"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong

[Wayne Pein]

Don Klipstein wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Wayne Pein wrote:
>

>>Wayne
>>Paranoia will destroy ya.
>
>
> Just because you are not paranoid does not mean that nobody is out to
> get you, let alone that nobody "plays chicken" on the road or that nobody
> is incompentent, for example not having all parts of the brain seeing a
> 2-wheeler until after impact.
>

I've taken the effort to understand how to ride proficiently and reduce
my risks. Have you?

Wayne

 

[jdoe]

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:09:01 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Wayne Pein wrote:
>> Fred G. Mackey wrote:
>>
>>>> leaf collection tractors,
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> What the hell are those?
>>
>>
>> My town picks up leaves for about two months using a tractor pulling a
>> vacuum bin.
>>
>
>Ever heard of a rake?
>
real clever, apparently there are no leafy trees where you live, in my
town they take tons of leaves off the streets every fall. it takes 2
crews about 4 to 5 weeks to do the job, if they used only a rake it
would be a never ending year round job

 

[nash]

I think the problem might be too that the driver does not get hurt even if
your broadsided in a small car. People astonishingly do not get hurt.
Usually you hear on TV where the drunk causing the accident lived but
everyone in the victim vehicle did not. And look at race car drivers.
Unless, the car is burned up they come out of somersaults with nary a
bruise.
Now everyone having air bags they get even more brave I suppose.
Do they have air bags for the pedestrians and would be victims on cars yet.
Not that any one cares about people "that" much. : )

SN

 

[Fred G. Mackey]

jdoe wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:09:01 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>>>Fred G. Mackey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>leaf collection tractors,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>What the hell are those?
>>>
>>>
>>>My town picks up leaves for about two months using a tractor pulling a
>>>vacuum bin.
>>>
>>
>>Ever heard of a rake?
>>
>
> real clever, apparently there are no leafy trees where you live, in my
> town they take tons of leaves off the streets every fall.


My brother and I once filled 70 trash bags with leaves and branches when
I was a teenager. We used rakes. THat was before the advent of
leaf-blowers.

Apparently, people are unwilling to take care of their own yards in your
town.

Hire some illegal aliens if it's too much for you.

> it takes 2
> crews about 4 to 5 weeks to do the job, if they used only a rake it
> would be a never ending year round job

What's next? Demand the city mow your lawn as well?

 

[Rod Speed]

Fred G. Mackey <[email protected]> wrote:
> jdoe wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:09:01 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fred G. Mackey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> leaf collection tractors,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What the hell are those?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My town picks up leaves for about two months using a tractor
>>>> pulling a vacuum bin.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ever heard of a rake?
>>>
>>
>> real clever, apparently there are no leafy trees where you live, in
>> my town they take tons of leaves off the streets every fall.
>
>
> My brother and I once filled 70 trash bags with leaves and branches when I was a teenager. We
> used rakes. THat was before the advent of leaf-blowers.

Irrelevant to what makes a hell of a lot more sense for the town to do.

> Apparently, people are unwilling to take care of their own yards in your town.

They dont use that for the yards, stupid.

> Hire some illegal aliens if it's too much for you.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to do it that way.

>> it takes 2
>> crews about 4 to 5 weeks to do the job, if they used only a rake it
>> would be a never ending year round job

> What's next? Demand the city mow your lawn as well?

See above.

 

[fluffy bunny]

In article <[email protected]>,
"no spam" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > I might just pass on that but I suggest you read some of the scientific
> > data on what happens when population exceeds resources.
> > Give it about 10 years and see what happens.
>
> <sigh>
>
> Heard the 'in 10 years', 10 years ago and we are still here.
>
> Heard the 'in 10 years', 20 years ago and we are still here.
>
> Heard the 'in 10 years', 30 years ago and we are still here.
>
> Read about the 'in 10 years', 40 years ago and we are still here.
>
> The only thing that has changed is just what is going to wipe us out 'in 10
> year'. Warming, cooling, population, air pollution, water pollution, farm
> chemicals, DDT, diseases, the BOMB, rock and roll, illegal drugs, nazism,
> communism, capitalism, and on and on and on.
>
> Sometimes I wish we'd just reach the end of the 10 years and get it over
> with

i have often said that about the last ten miles of a centuries in july.

