revolations unfolding in middle east?

[MACHINE5150]

Agree with what Roman said regarding the Earth... The effects of extracting fossil fuels are so miniscule that they are not even worth talking about, unless of course you're a card carrying member of Greenpeace, or some other tree hugging glue sniffing organization.

As far as unrest in the Middle East, my question would be, why the f**k do you care? The goings on in that region of the world is quite literally, NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. Iraq was an illegal, undeclared 'war', just as our actions in Libya are illegal, and contrary to the rule of law in our Constitution. No fly zones, and dropping bombs are a clear act of war, even economic 'sanctions' are considered acts of war. Only CONGRESS may declare war. After WWII, we have been marching around the globe, going to war willy nilly, without REAL Congressional oversight and declaration. Our Constitution mandates a declaration of war after the 60-90 day emergency military war powers act that the President can exercise.

The reason that there is no declaration by Congress? Because the countries that we are intervening in, pose NO national security threat to the United States of America. The ONLY time, under the rule of law of the constitution, that war can be declared, is if a country or body is directly threatening the national security and sovreignty of the HOMELAND of the United States. We are not permitted to goto war for our allies, for our economic interests, for 'ensuring people have the right to vote in despotic countries', and any other such bullshit one can conjure up. The Constitution is quite clear about WHEN we can goto war, and WHO has the power to declare war, the WHEN being a national security threat to the United States HOMELAND, and the WHO being the Congress of the United States of America.

There seems to be this prevailing mindset in America, that we are bringing "freedom" to people who live under brutal dictatorships. News flash to all of the uninformed stupid motherfu**ers that believe that bullshit, there are 190 countries in the world, and roughly 50%, or 95 of those countries, live under some form of totalitarian government, where they lack the right to vote in meaningful elections, and where a despotic dictator rules with absolute authority. I don't hear any of you people beating the fu**ing war drum to go invade those countries, and send our VALUABLE American soldiers to go die in those places, to "free" the people that live there. We have killed roughly ONE MILLION civilians in Iraq, as 'collateral damage'. In addition, that country is in ruins, and the AVERAGE Iraqi there, is much less safe, and in more danger of being killed NOW, than before we invaded. This is because, as much as none of you people can realise or want to admit, Saddam Hussein provided stability between two tribal regions. The people of that country have made it quite clear, they did not ask, nor do they want a democratic government. They want a religious government, and as a sovereign nation, they are competely within their rights to have whatever type of government they want, and our OPINION matters little. However, we have adopted this policy of "spreading Democracy by force." Well, if someone could kindly point out in the constitution, where it says that we are obligated, or even authorized to do such a thing, and to intervene in other countries sovereign business, and to do so by force, then I will promptly STFU.

^^^^^^^Very well said.. the worst part is that Americans are so complacent with paying for these wars, mean while the country is going bankrupt, and still pays over 500 billion every year on interest for loans to fund past wars?? WTF???

[thegodfather]

been there killed a couple my self.you sound like a text book.all theory no hands on.

What does that mean? Because I haven't personally been to Iraq and Afghanistan, my study of foreign affairs and constitutional law is irrelevant? I don't need to participate in the 'war' in either country to have an opinion about the war, and an accurate one at that. In fact, my taxes are paying for these wars of aggression, and therefore I have every right to weigh in with my expert opinion on the situation.

I have the utmost respect for anyone who serves in the armed forces, I have always supported the soldiers, but not the politicians who send our young men and women to die in wars that do not have any effect on their fianances and which THEIR kids are not fighting in. It's very easy to send someone elses father, child, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, and so forth to die in another country. It's also very easy to pay for these wars of aggression when the cost is not being bared by the American people and by the politicians who engage and vote for these conflicts, and continue to fund them with "other peoples money." I contend, that our soldiers should not be dying in these wars which do not in any way help to enhance the national security of the United States homeland. The only conflict I agree with, and I mean INITIALLY agree with, was our invasion of Afghanistan for providing a safe haven for the groups who attacked us on September 11th. However, we had a clearly defined goal of eliminating Al-Qaeda and capturing Osama Bin Laden, we failed in that endeavor, and at that point, instead of packing up and going home, we decided to become bogged down in nation building and counterinsurgency. This is the problem that arises from UNDECLARED wars.

The reasons that these wars go on for so long is quite simple.

1. We have a professional military. There is no draft, and the effects on the general public and middle class, is very far removed from the days of the draft, when ANY able bodied man could be called up for service, and this made the public have a VERY vested interest in the conflicts we engaged in. It is ultimately why the draft was ended after 1973, after the disaster in Vietnam. Politicians figured out if they had a professional military, they eliminated much of the public accountability.

