On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:37:38 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:



Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?


Didn't Toyota make some claims about that? There was a recall for
driver side carpets if I remember correctly.


--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 03:06:28 -0700, Don Y
wrote:

On 8/22/2015 11:32 PM, Robert Green wrote:

While I don't think it will ever happen, I agree with Trump's desire to
repeal the automatic citizenship granted to any child born in the country.
That was meant to protect newly freed slaves, not serve as a magnet for
Mexican, Chinese and many other nationals to have their kids on US soil with
all the rights that go with citizenship.

That's a tough one.

My grandparents were in this country legally. Yet, none of their
kids were born *before* they got their citizenship papers. How
would you handle my mom and her siblings? Tell them they have to
apply for citizenship when they are in HIGH SCHOOL (or later)?
What status do they have in the time between birth and their
parents' citizenship? Between that time and the time *they*
apply for citizenship? "Guest worker"? "Guest child"?

Or, is it automatically "OK" if you come from European stock?
Only a hurdle if you cross the *southern* border?? :-/

One of the hospitals, here, complains about all the costs of
care that they have to bear for "illegals" -- esp those brought
to the hospital by Border Patrol (found in the desert, dehydrated;
apprehended in a high speed car chase/crash; etc.).

[Border Patrol doesn't *arrest* them until after they have been
"treated" so, technically, Uncle Sam isn't financially responsible
for the cost of their care at that point!]

OTOH, the same hospital ADVERTISES to up-scale Mexicans (i.e.,
native Mexicans *in* Mexico) that they should come "visit",
have their kid in this hospital (bestowing on it US citizenship)
and then spend a couple of days *shopping* before heading back
across the border. These are sold as "package deals"!

(WTF???)

A *practical* solution is to deport the parents of these kids
and let them decide if they want to remain in this country
without their families -- or, join their folks in Mexico,
voluntarily (yet still being US citizens).

[How would it be any different for these kids to "harbor"
their parents -- here illegally -- than it would be for
someone to drive a *busload* of them into the country?]

At least the "where were you born" criteria makes it a
simple test. No additional complications about whether
or not your parents were entitled to be here at the
time of your birth.

[Of course, Trump wouldn't believe any of *their* birth
certificates, either! : Always convenient when you can be
selective about what you want to consider as FACT and what you
DON'T!]


I think it's a waste of time to try and explore the "if when my
parents had me that law had been such and such" hypothetical's. Your
parents either did what they did because it was what they wanted or
because of whatever the law was at the time they were trying to either
take advantage of it or get around it. Just like the illegal's are
doing now, i.e. some are on the up and up and some are scum bags
dropping anchor babies. Regardless of what used to be and how it did
or didn't affect your past we ought to get rid of Birthright
Citizenship. It simply no longer makes sense and ENCOURGAGES aliens
to come here illegally. Can you give a single reason why THIS country
and/or YOU are better off because we allow Birthright citizenship?

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:22:57 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Don Y:
A *practical* solution is to....

Two things that jump out at me:

- Net migration to/from Mexico is way down, maybe even
zero.

- Biometric identification and, hopefully, a decent national
internet infrastructure (maybe comparable to Korea's) will
effectively function as a universal ID card. i.e. any person
anywhere can be looked up and identified based on (facial
features? thumb print? retinal pattern?) by anybody
connected to a central database.... so being here illegally
will soon become impractical for all except those with the
means to bribe their way into a bogus database file.


Ah, the next step on the road to the police state.

Mr. Stormin M, You might want to check to see if your SIG has all the
solutions manual crap in it. Every recent reply I see from you has
that appended to it.


On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:34:49 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 8/22/2015 7:17 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Heck, there can be no doubt some people have died because they looked
at the watch at *just* the wrong time and didn't see the semi stopping
in front of them. I watched the woman ahead of me, this was WAY
before anyone had car phone much less a cell phone, literally knock
the flag out of the hand of the guy stopping traffic for construction
trucks to cross the highway.


Not sure if I want to know what he said,
at that moment!

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: INSTRUCTOR'S SOLUTIONS MANUAL PDF: Linear Algebra Done Right,
2nd Ed by Sheldon Axler
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 22:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:
Newsgroups: alt.home.repair
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: INSTRUCTOR'S SOLUTIONS MANUAL PDF: Linear Algebra Done Right,
2nd Ed by Sheldon Axler
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 22:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:
Newsgroups: alt.home.repair
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: INSTRUCTOR'S SOLUTIONS MANUAL PDF: Linear Algebra Done Right,
2nd Ed by Sheldon Axler
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 22:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:
Newsgroups: alt.home.repair

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 02:33:40 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 8:38:04 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 21:28:48 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Ashton Crusher:
Interesting points. My driving experience is that things are no
different on the road now then they ever were in the past as far as
the general competency and driving behavior of other drivers.

