Avoid Delta and Atlanta

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 18:11:04 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

mrtravel writes:

Many farm crops need a lot less water than what people put
on their lawn.

How much water do people put on their lawn, and how much water do farm
crops require?

Which farm crop?

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen writes:

Which farm crop?

A crop typical of the region under discussion. There aren't too many
rice paddies around Phoenix or Tucson, but I seem to recall alfalfa
being popular.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:12:24 +0100, The Reid
wrote:
snipped
did you understand the words "in part"? Reducing pollution will
put a brake on growth, (it wont come free) I know the US right
thinks it will find magical technical solutions that will make
everything OK without curtailing use of finite rescources and
polluting uses, but thats, let us say, optimistic and
significantly, not available now. snipped

Actually, apparently alot of policy-makers in the US right feel the
Apocalypse is near (and seem to be looking forward to it with relish),
and aren't planning ahead with future generations in mind at all......

Mxsmanic wrote:
mrtravel writes:


But they still have seasons, despite the water going down the drain with
the spin in the opposite direction.


The hemisphere has no effect on the direction in which water spins
when going down the drain.

I guess this guy was wrong, huh..

http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadCoriolis.html
See the part after "Is it possible to detect the Earth’s rotation in a
draining sink?"

What follows is an example of the same test I did it high school.
I wasn't referring to the common toilet/sink draining rhetoric

(note, this is in the section of the webpage that is BEFORE the examples
of the "incompetence" section")



So, if you think that deaths due to weather happen more due to weather
in the summer. Does it matter if the location is in the northern or
southern hemisphere?


What matters is heat.

Exacty my point. The previous poster (you?) referred to the season at
which most deaths occur in the Northenn Hemisphere. My point was that it
would seem that the deaths in the South would follow the same seasonal
pattern.

Padraig Breathnach wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote:

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

********. States "own" armies and navies. By such a definition, they
would be instances of socialism.

And you were under the impression that armies are a "business"????

You missed my point, even though it wasn't particularly subtle. I am
not surprised. I'll spell it out for you: there is more to healthcare
than being a business opportunity; it's a public policy issue, a
social provision matter. Like roads, police services, things like that.

Nonsense. You could define just about *anything* as a social policy
issue. Want to go back to the "food" discussion?

Attempting to nationalize a business like health care will cause it to
fail eventually. Always. No exception. History has proven that.

That is not a profound definition, but still does not come anywhere
near supporting your claim.

It *exactly* supports my claim.

Wrong. Assertion does not make it right.

And you closing your eyes and holding your ears and pretending that the
world isn't really there doesn't negate the assertion nor the facts.

A trivial definition which tells us almost nothing.

"State ownership" doesn't mean anything??? It's what causes the system
to fail.

It's trivial argument.

Again, it's the core of the argument because it defines why your
solution always fails.

But it's not worth my while. Your approach to argument is (to put it
mildly) unsatisfactory.

Particularly since it proved you wrong. You obviously find that quite
"unsatisfactory".

Go away and play with little people who might be impressed with
slogans and assertions as forms of argument.

In other words you don't have a response. You remind me of a sign I saw
in Berkeley right after the collapse of the Soviet Union where some
drugged out hippie called on the press to "quit telling lies about
Communism". Your undying support of a failed ideology is touching. Not
particularly bright but definitely touching.

The Reid wrote:
Following up to Tchiowa

"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the
means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a
centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

not the UK then.

"a political theory advocating state ownership of industry"

if you think these definitions are correct I don't see why you
think they apply to me or the UK?

NHS is government control of the "means of producing and distributing"
health care. Thus it is Socialized Medicine. Even the government in the
UK that is doing the administering freely acknowledges that.

And we've already seen the results. People leaving the UK for medical
care because the waits are too long, the number of doctors and dentists
falling, all the earmarks of a system beginning to fail.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 01:51:43 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Hatunen writes:

Which farm crop?

A crop typical of the region under discussion. There aren't too many
rice paddies around Phoenix or Tucson, but I seem to recall alfalfa
being popular.

