Driver to drive?

On 14 jan, 03:05, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
That not how it works. Most of the denialist "scientist" have retired,
and seem to need the bribes the that the "energy" sources will pay
them for signing their famous names to denialist propaganda.

The only propaganda is from the AGWists and you can't bribe the truth.

Graham's judgement is less than sound, as he has demonstrated here by
posting some remarkably ill-founded claims about global warming from
time to time.

It is self-evident that you can't bribe the truth - truth is an
abstract concept, and doesn't happen to have a wallet, a bank account
or any use for money - so I'm obliged to guess what Graham might have
thought that he was saying. It does seem to be possible to pay
"sceptical" scientists for publishing their doubts about the current
concensus in climatology, even when the scientists being paid don't
have enough standing as climatologists to give their opinions any
perceptible worth.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:35:28 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
<too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jan 11, 12:36 am, F. George McDuffee <gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:55:01 -0600, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:

The point was raised about hosing cost should come down to 3x salary.
Why?

=============
Over many years it has been empirically/historically determined
that 2.5X of annual income, with a significant [10-20%] down
payment is a "safe" mortgage in that the default rate is
reasonable.

Note this is now the total family income and not the individual
bread winner.  IMNSHO, when median family income is used, the
ratio should be lower, in the range of 2X to 2.5X, because of the
recent historical instability of many marriages, likelihood of
the wife's pregnancy, and with 2 people working, twice the
chances for a lay-off.

Note that the median is defined as the value where 1/2 make more
and 1/2 make less.  The median tends to give much more
representative numbers where a few outliers [CEOs, rock starts,
professional athletes] tend to skew the average income numbers.

Median individual income is now ( and has been for a number of
years static) about 50k$ per year.  If we limit income to just
the "breadwinner," this translates to 125,000$ mortgage, which
can be upped to 150k$, but only under exceptional circumstances.

When the bubble median house prices in the "hot" real estate
markets were compared with the median family income for those
areas, it is discovered that the ratio was frequently as high as
10X [LA] and almost always was > 6X annual income, where the
income could be verified {alt-a mortgages are low documentation
loans w/o income verification}.

Thus traditional loan underwriters knew for several years that
the housing bubble was unsustainable, and a disaster waiting to
occur.  It is incredible that even though many of the people knew
better, they went ahead and did it anyway.

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

They went ahead and did it because they made money doing it.

Many people would sell their mothers if they could profit.

The big question I have is where were the regulators..those people
should be in jail.

The responsibility lies at the feet of Bush...the Buck Doesn't Stop
Here President.

TMT

You missed, but by less than a mile. It belongs on the head of Barney
Frank and company, with an affordable housing agenda that caused
squirrely loans to be made.

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:42:18 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On 14 jan, 11:04, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:41:32 +0100, "Bill Sloman"





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> schreef in bericht
news:418qm4pve7mb9563a3vdtkdr1j1mrf2uqk@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:50:28 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

On 13 jan, 10:08, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
You've no idea how dodgy the 19th century CO2 measurments were

The articles I've read say the exact opposite. It's not a difficult
measurement. Now
didn't the 19th century produce most Physics and Chemistry too ? How on
earth could
they have done that if they could even measure CO2 ?

They could measure it, but there are practical limits to the size of
the sealed container you can use to isolate your sample of air and
slosh it around with lime water.

As a graduate student I hooked up a 12 litre spherical flask to my
vacuum line to hold my stock of nitric oxide. It was the biggest flask
the department held in store, because it was about as big as you could
grasp securely.

It holds about half a gram molecule of air at atmospheric pressure an
room temperature (a gram mole occupies 22.4 litres at STP). In the
19th century - when the CO2 content of the air was around 300ppm -
that would have contained about 7 milligrams of CO2.

If you'd precipitated all of it as CaCO3 or BaCO3 (better) you'd get
to produce about 16 milligrams of calcium carbonate or 32 milligrams
of barium carbonate. You'd then have to get it all out of the flask
and into your filter paper, without exposing the lime water (or baryta
water) to any more carbon dioxide. You then have to calcine your
filter paper to get rid of it, which would also get rid of the CO2,
leaving you some 9 milligrams of calcium oxide to weigh, or some 25
milligrams of barium oxide.

