"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 58

02-09-2007, 02:02 PM

Joe Fischer wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:04:06 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> Now that north american society has little use for the totally unskilled
>> who dont want to work,
>
> How many can there be, with a 4.5 percent
> unemployment rate, and 3.0 percent means everybody
> holds a job for 3 years and takes 4 or 5 weeks to
> find another job.

The unemployment statistics exclude prisoners, the military, housewives,
people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits, people who may be
unemployed but are NOT looking for work [including welfare recipients],
people in hospitals, students, children, retirees, ...

Anybody know the REAL percentage of non-workers?

--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.

02-09-2007, 02:07 PM

Joe Fischer wrote:
> On Fri, "R.H. Allen" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> I made a bit of an error there -- the heavier car would require 480kJ of
>> extra energy compared to the lighter car, not 32kJ (assuming 600N and
>> 300N are required to keep the heavy and light cars, respectively, at
>> constant speed). Assuming 30 mpg and 25% conversion efficiency, that's
>> 40MJ/mile for the light car and 41.92MJ/mile for the heavy one, so the
>> added weight produces a 4.8% increase in fuel consumption. Considering
>> that we're talking about a *doubling* in weight -- essentially a fully
>> loaded one-ton pickup that itself only weighs a ton, or about a third of
>> what such vehicles usually weigh -- that's still pretty small. A more
>> realistic figure for such a vehicle would be more like 1.5% more
>> gasoline (though of course the whole analysis is so simplified that the
>> only real-world conclusion you can draw is that weight has a negligibly
>> small effect).
>
> That sounds -real world-, if it were much different
> a train or even a big semi truck would not be able to
> do what they do, some big trucks don't have engines
> with much more displacement that a big car.

That small engine thing sounds counter-productive for a serious work
truck like a semi. A small engine would have to pull some serious RPMs
to get enough power, and I don't think the fleet managers want to
rebuild the engine every 100,000 miles. I think the large trucks have a
built in red line of about 3,000 RPM and are meant to cruise at 1,500 or
so. If anyone knows the exact numbers please chip in. I met a trucker at
a motel who said his truck was just "Broken in" at 150,000 miles.
>
>> I suspect something like rain-slickened roads or a difference in the
>> direction of the wind are enough to cause more than a 0.1 mpg difference
>
> Maybe much more, there was a true story in
> Flying magazine about a guy trying to fly a Piper Cub
> along the highway from the Salton Sea toward L.A.,
> and was running low on gas, and tried to land, but
> was flying backwards.
> He ran out of gas and had to land backwards,
> and when he jumped out, the plane flipped over
> backwards.

I have seen the same thing at an airport between Bakersfield and
Modesto, where the pilot just turned into the wind and rose straight up,
then backwards. Strange thing to watch, but it had my attention since I
was about to fly out and that didn't give me warm fuzzies.
>
> I watched US Army spotter planes flying
> backwards or holding stationary in north Texas
> in 1946, and aircraft are probably better than
> cars aerodynamically, so wind would seem to
> make a difference.
>
> Perhaps the moral of this story is that
> automobile engines are greatly oversized so
> those in a hurry can accelerate fast.

Total lead foot between stop signs or lights. Little wonder we have so
much dependence on oil when everybody drives like it's a drag race.
>
> Joe Fischer
>
Cheers,
Bill Baka

02-09-2007, 02:08 PM

Bill Baka wrote:> Rod Speed wrote:
>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>> Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the
>>> top of a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake you
>>> can roll back and get the car behind you. That's the one place where
>>> I don't want to have a stick.
>>
>> Your gross incompetance is your problem, as always.
>>
> Should I even bother with *******s?
> Or should I be nice and just call you an idiot who has never tried a
> stick in S.F.???
> Try it,then bitch about it.
> It can be done with a foot emergency brake but you have to pull the
> release at the same time as letting out the clutch and giving it gas,
> while wearing out the release mechanism.
>
> Or maybe you have 3 feet, no doubt all of them left.
>
> Only those who have driven S.F. know what I mean.
>
> Reply to jerk mode off.
>
> Bill Baka
>

It is doable but requires thinking and common sense.
The upside was the mileage in 5th gear on freeways.