You even delete your own questions when they are the heart of the
matter. You asked:

"How much water do people put on their lawn, and how much water
do farm crops require?"

Crops typical here are, e.g., cotton, sugar beets, etc. Different
crops have different water requirements. Although I should point
out for those not familiar with Arizona that rain is meagre
enough that crops are treated as if there is no rain; it's all
irrigation, largely flood irrigation (not those circular things)
although there is some use of straight "rain pipe" that sprays
out water as it walks linearly along the field.

Flood irrigation is generally used where the water is delivered
from lakes or the Colorado River through canals; the rain
machines are usually supplied from wells.

Areas unreached by canals or have water to deep to economically
pump have changed to crops not requiring as much water, like
pecans.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

The Reid wrote:
Following up to Tchiowa

Nonsence, I live and work in a free market capitalist system that
chooses to fund medical care from taxes, that isnt a failed
communist state. you dont seem to be able to differentiate the
two.

You don't seem to understand that what you just described is called
"Socialism".

You continually assert that all socialism has failed, communist
economies have failed, yes, "socialised" medicine in capitalist
economies haven't.

Failed or are failing. Yes.

(You probably think Blair is a socialist?).

I'm looking at economic mechanisms that will be needed in the
*future*, you are looking at the past, seeing capitalism beat
communism and basing all your thinking around that one point..

Again you demonstrate a basic lack of understanding. Capitalism didn't
"beat" Communism. Communism/Socialism failed all by itself.

sigh, more playing with words. Capitalism was successful.
Communism wasn't. so the communist countries eventually collapsed
and opted for capitalism. You object to "beat", fine. Was it worth saying
anymore than the bollox about "have you heard of ice ages"?

By saying that "Capitalism beat Socialism" you imply that if it wasn't
for Capitalism then Socialism may have succeeded. My very simple point
is that Socialism cannot succeed. Ever. Any circumstance. It is a
doomed philosophy.

It will often succeed in the short run, but like an economic bubble the
damage it does when it fails far outways the benefit of any temporary
success.

And it will always fail.

Socialism
is a fatally flawed theory and any attempt to implement it will always
fail over time. That has been proven over and over again.

Communism failed, you think that proves everything in the world
other than pure capitalism must do the same, I dont.

I didn't say that or anything like it. Capitalism and the free market
are not perfect but they are the best system we have. Socialism and
Communism cannot succeed. That has nothing to do with the superiority
of Capitalism but rather with the inherently destructive nature of
Socialism.

Provided
there is a strong free market economy (the thing lacking in
communist countries) there is no reason not for profit activities
cannot be supported where it is felt equity is more important
than profit

That is where you are wrong and that is why you don't understand why
Socialism is doomed to failure. The reality of the world is that people
will work harder and produce more if they can see a **direct** benefit
to themselves and their families. Also known as "the profit motive".

If you want to learn more, go spend some time in Nigeria. Nigeria is
*NOT* a Socialist country but it has the same "guaranteed to fail" flaw
as Socialism. Anyone who has spent time in Nigeria will tell you that
the reason nothing works for very long there is because there is no
direct "reward and punishment" link to an individual's activities or
behaviorship. "No negative results for failing to perform" as a friend
of mine phrases is. So since people don't suffer when they don't
produce and they aren't rewarded when they do, very few people even
try.

And that is the *INEVITABLE* result of Socialism and that is why it
*ALWAYS* fails. And since health care is, as you and others point out,
an important public policy issue we don't dare leave it to a system
that we know can never succeed.

Capitalism has to do with profit orientated privately (as opposed
to state) controlled systems that flourish or fail by levels of
profit or loss, nothing much else. The new realities may clash
with that.

You mean your personal view of reality which has been shown to be more
than a little bit skewed.

your best arguments seem to be intentional misunderstanding,
nitpicking words and empty assertions that I am just "wrong".

You consider "historical facts" to be "empty assertions"????
Interesting.

Or are you talking about some other form of Capitalism that you forgot
to specify and are assuming that people here can read you mind?

