Queen Mary 2 sails under the GG Bridge

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 07:45:31 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:19:28 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:34:57 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 07:23:33 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The business model of the cruise industry is broken. If they cared
>>>>>>>> about the environment, the issues here would never have existed in the
>>>>>>>> first place. Ever since these issues were raised it's been a constant
>>>>>>>> struggle for improvement because the cruise industry doesn't want to be
>>>>>>>> compelled to do the right thing. People that care about the environment
>>>>>>>> try their best to do the right thing without be forced to. Anybody that
>>>>>>>> doesn't care about the environment are at the top of my shit parade.
>>>>>>> I realize that this is the standard whinge of the tree huggers.
>>>>>>> But lets take a look at your complaint:
>>>>>>> The idea that the industry is broken flies in the face of reality.
>>>>>>> 'Nuff said about that.
>>>>>> Hardly.
>>>>> Then demonstrate it.
>>>> Okay. Buying a cruise ticket contributes to global pollution. See?
>>>> That wasn't difficult at all, was it? Now, having said that, there's a
>>>> whole line of reasoning behind that statement, but you don't seem
>>>> interested in knowing what that is, so I'm not wasting my time trying to
>>>> educate someone that chooses to remain clue free.
>>> Buying just about anything contributes to global pollution.
>> While true, I'll ask again, is buying it really necessary?
>
> I've already answered that, but here goes again:
> If we are going to put a "needs" test on things, how many would pass?

Dunno, it's a question all should ask of themselves. The answer will
depend on how much materialism it takes to make each happy.

>>
>>>>>>> The idea that if any industry cared about the problems that have been
>>>>>>> found means you wouldn't have roads, cars, trains, radio, TV, food
>>>>>>> from more than 10 miles away, even the computer you use to spread your
>>>>>>> untinking crap. All the industries that delevered these things started
>>>>>>> out polluting much, much more than they do today. According to you,
>>>>>>> none of them cared, and the problems wouldn't have happened. But a
>>>>>>> little thought would show that they had no way to even understand the
>>>>>>> environmental problems.
>>>>>> They didn't, we did. Due to the pressure, they've cleaned up their act
>>>>>> quite a bit. I'm thankful for that.
>>>>> Well, that's not what you were trying to say before, is it?
>>>>>>> And your shit parade isn't exactly of concern ot the vast majority of
>>>>>>> people in the world.
>>>>>> That's part of the problem.
>>>>> Possibly.
>>>>> Or that you don't count for much.
>>>>>>> If you don't want to cruise, then don't.
>>>>>>> However, as I asked before, do you drive a car?
>>>>>> I don't own one now but I used to. I used it quite a bit at first, but
>>>>>> as alternative choices were developed, as little as I needed to - now,
>>>>>> no longer need to own one at all. When I need to get somewhere that a
>>>>>> car is a viable choice, either rent one or a taxi works well.
>>>>> Ah! So you still pollute. I thought so.
>>>>> It's easy to blame others when you do the same thing, isn't it?
>>>> Are you advocating conservationists stay shuttered? I've managed to
>>>> reduce my carbon footprint to a level far beyond most others. All it
>>>> takes is a reasonable and honest evaluation of one's energy use. Then,
>>>> modify one's lifestyle predicated on leaving the future cleaner that
>>>> when you found it. One caveat though... you have to actually give a
>>>> shit about not just yourself, but someone else too. It's okay to use
>>>> children for the someone else parts, they matter more than you and I do.
>>> Don't even think that because I see you as being "over the top" means
>>> I don't do my share.
>>> And that's a common impression peoiple like you give: that somehow
>>> you're morrally superior.
>>> Get over yourself.
>>>>>>> Because if you do, you need to put yourself on your own shit list.
>>>>>> Where did I advocate cars not be used? Answer: I didn't. Cars are
>>>>>> also a problem, and the prudent use of them would be tremendously
>>>>>> helpful given the nature of that industry and the mindsets of those
>>>>>> involved. This is difficult to do in many urban areas that don't have a
>>>>>> mature public transit system, so, supporting the development of one AND
>>>>>> using it would also be tremendously helpful.
>>>>> When you rant about pollution, do you really think you can say one
>>>>> sort is bad, and another sort is OK?
>>>>>
>>>> The use of any energy pollutes, you and I both know this. The issue is
>>>> the quality of one's choices predicated on one's values. AFAIC, if
>>>> you're not reducing your carbon footprint as much as you can you're not
>>>> trying hard enough, which puts your value system in question. An
>>>> education can improve one's value system immeasurably. Sometimes that
>>>> education offers a choice of choosing not to do something - like using a
>>>> cruise tug.
>>> "As much as you can"?
>>> Obviously, that's not you, since you use a computere for this,when you
>>> obviously don't need to.
>>> Hyperbole doesn't work well, as a rule. The idea that, if I don't do
>>> "as much as I can", then my value system is questionable is a
>>> judgement you must be careful with, because you obviously fail
>>> yourself.
>>> I have no problem with being for a cleaner world; the problem I have
>>> is with people like you who set high goals, then castigate others for
>>> not meeting them, while failing themselves.
>>> Shrieking that others are unclean while being unclean yourself does
>>> your cause more harm than good.
>>>
>> Well, lessee, the only thing I own is a camera, sailboat, scuba gear,
>> and a two mailboxes, each has a small furnished house - I borrow
>> everything else including this PC (in a local cafe). I mostly use a
>> scooter, a bus, two feet, or one thumb to get around (rarely need a
>> car). The houses are 85-90% solar, water from the clouds. One house is
>> in New Mexico, the other in Old Mexico. I talk the talk and walk the
>> walk. What are you doing with your retirement? Your turn grasshopper.
>
> So you like to live like a hermit.