--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell

02-09-2007, 02:09 PM

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 6, 8:00 pm, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>
>>>>> As far as available land, what kind of
>>>>> crop can you plant in the Himalayas? All that land going to waste.
>>>> You didn't answer my question. You predicted that 99.9% of the
>>>> world's food-producing capability was going to go away. I'm still
>>>> curious what your thought process was on that one. And I've been in
>>>> the Himalayas - they grow plenty (including poppies and pot).
>>> That wasn't a question that really deserved an answer. It should be
>>> obvious that more people will build more buildings and thus there will
>>> be less land available. The oceans are getting over fished so that
>>> resource will soon run out. Do you expect we will farm the moon or
>>> something?
>> I think they expect God to come from the skies with a cornucopia of
>> fruits and vegetables. Well, of course, he will come in an SUV (Hummer
>> most likely) killing pagans since there's no fruits and vegetables for
>> all. Cyclists though got no place in Heaven 'cause they voted for
>> Gore, who endorsed homosexuals, etc, etc.
>
> Oh, so YOU think 99.9 percent of the available farmland will be
> overcome with development too, huh? You'd better hope there's a place
> in heaven for those with no math skills. ;-)

Don't forget the "Common sense" skills, Mark.
Bill Baka
>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> Home of the $795 ti frame

02-09-2007, 02:11 PM

Joe Fischer wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:55:47 -0800, The Real Bev
> <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>> My grandkids live in an affluent (not rich, but containing mostly those
>> monster tract homes that are going for $3/4 million now) district.
>
> Know any more jokes, the average home in the
> US is worth about $60,000, so maybe $750,000 homes
> should be called rich.

Not in Southern California. Even in poor communities, the median home
price is around $500K. That just reflects the price of those homes that
were sold within the last accounting period (month?), but is useful for
comparison purposes.

Check [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] for home prices. Ours, a dump 1/4 mile from the
freweay on-ramp, is estimated at $500K. My son's house, an ordinary
3-br 1200SF house, is now worth more than double the $250K he paid for
it in 2000.

--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.

02-09-2007, 02:19 PM

George Grapman wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>> Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the
>>>> top of a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake you
>>>> can roll back and get the car behind you. That's the one place where
>>>> I don't want to have a stick.
>>>
>>> Your gross incompetance is your problem, as always.
>>>
>> Should I even bother with *******s?
>> Or should I be nice and just call you an idiot who has never tried a
>> stick in S.F.???
>> Try it,then bitch about it.
>> It can be done with a foot emergency brake but you have to pull the
>> release at the same time as letting out the clutch and giving it gas,
>> while wearing out the release mechanism.
>>
>> Or maybe you have 3 feet, no doubt all of them left.
>>
>> Only those who have driven S.F. know what I mean.
>>
>> Reply to jerk mode off.
>>
>> Bill Baka
>>
>
> It is doable but requires thinking and common sense.
> The upside was the mileage in 5th gear on freeways.
>
I have done it and my favorite cars for doing it were VWs and Renaults,
both of which had hand operated emergency brakes. One time with an
American car and a foot brake and I swore off sticks. There was an old
skit by Cheech and Chong (I think) about losing it on one of those
famous hills and rolling backwards into the bay. That thought was in my
head when I came to those absurd stop signs where you had to start up
again on a 15% or greater hill. What really got me was that the street
you were stopping for was dead level, then uphill to the next stop sign.
I wonder if it is feasible for a sane person to ride a bicycle there
without getting fried by all the ups and downs.

I am on the bicycles group, after all.
Bill Baka

02-09-2007, 02:26 PM

Bill Baka wrote:
> George Grapman wrote:
>> Bill Baka wrote:> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>>> Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the
>>>>> top of a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake you
>>>>> can roll back and get the car behind you. That's the one place where
>>>>> I don't want to have a stick.
>>>>
>>>> Your gross incompetance is your problem, as always.
>>>>
>>> Should I even bother with *******s?
>>> Or should I be nice and just call you an idiot who has never tried a
>>> stick in S.F.???
>>> Try it,then bitch about it.
>>> It can be done with a foot emergency brake but you have to pull the
>>> release at the same time as letting out the clutch and giving it gas,
>>> while wearing out the release mechanism.
>>>
>>> Or maybe you have 3 feet, no doubt all of them left.
>>>
>>> Only those who have driven S.F. know what I mean.
>>>
>>> Reply to jerk mode off.
>>>
>>> Bill Baka
>>>
>>
>> It is doable but requires thinking and common sense.
>> The upside was the mileage in 5th gear on freeways.
>>
> I have done it and my favorite cars for doing it were VWs and Renaults,
> both of which had hand operated emergency brakes. One time with an
> American car and a foot brake and I swore off sticks. There was an old
> skit by Cheech and Chong (I think) about losing it on one of those
> famous hills and rolling backwards into the bay. That thought was in my
> head when I came to those absurd stop signs where you had to start up
> again on a 15% or greater hill. What really got me was that the street
> you were stopping for was dead level, then uphill to the next stop sign.
> I wonder if it is feasible for a sane person to ride a bicycle there
> without getting fried by all the ups and downs.
>
> I am on the bicycles group, after all.
> Bill Baka

A few times my clutch was on its last legs and I needed to wait a few
weeks before replacing it. I learned that the shortest distance between
to points i not always a straight line.
I had one route that worked fine except for a one block hill. Had to
time it so as soon as the light turned green I could go up the hill and
make a right turn. A few times a car pulling out of a driveway foiled
my plan.
Once I had to go to San Rafael and had to do Bay Bridge/Richmond Bridge.