I probably ride a bike more than 99% of the general population - and
have been for sixty+ years.

I see obvious changes in driving behavior over the years.

The most obvious: people drive faster, signal less, run more red lights,
and more people are obviously doing other things besides driving -
mostly things that were not technologically available years past.

The red light thing has developed in the past few years since our area
went over to ludicrously-long red lights plus red-in-all-directions for
a seemingly very long time plus un-timed lights.

Most people running red lights used to be trying to slip through a stale
yellow light. Now I seem them coming in at speed and not even slowing
down.

I can't say you are wrong, we may be seeing the same thing
differently. But I will say that every generation complains about
"kids today... yada yada yada" and believes the youth are going to
hell in a hand basket. And they have been saying that since Socrates
day.

"The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise." - Socrates

I view how most people talk about "other drivers" the same way. No
matter who you talk to it's always the same, drivers are getting
worse, politicians are getting worse, everything is getting worse. It
seems that such a "it's getting worse" view is hard wired into most
people as they age.

Kids have it too easy. If The Internet had been around when I was a kid, I'd be ruler of the world by now. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Despot Monster


As I told my kids, when I was there age I walked to and from school
and it was uphill both ways. I carried a hot potato in my pants to
keep warm and then ate it for lunch. I had to set fire to toothpicks
to make charcoal to use as a pencil.

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 02:28:34 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 6:21:28 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
It's been less than a week and we're almost up to 500 messages. Should
I start a "left foot braking thread"???





On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume" something
that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is true, then something else
"should" be happening. But it's not.

Hence, the paradox.

Same thing with the cellphone (distracted-driving) paradox.

Where are all the accidents?

They don't seem to exist.
At least not in the United States.
Not by the federal government's own accident figures.

1. Current Census, Transportation: Motor Vehicle Accidents and Fatalities
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...atalities.html

2. Motor Vehicle Accidents--Number and Deaths: 1990 to 2009
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s1103.pdf

3. Motor Vehicle Crash Deaths in Metropolitan Areas -- United States, 2009
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6128a2.htm

If you have more complete government tables for "accidents" (not deaths,
but "ACCIDENTS"), please post them since the accidents don't seem to exist
but, if cellphone distracted driving is hazardous (which I would think it
is), then they must be there, somewhere, hidden in the data.

Such is the cellphone paradox.

In Google Groups, this thread is hidden and flagged for abuse like it was one of Burka Boy's posts. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Post Monster


Should we be proud or embarrassed?

On 8/23/2015 6:47 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

I think it's a waste of time to try and explore the "if when my
parents had me that law had been such and such" hypothetical's. Your
parents either did what they did because it was what they wanted or
because of whatever the law was at the time they were trying to either
take advantage of it or get around it. Just like the illegal's are
doing now, i.e. some are on the up and up and some are scum bags
dropping anchor babies. Regardless of what used to be and how it did
or didn't affect your past we ought to get rid of Birthright
Citizenship. It simply no longer makes sense and ENCOURGAGES aliens
to come here illegally. Can you give a single reason why THIS country
and/or YOU are better off because we allow Birthright citizenship?

How, specifically, do you intend to implement your "system"? Require
pregnant women to provide proof of citizenship before going into
labor? After all, you want to know that the child is a citizen
from the moment it takes its first breath of air -- as it's rights
and privileges extend from that. Don't want to wait for the
mother to show up with proof two weeks later as the child would
be in legal limbo for that period!

And, if the mother died in childbirth, then what?

Maybe we should require folks to provide proof of citizenship
before *conceiving*? Just in case.

[Hmmm... weren't you (elsewhere) lamenting the "police state"?]

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 16:58:29 -0500, "Dean Hoffman"
wrote:

I got to ride a Norton once, long ago. I think there was some
odd critter with an actual hand gear shift.

Harley with a side car transmission?

On 08/23/2015 02:58 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 14:53:16 -0500, The Real Bev
wrote:

On 08/23/2015 12:40 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:37:38 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 8/22/2015 7:19 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
It's been less than a week and we're almost up to 500 messages.
Should I start a "left foot braking thread"???

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume"
something that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is
true, then something else "should" be happening. But it's not.

Hence, the paradox.

Such is the cellphone paradox.

Does braking with the left foot increase the risk of accidents?

Three on the tree? Four on the floor? One down, four up?

European or Japanese?

I got to ride a Norton once, long ago. I think there was some
odd critter with an actual hand gear shift.

And then there was the Harley suicide clutch...

For a while I rode a 1960 Ducati street bike and a 196x Honda dirtbike.
Even if I think about it now I can't decide which is the 'correct'
Japanese side to shift on, I have to find a picture. At the time, dirt
triggered one shift method and street triggered theother one. I still
can't remember which is 1 up four down or 1 down 4 up.

http://cybermotorcycle.com/gallery/d..._Monza_250.jpg
.. It's not. The tank is just like mine, although I can't verify that
all my parts were stock. I painted it orange.