It's a tedious procedure, so you won't do it often, and an analytical
balance is only sensitive to about a tenth of a milligram, so it isn't
all that precise, even if your technique is perfect.

If you looked at this link given by Don:

http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf

It shows the measurment techniques and notes the number of times
various scientist did them. For example Schultze 1600 measurement in 3
years, 1868-1871.

Even Keeling accepts the quality of some of the results taken in the
1870s. I note these are the ones that agree with his 280ppmv base
line. Me cynical?

Not cynical enough.

Note this sentence from the end of the paper

"Obviously they used only a few carefully selected values from
the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent
with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by
the burning of fossil fuel"

Since the crucial evidence that the rise in CO2 in air comes
burning fossil carbon is the changing carbon isotope ratio -
the Suess Effect - and is conclusive, this single sentence is
enough to reveal Ernst-Georg Beck to be an ignorant
amateur with an axe to grind.

The carbon isotope ratio in CO2 probably is changing.  That doesn't
say anything about the total quantity of CO2.

The size and rate of the change actually says quite a lot about the
quantities of CO2 involved. They are entirely consistent with the
proposition that about two thirds of the fossil carbon we burn for
fuel ends up as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, while the rest of
the carbon dioxide generated in this way dissolves in the oceans.

But it has nothing to do with the total quantity of CO2 in the
atmosphere.

My own opinion is that the measurements he's fussing about were
taken in places where people were already burning a lot of fossil
carbon, and are a great deal less reliable than he claims.

 I thought your argument was people buring fossil carbon was the
problem. But you want to ignore data that may be contaminated by
people buring fossil carbon?

It's local contamination. Beck wants to compare these figures with
data from Antarctic ice cores and Mauna Loa, which are both free from
this sort of contamination - Mauna Loa because they stop sampling when
the volcano is erupting (which isn't often).

Info from elsewhere in ther thread.

http://www.mlo.noaa.gov/programs/esrl/volcanicco2/volcanicco2.html

/quote

A volcanic component can be estimated by taking the difference in
concentration between periods when the plume is present and periods
immediately before and after that exhibit baseline conditions.

Right after the 1984 eruption, Mauna Loa emitted as much CO2 as an
American city of 40,000 people. By 2005, these emissions had fallen by
a factor of about 100.

/end quote

Note estimated. To give results published to 0.1ppmv accuracy.

 

On 14 jan, 11:04, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:41:32 +0100, "Bill Sloman"





bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

"Raveninghorde" <raveninghorde@invalid> schreef in bericht
news:418qm4pve7mb9563a3vdtkdr1j1mrf2uqk@4ax.com...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:50:28 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

On 13 jan, 10:08, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
You've no idea how dodgy the 19th century CO2 measurments were

The articles I've read say the exact opposite. It's not a difficult
measurement. Now
didn't the 19th century produce most Physics and Chemistry too ? How on
earth could
they have done that if they could even measure CO2 ?

They could measure it, but there are practical limits to the size of
the sealed container you can use to isolate your sample of air and
slosh it around with lime water.

As a graduate student I hooked up a 12 litre spherical flask to my
vacuum line to hold my stock of nitric oxide. It was the biggest flask
the department held in store, because it was about as big as you could
grasp securely.

It holds about half a gram molecule of air at atmospheric pressure an
room temperature (a gram mole occupies 22.4 litres at STP). In the
19th century - when the CO2 content of the air was around 300ppm -
that would have contained about 7 milligrams of CO2.

If you'd precipitated all of it as CaCO3 or BaCO3 (better) you'd get
to produce about 16 milligrams of calcium carbonate or 32 milligrams
of barium carbonate. You'd then have to get it all out of the flask
and into your filter paper, without exposing the lime water (or baryta
water) to any more carbon dioxide. You then have to calcine your
filter paper to get rid of it, which would also get rid of the CO2,
leaving you some 9 milligrams of calcium oxide to weigh, or some 25
milligrams of barium oxide.

It's a tedious procedure, so you won't do it often, and an analytical
balance is only sensitive to about a tenth of a milligram, so it isn't
all that precise, even if your technique is perfect.

If you looked at this link given by Don:

http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf

It shows the measurment techniques and notes the number of times
various scientist did them. For example Schultze 1600 measurement in 3
years, 1868-1871.

Even Keeling accepts the quality of some of the results taken in the
1870s. I note these are the ones that agree with his 280ppmv base
line. Me cynical?