2. Taxes. Taxes are normally increased during war time. However, in our most recent war with Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration actually CUT TAXES, further removing the publics interest and physical ties to the war. If the American public does not really have to 'sacrafice' anything, they are much less likely to be opposed to our illegal wars, since they do not "effect them."

3. News coverage. 40 years ago, one had very few options (as far as TV channels and other forms of media). They either read print media, or chose from very few TV stations. Now, it is possible for Americans to choose to watch "Jersey Shore" all hours of the day, without ever having to hear about the wars in other countries, and the number of soldiers we have dying there.

Believe me, I support the soldiers. However, with that being said, anyone who is serving in any of our military branches does so on their own accord. They are professional, paid soldiers, who recieve benefits, and a salary, etc. I, infact, had been accepted to OCS, had my packet reviewed and went through MEPS, but ultimately decided not to sign on the dotted line, my life took me in a different direction. It's still something I consider from time to time. However, I went through that process, knowing that I was choosing a career, and I was not fighting for my countries freedom for a pittance. My salary would have been around $3,500 per month, on top of free medical/dental/vision, and free housing, etc, as an O-1. This is a far cry from the menial amounts that used to be paid to our soldiers who were conscripted into the military during WWI and WWII.


We are in fact, feeding into the Jihadists plan. It is very hard for them to attack us in the homeland of the United States. They have a very hard time securing funding, getting VISA's, and their access to weapons is extremely limited. Yes, they have been able to pull off a few attacks, but they pale in comparison to the damage they're able to do with hundreds of thousands of our troops in THEIR homeland, exposed, not knowing the area. They have home field advantage, they don't wear uniforms, they hit and run, they remotely detonate IEDs.

It's actually ironic, that our presence actually HELPS their recruitment efforts. Every time we accidentally kill a civlian, shoot up the wrong house after an IED blast, shoot an Iraqi reporter with a long lens camera from an Apache, killing twenty people in the streets, have a Hellfire launched into a building killing one or two insurgents, and 15 civilians, mistaking a shovel for a rifle, killing a farmer, and any number of incidences of collateral damge, we cause something called "BLOWBACK." This is a term coined by our own CIA, and they warn of the blowback principle in codifying the recruitment efforts of Jihadists. We kill innocent civilians, and those civilians have fathers, sons, brothers, cousins, all of which dont give two fu*ks whether they can vote in an election (they want an Islamic government), dont care that we're here to bring them freedom, all they know, is that the Americans are responsible for their loved ones death. We create a potential Jihadist EVERY SINGLE TIME WE KILL A CIVILIAN.

The latest news from Rolling Stone, about the 5th Stryker Brigades "Kill Team," which was staging scenarios so they could intentionally kill civilians, and then plant 'drop' weapons on them in order to make them look like legitimate engagements, only further codifies the cause of the Jihadists. In addition, we are not ONLY fighting Al-Qaeda jihadists, we are also fighting the general insurgency. These people are not Al-Qaeda fighters, in fact, less than 10% of the insurgents killed in Iraq are members of Al-Qaeda, the majority of insurgents, are simply Iraqi people who want us OUT OF THEIR COUNTRY.

Let me ask you, what would you do, if say, China, decided to occupy the United States, and down the street had a large Chinese military base. These soldiers, frequently drove down your streets with tanks, walked through YOUR neighborhood, searched your house without a warrant, indiscriminately confiscated your weapons, and at times, killed some of your friends and family members by accident or intentional, but either way were not held responsible for doing so. Would you sit back, and say, "Ok, well these Chinese guys are really here to help my people?". I highly doubt it, I think that you would take up arms against these people, and if they had an overwhelming force, you would fight them with any means you had at your disposal, i.e.- planting roadside remotely detonated bombs to inflict casulaties on your enemy(occupiers) and get some get back for your dead friends or relatives. It really is, THAT SIMPLE.

This is the reason we should not be meddling in the affairs of foreign sovereign nations. I'd much rather have our soldiers, securing our fluid border with Mexico, where people can enter our country unmolested and without any checks. The number of criminals, terrorists, and other unsavory people who could be entering our country through our border with Mexico, that is a real and palpable danger.

[wmaousley]

Oh Mrs. Clinton stated on TV the other day, that the only reason we went in and enforced a no-fly zone in libiya was to protect civilians from death. Ok if that statement is true, why havent we went into Sudan and done the same for the people in Darfur?

[Times Roman]

What renewable energy is likely to come out ahead? I figured that after oil will come methane gas. Since many oil companies seem to have their hands in methane gas then I figured staying with the oil companies is a good idea.

right now, solar (PV) is a leading contender. There is also hydro and wind that are becoming cost effective. Iceland utilizes Geothermal which is well suited for their particular geology. There are more. But in developing countries, that have no natural resources such as oil, and can't afford to import, renewables makes sense.