--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell

02-09-2007, 02:31 PM

Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> adm wrote:
>> "dgk" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>>> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:55:47 -0800, The Real Bev
>>> <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Baka wrote:
>>>> My grandkids live in an affluent (not rich, but containing mostly
>>>> those monster tract homes that are going for $3/4 million now)
>>>> district. They have "lockdown" drills. That's what's supposed to
>>>> happen when a weapon or other threat is discovered. The kids drop
>>>> flat on the floor and the staff turns out the lights. I need to
>>>> find out more...
>>> Unfortunately that would appear to be a smart thing to plan for
>>> considering the number of actual incidents. Back when we were kids
>>> we had those idiot abomb drills. Climb under the desk and put your
>>> head between your legs. And, as the precocious kids added, kiss
>>> your ass goodbye.
>>
>> Do you not think that making weapons far harder to get hold of might
>> help a bit ?
>>
>>
>>
> No. There would just be a black market for guns. We just need to get
> rid of some people and maybe arrest them before the fact. Many times
> the shooter has had a history of animal abuse or other signs that he
> is whacko, and the police never put 2 and 2 together.

Trouble is the huge numbers who abuse animals and who never gun down kids in schools.

02-09-2007, 02:42 PM

In article <IB4zh.5737$gj4.756@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, Bill Baka wrote:

> Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the top
> of a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake you can
> roll back and get the car behind you. That's the one place where I don't
> want to have a stick.

After being hit a few times maybe people would get the message and not
stop 2 inches behind someone

02-09-2007, 02:45 PM

Rod Speed wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101+[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>> Bill Baka wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>
>>>>> Bad choices is electing politicians who don't have a clue, or those
>>>>> who should have retired long ago. I didn't invent welfare but those
>>>>> that are on it have obviously learned how to milk the system.
>>>> That will happen with any welfare system with some of them.
>
>>>>> Now that we have a glut of school aged children
>
>>>> No you dont.
>
>>>>> everybody is complaining about not enough schools,
>
>>>> No they arent.
>
>> They've been complaining about crowded schools since I was a child.
>
> They have indeed.
>
>> We managed to learn to read even in what I discovered later was a lower-middle-class school with
>> 35 students in each class.
>
> Yep, and plenty of the catholic systemic schools managed
> to do that with even higher numbers per class too.

Yeah, but they could threaten the kids with eternal damnation if they
behaved badly. The worst public schools can do is put an entry in your
permanent record.

>> Between then and now, something has gone wrong with either teaching or teachers
>
> Nope, the real problem is the parents.

Not necessarily. When I was a kid parents were actively discouraged
from involving themselves in their children's education -- "Let the
experts take care of it." I'm glad I learned to read before I started
school, and we made sure our kids could too.

> You still see the kids of asian immigrants learning to read fine today.
>
> Essentially because their parents make sure they do.

Yes. OTOH, when the teachers are primarily concerned with keeping their
jobs, working less and being paid more, the involvement of
marginally-literate immigrant parents can't do an awful lot. I blame
the unions for making it impossible to weed out the incompetents.

> And it aint just reading either, its their school results in general too.
>
>> and it has nothing to do with the number of kids/class.
>
> Indeed.
>
> There can be a problem with a class full of the absolute dregs
> of society who have no interest in learning anything and who are
> only interested in stopping anyone else from learning anything tho.

Everybody who cares and can afford it sends their kids to private
school. The public schools have what's left. There's currently a plan
afoot to establish a magnet school for outside-the-district "problem"
children (physically/mentally/economically/morally disadvantaged) as a
way of raising money, which, if current practices are followed, will be
spent on resort "retreats" for school management.

The board of education, after extending his contract for two years,
fired the superintendent a few months later -- seems he plagiarized a
document he found on the net, giving the impression that a
frequently-used statement was invented by himself. Since he had sued
his previous school district, the board of education paid him his
excpected salary plus something extra if he promised not to sue.

I've never seen a more compelling argument for "throw the bastards out."

The teachers are no better, just paid less.

--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.