In article <3F92961C.811FA2C5@kinez.net>, bputney@kinez.net says...
>
>
> Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> > ...I completely agree with you that cancer is by far the greatest threat,
> > and I believe that society as a whole should invest far more in the
> > fight against cancer.
>
> And over the years, it probably has.
>
> > Political decisions seem to be more emotional
> > than rational. For example, the risk of dying from cancer is thousands
> > of times larger than the risk of dying in a --------- attack, but the
> > amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on these two issues seems to
> > be inversely proportional to the risk. But this is another story.
>
> However, if we stopped all progress with cancer and cancer cure
> research, we would not be overrun with cancer at orders of magnitude
> higher rates than we are today using the treatments that we currently
> possess; but if we stopped all anti-terrorism efforts, we would be
> quickly over-run and destroyed - guaranteed.
>

That's one man's opinion. Seems to me that the more measures that are
taken against terrorists, the more they attack. Case in point: Israel.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

In article <3F92961C.811FA2C5@kinez.net>, bputney@kinez.net says...
>
>
> Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> > ...I completely agree with you that cancer is by far the greatest threat,
> > and I believe that society as a whole should invest far more in the
> > fight against cancer.
>
> And over the years, it probably has.
>
> > Political decisions seem to be more emotional
> > than rational. For example, the risk of dying from cancer is thousands
> > of times larger than the risk of dying in a --------- attack, but the
> > amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on these two issues seems to
> > be inversely proportional to the risk. But this is another story.
>
> However, if we stopped all progress with cancer and cancer cure
> research, we would not be overrun with cancer at orders of magnitude
> higher rates than we are today using the treatments that we currently
> possess; but if we stopped all anti-terrorism efforts, we would be
> quickly over-run and destroyed - guaranteed.
>

That's one man's opinion. Seems to me that the more measures that are
taken against terrorists, the more they attack. Case in point: Israel.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

In article <3F92961C.811FA2C5@kinez.net>, bputney@kinez.net says...
>
>
> Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> > ...I completely agree with you that cancer is by far the greatest threat,
> > and I believe that society as a whole should invest far more in the
> > fight against cancer.
>
> And over the years, it probably has.
>
> > Political decisions seem to be more emotional
> > than rational. For example, the risk of dying from cancer is thousands
> > of times larger than the risk of dying in a --------- attack, but the
> > amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on these two issues seems to
> > be inversely proportional to the risk. But this is another story.
>
> However, if we stopped all progress with cancer and cancer cure
> research, we would not be overrun with cancer at orders of magnitude
> higher rates than we are today using the treatments that we currently
> possess; but if we stopped all anti-terrorism efforts, we would be
> quickly over-run and destroyed - guaranteed.
>

That's one man's opinion. Seems to me that the more measures that are
taken against terrorists, the more they attack. Case in point: Israel.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

In article <3F6B16BC.ABEE159B@mindspring.com>, cewhite3@mindspring.com
says...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
> > several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
> The correct solution is to dump the stupid CAFE rules altogether. Raise
> the gas price as necessary to encourage the use of more efficient
> vehicles.
>
> Ed
>
We already know this works in Europe, and you'll still have a handful of
wealthy people driving extra large SUVs so you won't go wanting for
something to whine about.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

In article <3F6B16BC.ABEE159B@mindspring.com>, cewhite3@mindspring.com
says...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
> > several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
> The correct solution is to dump the stupid CAFE rules altogether. Raise
> the gas price as necessary to encourage the use of more efficient
> vehicles.
>
> Ed
>
We already know this works in Europe, and you'll still have a handful of
wealthy people driving extra large SUVs so you won't go wanting for
something to whine about.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

In article <3F6B16BC.ABEE159B@mindspring.com>, cewhite3@mindspring.com
says...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
> > several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
> The correct solution is to dump the stupid CAFE rules altogether. Raise
> the gas price as necessary to encourage the use of more efficient
> vehicles.
>
> Ed
>
We already know this works in Europe, and you'll still have a handful of
wealthy people driving extra large SUVs so you won't go wanting for
something to whine about.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

> > >ymore. -Dave
> >
> > And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
> been
> > several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
> >
>
> Even better, develop new technologies, like hybrid or fuel cells, that can
> carry passengers in a truck-sized package more effeciently, and leave the
> gas powered trucks alone. We ought to shift the consumers that simply need
> size and are forced into trucks, because trucks offer the size they need,
> into replacement vehicles that won't be called upon to do the workload that
> is traditionally thought of as being needed from a truck. That is, while
> hauling people is a truck is overkill, hauling lumber in an hybrid or
> fuelcell equipped truck is probably not going to work very well.
>

There is a reason you can't double the price of gas overnight, the US
economy would crash and take many others with it. So I wouldn't worry
about these enviro terrorists destroying the country just yet, the
government is probably coming to get them in a black Chevy Suburban
right now.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

> > >ymore. -Dave
> >
> > And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
> been
> > several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
> >
>
> Even better, develop new technologies, like hybrid or fuel cells, that can
> carry passengers in a truck-sized package more effeciently, and leave the
> gas powered trucks alone. We ought to shift the consumers that simply need
> size and are forced into trucks, because trucks offer the size they need,
> into replacement vehicles that won't be called upon to do the workload that
> is traditionally thought of as being needed from a truck. That is, while
> hauling people is a truck is overkill, hauling lumber in an hybrid or
> fuelcell equipped truck is probably not going to work very well.
>

There is a reason you can't double the price of gas overnight, the US
economy would crash and take many others with it. So I wouldn't worry
about these enviro terrorists destroying the country just yet, the
government is probably coming to get them in a black Chevy Suburban
right now.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

> > >ymore. -Dave
> >
> > And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
> been
> > several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
> >
>
> Even better, develop new technologies, like hybrid or fuel cells, that can
> carry passengers in a truck-sized package more effeciently, and leave the
> gas powered trucks alone. We ought to shift the consumers that simply need
> size and are forced into trucks, because trucks offer the size they need,
> into replacement vehicles that won't be called upon to do the workload that
> is traditionally thought of as being needed from a truck. That is, while
> hauling people is a truck is overkill, hauling lumber in an hybrid or
> fuelcell equipped truck is probably not going to work very well.
>

There is a reason you can't double the price of gas overnight, the US
economy would crash and take many others with it. So I wouldn't worry
about these enviro terrorists destroying the country just yet, the
government is probably coming to get them in a black Chevy Suburban
right now.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

There has to be a balance in all this. You can micromanage all costs so
that no-one has one penny advantage over anyone else, but eventually,
and very quickly, you reach the point of diminishing returns.

By that I mean that the mechanisms and government beaurocracies... uh,
beurocracies... uh bu**sh** that have to be set up to manage and
micromanage everything is a net loss to society, government grows
bigger, and the average citizen becomes resentful of the overhead costs
(taxes) and intrusive visibilty by those administering all the crap into
their lives (kind of like Europe).

I think we've already surpassed that point in many areas (and it's only
going to get worse). There's something to be said for letting the costs
inherent in any given decision or path take care of themselves. Yeah -
maybe it's not 100% fair, but is it fair to drag the whole of society
down with all the costs and intrusion (i.e., fair to the point of
bringing everyone down to the same level of intense misery)?

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----