[wmaousley]

Yeah we use PV to power some of our steam injection facilities that are located off the grid plane. Its a fairly new concept in the MENA region. And I agree wind would be great in the desert.

[wmaousley]

What renewable energy is likely to come out ahead? I figured that after oil will come methane gas. Since many oil companies seem to have their hands in methane gas then I figured staying with the oil companies is a good idea.

Methane is way way to volitile to put into vehicles. Its only transported via refridgeration (LNG). Unless scientists can find a way to safely use Methane other than in chemical production, IMO it will never hit the mainstream consumer market. and only a handfull of NG producing countries have it.

[Times Roman]

anyone notice how all the hubub regarding hydrogen fuel cells has died down?

[wmaousley]

anyone notice how all the hubub regarding hydrogen fuel cells has died down?

Damn I forgot about it myself! Whatever happened to that?

[Times Roman]

right around that time, if I remember correctly, the price of oil dropped making the nascent technology economically unfeasable.

If you ask me, the technology could have worked economically, but as an alternate energy source, it has to compete with PV, etc. And we all know PV $/watt has been dropping significantly.

[lovbyts]

right around that time, if I remember correctly, the price of oil dropped making the nascent technology economically unfeasable.

If you ask me, the technology could have worked economically, but as an alternate energy source, it has to compete with PV, etc. And we all know PV $/watt has been dropping significantly.

Yes but like everything, once we switch over to electric cars it will sky rocket in price. Look at all the people who switched to Natural gas for heat and cooking because it was so much cheaper than electric. now it's more. Another example, look at the price of Diesel fuel. Anyone want to try to explain why for so many years it was a LOT cheaper than gas and the one time it started to get to high the truckers threatened to strike and it went back down. Now that a large part of society drive diesel trucks/cars the price has gone up and is more than gas although it is a lot cheaper to manufacture than gas.

It doesn't matter what we change to as long as it's something that can be controlled or exploited they will find a way to make it expensive for the general public. IF we or someone could come up with a good solar charging option and a battery that lasted for a long time that would be the answer. I have no doubt the technology is out there and has been for a long time but I'm sure they wont let it be available to the general public.

[Flagg]

As of 2008, at the current consumption rate, oil will be gone within 35 years, coal within 107 years and gas within 37 years. Source: Shafiee, S. & Topal, E., 2008. When will fossil fuel reserves be diminished? Energy Policy, 37 (1), pp. 181-189

As far as Renewable Energy goes, there are many options and different renewables are more effective in different regions of the world. Photo voltaics and solar is better in large, sunny land masses such as Africa, America, Australia. This technology is still pretty expensive though. Then you have wind and hydropower, which is better suited to smaller island nations, such as the British Isles or New Zealand.

The problem with renewables so far is that they are very dependent on weather, not to mention expensive. There is also great interest in Biofuels, and the potential there is huge, but it means Biofuels competiting with Agriculture over land and water resources.

I think Nuclear power, for now, is the only alternative we have to match the energy consumption rates that fossil fuels afford us. But in no way do I think Nuclear power is a long term solution, and is more of a "buffer". The Nuclear industry itself may have a pretty good safety record, but it only takes ONE ACCIDENT to have catastrophic consequences, i.e. Chernobyl and more recently in Japan. Also you have to remember, that while 95% of all nuclear used fuel can be recycled, the stuff left over has to be left for 40-50 years to decay to levels "safe to handle", and then buried underground where it will take 1000 years to reach completely safe levels again. I don't like the idea of tons and tons of nuclear waste sitting underground, taking hundreds of years to degrade..

[Times Roman]

Yes but like everything, once we switch over to electric cars it will sky rocket in price. Look at all the people who switched to Natural gas for heat and cooking because it was so much cheaper than electric. now it's more. Another example, look at the price of Diesel fuel. Anyone want to try to explain why for so many years it was a LOT cheaper than gas and the one time it started to get to high the truckers threatened to strike and it went back down. Now that a large part of society drive diesel trucks/cars the price has gone up and is more than gas although it is a lot cheaper to manufacture than gas.

It doesn't matter what we change to as long as it's something that can be controlled or exploited they will find a way to make it expensive for the general public. IF we or someone could come up with a good solar charging option and a battery that lasted for a long time that would be the answer. I have no doubt the technology is out there and has been for a long time but I'm sure they wont let it be available to the general public.

Are you referring to electricity? I doubt it. The examples you mention, the diesal, for example, are not very good examples in my opinion. The constraint is not crude oil. We have plenty of that. The constraint is the refinery. They get to decide how much of what they make. Each state regulates it's own, making the refinery a "monopoly" to a certain extent within that state. Some states rely on a single refinery for it's gasoline/diesel consumption. To drive up prices, all a refinery has to do is slow down production just a tad, and with a fixed demand, and declining supplies, the price naturally goes up.

