Re: Space travel by humans is not possible now

On Jan 29, 1:05 pm, simberg.interglo...@xxxxxxxxx (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:57:28 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@xxxxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


On Jan 29, 12:29 pm, simberg.interglo...@xxxxxxxxx (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:17:55 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@xxxxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

The oil crisis has largely
been caused by the consumption of oil in Asia.

There is no oil crisis.

This is the sort of post one should keep and save for future to rebut
Rand.

Why is the cost of oil up, if there is at least not less oil than
there was before gas was $3 a gallon?

Because demand is temporarily exceeding supply.

And your crystal ball indicates that the current situation will get
better and not worse?

No, I have no "crystal ball."  If you do, it explains the stupidity of
many of your posts.  Basic laws of economics indicate that.

You can't make claims about future supply and demands accurately. You
can only state that if you have one then you can make a prediction
about the other. We suspect that demand will continue to increase. We
can make no claim similarliy about supply.

Not a crisis mind you but a
shortage based upon current demand.

Yes, it is not a crisis.

You assume the situaton will get better and not worse from what we
have today. Why? I know what we had and I know what we have now. You
seem to think the future is known and that it means cheaper oil.

Because there are plentiful supplies available at lower production
costs than current prices.

Okay, so when will we see the cost of a barrel of oil drop? When will
it hit $50 a barrel? And if you say that you don't know then your
whole premise is crap.

You suffer from faith-based economics it would seem.


Even if global warming is a lie, and I don't think
it is, the fact remains that we si on finite resources.

No, resources are renewable, given sufficient energy.

This statement is a logical fallacy.

You wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it punched you in the nose.

Tough talk from a guy behind a keyboard. But I'll simply note that you
tried to change the subject and didn't address your original claim.

No, I didn't change the subject.  You did.  If and when you somehow
explain why you fantasize that my statement is a logical fallacy,
perhaps there will be something to discuss, but likely not with an
idiot like you.

What comes first the renewable resources or the sufficient energy?
Why?

Rand, you have no right calling anyone idiot based upon what you
present on USENET. Now please answer the question above. And since
your foot is in your mouth as usual I know it'll be difficult but
please do try...

.

Relevant Pages