And then there were the two different Japanese metric threads...


--
Cheers, Bev
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 21:02:30 -0400, wrote:



Left foot braking is generally hard on brakes,
One car I drove for a few months pretty well REQUIRED left foot
braking, or the car would stall at intersections. Replacing the
dash-pot solved that problem.


Was that my old Pontiac? Same deal. I love modern fuel injection.

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 21:25:18 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 16:58:29 -0500, "Dean Hoffman"
wrote:

I got to ride a Norton once, long ago. I think there was some
odd critter with an actual hand gear shift.

Harley with a side car transmission?

I think a Cushman scooter is what I had in mind.
The neighbor had one if my memory is working.
http://tinyurl.com/pyd4md3
ATVs are common in rural Nebraska now. Farmers, crop
scouts, and others use them. Pickups pulling trailers
with ATVs on them seem to be everywhere in the summer. There was an
article a few years ago about a rancher in the Sandhills
using one to herd cattle. They don't eat if they're not
being used.


--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 06:10:48 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 21:02:30 -0400, wrote:



Left foot braking is generally hard on brakes,
One car I drove for a few months pretty well REQUIRED left foot
braking, or the car would stall at intersections. Replacing the
dash-pot solved that problem.


Was that my old Pontiac? Same deal. I love modern fuel injection.
It was a virtually new 1968 Rebel station Wagon

On 8/23/2015 8:51 AM, devnull wrote:
On 08/23/2015 01:37 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:


Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?


Not if you are wearing brake shoes.

That's a pad joke.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 8/23/2015 8:48 PM, Neill Massello wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:

Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?

In a panic situation, do left-foot brakers tend to mash down both pedals
(brake and throttle) at the same time?


Not me. I learned on a clutch car.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

Per Ashton Crusher:
- Biometric identification and, hopefully, a decent national
internet infrastructure (maybe comparable to Korea's) will
effectively function as a universal ID card. i.e. any person
anywhere can be looked up and identified based on (facial
features? thumb print? retinal pattern?) by anybody
connected to a central database.... so being here illegally
will soon become impractical for all except those with the
means to bribe their way into a bogus database file.


Ah, the next step on the road to the police state.

I would agree - and I think the ALCU would too.

But my take is it's coming, like it or not.
--
Pete Cresswell

Stormin Mormon explained on 8/24/2015 :
On 8/23/2015 8:51 AM, devnull wrote:
On 08/23/2015 01:37 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:


Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?


Not if you are wearing brake shoes.

That's a pad joke.

It was probably asbestos he could do on such short notice.

--
....
For long you live and high you fly
But only if you ride the tide
And balanced on the biggest wave
You race towards an early grave.

On 8/24/2015 10:05 AM, FromTheRafters wrote:
Stormin Mormon explained on 8/24/2015 :
On 8/23/2015 8:51 AM, devnull wrote:
On 08/23/2015 01:37 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:


Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?


Not if you are wearing brake shoes.

That's a pad joke.

It was probably asbestos he could do on such short notice.


He was probably delaminating, you know. That's
where you get rid of your layers, one at a time
like a defendant in a trial that's not going well.

Are they still alung puns on Whosenet?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 08/23/2015 6:10 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:13:20 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Stormin Mormon:
Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?

From what little I have read, there is disagreement on the answer.

The traditional answer is that left-foot braking is, somehow, less safe.

I can't remember the term-of-art for it, but there is a recognized cause
of accidents that consists of the driver stepping on the accelerator
when they were trying to step on the brake.


A driver that ALWAYS uses the right foot to Brake and Accelerate is
the one most likely to use that right foot on the wrong pedal. Someone
who is skilled at left foot braking is far less likely to try to push
the accelerator with the right foot with the intention of braking.
I'm sure there are always exceptions.

And the left foot break idiot(s) who rests his/her foot on the brake
pedal and thus drives around all day with their brake lights on? Not to
mention wearing out the brake pads or (even worse) overheating the
brakes so they fail at an inopportune time...

I see that a lot, so I vote no to left foot braking. Unless you can't
use your right foot, but we are talking about folks without any sort of
handicap (cast, missing foot, etc.).

John :-#)#


A few months ago there was an article in the New Yorker about vehicle
defect investigation and vehicle recalls from an engineering perspective
in which it was mentioned that some people think that left-foot braking
may actually be safer because it reduces the chances of a "wrong pedal"
error to nearly zero.


--
(Please post followups or tech inquiries to the USENET newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
(604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

On 08/23/2015 5:31 PM, J Burns wrote:
On 8/23/15 8:37 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 8/22/2015 7:19 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
It's been less than a week and we're almost up to 500 messages. Should
I start a "left foot braking thread"???





On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume"
something
that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is true, then something
else
"should" be happening. But it's not.