Not cynical enough.

Note this sentence from the end of the paper

"Obviously they used only a few carefully selected values from
the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent
with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by
the burning of fossil fuel"

Since the crucial evidence that the rise in CO2 in air comes
burning fossil carbon is the changing carbon isotope ratio -
the Suess Effect - and is conclusive, this single sentence is
enough to reveal Ernst-Georg Beck to be an ignorant
amateur with an axe to grind.

The carbon isotope ratio in CO2 probably is changing.  That doesn't
say anything about the total quantity of CO2.

The size and rate of the change actually says quite a lot about the
quantities of CO2 involved. They are entirely consistent with the
proposition that about two thirds of the fossil carbon we burn for
fuel ends up as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, while the rest of
the carbon dioxide generated in this way dissolves in the oceans.

My own opinion is that the measurements he's fussing about were
taken in places where people were already burning a lot of fossil
carbon, and are a great deal less reliable than he claims.

 I thought your argument was people buring fossil carbon was the
problem. But you want to ignore data that may be contaminated by
people buring fossil carbon?

It's local contamination. Beck wants to compare these figures with
data from Antarctic ice cores and Mauna Loa, which are both free from
this sort of contamination - Mauna Loa because they stop sampling when
the volcano is erupting (which isn't often).

My own attitude to German chemists is slightly sceptical -
when doing my Ph.D. I ran into earlier work in the area from
Germany - W.Kraus, Z.Physik. Chem A175, page 295 (1936)
- which looked gorgeous, but turned out to be explicable only if
he'd failed to mix his reagents properly (as was more or less
inevitable with the equipment he was using). Because the error
was consistent from experiment to experiment, all the results
agreed perfectly, and all were consistently wrong.

So we now have to ignore all German Science.

Far from it. But you would be well-advised to note that Germany used
to be notorious for the "god-professor" syndrome, where the research
professors had a lot of power, and were prone to developing
exaggerated ideas about their competence and the quality if the
research that they were publishing, because their graduate students
were frightened to disagree with them. The system produced a great
deal of good science, but a lot of it wasn't quite as good as the god-
professors claimed.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[JosephKK]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:24:12 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
<null@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:17:48 -0800, bulegoge wrote:
On Jan 10, 12:13 pm, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
On Jan 10, 8:33 am, buleg...@columbus.rr.com wrote:
On Jan 10, 11:30 am, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

If he doesn't screw it up (far) worse, it will count as a miracle.

I think at this point they are all rearranging the deck chair on the
Titanic

For years it has been "other than the cancer, the patient is healthy".
 Now it seems that it has a bad heart and a broken leg too. We can fix
the problems one at a time but it is going to take a while.

The mess is over when the average home cost < = 3.0X the average family
income in the state of CA. Prices can come down, or the money can
inflate.

I think the the crap really hits the fan when everyone quits buying
government debt. Selling bonds has given politician 40 years of doing
whatever they want.

All of the country's problems would fix themselves if they simply
abolished the income tax and cut government spending back to
Constitutional levels.

To pay back the Soc. Sec. and Medicare scams, use an OUTGO tax - i.e.,
tax what people SPEND.

That is already taxed at the state level (in most states) Do you want
to add a Federal tax to that (even at the hope of eliminating personal
income tax, it would be very high ~ 20%). Do you think the sheeple
would allow that? Don't pester us again without numbers that show tax
dollars versus income for your scheme.

But people seem steadfast in avoiding answers that could actually WORK.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:28:28 -0800, Gunner Asch
<gunner@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:29:57 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On 11 jan, 20:11, Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:46:41 -0800 (PST), buleg...@columbus.rr.com
wrote:

On Jan 11, 2:09 am, bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

Because they have to. The alternative is a re-run of the Great
Depression.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not spending the 4T might be a replay of the great depression.
Spending the 4T might result in something worse, it might result in
something better.  Nobody really knows how this ends.

Keep in mind that most historians and economists believe that if Hoover
and FDR had left well enough alone, that the Great Depression would have
been over in less than 3 yrs, instead of dragging it out for 11

Most of the historians and economists incarcerated in a lunatic asylum
near you?

It's not an opinion that I'v ever heard, but I don't read histories
that have been crafted to appeal to right-wing Republicans.