Did I miss another memo? I thought hermits didn't have neighbors.

> Are you seriously expecting the world to turn to your lifestyle?

Not at all. But I do expect the world to consider alternatives to
tradition.

> If you do, you are one reason why environmentalists are laughed at.

A conservationist has morphed into environmentalist? How quaint.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Neil Ellwood wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 07:42:11 -0600
> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>> I've not used incandescents in years, all lights here are LED. For
>> those interested in this particular issue...
>>
>> http://www.onebillionbulbs.com
>>
> If your lights are all LED's why do you point to a site about low
> energy CF lamps?

Because the site is about considering low energy alternatives, and Ron
commented on his changes predicated on efficiency, particularly for
using CFL and LED lamps. When it comes to lightbulbs, there's more than
one alternative. My presumption is that most still following this
thread use AC power, hence that site is mostly relevant to them. I,
OTOH, use DC power for lighting due to the solar panels, I don't like
wasting it, so LED lamps are the better choice here. One can use CFL
with solar cells, but CFLs require AC power, which means using an
inverter, and one does not maximize efficiency with that choice. I
didn't offer that link to buttress my position, I offered that link to
help people understand something they may not know about.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 07:45:46 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:19:20 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:35:19 -0600, Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:46:30 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is,
>>>>>>>> however, a visible pall of diesel smoke in the air behind the ships,
>>>>>>>> which is, I believe, largely avoidable.
>>>>>>> Nuclear power!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> How 'bout no power? Is that trip really necessary?
>>>>> Necessary?
>>>>> How many *things* are necessary?
>>>>> Using "necessary" as a criteria is absurd.
>>>>> Are *you* really necessary?
>>>>>
>>>> Someone has to educate the clueless.
>>> And yet, you've managed to piss off more people than you've converted.
>>> On the whole, you're doing more damage than good.
>>>
>>
>> What's the matter Bill, do the hard questions piss you off? I'm not
>> sure is you're pissed off more at me or more at yourself. I guess only
>> you know. Regardless, stop wasting your time being pissed and do
>> something about it.
>
> It's certainly not the questios, it's you.
> Are you really too dumb to reads that? I specifically said, "And yet,
> you've managed to piss off more people than you've converted."
> That's *you*, personally.
> Do something? Like you did? Move myself back several generations, and
> mooch off others?