Electricity is a little bit different. Electricity is truely a "fungible" as it is, more or less, all the same. Sure, a supply may have differences in voltage or amperage, but a transformer can manage this to suit your needs regardless of the supply. Additionally, with PV, there is much effort to create PV to recharge an electric vehicle, therefore not reliant on the grid. As the tech for renewables improves, and the output of these sources increases, it is possible that the supply can outpace the demand, and we see a falling off of price. This scenerio seems doubtful to me, since my experience is that prices generally go up, not down. But the idea of energy costs for an electric car at around $150/year seems very attractive to me.

[Times Roman]

Having said that, there is no way in hell I would ride an electric Harley! =)

[Times Roman]

As of 2008, at the current consumption rate, oil will be gone within 35 years, coal within 107 years and gas within 37 years. Source: Shafiee, S. & Topal, E., 2008. When will fossil fuel reserves be diminished? Energy Policy, 37 (1), pp. 181-189

As far as Renewable Energy goes, there are many options and different renewables are more effective in different regions of the world. Photo voltaics and solar is better in large, sunny land masses such as Africa, America, Australia. This technology is still pretty expensive though. Then you have wind and hydropower, which is better suited to smaller island nations, such as the British Isles or New Zealand.

The problem with renewables so far is that they are very dependent on weather, not to mention expensive. There is also great interest in Biofuels, and the potential there is huge, but it means Biofuels competiting with Agriculture over land and water resources.

I think Nuclear power, for now, is the only alternative we have to match the energy consumption rates that fossil fuels afford us. But in no way do I think Nuclear power is a long term solution, and is more of a "buffer". The Nuclear industry itself may have a pretty good safety record, but it only takes ONE ACCIDENT to have catastrophic consequences, i.e. Chernobyl and more recently in Japan. Also you have to remember, that while 95% of all nuclear used fuel can be recycled, the stuff left over has to be left for 40-50 years to decay to levels "safe to handle", and then buried underground where it will take 1000 years to reach completely safe levels again. I don't like the idea of tons and tons of nuclear waste sitting underground, taking hundreds of years to degrade..

$/watt has been dropping like a rock lately on PV.... (and will continue to do so)

14.5 x 80" = 459.99 for flexible solar panel. Comes in a roll like tar paper.

not just you, but most people think it is too expensive for peronal use.

I found this site right away, and there may be better prices out there.

With flexible panels, you install yourself. Very inexpensive!

http://flexsolarcells.com/Rollable_Series.php

[wmaousley]

PV is def up and coming in all sectors, I am in O&G and have seen PV skyrocket in the past 5 years. Especially in the projects off the Grid.

[lovbyts]

I looked into PV about 5 years ago and just again now. It's still about the same price. For me to convert my house over to PV it would cost around 200K and estimate of 30 years to break even on cost savings.

[wmaousley]

I looked into PV about 5 years ago and just again now. It's still about the same price. For me to convert my house over to PV it would cost around 200K and estimate of 30 years to break even on cost savings.

I would agree with you, its popularity is mainly in the commercial market, and currently the residential or private market wouldnt benefit from it comparing to grid electricity. We just had a meeting with Fluor this morning about an EPC contract in one of the oilfields in Kuwait for a steam injection plant that will use PV and they also stated off record that PV is primarly used on commercial markets, and will take years to go into the mainstream consumer market.

I am no Solar/PV expert, TR should shed some insight on this matter.

[Times Roman]

In California, to do a decent job, net of tax credits, you are looking at maybe $10k, maybe $15 for a SFR. And you get to sell energy back to the grid at the same price you pay.

LB, the only thing I can think of that would run up your cost to $200k would be your area... overseas, right?

On flexible solar panels, payback is just a few years. If you want to go over the calculations, you can PM me.

I think you will be pleasantly surprised with flexible solar panels that you put up yourself.

[Times Roman]

I would agree with you, its popularity is mainly in the commercial market, and currently the residential or private market wouldnt benefit from it comparing to grid electricity. We just had a meeting with Fluor this morning about an EPC contract in one of the oilfields in Kuwait for a steam injection plant that will use PV and they also stated off record that PV is primarly used on commercial markets, and will take years to go into the mainstream consumer market.

I am no Solar/PV expert, TR should shed some insight on this matter.

I see where you guys are coming from. You are talking about off grid PV vs on grid PV. There is a huge difference! Know what it is? Batteries my friend! If you are off grid, then of course you will need a large and expensive array of batteries. Batteries are much more expensive than PV!

On grid, there are no batteries. You buy/sell power based on your consumption/production requirements/availablity.