Perhaps you could name a few authors and some of the books that tout
this interesting theory?

Lowell Vedder and Richard Gallaway, Out of Work: Unemployment and
Government in Twentieth Century America

Wartime Prosperity? A Reassessment of the U.S. Economy in the 1940s
Robert Higgs

Brad DeLong's "Slouching Towards Utopia?: The Economic History of the
Twentieth Century


You may wish to google "leave it alone Liquidationists"

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

Congratulations Gunner, you too have left your stain of reality on the
corpus of irrationality that is the slowman.

 

[JosephKK]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:48:33 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <l3hlm4hc8aveqjmbs79rv8r2j7bvjkhmdb@4ax.com>,
gunner@NOSPAMlightspeed.net says...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:17:30 -0800, pyotr filipivich
phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner Asch
gunner@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote on Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:06:18 -0800
in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:31:06 -0500, CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com
wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

... snip ...

Right-wingers would be funny if they weren't allowed to vote.

Quick - pass a Constitutional Amendment to fix that.


Why not just use the standard Leftwing method of working around the
Constitution, and pay a Liberal Judge to make a ruling?

I wonder how they are going to keep Republicans or conservatives
from voting, what with same day registration and no photo ID at the
polling place?
The Democrats have institutionalized vote fraud.

tschus
pyotr


Vote! And vote Often!

"Vote early, vote often."
Richard J. Daly

...and Al Capone. There is a lot of similarity between the
Demonicrats and the mob.

There is a lot of traceable connection between conservatives (and the
churches and other old established houses of power) and the mob as
well.

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 09:20:02 -0800 (PST), MooseFET
<kensmith@rahul.net> wrote:

On Jan 10, 6:27 pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
krw wrote:
Damon Hill <damon1S...@comcast.netnet> wrote:
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net> wrote:

So, when they install Barry Christ as our new Commissar, do you
suppose he'll walk across the reflecting pool on his way to the
Oval Office?

Hey! He's the first President Barry since Goldwater! ;-P

Goldwater was never President.

If Obama can fix the economy, it will count as a miracle.

If he doesn't screw it up (far) worse, it will count as a miracle.

After The Younger and Horribler Bush he can't possibly do worse.

I can disprove your point with two words "president Palin".

Horseshit, even she would be better than "shrub" (Bush the lesser).

 

[JosephKK]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:16:09 -0500, "Charles"
<charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:168nm453d4g9aclbcqto4p01gl7q9fmaqc@4ax.com...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:37:25 -0800, Gunner Asch


Giving money to the poor, to keep them from misery, is an admirable
act of charity. But since they will immediately spend it,

Yeah, shame on them ... for food, health care and rent.

the money
competes in the marketplace and drives up prices for everyone else.

OOOOOH, you poor, rich baby!

This is pure income redistribution, which always has overheads.

Wow, I never knew that. Thanks for sharing.

There
is no "pump priming" here... spending on consumption creates no
investment, no productivity, no goods, no jobs. The effects are
apparently short-term good, actually long-term bad.

So you obviously believe, but your lack of understanding concerning broad
ecomic health and human suffering is abhorrant.

A society can't, longterm, consume more than it produces. Well, unless
they steal it.

True. But a society as powerful as the U.S. can leverage itself and borrow
huge sums of money, until it eventually collapses. The collapse is due at
the same time thermal runaway will kill all of Earth's anthropods ... thus,
it is a perfectly designed ENGINEERED system.

Sloman is on the receiving end of redistributionist economics, so of
course he approves the theory.

He has taken his blinders off (or perhaps he was always open-minded) and
perhaps you could also consider more than that which is currently swirling
around your existance.

I think you are a troll. How much stupidity could you cram into a
single post?

 

[JosephKK]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:42:41 GMT, James Arthur
<bogusabdsqy@verizon.net> wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> schreef in

This is pure income redistribution, which always has overheads. There
is no "pump priming" here... spending on consumption creates no
investment, no productivity, no goods, no jobs.

It may not create new investment, but it may prevent old investment
being lost when businesses are bankrupted and their assets - that used
to form coherent and productive systems - are sold off as junk.

Since the extra spending goes on stuff that has to be produced, it
does encourage production and preseve jobs.

Your logic sucks.

We've just heard the sing-song about how everything's been
broken, and we can't afford eight more years of it.

