radioactive they are, the Earth is a HUGE place and there is no shortage of arid and stable places where you can put them under shelter above the water table for centuries if need be. For context, ALL of the Nuclear waste generated in the USA since the Manhattan Project is about 80,000 tons whereas the Great Pyramid is about 5 million tons.

Edited March 22, 2021 by dwightlooi

[David]

In Auto News, 

VW has announced that they have ended all ICE development joining Audi as they focus on EV's for VW and Audi by 2030. Porsche will be the only company to continue with ICE for now as it funds the transition to EVs. Porsche will eventually join Audi and VW in becoming an all EV company but at a later date.

VW CEO did state the following: Duesmann gave no timeline for when the automaker will stop producing combustion engines. "Our customers will probably decide when the last combustion engine comes off the production line," he said.

With that statement, R&D has stopped, but production continues forward as ICE funds the EV change over.

VW brand will phase out combustion engines, CEO says (autonews.com)

Volkswagen Will Also Stop Developing Internal Combustion Engines (roadandtrack.com)