rec.autos.simulators

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- http://www.racesimcentral.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Ignoring the obvious energy costs of growing a crop,
and the need to use petroleum products to operate
farm machinery, the massive abundant crops that Joe
the farmer managed with a bull and a hand plow might
not handle the sun waiting for a truck to come and
bring it to the city.  Or the train that hasn't got any
diesel..

I have read estimates that the USA has about 15
years worth of oil in reserve.  thats not taking population
growth into account.  IMO, the increase in cost to
produce and ship food will grow and will be reflected
in what people have to pay for it.  And unfortunely
more people will go hungry as the poverty line effectively
rises.  It's a bleak picture but ignore it at your peril.  I
do have faith in humankind (including you yanks :) to
be able to produce renewable replacement resources
but only if some energy is expended on such research.

Some interesting reading on oil ...
http://www.esb.utexas.edu/drnrm/dieofforg/page131.htm

food consumption and energy use
http://www.npg.org/forum_series/tightening_conflict.htm

Future world oil supplies
http://www.esb.utexas.edu/drnrm/dieofforg/page85.htm

Anyway, this is more on topic than the original post
(though sim cars don't need real oil) :)

iksteh

Take a poll of kids in the UK - they wont have a clue either

It's bad education I'm affriad

Doug

Lol Doug :)

True.  The US usually doesn't appreciate honesty.  Only parrots.  :-)

--

Fester

There is a better way, for the enlightened.
http://www.racun.tk/

Yeah, if one of the the arguing parties is a particularly attractive laydee
then I would definitely 'see her point of view'...

Nobody I know gave up their cars because of the prohibitive expense of fuel,
simply because there is no alternative. We *need* cars where I live, and we
*need* fuel, so we have to buy it whatever the price. That idea may work in
London, where there are ample services to replace cars for minimal financial
outlay, but not where there is no alternative. I don't want us polluting the
atmosphere any more than we absolutely have to in order to live our lives,
but engine technology is getting to the point where harmful emmisions are
relatively negligible anyway. We just need to wait until all the people with
older, less eco-friendly cars replace them with newer models.

Politics, eh?

I always vote LD now, too.

Yeah, it does seem that way. Mainstream US news is very pro-America,
especially since 9/11, simply because nobody wants to hear people
criticising their country after something like that happens. Strangely
enough, I get a much more balanced view of Britain by watching American news
channels than I do watching BBC, so maybe it works the other way around,
too.

People here don't like it that ol' Tony is sucking up to Bush so much.
Because Tony is being pro-American (which is probably the only Labour stance
that I support totally at the moment), but generally the people don't like
it, which is why there are videos like 'Shoot the dog' around. A much more
strange viewpoint is that Tony is actually influencing Bush at the moment.
Sure, Bush really wants Britain as an ally right now, but would he be doing
anything different if we split on this issue? Is Tony doing it because he
thinks it is the right course of action to take through this war on
terrorism, or because he wants to reinforce MFN status? Just as apt a
question as wondering if Bush wants to rid the world of governments who
support terrorists, or governments who have weapons of mass destruction, or
just wants some Middle East oil?

And to think - my parents PAID for mine !

Doug

I was still in school when the 1960 elections took place and we covered it
extensively in our social studies class. Sometimes it takes a while to
remember things from that long ago. As I recall, now,  the reason it was so
controversial is that Kennedy won the popular vote by about 100,000 votes. 2
tenths of a percent (or something like that). Nixon won more states, but the
states Kennedy won had more elect***college votes. The count was a mess in
a few states, but Illinois was really messed up. A recount there could have
given Nixon the popular vote, but he didn't call for one because he would
have still lost the election. I think Kennedy had 2/3 of the elect***
college votes, so it wasn't that close in that respect.
Does that sound about right?

 I think you meant that as a joke, but if it were true I guess that would
leave guys like me to pay all the taxes.

--------------
Regardless of political views in this thread, the topic really seems to be
about the right of the US, with the UN, to force Iraq to stop making weapons
of mass destruction. Does Iraq have the right to become an atomic power?
So, it goes something like this. Iraq wants more oil so they invade Kuwait.
The UN comes in and stops them. In Iraq's surrender, they agree to weapons
inspections (as opposed to a bunch of other alternatives which would have
been far worse). Later, they force UN inspectors to leave, violating the
terms of their surrender. Now, after WWII, the Japanese had to agree to only
keep a small military (Germany, too, I think, but I'm not sure). If Japan
can honor their agreement to this day, why shouldn't Iraq? Of course, being
the "mean spirited" people we are, we spent billions to help rebuild Japan
and turn it into a leading economic power.
We know that Iraq has used chemical weapons on it's own people, civilians,
and are not opposed to mass ***. You have to ask yourself what could
happen if Iraq has atomic bombs. It would certainly make the UN think twice
about defending anyone else that Iraq decides to invade. They could pretty
much waive the bombs around and say if you try to stop us you'd better be
prepared for a world wide nuclear war.  What about the other countries that
have atomic weapons? What is there to stop them from doing the same thing?
Well, nothing, but Iraq is the bully that steals your milk money. The other
countries are not. So, even if Iraq didn't launch the bomb at the US (and he
might), it's a formidable tool.
Saddam Hussein has the power to prevent a war. All he has to do is honor his
surrender agreement. It really is that simple.

There's also abundant evidence that Iraq is training terrorists. Is that
worth going to war over? Well, WWI was kicked off when one prince got shot.
The US entered WWII when about 2400 people, mostly military, were killed at
Pearl Harbor. The Sept. 11 terrorist attack killed about 3000 people, mostly
civilians. Historically, it's enough reason to start a war, and then some.
In any war, if you ally yourself with our enemies, you are an enemy.

These events may or may not be enough to go to war over. Each person must
decide for himself. I wonder if Iraq's people would like us to do something
about Hussein.

I've heard that Saddam Hussein won't even let his people play GPL. Now that
is mean!

  <big snip>

Have people lived in your area for more than ~100 years?  If so, they must
have managed without cars and fuel (well, maybe some whale oil for oil
lamps...)  Of course they lived in different ways, and maybe the future will
require some long term changes.  If you don't evolve, you die (evolution!)

I'm always amused when someone claims to *need* something that was
invented fairly recently.  I like my car, but I live within a few
miles of most services and a bicycle is much more fun (in nice weather).

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
"goyl at nettx dot no"

"The Pits"    http://www.theuspits.com/

"A man is only as old as the woman he feels"
--Groucho Marx--

--
Slot

Tweaks & Reviews
www.slottweak.com