The solution, it seems, is to absolutely flood failure with
money, to make absolutely sure we get at least eight more
years of it.

Brilliant.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Have to be picky here, Bush the lesser started with giving the flood
of relief to "fool" banksters, Obama hasn't even had the chance yet.
By the way, i like the way you have indicted Barney Frank et al.

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:11:17 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10138054-52.html


John

I would have to be damn thoughtful about it for sure. I find Internet
distracting enough without taking it into vehicles i operate.
(distraction is the No. 1 contributor to crashes).

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:50:04 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:26:23 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:11:17 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10138054-52.html


John

You're so-o-o-o slow John... I stopped buying Ford after experiencing
a 1977 LTD :-(

...Jim Thompson


The 70's were notorious for bad American cars. Apparently most US-made
cars are now close to the Japanese in quality, and ahead of most
European stuff. But they still look and weigh and handle like American
cars, and seem to be substituting crappy gadgets for basic design and
handling.

Oh, I've never owned an American car. I'm considering a small 4wd SUV,
and have looked at the US stuff just to be fair, but what I've found
is ugly and bloated.

I won't buy an oscilloscope or a TV set or a car that runs Windows!

John

Then the day may come when you have to hack your TV , 'scope, or car.
That is what M$ is trying for.

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:16:40 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:53:12 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <k84fm4hjrp4i5jlvvghmqh1j96f7ibtvit@4ax.com>, To-Email-
Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com says...
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:50:04 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:26:23 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:11:17 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10138054-52.html


John

You're so-o-o-o slow John... I stopped buying Ford after experiencing
a 1977 LTD :-(

...Jim Thompson


The 70's were notorious for bad American cars. Apparently most US-made
cars are now close to the Japanese in quality, and ahead of most
European stuff. But they still look and weigh and handle like American
cars,

Strange as it may sound, I rented a Chevrolet Impala (V-6) at Columbus
Airport the first week of November. Very roomy, big trunk and it
drove quite nicely.

I rented one to drive back from Milwaukee to Cleveland after I got
bumped off a flight home from an interview in Des Moines. The
thing was amazing, for a 2WD, in 18" of snow. Nothing was moving
(state of emergency), but I had no problems with the Impala.

Similar. Heavy rain about 50% of the time... quite stable.


and seem to be substituting crappy gadgets for basic design and
handling.

However the Impala had NO amenities, and had a radio that indeed
smacked of Wimpows influence... multi-function buttons with no rhyme
or reason.

A button costs a penny.

And union benefits cost thousands ;-)


Oh, I've never owned an American car. I'm considering a small 4wd SUV,
and have looked at the US stuff just to be fair, but what I've found
is ugly and bloated.

I won't buy an oscilloscope or a TV set or a car that runs Windows!

John

I've owned ONLY Japanese vehicles since 1977, 2 Z-cars, 2 Sentra's, 1
Corolla, 1 Maxima, 1 Frontier pick-up (still own), 2 Q45's (still own
one).

I have two Fords now ('00 Sable and '01 Ranger). They're both
decent, though the Ranger was apparently in an accident before I
bought it. :-(



We have a shop here in town that specializes in inspecting used cars
before you buy.

They also warn you if a car previously lived back east ;-)

...Jim Thompson

They should warn you if it lived in snow country, near (25 Mi) any
ocean (salt air), or other factors that degrade vehicle longevity.

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:26:20 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
wrote:

krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:55:33 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:31:16 -0600, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 02:56:22 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10138054-52.html

You're so-o-o-o slow John... I stopped buying Ford after experiencing
a 1977 LTD :-(

...Jim Thompson

The 70's were notorious for bad American cars. Apparently most US-made
cars are now close to the Japanese in quality, and ahead of most
European stuff.

One reason Daimler dumped Chrysler was that the build quality in Chrysler
factories wasn't up to their own standards actually. And US cars can't
even begin to approach European economy levels.

What an idiot you are, Dumb Donkey. Daimler is going down teh
shit-hole too.

Most likely car brand to have "infant failures" in Arizona is
Mercedes.

They've been leading the pack in quality issues for years. German
engineering isn't what it used to be.