Hence, the paradox.


Such is the cellphone paradox.

Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?

It greatly reduces the risk of brake failure. I can't use that method
with my car because they're no hole in the floor.

Hi Fred! (Flintstone)...

John ;-#)#

--
(Please post followups or tech inquiries to the USENET newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
(604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

On 8/24/2015 10:22 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:

There's a lot of difference in a guest worker and an illegal alien.

Guest worker can't give birth to a US citizen (while here LEGALLY)?
Guest worker can't avail itself of (unpaid) emergency medical services?
Guest worker can't drive a motor vehicle?
Guest worker can't get into an accident w/o insurance?
Guest worker can't rob a store?

etc.

In all practical terms, "guest worker" presents the same set of
"problems" that illegal aliens do. But, they've been "blessed"
by a system that winks when someone CLAIMS they can't find US
citizens to do the work.

If that is REALLY REALLY true, you wouldn't mind putting up a BOND
for each guest worker that you employ? That bond would cover any
expenses/damages that the worker incurs while in this country
"legally".

E.g., if they need hospitalization, the BOND will pay for those expenses
if (when) the guest worker skips out.

If they get in a car wreck, the BOND will cover the lawsuit filed
against the guest worker (even in absentia).

If they commit a crime and end up incarcerated, the BOND will
pay the costs of housing them in that detention facility.

etc. After all, the reason they are here is because you COULD NOT get
US citizens to do the work for you. So, without them, you'd be OUT OF
BUSINESS! Surely, you'd not hesitate to ensure the taxpayer doesn't
end up footing the bill for ancillary costs associated with your guest
worker's presence, here?

Of course, knowing that all he has to do (when he gets in a car wreck)
is just shrug and turn over the "BOND identification" to the
injured driver, you can *bet* there will be a fair number of claims
on those bonds!

Then, employers who make bad choices in the particular workers to whom
they give "guest" status will see their bonding costs increase! Those
employers that exercise more care in their choices, won't!

I.e., THE MARKET sorts out the mess and penalizes those who should be
(not the taxpayers!)

Guest
workers have permission to be in the country for a limited period of time
such as for harvesting crops. It worked well in the past before the feds
dropped the ball on immigration. Park rangers will tell you,"Don't feed the
bears." Illegal aliens will self deport if there's no way for them to make
money. If the government will really go after employers who hire illegals,
making the risk of being caught serious enough, those businesses will stop
doing it. Have you ever wondered why the federal government will go after a
citizen rather than an illegal alien? It's because it's easier to find a
FRACKING CITIZEN! Lock up the food so the bears can't get to it and they'll
go away. o_O

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:50:22 -0700, John Robertson
wrote:

Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?

It greatly reduces the risk of brake failure. I can't use that method
with my car because they're no hole in the floor.

Hi Fred! (Flintstone)...

Didn't Fred back pedal to slow down?

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:48:51 -0700, John Robertson
wrote:

On 08/23/2015 6:10 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:13:20 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Stormin Mormon:
Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?

From what little I have read, there is disagreement on the answer.

The traditional answer is that left-foot braking is, somehow, less safe.

I can't remember the term-of-art for it, but there is a recognized cause
of accidents that consists of the driver stepping on the accelerator
when they were trying to step on the brake.


A driver that ALWAYS uses the right foot to Brake and Accelerate is
the one most likely to use that right foot on the wrong pedal. Someone
who is skilled at left foot braking is far less likely to try to push
the accelerator with the right foot with the intention of braking.
I'm sure there are always exceptions.

And the left foot break idiot(s) who rests his/her foot on the brake
pedal and thus drives around all day with their brake lights on? Not to
mention wearing out the brake pads or (even worse) overheating the
brakes so they fail at an inopportune time...

I've seen it maybe twice in 40 years. It's an imaginary problem. And
for all you know they were using their right foot and had it on both
the gas and brake at the same time... unless you have X-ray vision of
course and could actually see their feet. Or perhaps their brake
light switch was broken making the brake lights come on and off
without any one pushing on the pedal. Someone who rode their brakes
like that "all day" would be emitting smoke.


I see that a lot, so I vote no to left foot braking. Unless you can't
use your right foot, but we are talking about folks without any sort of
handicap (cast, missing foot, etc.).


No one has suggested that people should left foot brake if they don't
have the skills necessary. Some people just aren't trainable or don't
have the ability, or are too easily confused for anything above bare
minimum.


John :-#)#


A few months ago there was an article in the New Yorker about vehicle
defect investigation and vehicle recalls from an engineering perspective
in which it was mentioned that some people think that left-foot braking
may actually be safer because it reduces the chances of a "wrong pedal"
error to nearly zero.

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:48:37 -0600, (Neill
Massello) wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?

In a panic situation, do left-foot brakers tend to mash down both pedals
(brake and throttle) at the same time?