 

[jdoe]

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 21:22:56 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>jdoe wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:09:01 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Wayne Pein wrote:
>>>
>>>>Fred G. Mackey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>leaf collection tractors,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What the hell are those?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>My town picks up leaves for about two months using a tractor pulling a
>>>>vacuum bin.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ever heard of a rake?
>>>
>>
>> real clever, apparently there are no leafy trees where you live, in my
>> town they take tons of leaves off the streets every fall.
>
>
>My brother and I once filled 70 trash bags with leaves and branches when
>I was a teenager. We used rakes. THat was before the advent of
>leaf-blowers.
>
>Apparently, people are unwilling to take care of their own yards in your
>town.
>
>Hire some illegal aliens if it's too much for you.
>
>> it takes 2
>> crews about 4 to 5 weeks to do the job, if they used only a rake it
>> would be a never ending year round job
>
>What's next? Demand the city mow your lawn as well?
the simple response to you is that you're an idiot

 

[Mark Hickey]

Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>> Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Someone who gets the point. I have been trying to figure out how to put
>>>>> a 6 speed with the double overdrive (.69 and .50) into my Chrysler. The
>>>>> other future project is to get a Ford Falcon or Fairlane with a 6 and
>>>>> try to get a full sized car (by today's standards) over 40 MPG.
>>>> I got a pile of money I'll be happy to wager you can't (assuming the
>>>> verification involves actually driving the car at highway speeds on a
>>>> flat highway). Interested in taking that bet?
>>> I'd win because I know it can be done. Your comprehension of physics
>>> leaves a lot to be desired.
>>
>> OK, so this is easy money for you. $1000? $10,000? All you gotta do
>> is take a stock Falcon and get 40mpg out of it at highway speed
>> (65mph) on level ground with no wind, by modifying the drive ratio in
>> the differential.
>>
>> Or maybe you'd just be contributing to my retirement. ;-)
>>
>> Just how SURE are you? Enough to put money on it?
>
>First I have to find a project car. It should be easy to get 40 MPG
>since I got 38 out of a 1961 Rambler, which was an aerodynamic brick.
>Got any old cars with a 3 on the tree?

No, but they're not THAT hard to find (though the Fairlane is starting
to appreciate in value). I just pulled 47 Fairlanes up on Ebay.
Should be a piece of cake.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Deputy Dumbya Dawg]

"Bill Baka" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:mnuyh.3316: > Are you saying that all things held
equal, adding more
: > mass to a vehicle will not change the force
required to
: > accelerate said vehicle enough to overcome friction
and
: > maintain a constant velocity?
: >
: >
: > peace
: > dawg
: >
: >
: I am saying that once you get the mass up to speed it
matters very
: little how much mass. It would probably be easy to
get stretch limo up
: to 35 MPG as long as it stayed at 65 MPH. The stop
and go of city
: driving negates any improvement to mileage that I
could do or think of
: except to carry some amount of batteries for that
kind of driving.
: Some things are hard to engineer.
: Bill Baka

I may agree with you if this limo was in space but here
on earth with gravity your argument does not hold
water. The more weight (mass affected by the force of
gravity) the more friction and the more energy to
maintain the velocity. If you have your lime at 65mph
and you stop putting energy into it, it will slow down
and stop. The more mass in the limo the faster it
stops. You are simply ignoring friction which is a fact
of life dude. ................ are you a republican?

 

[no spam]

>>And yet the price of food hasn't gone up the much. . .hum. Could it be
>>the
>>fact that today the crop yeild per acre has risen? When I was a kid you
>>go
>>one ear of corn for each corn seed you planted. Today you get two or
>>three.
>>That in means in effect that you can sell 2/3 of your farm to the
>>developers
>>and still make the same amout of corn.
>
> You got one ear of corn for every corn seed you planted? Speaking as a
> person that grew up as a kid in Kansas and was there long enough to
> follow the Ag Bureau reports on the radio, no one ever reported corn
> per corn seed. Ever.