What you call mooching, we call neighbor helping neighbor.

> I, unlike you, like terchnology, and what it can do for me.

Oh, I get it, just because you can, you do.


> I, also unlike you, am able to read and understand what's going on,
> instead of simply seeing the extremist alarmist pronouncements of
> those who see their funding threatened unless they make dire
> predictions of future calamties (see Al Gore's predictions of up to 20
> feet(!) of rise in sea levels).

Kids are great aren't they? They say something that seems exaggerated
and you turn against them. Excellent strategy.

> Is pollution a problem? Of course, and you have not seen me say
> anything else.

You're Al Gore comment above is proof enough of your attitude.

> Yet, you take criticism of your tactics as a rejection of your basic
> message. It's not so.
>

Then heal thyself, grasshopper, I am not your enemy.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Rich wrote:
> On Feb 6, 9:35 pm, Jer <g...@airmail.ten> wrote:
>> Cynicor wrote:
>>> Rich wrote:
>>>> On Feb 5, 2:55 pm, Jer <g...@airmail.ten> wrote:
>>>>> Jim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405
>>>>> It's hard to imagine the oil slick behind a beast like this. A shame
>>>>> these monsters destroy the very thing they're selling.
>>>>> --
>>>>> jer
>>>>> email reply - I am not a 'ten'
>>>> Envirnomentalists are vermin and pathological liars.
>>> Polluters, on the other hand, tell it like it is.
>> Oh, it's okay that he feels the way he does. He'll likely continue
>> feeling that way until his drinking water gets laced with MTBE and his
>> nuts shrivel to the size of an English pea, and his future progeny has a
>> third leg growing out of it's pretty pink face. Of course, by then,
>> it'll be too late for him to give a shit about his own situation, so the
>> larger question will be does he give a shit about anybody else?
>>
>>
> I'm sure that "theory" will go the same way as the idea aluminum
> causes alzheimers.

What theory are you mumbling about?

> Don't envirokooks EVER give up playing scientist, particular since
> most of them can only boast (at most)
> having BA degress in English literature?

Is this some sort of strawman attempt to make yourself fell superior?
If so, we're all shaking in our boots down here in your virtual dungeon.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:34:46 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:

> >Bill Funk wrote:
> >> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:46:30 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>> There is,
> >>> however, a visible pall of diesel smoke in the air behind the ships,
> >>> which is, I believe, largely avoidable.

> >> Nuclear power!

I think he meant cleaner diesel engines (particle filters, catalysers, etc.)
or maybe gas turbines.

> >Oh, can you imagine the hue and cry should a company suggest a nuclear
> >cruise ship? Grin.

> Actually, it's sort of been done, the ship worked fine,

> If you go to Google Earth and look at 37deg08'20.69"N,76deg38'36.98"W you
> will see the NS Savannah, the world's first nuclear powered merchant
> ship, which while she was primarily a cargo carrier had limited
> passenger accomodations. Not quite a cruise ship.

Actually, it has been done twice. I think the German ship Otto Hahn was
primarily intended to be used for passengers (but it also had cargo space):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Hahn_%28ship%29

I have a book written in the 70s (parts might have been written in the
60s) about the sea, and the comments in there about nuclear civil ships
are quite curious in retrospective. The ships were commercial failures
(the writer compared the Otto Hahn to the Great Eastern which also sailed
mostly empty), but at the time it was expected that, in the future,
the public and the harbour authorities would not pay more attention to
a nuclear ship than to a normal ship :)

Anyway there was a technical problem: at the time it was calculated that a
nuclear ship would only be competitive if the power needed exceeded 50000HP.
But even a super oil tanker doesn't need that much power.

Maybe it they had appeared in the 50s, they would have had a brighter future
(pun intended). Of course 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl made "nuclear" a very
dirty word.

> More recently,
> <http://www.cruisingholidays.co.uk/arctic/icebreaker-yamal-1.htm> is
> offering cruises aboard a for real Russian nuclear powered icebreaker.