Seems unlikely. Do pilots mash the bottom part of the Rudder pedal
which also controls the front steerable wheel instead of the top part
of the pedals that controls the brakes when they want to stop on the
ground?

In my experience as a driver and pilot those things just don't happen.
Even if it did, there's no reason it would be any more likely than
right foot brakers mashing the accelerator instead of the brake in a
panic situation. Since with LFB each foot has a defined task instead
of the right foot sharing two tasks there is reason to think it would
be less likely.

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 20:16:39 -0500, "Dean Hoffman"
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 07:37:38 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:



Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?


Didn't Toyota make some claims about that? There was a recall for
driver side carpets if I remember correctly.

That was for unintended acceleration, not foot confusion.

On 08/24/2015 04:08 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
Seems unlikely. Do pilots mash the bottom part of the Rudder pedal
which also controls the front steerable wheel instead of the top part
of the pedals that controls the brakes when they want to stop on the
ground?

I flew an old Lark and got in the habit of pumping the brakes up on
final. Just another thing to add to the checklist...

Ashton Crusher wrote:

I've seen it maybe twice in 40 years. It's an imaginary problem. And
for all you know they were using their right foot and had it on both
the gas and brake at the same time... unless you have X-ray vision of
course and could actually see their feet. Or perhaps their brake
light switch was broken making the brake lights come on and off
without any one pushing on the pedal. Someone who rode their brakes
like that "all day" would be emitting smoke.

What if you are mutant with three feet? Then you could operate the brake,
clutch, and accelerator independently. It would make waltzing easier too.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article , says...

What if you are mutant with three feet? Then you could operate the
brake,
clutch, and accelerator independently. It would make waltzing easier too.
--scott

As in ### "I'm Jake the Peg, deedle, eedle, eedle, um" ###
(http://www.songlyrics.com/rolf-harri...he-peg-lyrics/)

Mike.

Per Robert Green:

I could even bring myself to vote for Trump. He's light years smarter than
Palin and has recovered from four bankruptcies so he's got some sort of
financial talents. I also believe if he gets in, he'll actually govern far
more sanely than his rhetoric would imply. Electing Trump, especially as an
independent, would definitely send a message to both parties that the voters
are tired of the same old "pay to play" politics.

I heard one of the stand-up comics riff on that possibility. Mainly he
went back to the ludicrousness (at the time) of the idea of a movie
actor becoming president.

But I think Trump has excess baggage compared to Reagan - or just about
anybody else, for that matter.

In the Atlantic City area I think there are enough former small
contractors who were ruined when they did jobs for Trump and then Trump
simply told them flat-out "I'm not going to pay you, period...." that
trotting them out on national TV would, IMHO, make whatever electablity
he may have plummet.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 1:23:04 PM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
On 8/24/2015 10:22 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:

There's a lot of difference in a guest worker and an illegal alien.

Guest worker can't give birth to a US citizen (while here LEGALLY)?
Guest worker can't avail itself of (unpaid) emergency medical services?
Guest worker can't drive a motor vehicle?
Guest worker can't get into an accident w/o insurance?
Guest worker can't rob a store?

etc.

================================================== ============================

You edited my post to leave the most important points at the bottom. I have a feeling that Congress is going to be forced to pass legislation specifically outlawing "Anchor Babies" even though "birthright citizenship" is being given to babies born to illegal invaders. I've been hearing all kinds of arguments about the legality of birthright citizenship because it is under the jurisdiction of government based on the Citizenship Clause. Tell the criminals who are criminals because they violated the law by entering the country without the permission of the government to STFU, go home and take your spawn with you. I'd like to see the whole thing settled by Congress to get rid of any ambiguity. In the past, guest workers were brought into the country to help harvest crops, make their money then go back home. The problems came about because the government FAILED TO ENFORCE EXISTING LAWS. Enforce the fraking law and get those criminal invaders out of my country. I wonder what would happen if there was a bounty put on the heads of illegal aliens? Have those FEMA camps turned into concentration camps for illegal aliens where any real citizen of any of The United States can turn in a captured illegal invader and receive payment for each one. I'll bet legal immigrants from South of the border would capture illegals to collect the bounty and fill up those camps in no time at all. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Mean Monster

================================================== =============================


In all practical terms, "guest worker" presents the same set of
"problems" that illegal aliens do. But, they've been "blessed"
by a system that winks when someone CLAIMS they can't find US
citizens to do the work.

If that is REALLY REALLY true, you wouldn't mind putting up a BOND
for each guest worker that you employ? That bond would cover any
expenses/damages that the worker incurs while in this country
"legally".

E.g., if they need hospitalization, the BOND will pay for those expenses
if (when) the guest worker skips out.

If they get in a car wreck, the BOND will cover the lawsuit filed
against the guest worker (even in absentia).