That's because they didn't hand harvest nor have to try to plan on how much
corn to plant to harvest enough to feed ever how many chickens, hogs, ducks,
etc.



> In any event, you must be in your 70s to have seen a three fold
> increase - and this is an increase that is not generally expected to


Not quite that old.


> So if you are selling 2/3 of your farm, you may grow as much corn as
> your great grandfather or grandfather, but you sure as hell won't be
> selling anywhere as much corn as last year for the rest of your
> lifetime.

No one in my family farms any more. My uncle was the last and he retired
many years ago. Us'en kids got us an egeecation so we didn't have to work
dawn to dark and still worry if we were going to make ends meet.

 

[no spam]

>>>> We don't, but until you start considering forced abortions, genocide
>>>> and euthenasia, there's not much we can do about the population.
>>>>
>>>> Are those options acceptable to you?
>>> I would prefer to limit the baby factories somehow, whether trough
>>> education or, if need be, by a fertility inhibitor in the food.
>>> Now the choice would be food and no children or children and starve.
>>
>> And who gets to pick the breeders? What criteria do we use? Do we only
>> allow the 'perfect' people to breed?
> It isn't a popular subject but over the last 20 years or so we have been
> handing out welfare to the lowest achievers and paying them to have more
> of the same. The over achievers some times never have kids because they
> are the "I want it all" mindset. So our population is coming mainly from
> bottom of the barrel. That's "Reverse evolution" to me.

First, you failed to answer my main questions, who gets to pick who breeds?


> Care to comment on the obvious?

Sure, short sighted politicians learned that they could buy their offices by
giving tax dollars to voters and short sighted people who think its cruel to
1) make people work for there free money and 2) to make people live with the
consequences of their actions and bad choices.

Poverty is almost always a result of bad choices. People choose to not work
in school. People choose to have kids when they know they can't afford
them. People choose to drop out of school. People choose to sell drugs to
make a fast buck. People choose to screw up their lives why should I be
FORCED to pay to "fix" their problems?

 

[no spam]

>> Simple, I don't give them the chance to do it easy. I don't pull out in
>> front of cars with their turn signals on until they slow down and I see
>> their wheels turning. I look both ways as I approach every intersection
>> even if I have right of way or the green light. I keep an eye on the
>> backup and taillights on cars in parking lots. Stay alert and stay
>> alive.
>
> Let's be real. Defensive driving is a must, but if all drivers were out
> kill you like you sensationalized, you'd be dead. Fact is, people don't
> want to hit others. Too messy.

Ride a motorcycle for a year and see how long it takes you to feel the same
way.

 

[no spam]

> > Simple, I don't give them the chance to do it easy. I don't pull out in
>> > front of cars with their turn signals on until they slow down and I see
>> > their wheels turning. I look both ways as I approach every
>> > intersection
>> > even if I have right of way or the green light. I keep an eye on the
>> > backup
>> > and taillights on cars in parking lots. Stay alert and stay alive.
>> >
>>
>> Let's be real. Defensive driving is a must, but if all drivers were out
>> kill you like you sensationalized, you'd be dead. Fact is, people don't
>> want to hit others. Too messy.
>>
>> Wayne
>
> Motorcyclists and bicyclists and pedestrians would all do well to assume
> that drivers by and large are on the road to injure and kill others. No
> lethally at-fault driver *ever* admits to a desire to kill his victim,
> even when obviously impaired.
>
> And there are no more vulnerable targets on the road than cyclists and
> pedestrians (excluding animals, perhaps-- see how common is roadkill).
> Given the statistics involved in interactions between larger vehicles
> and their smaller prey, such a belief would be entirely justified,
> hardly paranoid.