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

I wrote this in Mar 9, but my news server didn't propagate it:

J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:34:46 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:

> >Bill Funk wrote:
> >> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:46:30 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>> There is,
> >>> however, a visible pall of diesel smoke in the air behind the ships,
> >>> which is, I believe, largely avoidable.

> >> Nuclear power!

I think he meant cleaner diesel engines (particle filters, catalysers, etc.)
or maybe gas turbines.

> >Oh, can you imagine the hue and cry should a company suggest a nuclear
> >cruise ship? Grin.

> Actually, it's sort of been done, the ship worked fine,

> If you go to Google Earth and look at 37deg08'20.69"N,76deg38'36.98"W you
> will see the NS Savannah, the world's first nuclear powered merchant
> ship, which while she was primarily a cargo carrier had limited
> passenger accomodations. Not quite a cruise ship.

Actually, it has been done twice. I think the German ship Otto Hahn was
primarily intended to be used for passengers (but it also had cargo space):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Hahn_%28ship%29

I have a book written in the 70s (parts might have been written in the
60s) about the sea, and the comments in there about nuclear civil ships
are quite curious in retrospective. The ships were commercial failures
(the writer compared the Otto Hahn to the Great Eastern which also sailed
mostly empty), but at the time it was expected that, in the future,
the public and the harbour authorities would not pay more attention to
a nuclear ship than to a normal ship :)

Anyway there was a technical problem: at the time it was calculated that a
nuclear ship would only be competitive if the power needed exceeded 50000HP.
But even a super oil tanker doesn't need that much power.

Maybe it they had appeared in the 50s, they would have had a brighter future
(pun intended). Of course 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl made "nuclear" a very
dirty word.

> More recently,
> <http://www.cruisingholidays.co.uk/arctic/icebreaker-yamal-1.htm> is
> offering cruises aboard a for real Russian nuclear powered icebreaker.

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

Here's one of my shots of QM2 sailing under the GG bridge;

http://www.pbase.com/logear/image/73998405

Jim


"Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro" <rps@koala.mat.uc.pt> wrote in message
news:esrq2r$6aj$1@koala.mat.uc.pt...
> J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:34:46 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>
>> >Bill Funk wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:46:30 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> There is,
>> >>> however, a visible pall of diesel smoke in the air behind the ships,
>> >>> which is, I believe, largely avoidable.
>
>> >> Nuclear power!
>
> I think he meant cleaner diesel engines (particle filters, catalysers,
> etc.)
> or maybe gas turbines.
>
>> >Oh, can you imagine the hue and cry should a company suggest a nuclear
>> >cruise ship? Grin.
>
>> Actually, it's sort of been done, the ship worked fine,
>
>> If you go to Google Earth and look at 37deg08'20.69"N,76deg38'36.98"W you
>> will see the NS Savannah, the world's first nuclear powered merchant
>> ship, which while she was primarily a cargo carrier had limited
>> passenger accomodations. Not quite a cruise ship.
>
> Actually, it has been done twice. I think the German ship Otto Hahn was
> primarily intended to be used for passengers (but it also had cargo
> space):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Hahn_%28ship%29
>
> I have a book written in the 70s (parts might have been written in the
> 60s) about the sea, and the comments in there about nuclear civil ships
> are quite curious in retrospective. The ships were commercial failures
> (the writer compared the Otto Hahn to the Great Eastern which also sailed
> mostly empty), but at the time it was expected that, in the future,
> the public and the harbour authorities would not pay more attention to
> a nuclear ship than to a normal ship :)
>
> Anyway there was a technical problem: at the time it was calculated that a
> nuclear ship would only be competitive if the power needed exceeded
> 50000HP.
> But even a super oil tanker doesn't need that much power.
>
> Maybe it they had appeared in the 50s, they would have had a brighter
> future
> (pun intended). Of course 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl made "nuclear" a
> very
> dirty word.
>
>> More recently,
>> <http://www.cruisingholidays.co.uk/arctic/icebreaker-yamal-1.htm> is
>> offering cruises aboard a for real Russian nuclear powered icebreaker.
>
> --
> http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/
>
> .pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
> Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94