If they commit a crime and end up incarcerated, the BOND will
pay the costs of housing them in that detention facility.

etc. After all, the reason they are here is because you COULD NOT get
US citizens to do the work for you. So, without them, you'd be OUT OF
BUSINESS! Surely, you'd not hesitate to ensure the taxpayer doesn't
end up footing the bill for ancillary costs associated with your guest
worker's presence, here?

Of course, knowing that all he has to do (when he gets in a car wreck)
is just shrug and turn over the "BOND identification" to the
injured driver, you can *bet* there will be a fair number of claims
on those bonds!

Then, employers who make bad choices in the particular workers to whom
they give "guest" status will see their bonding costs increase! Those
employers that exercise more care in their choices, won't!

I.e., THE MARKET sorts out the mess and penalizes those who should be
(not the taxpayers!)

Guest
workers have permission to be in the country for a limited period of time
such as for harvesting crops. It worked well in the past before the feds
dropped the ball on immigration. Park rangers will tell you,"Don't feed the
bears." Illegal aliens will self deport if there's no way for them to make
money. If the government will really go after employers who hire illegals,
making the risk of being caught serious enough, those businesses will stop
doing it. Have you ever wondered why the federal government will go after a
citizen rather than an illegal alien? It's because it's easier to find a
FRACKING CITIZEN! Lock up the food so the bears can't get to it and they'll
go away. o_O

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...

Per Robert Green:

I could even bring myself to vote for Trump. He's light years smarter than
Palin and has recovered from four bankruptcies so he's got some sort of
financial talents. I also believe if he gets in, he'll actually govern far
more sanely than his rhetoric would imply. Electing Trump, especially as
an
independent, would definitely send a message to both parties that the
voters
are tired of the same old "pay to play" politics.

I heard one of the stand-up comics riff on that possibility. Mainly he
went back to the ludicrousness (at the time) of the idea of a movie
actor becoming president.

But I think Trump has excess baggage compared to Reagan - or just about
anybody else, for that matter.

In the Atlantic City area I think there are enough former small
contractors who were ruined when they did jobs for Trump and then Trump
simply told them flat-out "I'm not going to pay you, period...." that
trotting them out on national TV would, IMHO, make whatever electablity
he may have plummet.
--
Pete Cresswell

Trump isn't afraid of calling a spade a spade, thats what I like about him.

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 5:10:01 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:48:37 -0600, (Neill
Massello) wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

Does braking with the left foot increase the
risk of accidents?

In a panic situation, do left-foot brakers tend to mash down both pedals
(brake and throttle) at the same time?

Seems unlikely. Do pilots mash the bottom part of the Rudder pedal
which also controls the front steerable wheel instead of the top part
of the pedals that controls the brakes when they want to stop on the
ground?

In my experience as a driver and pilot those things just don't happen.
Even if it did, there's no reason it would be any more likely than
right foot brakers mashing the accelerator instead of the brake in a
panic situation. Since with LFB each foot has a defined task instead
of the right foot sharing two tasks there is reason to think it would
be less likely.

I remember a story about a tired airline pilot who rear ended a car on the freeway. He told the cops that when he came up behind the other car, he had pulled back on the steering wheel so he could fly over the car in front of him. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Flying Monster

On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 8:30:23 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Ashton Crusher wrote:

I've seen it maybe twice in 40 years. It's an imaginary problem. And
for all you know they were using their right foot and had it on both
the gas and brake at the same time... unless you have X-ray vision of
course and could actually see their feet. Or perhaps their brake
light switch was broken making the brake lights come on and off
without any one pushing on the pedal. Someone who rode their brakes
like that "all day" would be emitting smoke.

What if you are mutant with three feet? Then you could operate the brake,
clutch, and accelerator independently. It would make waltzing easier too.
--scott
--


When he walks nude on the beach, he leaves footprints and a groove in the sand. That's why he can operate all three peddles at the same time in a manual shift vehicle. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Pecker Monster

On 8/25/2015 12:34 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Robert Green:



I heard one of the stand-up comics riff on that possibility. Mainly he
went back to the ludicrousness (at the time) of the idea of a movie
actor becoming president.

But I think Trump has excess baggage compared to Reagan - or just about
anybody else, for that matter.


But did he inhale?
Many people know Trump has lots of baggage, but they seem to be willing
to ignore it, at least so far. His loyalist won't care, they have to
scare some of the other voters.

On 8/25/2015 9:34 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Robert Green:

I could even bring myself to vote for Trump. He's light years smarter than
Palin and has recovered from four bankruptcies so he's got some sort of
financial talents. I also believe if he gets in, he'll actually govern far
more sanely than his rhetoric would imply. Electing Trump, especially as an
independent, would definitely send a message to both parties that the voters
are tired of the same old "pay to play" politics.

I heard one of the stand-up comics riff on that possibility. Mainly he
went back to the ludicrousness (at the time) of the idea of a movie
actor becoming president.

But I think Trump has excess baggage compared to Reagan - or just about
anybody else, for that matter.

In the Atlantic City area I think there are enough former small
contractors who were ruined when they did jobs for Trump and then Trump
simply told them flat-out "I'm not going to pay you, period...." that
trotting them out on national TV would, IMHO, make whatever electablity
he may have plummet.

Sooner or later, the adults will step in and direct attention towards
issues that will effectively cut his legs out from under him. His
problem is: he has too big a mouth so has said too much that is
now a matter of public record. Any *thinking* voter will eventually get
nervous: well, he's saying what I want to hear, NOW, but he's said
other things as recently as...; what's to stop him from flip-flopping
yet again (and leaving me STUCK with exactly the thing I want LEAST?)

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:37:14 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 8/25/2015 12:34 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Robert Green:



I heard one of the stand-up comics riff on that possibility. Mainly he
went back to the ludicrousness (at the time) of the idea of a movie
actor becoming president.

But I think Trump has excess baggage compared to Reagan - or just about
anybody else, for that matter.


But did he inhale?
Many people know Trump has lots of baggage, but they seem to be willing
to ignore it, at least so far. His loyalist won't care, they have to
scare some of the other voters.

Those people are being called the "Trump Mafia".

On 08/26/2015 03:50 PM, M.A. Stewart wrote:
If 'Brockie' was driving FAST at Bathurst, in a front wheel
drive car, with a manual transmission... he would have been
'left foot braking' at times! 100% guaranteed!

Only if he never mastered heel-and-toe...

Ed Pawlowski posted for all of us...


Many people know Trump has lots of baggage, but they seem to be willing
to ignore it, at least so far. His loyalist won't care, they have to
scare some of the other voters


What about the Billary supporters?

--
Tekkie

Don Y posted for all of us...

Snipped and in-line responses.

Until you can put in place a BINDING PLEDGE that can be applied to
politicians, what they say has absolutely nothing to do with
what you *get*!

"I, _________, pledge that I will do the following. In the event
that I fail to get this done (regardless of whether its MY fault
or someone else's fault), my term of office will immediately
expire -- with no further action on my part!"

Is Trump arrogant enough to make such a binding statement? About
*anything* he's claimed he'd "do"? Or, will he get mealy mouthed
when/if he gets elected and blame it on "That Damn Congress",
"Those Bozos in the Black Robes", "unforeseen events elsewhere
in the world", etc.?

None of the candidates could do this. How could one tell what another one is
going to do? To many factions working against each other.

We have a local politician that made the (then new) "garbage fee" the
centerpiece of her campaign. "Vote for me and I'll repeal the
garbage fee!"

Lo and behold, she's elected. And, not surprisingly, comes to the
"realization" that the fee is required to get the books to balance
(otherwise, we'll have to raise some OTHER tax). But, her flip-flop
isn't *her* fault -- despite the fact that it is exactly the opposite
outcome than the one she campaigned on!

[No consequences]

She obviously didn't know what she was getting into.

How about *real* term limits? In order to serve in the federal
government, you need a WORK VISA for Washington, DC. (even
"staffers", K street lobbyists, etc.)

WORK VISAS are issued for a maximum, nonrenewable period of 8 years.
I.e., after sucking on the public teat for 8 years (directly or
indirectly), you need to go find REAL employment.

Or, better yet, immediately are enlisted in the military as
an infantryman -- regardless of age or gender. :


There are term limits. Every election. Most sheeple don't care after they
elect someone. They don't pay attention any more. Only if the critters get
caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Ask most voters about incumbents
and the answer will most likely be: They are doing a good job.

If you are referring to federal workers then this is way out of bounds.
People (I will use Oren here as an example w/o permission) just do their
jobs within the limitations of the system. It is like working privately; you
will have workers and bosses across the spectrum of capability. Deal with
it. They just want a job to survive and have a respectable life with their
families.

If you are referring to staffers then they go in & out with electees.

If you are referring to drones and lobbyists then who is in control? My
frame of reference is the VA for this. Yet another story this morning about
vets being ignored, I forget where. I had high hopes for this person whom
was supposed to fix it. He is another appointee of this do nothing
administration to plug the publicly hole and hasn't done crap for vets. What
exactly happened to improve conditions for our vets? Name them. When I see
the non-profits dissolve because they are no longer needed then maybe we
will see progress. Christ, there are so many of these that it is hard for me
to chose where to leave my legacy. The vets gave it all so I can rant about
this!

I want politicians to be responsible to the local voters that elected them.
Not some devious party agenda. I check their voting record and write to them
to express my opinions asking where they are going with current issues.
--
Tekkie

On 8/27/2015 12:48 PM, Tekkie® wrote:
Don Y posted for all of us...

Until you can put in place a BINDING PLEDGE that can be applied to
politicians, what they say has absolutely nothing to do with
what you *get*!

"I, _________, pledge that I will do the following. In the event
that I fail to get this done (regardless of whether its MY fault
or someone else's fault), my term of office will immediately
expire -- with no further action on my part!"

Is Trump arrogant enough to make such a binding statement? About
*anything* he's claimed he'd "do"? Or, will he get mealy mouthed
when/if he gets elected and blame it on "That Damn Congress",
"Those Bozos in the Black Robes", "unforeseen events elsewhere
in the world", etc.?

None of the candidates could do this. How could one tell what another one is
going to do? To many factions working against each other.

Exactly. Yet they all (esp Trump, Perot types) beat their chests
AS IF they are really going to "get 'er done". And, folks *buy*
this BS.

*I* stand as much a chance of getting it done as *they* do! And,
I've got far less "Washington insider" (even those who claim NOT
to be "insiders" have already been tainted by serving elsewhere
*or* paying the way of those who did!). Yet, I'm not foolish
(nor arrogant!) enough to make the claim (or innuendo) that I
could get any of these things "done".

We have a local politician that made the (then new) "garbage fee" the
centerpiece of her campaign. "Vote for me and I'll repeal the
garbage fee!"

Lo and behold, she's elected. And, not surprisingly, comes to the
"realization" that the fee is required to get the books to balance
(otherwise, we'll have to raise some OTHER tax). But, her flip-flop
isn't *her* fault -- despite the fact that it is exactly the opposite
outcome than the one she campaigned on!

[No consequences]

She obviously didn't know what she was getting into.

Exactly. She found something that got an emotional response from
the voters. Rode that into office. Then, realized that The Reality
was a lot harder to deal with than the Campaign Rhetoric.
"But, I was elected so I'll server my term..." (boo hoo)

How about *real* term limits? In order to serve in the federal
government, you need a WORK VISA for Washington, DC. (even
"staffers", K street lobbyists, etc.)

WORK VISAS are issued for a maximum, nonrenewable period of 8 years.
I.e., after sucking on the public teat for 8 years (directly or
indirectly), you need to go find REAL employment.

Or, better yet, immediately are enlisted in the military as
an infantryman -- regardless of age or gender. :

There are term limits. Every election. Most sheeple don't care after they
elect someone. They don't pay attention any more. Only if the critters get
caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Ask most voters about incumbents
and the answer will most likely be: They are doing a good job.

People think *their* official is doing a good job. It's the other 532
bozos on the bus that they blame for all the problems! Yet, few folks
can even *point* to anything that their officials have "done". Or,
even tell you how many votes they *missed*!

If you are referring to federal workers then this is way out of bounds.
People (I will use Oren here as an example w/o permission) just do their
jobs within the limitations of the system. It is like working privately; you
will have workers and bosses across the spectrum of capability. Deal with
it. They just want a job to survive and have a respectable life with their
families.

If you are referring to staffers then they go in & out with electees.

If you are referring to drones and lobbyists then who is in control? My

You need a broad brush that regularly sweeps things out. *Risk* losing
some of the good with ALL of the bad!

frame of reference is the VA for this. Yet another story this morning about
vets being ignored, I forget where. I had high hopes for this person whom
was supposed to fix it. He is another appointee of this do nothing
administration to plug the publicly hole and hasn't done crap for vets. What
exactly happened to improve conditions for our vets? Name them. When I see
the non-profits dissolve because they are no longer needed then maybe we
will see progress. Christ, there are so many of these that it is hard for me
to chose where to leave my legacy. The vets gave it all so I can rant about
this!

Yet we hear the likes of McCain claiming "nothing is too good for our vets".
But, besides the rhetoric, what's being *done*? Gee, a guy with his
stature and he can't promote change??? What's he wasting his time
working on? More "party planks"??

I want politicians to be responsible to the local voters that elected them.
Not some devious party agenda. I check their voting record and write to them
to express my opinions asking where they are going with current issues.

I've not voted *for* anyone since I reached majority. Instead, I vote
*against* people. Unfortunately, I can only vote against "all but one".
Hence the idea of "None of the above" being used as "NONE of these people
can be allowed to hold this office" instead of "I don't like any of them".

(PeteCresswell) posted for all of us...



Per Don Y:
Has anyone put a verifiable *number* on this abuse practice? I keep
hearing sky-is-falling woes about "voter fraud" yet never manage to
see any *numbers* -- yet folks don't hesitate to pass laws that
make it harder for *legitimate* voters to remain on the rolls.

I cannot cite, but have heard from sources that I tend to trust that
studies *have* been done - and indicate the voter fraud is a non-issue -
useful only for justifying laws intended to cut down on voting by
certain segments of the population.

OTOH, I know somebody who is a cop in a major Eastern city and he says
that voter fraud is rampant.

"You pays your money and you takes your choice."

It is evident when more people vote in their districts than there are
residents-registered or not.

--
Tekkie