Sharpen your pencils mates! On Grid PV for residential purposes is pretty much as I've stated for flexible solar panels.

[lovbyts]

In California, to do a decent job, net of tax credits, you are looking at maybe $10k, maybe $15 for a SFR. And you get to sell energy back to the grid at the same price you pay.

LB, the only thing I can think of that would run up your cost to $200k would be your area... overseas, right?

On flexible solar panels, payback is just a few years. If you want to go over the calculations, you can PM me.

I think you will be pleasantly surprised with flexible solar panels that you put up yourself.

No it's US, West coast near Canada. I dont know why it's so much either but I have looked into it a few times. Maybe because we have Microsoft, Boeing, Nintendo, Starbucks all here they thing everyone is rich? LOL

I see where you guys are coming from. You are talking about off grid PV vs on grid PV. There is a huge difference! Know what it is? Batteries my friend! If you are off grid, then of course you will need a large and expensive array of batteries. Batteries are much more expensive than PV!

On grid, there are no batteries. You buy/sell power based on your consumption/production requirements/availablity.

Sharpen your pencils mates! On Grid PV for residential purposes is pretty much as I've stated for flexible solar panels.

Yes I was reading about the difference. Basically during the day/sunlight hours you can even sell power back to the power company (meeter runs backwards) and at night you use power from the grid/power company. No batteries included.

[Times Roman]

^ did you check out the link I included above?

14.5 x 80" = 459.99 for flexible solar panel. Comes in a roll like tar paper.

20 of these rolls would measure 150" x 160" = $10k, then you would look for tax credits on the purchase of these items.

Double that, and now you have a system, for $20k.... last I checked you could see tax credits of $5k or so....

there would be some hard ware costs, but not a big deal.

Unless my math is waaaay off base?

[lovbyts]

^ did you check out the link I included above?

14.5 x 80" = 459.99 for flexible solar panel. Comes in a roll like tar paper.

20 of these rolls would measure 150" x 160" = $10k, then you would look for tax credits on the purchase of these items.

Double that, and now you have a system, for $20k.... last I checked you could see tax credits of $5k or so....

there would be some hard ware costs, but not a big deal.

Unless my math is waaaay off base?

No tax credit unless it is installed by a state licensed business or at least that is how it is where I live. Yes i checked.

Here is what I mean about how with electricity they will find a way to charge the consumer more once people switch back over. It's not really about what is available vs consumption. It's about what the masses decide to go with and that's where they will raise the prices artificially.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...dication%3Drss

They will find a way to take our $$$ one way or another.

[Times Roman]

so the energy costs of running an ele car would go from somewhere in the neighborhood of $150/year to $250/year. That's still only $20/mo. In my opinion, it's a reasonable tax, as reasonable as taxes on gasoline. These taxes pay, in theory, for roads and upkeep and such. No reason why an owner of an ele car should use the roads for free. Wouldn't you agree?

[wmaousley]

Both of you make valid points, and IMO the governments lack of finding ways to tax certain things like Electric Cars, PV energy is one of the main reasons it hasnt taken off.

[lovbyts]

so the energy costs of running an ele car would go from somewhere in the neighborhood of $150/year to $250/year. That's still only $20/mo. In my opinion, it's a reasonable tax, as reasonable as taxes on gasoline. These taxes pay, in theory, for roads and upkeep and such. No reason why an owner of an ele car should use the roads for free. Wouldn't you agree?

I agree with those facts and logic and I also think people who ride bikes on the street should pay for tabs/taxes. My point is I know no matter what electricity cost is to produce, once people are more dependent on it instead of oil/gas they will find a way to increase the cost to the general public via taxes, regulations or some other means until it's just as expensive as gas is now.

I remember as a kid watching the news with my parents how the cost of water went up ever 3-6 months due to we had to much so or to little but the result was always the same, prices went up and they used both as an excuse. Same with electricity.

I know I'm coming across as a conspiracy theorist or anti government but I'm not, although I dont believe the government has our best interest in mind. It's about $$$

[Times Roman]

I agree to the point that there will be a shifting of tax dollars collected from Gasoline to Ele so that the government tax baseline remains unchanged. This is fair. It doesn't matter to the road if the car wheel wearing it out is driven by ele or gas... the street still wears out. If you are paying $.45/gal for taxes, and use 2 gallons a day, that is $1/day in taxes the taxing authority expects to receive. If you switch to Ele, they will still figure out a way to get their $1/day.

Or did you think the government wouldn't notice?

[Times Roman]

Both of you make valid points, and IMO the governments lack of finding ways to tax certain things like Electric Cars, PV energy is one of the main reasons it hasnt taken off.

that doesn't make sense. government doesn't control PV production, private industry does.
And in fact, the tax provisions call for tax credits when purchasing and installnig PV on your house.

