Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hmaly who wrote (138725)	8/10/2001 2:07:57 AM
From: d[-_-]b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571200

hmaly, re: Whats next. We will hear that they use their 4 wheelers for hunting those caribou with assault rifles. Actually, assault weapons are too expensive in most cases. Generally those "natives" use .22 cal rimfire weapons or .223 centerfire, the cheapest shell you could buy and nearly the least powerful. Here in the lower 48, it is illegal to hunt any deer like game with a rimfire and most states ban .223. Most people would consider it inhumane to shoot a deer sized animal with a .22 cal and wait for it to bleed out and finally die. However .223 is the same caliber used in the M-16 or AR-15 assault weapons, hence the rounds are very cheap, surplus military ammo is available everywhere for just pennies a round. I was watching a documentary the other night when I saw some Aluets chase a polar bear for hours with a snowmobile, then when they cornered the bear (a small pile of snow), they walked up and shot it with a .22 in the lungs. Then they sat back for about 15 minutes waiting for it to expire, not exactly sporting but very effective. So maybe not assault weapons, but perhaps "assault" calibers. Speaking of assault weapons I have to send my Colt CAR-15 off to the factory for some tune ups. The bolt is creasing the cartridges and jamming them in the feedramp. Makes it very unreliable when jumping coyotes.

To: hmaly who wrote (138725)	8/10/2001 5:56:17 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571200

Most Americans who want to protect the Arctic refuge will never see it, and there’s good reason for that. In February when the sun hardly comes up, temperatures drop to an average of about 4 degrees below zero. And in the endless days of July, visitors can hardly breathe without sucking mosquitoes down their throats. Some Alaskans familiar with the refuge, like oil consultant Ken Boyd, don’t understand the attraction of the place. “You can’t see the end of the world from there, but you’re pretty darn close,” says Boyd, a geophysicist who once directed Alaska’s Division of Oil and Gas. We are not talking the same language. Preservation means just that. This ain't an amusement park. If we turn into one, it's not preservation anymore. They are restricting and closing off large areas of the Galapagos Islands because they are becoming a replacement for Disney Land. By the way, the geophysicist quoted doesn't sound exactly unbiased. I have no objection to leaving ANWR alone if you could actually tell the truth, and come up with actual good reasons not to drill. Simple preservation of a refuge set aside for the benefit of the fauna and flora that lives there. Someone earlier posted about the Exxon Valdez and what it cost Exxon to clean up Prince William's Sound. I have just seen recent footage of PWS. The place is far from clean. In the footage someone was moving shore rocks to show thick oil residue under and between them. An underwater camera was used to show the film of oil covering the sea bed in the area where they were shooting. To say it is just some lousy oil, signifies to me that you have no idea how important oil is to our existence every day; and you have no idea how hard it will be to wean America off of cheap oil. Ridiculous, patronizing statement. I am not oblivious to the realities of modern life. It's just some lousy oil in the context of the total world oil supply. Al