Maybe *you* cant comprehend what i'm talking about. For example
our system depends on growth, one particular example is pension
fund investment. Growth is going to be in part incompatible with
reducing pollution. This is a problem.

Growth is *not* incompatible with reducing pollution. That's what you
don't get.

did you understand the words "in part"?

Sure I do. Your statement is simply wrong.

Reducing pollution will put a brake on growth,

The US has been dramatically reducing pollution for a couple of decades
and been growing at a significant rate at the same time. Again,
historical facts. Must be another "empty assertion".

(it wont come free) I know the US right thinks it will find magical technical
solutions that will make everything OK without curtailing use of finite
rescources and polluting uses,

2 core mistakes. 1: It's not the "US right" that thinks that, it's
pretty much most of the world. 2: technology is not "magic".

but thats, let us say, optimistic and
significantly, not available now. As much as I dislike Blair, at
least he has the honesty and intellectual capacity to acknowledge
the obvious but unpalatable truth in these matters, unlike Bush.

There is a common term to describe the state in which an organism is no
longer growing. It's called "death".

Its called sustainable stability in the case of ecosystems.

No it's not. Stasis is not stability. The world is always changing
whether you or I like it or not. Trying to "freeze in place" is
self-destructive.

Those who demand that the world
quit growing and advancing are promoting yet another guaranteed-to-fail
theory.

there you are, you are locked into the idea that growth is the
onlt way, at least you demonstrate the problem. Its probably
easier to see growth is ultimatly unsustainable if you live in a
small but highly developed country, it needs less imagination.

I live in 2 countries. 1 (the US) is highly developed but hardly small.
The other (Thailand) is fairly small but not exactly highly developed.

And I've lived in smaller countries, middle sized countries and
countries in various states of development.

And that experience also says you're wrong.

Rather than pointlessly arging with me, have a look at projected
growth in air traffic and the effect of the asociated emissions
as a starting point.

OK. Then you have a look at advances in air planes that are reducing
emissions, increasing passenger capacity, reducing flight times, etc.

Then think of China and India wanting US or western European material
standards of living.

Yes. And then I think that they have every right to that. And that it
is very much achievable. And when it is achieved the people in those
countries will live longer and have better lives.

Then switch off your preconceptions and fixed notions of the only
true path and think about growth and finite rescourses. Meanwhile
ill take Padraigs advice.

Also known as "don't bother me with facts, you're destroying my
self-made delusions of the world". That advice?

How many times over the past few thousand years has some small group of
Luddites and pessimists ran around screaming that the sky will be
falling tomorrow because we can't continue to grow and we're going to
be running out of (food, oil, water, pot, whatever) tomorrow unless we
all climb into some prehistoric hole and "live off the land"?

And how many times have they been proven right (answer is less than 1)?

Miguel Cruz wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote:
If you look at the poorer sections of Bangkok as you drive through
you'll see A/C units mounted on a substantial portion of them. Wooden
houses that don't seem (and probably aren't) sealed well enough to
fully take advantage of A/C still have them.

You can't easily drive through the really poor sections of Bangkok.

I'll take you on a tour sometime when I'm up there.

I'll look forward to it.

And remember that Bangkok is largely middle class (the poor are a small
and shrinking minority in Bangkok). So the poor are not representative
of Bangkok.

I agree that their numbers seem to be shrinking over the years, but
there are still an awful lot of them. I just googled around the stats
but couldn't find anything that looked particularly reliable,
unfortunately.

That is Thailand.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Dave Frightens Me writes:

In fact it's easier. Humans can tolerate sustained periods of high
temperatures if they are educated as to how to survive.

No, they cannot. The only education they can receive concerns how to
avoid high temperatures and heating up. If they are exposed to high
temperatures and they heat up, they die, with or without an education.

If people know what they are doing they can protect themselves from the
cold quite easily. A well insulated shelter will do that. But you can't
protect yourself from heat that way. Cold is more dangerous but can be
defended against. Long term heat is less dangerous but you can't
protect yourself against it without something like air conditioning.