Volkswagen (Audi, Seat) is pretty good. The problem with Mercedes was
that they tried to cut costs (and thereby cut quality) and introduced
new technology too early. That has cost Mercedes a lot of business. A
few years ago nearly all taxis over here were Mercedes, now you see a
lot of other brands because of the reliability issues Mercedes had.

Kind of like the Checkers of old. Nigh indestructible.

 

On 13 jan, 19:45, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:54:24 -0800, Gunner





gun...@NOSPAM.lightspeed.net> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:16:09 -0500, "Charles"
charlesschu...@comcast.net> wrote:

Sloman is on the receiving end of redistributionist economics, so of
course he approves the theory.

He has taken his blinders off (or perhaps he was always open-minded) and
perhaps you could also consider more than that which is currently swirling
around your existance.

Odd...when I read your post...I heard the strains of the
Internationale playing in the background, Comrade.

Why is that?

Gunner

Like the majority of leftists, Sloman is just plain mean.

John would like it if I didn't point out that he was posting nonsense
when he posts off-topic nonsense.

While it might be more generous to him to let him enjoy the delusion
that he knows what he is talking about outside electronics, is would
be less generous to those might read and believe his nonsense.

There is a leftist tradition - dating back to the Fabian Society -
that one should be able to support and document one's opinion with
factual data, despite the risk that one might have change one's
opinion to reflect the data. Right wingers prefer to stick to their
opinions, and can be relied on to ignore data that doesn't fit their
world-view. Dubbya's decison to invade Irak is a case in point.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[PinkFloyd43]

David L. Jones wrote:

pseidel78@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e665943f-f69f-4ec1-bda4-7ec54888f5a6@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Is a degree from DeVry University just as good as a degree from
California State University. CA state calls it B.S. Electrical
Engineering versus DeVry calls it B.S. Electrical Engineering
Technology.

DeVry Faster, More Expensive

State University Takes longer, Less Expensive

It doesn't matter at all.
Smart employers want someone who can do the job, and who fit in with their
corporate culture, nothing else matters. It makes no difference where you
did your degree, or even if you have a degree at all in many cases.
There are a few anal retentive exceptions of course, but they are best
avoided anyway.

Dave.


Someone that will come in early, stay late, don't bitch when you

don't get a raise in (5) years, answers yes to everything, "Heh
Bill want to s$ck my d*ck", and finally an individual that will not
get a lawyer after 20+ years of service and you get the shaft for
no being late multiple time cause you were taking your wife for
chemo treatment. BTW, we throw away application that have the
words DeVry on them!

 

[JosephKK]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:58:07 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
T wrote:
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...
John Larkin wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10138054-52.html

You're so-o-o-o slow John... I stopped buying Ford after experiencing
a 1977 LTD :-(

...Jim Thompson

The 70's were notorious for bad American cars. Apparently most US-made
cars are now close to the Japanese in quality, and ahead of most
European stuff.

One reason Daimler dumped Chrysler was that the build quality in Chrysler
factories wasn't up to their own standards actually. And US cars can't
even begin to approach European economy levels.

I don't know about the economy side. That Cobalt I rented got a solid
37MPG on the highway and I was doing 65 to 70MPH the entire way.

I'm not familiar with that vehicle. Few US cars make it over here. In fact none
at the moment I can think of, only SUVs and 'minivans'. Oh, you can buy a
Corvette. We like cars that go round corners without dramas you see for one
thing. ;~)

Can you give me a link ? And what engine size/type and tranmission did it have

The reason we don't see British cars on most of our roads is that we
like ones that can go up hills without a wrecker, and we don't see
British cars on race tracks.

IDIOT

Unfortunately for you, that seems to be about the best response you
CAN make. How long has it been since British cars were common on the
race tracks of the world, 2 or 3 decades?

 

[John Husvar]

In article
<7a9f9a89-2c8e-48df-b7d3-ae36ab6b643f@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

There is a leftist tradition - dating back to the Fabian Society -
that one should be able to support and document one's opinion with
factual data, despite the risk that one might have change one's
opinion to reflect the data. Right wingers prefer to stick to their
opinions, and can be relied on to ignore data that doesn't fit their
world-view. Dubbya's decison to invade Irak is a case in point.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Just an observation:

That kind of thinking and behavior isn't limited to the right. It seems
to be a universal characteristic, especially of politicians.

