Peter_Puget

Based on Statisics Canada info!

Dru - Look at the Grand P website they claim to be the second fastest growing city right before FM. Of course they were using data as of 2001.

Walk to the top and rap in! Forget p1. One man's opinion.

Old news Dru get something more current.. by the way I am talkin' Fort McMurray Calgary is so yesterday!

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml My scratch calculation shows a bit more than 200mpg BUT I will repeat I was speaking of 500mpg of gasoline not of the fuel utilized. In addition I am not advocating those numbers. Numbers like this have been thrown around but pro-subsidy groups all over the place. link Face if we are going nuclear that much was obvious years ago when the anti – nuke movement was more popular. Anyone have any idea on what the fastest growing city is in Canada?

LOL Change fuel to gasoline. Flex fuel technology! It's been all over the news lately. The above analysis of course considers only gasoline expense. But it clearly shows the potential size of any savings. If the market cannot be moved by the huge savings available then what possible impact will any government subsidy? Well the most likely outsome is simply a misallocation of funds.

A car's annual fuel cost is ($/gallon) times (gallons/mile) times miles. So, if we drive a car 10,000 miles a year and gas costs $2.50 per gallon, then our annual fuel cost is $25,000 times the gallons per mile. If gallons/mile goes from .04 yesterday (25 miles to the gallon) to .002 "right now," our fuel bill goes from $1000 to $50 (assuming we do not increase our driving). Converting these annual savings to a present value by multiplying by 10 (corresponding to an interest rate of roughly 10 percent), we would pay $9,500 more for a car that gets 500 miles to a gallon than for a car that gets 25 miles to the gallon. The auto companies sell 15 million vehicles a year. If they could get $10,000 more per car, that would be $150 billion more per year in revenue. If the economics of the fuel-efficient car do not work for $150 billion per year, what will it take?

later in the day....

Fun link

link

I think you need to add at least a couple more.

A judge has awarded the former wife of a multimillionaire businessman a divorce settlement worth more than $40 million even though she admitted having affairs with her rock-climbing guide and a man she met on a flight to China. link

link

would have already posted it... link

link This short paper raises some interesting issues. I wonder how the press will react over time to this issue.

Norman - Are the people you are referring to given any medications at all? Will Schiavo be given any meds to offset any possible discomfort? My Uncle Charlie died of bone cancer and he stopped eating and drinking shortly before he died. Would you expect dehydration impacted him differently than it would me (in terms of physical discomfort) if I stopped drinking tomorrow?

A couple of thoughts: This is a political question. There is nothing wrong with seeing it debated in a very public manner. The very concept of a private life and a public life is of a political nature and our concept of what is public and what is private is constantly changing. Isn't this exactly how we should behave in a DEMOCRACY? Better the debate is open, inclusive and pasionate than decided in the dark chambers of some court. It strikes me odd that most of the people I have discussed this issue with are much more emotionally attached one way or the other to the whole Schiavo debate than any of them were to the debate before the Iraq War.

Is that the same BVB as on 8a.nu?

Maylou – Throughout the US the acreage designated as wilderness has growth I would say more years than not since 1964. The political machinery is firmly in place do you really think that you can predict that in 20 years no one will propose it become a Wilderness area? It seems more likely than unlikely.

Are these next on the Wilderness list: link I am not against some are designated as wild but at some point enough is enough

Well you seem to be agreeing that the Wild Sky does look like a gerrymandered district! I still make the claim - I don't think I have made an argument - that wilderness areas are spreading like a cancer. As far as honestly in presenting facts regarding the Wild Sky check out how Patty Murray explains the situation: link Why didn't she compare to the land owned by the federal government? By the way you argued that Wild areas were not spreading. They clearly are - and not just in Washington. Does this mean you agree they are cancers? Just contained and not spreading?

You are so full of BS. Apart from including the National Park Lands within the wilderness system (1988), the last time Congess added any wilderness in Washington was in 1984. That's at least 16 years since we had any new designation and 20 years since the last substantive additions. An interesting exercise would be to see if you would check any of your facts before making baseless ideological assertions. My guess is we would see facts manipulated to look like gerrymandered congressional districts. And just last year a friend of mine confided to me how much he regrets working for the Boulder Wilderness when he was a young lad. Clearly your link shows the increasing range of "Wild Lands" For grins look at the shape of Mt Rainier National Park. Now check out this link showing the proposed "Wild Sky." The Wild Sky most certainly looks like a gerrymandered district. Why the personal attack? In what ways were my claims baseless..your link clearly agreed with what I was saying.

To the extent that underfundng encourages the establishment of Wilderness Areas, underfunding is an excellent long term strategy to limit use of public resources. The fact that Wilderness Areas are very resistant to privatization is but one factor supporting this position. The drive to privatize is not dependent in any way on the urge to preserve. It is a natural outcome of our budgeting process. One only has to look at WA State Parks to see how use fees have been used to underfund the parks. My personal feeling is that as we move towards a use fee model we loose the underlying rational for state ownership/management of lands in the first place.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht...10/ixworld.html

Winter - $60-100 million doesn't seem like very much to me. I think a good argument can be made against every assertion youmake here. The most obvious rejoinder is the cancer like spread of Wilderness Areas in Washington. I doubt very much that these areas will be privatized any time soon. An intersting excercise would be to take outline maps showing Wilderness Areas (and proposed wilderness areas) and see if a person could place the shapes in a line in order of earliest designation to latest. The participant wouldbe told that the shapes represent Congresssional Districts. The first thing I thought of when I saw the Wild Sky map was a gerrymandered district.