Home > Archive > Cobol > December 2004 > Re: OT - Re: Program templates as Object Classes
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: OT - Re: Program templates as Object Classes
|
|
| Howard Brazee 2004-12-15, 3:55 pm |
|
On 8-Dec-2004, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
> Good point. There's also the inefficiency factor of 18:1 when
> converting plants to meat. If there were no meat, we wouldn't need to
> farm as much land.
>
> Vegetarians claim that if there were no meat, the US could feed the
> entire world. It's not realistic, but an interesting numbers game. I
> did a detailed study years ago. The result was we could feed 900M,
> about 3.5 times the US population. A far cry from 6B.
Especially since the energy costs in transporting the food isn't at an 18:1
ratio.
I do believe that the biggest polluters are buildings, roads, and farms.
(nothing grows on a highway). Grain-fed humans are less impactful than humans
fed from grain-fed cattle. Of course, cattle doesn't have to be grain-fed, in
which the 18:1 ratio isn't so meaningful.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-12-17, 8:55 am |
| On 13 Dec 2004 16:41:48 -0800, "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
> In the UK, Europe and Japan rail
>survives because it has changed to being high-speed. The 200 mile trip
>from London to York in 2 hours means that people can live in York and
>commute and will pay the price because overall it is cheaper than
>living in London.
Most high-speed trains run on dedicated rights-of-way. Only the US and
England are trying to do it with 100 year-old roadbeds, to avoid the
high cost. Granted, the US lags behind.
California is planning 200+ mph bullet trains between San Francisco
and San Diego.
>I understand that the average speed for US rail passenger service is
>around 35mph.
That's not true. Schedules are at amtrak.com. For example:
NYC - Washington 230 miles / 3 hours = 77 mph
NYC - Boston 220 miles / 3.25 hours = 68 mph
NYC - Albany 150 miles / 2.5 hours = 60 mph, old technology,
not express, many stops
Boston-Washington trains can go 150 mph. What slows them down are
stops (7 between NYC and Washington) and curves. If the legs were
non-stop, they would take 2.5 hours.
The 35mph average must include suburban commuter trains, which go 30
mph due to stopping every few miles. If commuter trains were included
for other countries, their average would be the same.
>It is faster and cheaper to catch a bus or drive a car or get a plane.
Busses are much slower due to numerous stops. Driving speed depends on
traffic. Flying is about the same when city-to-airport is included.
> _That_ is why they are failing.
They are failing because people perceive railroads to be unreliable.
Cross-country passenger trains are often behind schedule.
> For freight it is
>only viable for stuff like coal and iron ore where huge trains can be
>made up (10,000+ tons) and speed is irrelevant.
A significant percentage of freight trains are those 'unitized' coal
haulers. Other major cargoes are automobiles, chemical tanks and
building supplies.
>They were competive in the 1890s because they were much faster than
>alternatives but they didn't match the speed increase and flexability
>of buses and cars.
Airlines, too, say their main competitor is the automobile. The
average airline trip in the US is 694 miles. That means half the
passengers could drive in one day 'for free', and have 'free'
transportation when they arrive.
>to load the food onto trucks.
>
>Duh, how did the stuff get into your warehouses ? How would it get
>from the railhead to your customers (supermarkets) ?
They roll freight cars into our warehouses. We unload with forklifts.
We received a lot of canned goods and other bulky items via rail. We
wanted to receive lettuce, bananas and high-volume produce the same
way.
It goes to supermarkets on our trucks. I meant there was no need for
_them_ to use trucks.
>
>Only trying ? Come back when it is solved.
Correction: Union Pacific (acquired Southern Pacific in 1996). The
system works well in the markets it covers -- Chicago-California,
Texas-California, Chicago-Texas. The problem is it doesn't stop
between terminals and doesn't cover East Coast.
>In any case using a
>different system doesn't fix the problem that the tracks and rolling
>stock won't run fast enough.
It's an East Coast problem. Trains run fast in the West. Across New
Mexico and Arizona there's a steady stream of freight trains running
60-70 mph.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2004-12-18, 12:46 pm |
|
On 13-Dec-2004, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
> California is planning 200+ mph bullet trains between San Francisco
> and San Diego.
Paid for by whom?
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-12-18, 12:46 pm |
| On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:08:35 GMT, "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:
>
>On 14-Dec-2004, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>
>By that standard *everything* is natural.
Just us chickens. Klingons and Smalltalk programmers are unnatural.
>
>The definition "harmful" is the big arguing point here. You are using a net
>definition saying, our benefit in having houses is bigger than our loss in not
>having nature where those houses are.
Harmful means injurious, as in diminished. If someone's Southern
California home supports .9 acres of grass and hybrid roses where
there used to be 1.0 acres of chapparal, where's the diminuation?
>I'm saying that even so, they *are* harmful to the environment. Farms, cities,
>and roads do effect temperatures (ask any sailplane pilot). You are
>recommending making farms more efficient (smaller) by not growing feed. Stuff
>we like *do* pollute.
The solution isn't to repudiate civilization and return to caves or,
more accurately, primative huts. The solution is to create an economic
system that supports stewardship of the land and the environment.
Wishing it were so isn't good enough. Economics must provide rewards.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2004-12-18, 12:46 pm |
|
On 14-Dec-2004, Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
> Harmful means injurious, as in diminished. If someone's Southern
> California home supports .9 acres of grass and hybrid roses where
> there used to be 1.0 acres of chapparal, where's the diminuation?
Snakes and roadrunners find diminished environment. The natural burn cycle of
the chaparral is interrupted.
Nothing is free. Every choice has a cost. Some we're willing to pay for the
benefits. But we aren't ready to accept a world of cities because that
extreme is too costly for our current tastes.
With enough population, it doesn't really matter what we wish.
> The solution isn't to repudiate civilization and return to caves or,
> more accurately, primative huts. The solution is to create an economic
> system that supports stewardship of the land and the environment.
> Wishing it were so isn't good enough. Economics must provide rewards.
How?
|
|
|
|
|