Your argument posits the theory that if the government could find a way to tax it, either supply and/or demand would increase? How does that work?

Taxes usually decrease demand, as it increases the overall cost.

[Times Roman]

I agree with those facts and logic and I also think people who ride bikes on the street should pay for tabs/taxes. My point is I know no matter what electricity cost is to produce, once people are more dependent on it instead of oil/gas they will find a way to increase the cost to the general public via taxes, regulations or some other means until it's just as expensive as gas is now.

I remember as a kid watching the news with my parents how the cost of water went up ever 3-6 months due to we had to much so or to little but the result was always the same, prices went up and they used both as an excuse. Same with electricity.

I know I'm coming across as a conspiracy theorist or anti government but I'm not, although I dont believe the government has our best interest in mind. It's about $$$

When considering weight ratios and proportions of time spent pedaling a bicycle vs. driving a car, the amount of wear and tear on the road for a bicycle would be... say a bicycle weights 40 lbs and a car weighs 2000 lbs, which means a bicycle weighs only 2% of a car. Additionally, say you spend 10 hours a week in your car, and maybe only 1 hour a month on your bicycle. this is another ratio of 2.5%. Now, when you multiply one ratio by another...
2% x 2.5% = .05%. This means, in real rough numbers, that a bicycle damages the road only .05% as much as a car.
Since bicycles are non DMV registered vehicles, and only do a ghost the amount of damage to the road as a car, I'm really not sure how you WOULD tax a bicycle beyond initial purchase?

[lovbyts]

When considering weight ratios and proportions of time spent pedaling a bicycle vs. driving a car, the amount of wear and tear on the road for a bicycle would be... say a bicycle weights 40 lbs and a car weighs 2000 lbs, which means a bicycle weighs only 2% of a car. Additionally, say you spend 10 hours a week in your car, and maybe only 1 hour a month on your bicycle. this is another ratio of 2.5%. Now, when you multiply one ratio by another...
2% x 2.5% = .05%. This means, in real rough numbers, that a bicycle damages the road only .05% as much as a car.
Since bicycles are non DMV registered vehicles, and only do a ghost the amount of damage to the road as a car, I'm really not sure how you WOULD tax a bicycle beyond initial purchase?

Your confusing logic with reality. Actually bikes being on the roadways cost a lot more than you may think, such as in many suburban areas such as mine; many perfectly good roads are being torn up for 6 months at a time to do nothing but add bike lanes so there is that cost alone. Yes they do very little damage.

wmaousley, you may know this guy. I just got an email from him.
Dear Friend,

Greetings to you, my name is Mrs. AJAY VASA widow to late MR.MARK VASA former owner of Petroleum & Gas Company here in Kuwait . I am 68 years old, suffering from long time Cancer of the breast. From all indications my condition is really deteriorating and it's quite obvious that I won't live more than 2 months according to my doctors. This is because the cancer stage has gotten to a very bad stage. I don't want you to pity me, but I need your assistance and trust.

READ THE ATTACHED MESSAGE FOR MORE DETAILS.

[Times Roman]

Your confusing logic with reality. Actually bikes being on the roadways cost a lot more than you may think, such as in many suburban areas such as mine; many perfectly good roads are being torn up for 6 months at a time to do nothing but add bike lanes so there is that cost alone. Yes they do very little damage.

wmaousley, you may know this guy. I just got an email from him.
Dear Friend,

Greetings to you, my name is Mrs. AJAY VASA widow to late MR.MARK VASA former owner of Petroleum & Gas Company here in Kuwait . I am 68 years old, suffering from long time Cancer of the breast. From all indications my condition is really deteriorating and it's quite obvious that I won't live more than 2 months according to my doctors. This is because the cancer stage has gotten to a very bad stage. I don't want you to pity me, but I need your assistance and trust.

READ THE ATTACHED MESSAGE FOR MORE DETAILS.

Wouldn't be the first time!

[wmaousley]

Wouldn't be the first time!

No such company in Kuwait and the names are Indian not arabic. Also an Indian could never own an oil company in Kuwait as they are all owned by the government. Only service companies are private which are owned by Kuwaiti Nationals.

Let me guess the dying bltch needs to transfer money lmao?

[Times Roman]

No such company in Kuwait and the names are Indian not arabic. Also an Indian could never own an oil company in Kuwait as they are all owned by the government. Only service companies are private which are owned by Kuwaiti Nationals.Let me guess the dying bltch needs to transfer money lmao?

Kuwait? Oh, I thought you were talking about USA....

.... must be like living in Bizzaro world over there! =)



and fyi.... this is the same lady that was dying of ovarian cancer last year... I sent her my $2,500 to set up the necessary account for the transfer... she must have lost my email address or something because she never sent the millions like she said. Maybe I better email her again? =)

[lovbyts]

No such company in Kuwait and the names are Indian not arabic. Also an Indian could never own an oil company in Kuwait as they are all owned by the government. Only service companies are private which are owned by Kuwaiti Nationals.

Let me guess the dying bltch needs to transfer money lmao?

I HOPE you no one on this site is stupid enough to fall for any of those scams. (TR exception) I have been getting those for years. Sometimes I will play with the person for a while. It's funny every time when I respond and in my signature I put home land security officer with the proper address and phone number they never respond.

Sometimes I actually forward them to [email protected]
Not that I think they really do anything about it but???

[Times Roman]

naw... I would never fall for something as silly as that.

You'd have to be pretty naive, don't you think?

[lovbyts]

naw... I would never fall for something as silly as that.

You'd have to be pretty naive, don't you think?

J/K of course but it's amazing how many people do fall for it.
Many guys fall for the old GF from another country with a kid they met on facebook or some other social network. Obvious scams to most of us.

[wmaousley]

I HOPE you no one on this site is stupid enough to fall for any of those scams. (TR exception) I have been getting those for years. Sometimes I will play with the person for a while. It's funny every time when I respond and in my signature I put home land security officer with the proper address and phone number they never respond.

Sometimes I actually forward them to [email protected]
Not that I think they really do anything about it but???

OMG I have been getting maybe 20-30 of these emails a week for 5 years only and I mean only on my yahoo email addy. SO i think yahoo sells email addresses. I used to screw with these people but that got boring.

[wmaousley]

Kuwait? Oh, I thought you were talking about USA....

.... must be like living in Bizzaro world over there! =)



and fyi.... this is the same lady that was dying of ovarian cancer last year... I sent her my $2,500 to set up the necessary account for the transfer... she must have lost my email address or something because she never sent the millions like she said. Maybe I better email her again? =)

Yeah I have gotton emails over the years from so many of the same dying people. Mostly from africa or the UK or atleast thats the info they give.

[Flagg]

$/watt has been dropping like a rock lately on PV.... (and will continue to do so)

14.5 x 80" = 459.99 for flexible solar panel. Comes in a roll like tar paper.

not just you, but most people think it is too expensive for peronal use.

I found this site right away, and there may be better prices out there.

With flexible panels, you install yourself. Very inexpensive!

http://flexsolarcells.com/Rollable_Series.php

Some countries also do various schemes that can tie into your Mortgage. My housemate, who owns the house i'm currently living in was offered some deal to have solar panels installed in the roof, and she could either tie in the costs to her mortgage payments, or the company would do it for free, but they got some long term incentive for this, I can't remember what. I know similiar schemes have also been very popular in Germany and had quite a bit of success.

This is another alternative people can do by investing in some panels now. The investment is initially expensive, but you get tax breaks or something:

http://www.energygrants.co.uk/energy...your-home.html

[wmaousley]

Some countries also do various schemes that can tie into your Mortgage. My housemate, who owns the house i'm currently living in was offered some deal to have solar panels installed in the roof, and she could either tie in the costs to her mortgage payments, or the company would do it for free, but they got some long term incentive for this, I can't remember what. I know similiar schemes have also been very popular in Germany and had quite a bit of success.

This is another alternative people can do by investing in some panels now. The investment is initially expensive, but you get tax breaks or something:

http://www.energygrants.co.uk/energy...your-home.html

The PV/solar companies we represent in the GCC are all german and I would have to say from what little I know about the market, Germans lead the way in solar energy JMO.

[auslifta]

What does that mean? Because I haven't personally been to Iraq and Afghanistan, my study of foreign affairs and constitutional law is irrelevant? I don't need to participate in the 'war' in either country to have an opinion about the war, and an accurate one at that. In fact, my taxes are paying for these wars of aggression, and therefore I have every right to weigh in with my expert opinion on the situation.

I have the utmost respect for anyone who serves in the armed forces, I have always supported the soldiers, but not the politicians who send our young men and women to die in wars that do not have any effect on their fianances and which THEIR kids are not fighting in. It's very easy to send someone elses father, child, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, and so forth to die in another country. It's also very easy to pay for these wars of aggression when the cost is not being bared by the American people and by the politicians who engage and vote for these conflicts, and continue to fund them with "other peoples money." I contend, that our soldiers should not be dying in these wars which do not in any way help to enhance the national security of the United States homeland. The only conflict I agree with, and I mean INITIALLY agree with, was our invasion of Afghanistan for providing a safe haven for the groups who attacked us on September 11th. However, we had a clearly defined goal of eliminating Al-Qaeda and capturing Osama Bin Laden, we failed in that endeavor, and at that point, instead of packing up and going home, we decided to become bogged down in nation building and counterinsurgency. This is the problem that arises from UNDECLARED wars.

The reasons that these wars go on for so long is quite simple.

1. We have a professional military. There is no draft, and the effects on the general public and middle class, is very far removed from the days of the draft, when ANY able bodied man could be called up for service, and this made the public have a VERY vested interest in the conflicts we engaged in. It is ultimately why the draft was ended after 1973, after the disaster in Vietnam. Politicians figured out if they had a professional military, they eliminated much of the public accountability.

2. Taxes. Taxes are normally increased during war time. However, in our most recent war with Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration actually CUT TAXES, further removing the publics interest and physical ties to the war. If the American public does not really have to 'sacrafice' anything, they are much less likely to be opposed to our illegal wars, since they do not "effect them."

3. News coverage. 40 years ago, one had very few options (as far as TV channels and other forms of media). They either read print media, or chose from very few TV stations. Now, it is possible for Americans to choose to watch "Jersey Shore" all hours of the day, without ever having to hear about the wars in other countries, and the number of soldiers we have dying there.

Believe me, I support the soldiers. However, with that being said, anyone who is serving in any of our military branches does so on their own accord. They are professional, paid soldiers, who recieve benefits, and a salary, etc. I, infact, had been accepted to OCS, had my packet reviewed and went through MEPS, but ultimately decided not to sign on the dotted line, my life took me in a different direction. It's still something I consider from time to time. However, I went through that process, knowing that I was choosing a career, and I was not fighting for my countries freedom for a pittance. My salary would have been around $3,500 per month, on top of free medical/dental/vision, and free housing, etc, as an O-1. This is a far cry from the menial amounts that used to be paid to our soldiers who were conscripted into the military during WWI and WWII.


We are in fact, feeding into the Jihadists plan. It is very hard for them to attack us in the homeland of the United States. They have a very hard time securing funding, getting VISA's, and their access to weapons is extremely limited. Yes, they have been able to pull off a few attacks, but they pale in comparison to the damage they're able to do with hundreds of thousands of our troops in THEIR homeland, exposed, not knowing the area. They have home field advantage, they don't wear uniforms, they hit and run, they remotely detonate IEDs.

It's actually ironic, that our presence actually HELPS their recruitment efforts. Every time we accidentally kill a civlian, shoot up the wrong house after an IED blast, shoot an Iraqi reporter with a long lens camera from an Apache, killing twenty people in the streets, have a Hellfire launched into a building killing one or two insurgents, and 15 civilians, mistaking a shovel for a rifle, killing a farmer, and any number of incidences of collateral damge, we cause something called "BLOWBACK." This is a term coined by our own CIA, and they warn of the blowback principle in codifying the recruitment efforts of Jihadists. We kill innocent civilians, and those civilians have fathers, sons, brothers, cousins, all of which dont give two fu*ks whether they can vote in an election (they want an Islamic government), dont care that we're here to bring them freedom, all they know, is that the Americans are responsible for their loved ones death. We create a potential Jihadist EVERY SINGLE TIME WE KILL A CIVILIAN.

The latest news from Rolling Stone, about the 5th Stryker Brigades "Kill Team," which was staging scenarios so they could intentionally kill civilians, and then plant 'drop' weapons on them in order to make them look like legitimate engagements, only further codifies the cause of the Jihadists. In addition, we are not ONLY fighting Al-Qaeda jihadists, we are also fighting the general insurgency. These people are not Al-Qaeda fighters, in fact, less than 10% of the insurgents killed in Iraq are members of Al-Qaeda, the majority of insurgents, are simply Iraqi people who want us OUT OF THEIR COUNTRY.

Let me ask you, what would you do, if say, China, decided to occupy the United States, and down the street had a large Chinese military base. These soldiers, frequently drove down your streets with tanks, walked through YOUR neighborhood, searched your house without a warrant, indiscriminately confiscated your weapons, and at times, killed some of your friends and family members by accident or intentional, but either way were not held responsible for doing so. Would you sit back, and say, "Ok, well these Chinese guys are really here to help my people?". I highly doubt it, I think that you would take up arms against these people, and if they had an overwhelming force, you would fight them with any means you had at your disposal, i.e.- planting roadside remotely detonated bombs to inflict casulaties on your enemy(occupiers) and get some get back for your dead friends or relatives. It really is, THAT SIMPLE.

This is the reason we should not be meddling in the affairs of foreign sovereign nations. I'd much rather have our soldiers, securing our fluid border with Mexico, where people can enter our country unmolested and without any checks. The number of criminals, terrorists, and other unsavory people who could be entering our country through our border with Mexico, that is a real and palpable danger.

Mate, your post's in this thread are outstanding, have a star