I disagree on the target issue. Motorcyclist are the most in danger because
people in cars seem to think that we are nothing but small cars and treat us
that way. When a car over takes a walker or biker most of the time it will
pull over to give extra room. When they pass a motorcycle they don't. It
also seems when a driver sees a bike or walker they keep an eye on them
until the car is clear. A motorcycle, if it is seen at all, seems to just
become part of the background.

I have never even felt in danger while riding a bicycle or walking down the
road or even on horseback but I have had many close calls while riding
motorcycles. This with most of the 'bikes' lit up like a Christmas tree.



> As a matter of fact, drivers themselves would do well to assume that
> other drivers want to collide with them. It's called driving
> defensively, and it is largely responsible for keeping drivers'
> attention where it belongs: on the *job* of driving. It also motivates
> intelligent drivers to improve their vehicular operational and strategic
> skills. Nothing at all wrong with assuming that drivers are on the road
> to injure or kill you. It's a much safer-- and perhaps more realistic--
> attitude than any other.

I have told people if they want to have safer roads they should require
everyone to ride a motorcycle for a year before they can drive a car. You
either learn defensive driving real fast, die or wind up 'driving' a
wheelchair.

 

[no spam]

> More on drivers out to kill and collide with others! Yes, there are a very
> few psychotics out there. Am I going to assume they are after me? No.
> Should anybody assume that? No. If you did, then you'd have to yield
> inappropriately at every junction out of fear that the boogey man had
> finally found you.
>
> I think a safer and more realistic attitude is to assume that people don't
> want to hit you, but might make a mistake and accidentally do so. So you
> drive your vehicle in such a way as to mitigate that risk.

You don't think you are going to have an accident but you put your helmet on
every time you ride don't you? Does this make you paranoid or just
cautious? Some people carry weapons. Paranoid or cautious? I ride a
motorcycle as if every car out there is a killer. Not paranoid just
cautious. I get even more so after visiting one to my TWO friends who are
in wheelchairs because they failed to ride this way. Changes your view of
life when your friend ask you to leave so they can change his diaper.

 

[no spam]

>>>Roads are designed with a stopping sight distance such that lawful
>>>drivers are able to come to a complete stop prior to striking a
>>>stationary object. A vehicle moving in the same direction provides a
>>>margin for error, and the following driver need only slow to that speed
>>>(rather than stop) to avoid collision.
>>
>>
>> Maybe in the wonderful land where you drive roads are built this way but
>> not in the places I have lived. I could take you to the county I used to
>> live in and show you 5 curves (two in state highways, three on paved
>> county roads) within 10 minutes of my house where there is NO way you
>> could avoid hitting a stationary object if you were doing half the posted
>> limit. Add to that the fact that even on the straight runs there are
>> places where there are dips that could hide a stalled tractor trailer.
>>
>> One infamous place, on a state highway, is called redtop. It has an
>> intersection about 100 yards from the top of a hill. If there is a car
>> waiting to turn left and two or three cars are behind him stopped and you
>> top that hill doing the posted 55 mph you have about 50 yards to stop.
>
> Such locations are supposed to have reduced speed warning signs so that
> stopping from the reduced speed is possible. If these signs don't exist,
> the transportation engineer in charge should be notified.

Transportation engineer <BAHHH HAAA HAA COUGH!!> <wiping tears from my
eyes> Oh man THAT IS A GOOD ONE. The county I came from didn't even have
building inspector (note that is for the entire COUNTY) and you expect them
to have a transportation engineer.

As for the state roads the spot is well known because during the summer
tourist season there is usually at least two MAJOR traffic accidents (one
time involving a state trooper).

The point is slow speed objects in a place where they are not expected are
dangerous. It doesn't matter if the object is a car, tractor, bike or cow..

 

[no spam]

>>>>>>leaf collection tractors,
>>>>
>>>>>What the hell are those?
>>>>
>>>>My town picks up leaves for about two months using a tractor pulling a
>>>>vacuum bin.
>>>
>>>Ever heard of a rake?
>>>
>>
>> real clever, apparently there are no leafy trees where you live, in my
>> town they take tons of leaves off the streets every fall.
>
>
> My brother and I once filled 70 trash bags with leaves and branches when I
> was a teenager. We used rakes. THat was before the advent of
> leaf-blowers.
>
> Apparently, people are unwilling to take care of their own yards in your
> town.
>
> Hire some illegal aliens if it's too much for you.