I have no quarrel with anybody supporting their opinions with good data.
Trouble is: One can't be sure all the time that the data is good or if
it's been gathered only to support a pre-existing opinion,
i.e.cherry-picked, or just misinterpreted.

Even professional researchers and/or pollsters can't always be sure
they're measuring what they think they're measuring

 

[JosephKK]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:51:07 -0800 (PST), Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On Jan 12, 3:24 am, T <kd1s.nos...@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
In article <49696218.6A14D...@hotmail.com>,
rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com says...

T wrote:

I don't know about the economy side. That Cobalt I rented got a solid
37MPG on the highway and I was doing  65 to 70MPH the entire way.

That isn't especially good. Almost any decent modern wind tunnel
design should get 40+mpg cruising steadily.
A BMW 3.25 with ~220hp petrol engine averages around 51mpg on
motorways at 70+mph (even allowing for your smaller gallons that is
still a lot better). The diesel 320d manages almost 70mpg on
motorways. The 5 series are 3-5 mpg behind.

BMW & Mercedes both complain bitterly about being forced to improve
fuel efficiency but they do manage to do it. If they don't stay ahead
of the game then the fleet buyers would chose something else.

I'm not familiar with that vehicle. Few US cars make it over here. In fact none
at the moment I can think of, only SUVs and 'minivans'. Oh, you can buy a
Corvette. We like cars that go round corners without dramas you see for one
thing.        ;~)

Can you give me a link ? And what engine size/type and tranmission did it have
?

Graham

I believe it was this one:

http://www.chevrolet.com/cobalt/

I believe it was the XFE model. That's a 2.2l 4 cylinder engine. Had
plenty of pep.- Hide quoted text -

155hp and only 37mpg isn't all that impressive. I guess manual
transmission might gain +10%.

Regards,
Martin Brown

I not only agree but declare that a good AT would do about 5 mpg
better. Not enough people know hat to "drive a stick" for fuel
economy any more to get even a matching reading.

 

On 14 jan, 04:43, JosephKK <quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 18:06:24 -0500, "Charles"





charlesschu...@comcast.net> wrote:

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:ac6a28fd-ec05-4b75-a019-8e41f90f5aea@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com....

I recently reminded you that both Greenland and Antarctica are
experieincing a nett loss of some 100 gigatons of ice per year from
their ice-caps - more snow is falling on both ice-caps because the
surrounding oceans are warmer and evaporating more water, but even
more ice is sliding off the edges.

Methane gas is being released as the ice caps melt.  This gas, released into
the atmosphere, could be 10 to 20 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse
agent.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025174618.htm

Other sources predict a more rapid release of methane which could be a
future nexus in global warming, from which it could become a runaway system
with no hope of anthropogenic intervention.  Positive feedback should be
well understood in this forum, but is entirely ignored in discussions of GW.

Most of the geniuses here just don't care.

Please remember, within the past 400 Million years there has been no
thermal runaway, both with CO2 concentrations both far lower and far
far higher than today.

Wrong. Search on "the clathrate gun"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

 Second, by track record, CO2 in the atmosphere
follows temperature, the rises we are seeing now are most likely the
result of the middle ages warm period, rather than any human activity.
Yes the lags are that high!  Restudy the ice core data.

Wrong again. Search on the Suess Effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect

Not that i am some genius, but i do care about the environment.  I
believe in cleaning up after ourselves.  I do not believe in imaginary
bugaboos used to promote political agendas.  The easily verifiable
fraud of the Michael Mann submittals makes my hair stand on end, high
school students have contested it, successfully (in unbiased forums).

High school students might, using unrelialbe information obtained from
denialist web sites.
Mann's "hockey stick"curve has been replicated by roughly a dozen
independent researchers, most of whom have had the benefit of
McIntyre's dubious experise in data analysis.

If Michael Mann's data analysis was defective, he was unaware of it,
so he didn't have any intention to deceive, and since hs results
happened to be right, nobody was deceived, so your accusation of fraud
is - in itself - fraudulent. Denialist web-sites love to throw
accusations of fraud around, which is decidedly ironic

Make no mistake, i love our national parks, state parks, ... and
municipal parks.  I like trees and frogs and wasps and bushes and
mushrooms and flowers and beetles and ground hugging plants and slugs
and ferns and microflora and microfauna all the rest of wild life.

Good for you. Now go and find out a bit more about them from reliable
sources.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen