New Mars Forums

josh, oil.

josh, i know exactly how you feel.  it sounds like me saying it-i constantly say the same exact thing.  im just answering your question.  i didnt say whether or not i thought they did have weapons...i think they do, but i dont think we belong in a war with iraq.

i think the far better approach would be to lift the sanctions.  they never work.  if we did, the iraqis would say they won, but the people might hate us less if we were feeding them.  i dont think bush ever intended to take a diplomatic route.  he's taken every diplomatic step forward clinton made, and reversed it.  korea was advancing beautifully when clinton left, and there was almost a sense of hope in israel-palestine.

if he wanted to go to war, do it.  you cant say youre going, then say youre not, then say you are.  the administration is seeking any excuse to send troops over.

ive heard that theyre shutting down nuclear plants across the US and Europe.  if theyre truly safe, its a shame.  i guess we'll have to wait until fusion comes out for widescale nuclear power.

btw, how do the radiation and waste stats of fusion compare to those of fission?

we didnt train them to kill us, if thats what youre getting at.  the soviet union abandoned countries they invaded too, but since they collapsed, they dont get the same resentment. 

its true that we're economically imperialist.  so what?  thats our right.  if we were truly imperialistic, we would take over the middle east, and not pay for the oil there.  this is true imperialism.  people use the word too loosely.  we are very lax when it comes to dealing with threats in general.

we have had some foreign policy mistakes, yes.  israel is not one of them.  neither is keeping saudi arabia's government stable with our troops and money.  the alternative is far worse.  our war with afghanistan was not a mistake.  not using more force to isolate bin laden was.  iraq treads a fine line, and could turn into a big disaster if bush doesnt get a handle on what hes doing.

another thing-bin laden is a figurehead, a pocketbook.  he was no great warrior.  he goes on the air and provides money.  we have killed or captured most of the main commanders of al-qaeda.  al-zawahiri is the biggest one left, and hes the real brains of the group.  i dont believe this crap about the US "letting" bin laden go, the guy is running for his life.

that said, where is the righteous rage against the russian war with chechnya?  or the chinese "assimilation" of tibet?  or any number of other actions by major powers that are ignored?  its kind of ironic when european nations call us imperialist--believe me, if they could have the power we have, they would be just as "bad" as us.  we use our power conservatively.

no.  just because they dont like our foreign policy, doesnt give them the right to kill innocents to "protest" it.  we cannot give in to terrorism.  we are a sovereign country, with a right to have whatever foreign policy we want.

fuel cell engines would help tremendously.  china's three gorges dam will provide immsense amounts of power--i dont think theyll need too much fossil fuel power. 

nuclear power would help reduce emissions too.  fission would be useful, isolated from people, because despite the claims by some thats its completely safe, and others that theyre death traps, i think that they are very important, but we should treat them with care.  once fusion comes, we have our situation set.

word code...well lets just say i have to translate it to "clean code."  thatll take me about a week.  then i can start to expand on it.

education should be centered around learning--not tests.  i am far more in favor of a few long research projects or reports to show that the student has an understanding of the topic.  classroom discussion is also better than testing.  i dont even bother cramming, because all i do is pay attention, no homework no study.  gets me an A. 

i think studying makes people do worse, because they get nervous...this is what i dont like about tests.  i also think single shot performance evaluations in jobs are less telling than long term evaluations: you see the good days and the bad days, and the sense of immediacy and anxiety is not there as much.

from an article i read, you really dont need infrastructure for hydrogen fuel cell cars.   in a prototype (which just needs to be scaled up-its been tested), a pure hydrogen oxygen fuel cell gets 800 miles to a tank, and hydrogen tanks are sold with the car.  each tank lasts for about a month (assuming about two fills a month), and costs $20.  my family spends about $100 a month driving, at a high guess, 500 miles. 

best of all, the filling could be done at home.

thats not the point.  private industry could have done it by now if it was so easy.

josh, if it was so easy, and our private sector has been working on fuel alternatives for so long, why hasnt it been done yet?  the government can't stop the companies that arent affiliated with oil-gm, ford, chevy, fine.  but there are small companies specifically chartered to research fuel cells, or solar cars.  and this has been going on in canada and europe now.

why is it just now that california companies are starting to come out with revolutionary cars.  I forgot the site, but I saw a very very interesting prototype that should be commercially available by 2004-5 (the prototype has been tested, its just being scaled up for the average family).  It goes 800 miles on a hydrogen tank, and it is sold with an accompanying tank, so you can fill up in your home.  The govrenment is trying to stop this, but they cant, it has been upheld in court.  This means that the most fuel maintanence youll need is a new $20 tank once a month, and maybe a spare tank for long drives.  amazing!

give me a week and ill have a homepage ready (without links and all, just what it would look like.  links are easy to do).