Your bigoted ignorance is showing again. The city collects the leaves from
curbside not from the lawn. You still have to get them there. BTW, this
actually reduces the amount of oil used because people don't have to use 70
made from oil trashbags per yard.


>> it takes 2
>> crews about 4 to 5 weeks to do the job, if they used only a rake it
>> would be a never ending year round job
>
> What's next? Demand the city mow your lawn as well?

Gets done every day during the summer in most cities. City mows it and
charges you about 5 times what it would cost other wise, and sends you a
ticket to pay.

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:31:03 GMT, "no spam" <[email protected]> wrote:

>That's because they didn't hand harvest nor have to try to plan on how much
>corn to plant to harvest enough to feed ever how many chickens, hogs, ducks,
>etc.

Hell, they didn't do it for the garden in the back, either. And, yes,
it was handharvested, whatever that has to do with anything. Corn
yield is a ridicuolous thing to count based on seeds planted - maybe
especially for a back acre garden. BTW, you do know that the corn
generally used to feed the livestock has very little to do with the
corn generally grown as food for humans?

Maybe we just didn't know how to do things in Kansas, but we did grow
a fair amount of corn before soybeans took over.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:31:04 GMT, "no spam" <[email protected]> wrote:

>First, you failed to answer my main questions, who gets to pick who breeds?

I do. Unfortunately, part two, where I tried to pick the "who with"
got me an elbow in the face. Still have the broken nose...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Joe Fischer]

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:10:35 GMT, "Deputy Dumbya Dawg"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Bill Baka" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:mnuyh.3316: > Are you saying that all things held
>equal, adding more
>: > mass to a vehicle will not change the force required to
>: > accelerate said vehicle enough to overcome friction
>: > and maintain a constant velocity?
>: > peace
>: > dawg
>: >
>: >
>: I am saying that once you get the mass up to speed it
>matters very
>: little how much mass. It would probably be easy to
>get stretch limo up
>: to 35 MPG as long as it stayed at 65 MPH. The stop
>and go of city
>: driving negates any improvement to mileage that I
>could do or think of
>: except to carry some amount of batteries for that
>kind of driving.
>: Some things are hard to engineer.
>: Bill Baka
>
>I may agree with you if this limo was in space but here
>on earth with gravity your argument does not hold
>water. The more weight (mass affected by the force of
>gravity) the more friction and the more energy to
>maintain the velocity. If you have your lime at 65mph
>and you stop putting energy into it, it will slow down
>and stop. The more mass in the limo the faster it
>stops. You are simply ignoring friction which is a fact
>of life dude. ................ are you a republican?

The more mass in the limo, the farther you will
coast on level ground.
Are you an auto engineer?

Joe Fischer

 

[Wayne Pein]

Don Klipstein wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Wayne Pein wrote:

>>
>>Oh no, here we go again! "Giving" cyclists their own lane is like
>>putting American Indians on their own reservations. It's really being
>>friendly to motorists.
>
>
> How then do you rate what all has happened to the West Philadelphia
> portion of Walnut Street?
>
> That street used to have 3 lanes, except 4 during evening rush hour,
> all westbound. The street is one way westbound with the right curb lane
> in the past being a traffic lane during evening rush as opposed to being a
> parking lane.
>
> Now the curb lane is a parking lane 24/7. The next-rightmost lane is
> now a bike lane. The remaining two traffic lanes got widened (the
> previously designated lanes were on the narrow side) due to one traffic
> lane being restricted to bikes.
>
> So now that the parking got increased at a time when Phi8ladelphia
> decided to tolerate double parking, the bike lane sometimes has cars
> parked on it.
>

OK, so here's a situation where it was made worse for both street users.

Wayne