Of course, but I would rather live in SD than TJ. The polution is
awful in TJ. We do get to breathe the same air though.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"thunder" wrote

I find it difficult to comprehend this country not having a
comprehensive
energy policy.

Gasoline was $1.25 in San Diego in 1979 but only 43 cents a few miles away
in Tiajuana. Why? A Mexican official explained "Cuz you have an Energy
Czar
and a comprehensive energy policy and we don't"

jlrogers±³© wrote:
Thank you Professor Maltus.

Very good JL. You get the bonus points for Esoteric Trivia. I'm impressed.

For those who have no idea what contribution Malthus made, see

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Malthus.html
(the short version)

http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~.../3ll3/malthus/
(the detailed version including the actual works of Malthus)

Applying Malthusian principles to the energy supply may be valid
economics, I tend to lean that way.

The reason why we are so dependent on oil & fossil fuels is that the
number of watts per dollar is very much greater than anything on the
near horizon. So, yes, we will have plenty of energy to power our
hi-tech industrialized economy after the oil is gone... the bad news is
that it will cost a lot more, leaving much less disposable aggregate
income, *until* higher levels of technology bring the cost of that
energy down.

Most people who tout 'alternative energy' can't do math.

Regards
Doug King

I see, this is a provisioning thread.

Small crews work better because their is a lower
incidence of cannibalism. Too bad they didn't
know this on the Essex.

What would you have chosen. To go to sea and
face starvation or stay on a resourse poor island?

DSK wrote
jlrogers±³© wrote:
Thank you Professor Maltus.

Very good JL. You get the bonus points for Esoteric Trivia. I'm impressed.

For those who have no idea what contribution Malthus made, see

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Malthus.html
(the short version)

http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~.../3ll3/malthus/
(the detailed version including the actual works of Malthus)

Applying Malthusian principles to the energy supply may be valid
economics, I tend to lean that way.

The reason why we are so dependent on oil & fossil fuels is that the
number of watts per dollar is very much greater than anything on the
near horizon. So, yes, we will have plenty of energy to power our
hi-tech industrialized economy after the oil is gone... the bad news is
that it will cost a lot more, leaving much less disposable aggregate
income, *until* higher levels of technology bring the cost of that
energy down.

Most people who tout 'alternative energy' can't do math.

Regards
Doug King

"From my own observations, and the information of Taweiharooa, it appears to
me, that the New Zealanders must live under perpetual apprehensions of being
destroyed by each other; there being few of their tribesthat have not, as
they think, sustained wrongs from some other tribes, which they are
continually upon the watch to revenge. And, perhaps, the desire of a good
meal may be no small incitement. Their method of executing their horrible
designs is by stealing upon the adverse party in the night; and if they find
them unguarded they kill every one indiscriminately, not even sparing the
women and children. When the massacre is completed, they either feast and
gorge themselves on the spot, or carry off as many of the dead bodies as
they can, and devour them at home with acts of brutality too shocking to be
described."

Thomas Maltus, Principle of Population, p.33-34.


Bart Senior wrote:
I see, this is a provisioning thread.

Small crews work better because their is a lower
incidence of cannibalism. Too bad they didn't
know this on the Essex.

What would you have chosen. To go to sea and
face starvation or stay on a resourse poor island?

DSK wrote
jlrogers±³© wrote:
Thank you Professor Maltus.

Very good JL. You get the bonus points for Esoteric Trivia. I'm
impressed.

For those who have no idea what contribution Malthus made, see

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Malthus.html
(the short version)

http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~.../3ll3/malthus/
(the detailed version including the actual works of Malthus)

Applying Malthusian principles to the energy supply may be valid
economics, I tend to lean that way.

The reason why we are so dependent on oil & fossil fuels is that the
number of watts per dollar is very much greater than anything on the
near horizon. So, yes, we will have plenty of energy to power our
hi-tech industrialized economy after the oil is gone... the bad news
is that it will cost a lot more, leaving much less disposable
aggregate income, *until* higher levels of technology bring the cost
of that
energy down.

Most people who tout 'alternative energy' can't do math.

Regards
Doug King

--
jlrogers±³©
Never date a woman you can hear ticking. - Mark Patinkin

Eschew Obfuscation.

"Resources are not, they become."
Lovejoy, The Road to Spindletop.

DSK wrote:
jlrogers±³© wrote:
Thank you Professor Maltus.

Very good JL. You get the bonus points for Esoteric Trivia. I'm
impressed.

For those who have no idea what contribution Malthus made, see

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Malthus.html
(the short version)

http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~.../3ll3/malthus/
(the detailed version including the actual works of Malthus)

Applying Malthusian principles to the energy supply may be valid
economics, I tend to lean that way.

The reason why we are so dependent on oil & fossil fuels is that the
number of watts per dollar is very much greater than anything on the
near horizon. So, yes, we will have plenty of energy to power our
hi-tech industrialized economy after the oil is gone... the bad news
is that it will cost a lot more, leaving much less disposable
aggregate income, *until* higher levels of technology bring the cost
of that
energy down.

Most people who tout 'alternative energy' can't do math.

Regards
Doug King

--
jlrogers±³©
Never date a woman you can hear ticking. - Mark Patinkin

Eschew Obfuscation.

Bart Senior wrote:
I see, this is a provisioning thread.

Now *that* was funny

For another chuckle read
http://www.stormy.ca/marine/nancy_bell.html


Small crews work better because their is a lower
incidence of cannibalism. Too bad they didn't
know this on the Essex.

Too bad they didn't save one of the whales they killed.

It happens on land too, ever heard of the Donner Party?


What would you have chosen. To go to sea and
face starvation or stay on a resourse poor island?

I think I would have stayed on the island, but then I have knowledge of
a few tricks that probably hadn't been invented then. It would have been
difficult to survive there, but better odds than in a big open rowboat
with a bunch of cannibals.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"Bart Senior" wrote in message
.. .

katysails wrote

That's about 12 years old....

I know, but I still enjoy it.

It's not legal here until they are 16!





Regards


Donal
--