In article , Juergen Hannappel wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes: Here in America, we do not share the belief that there are any limits. That is well known and bitterly grieved over by the rest of the world which has to suffer the consequences. You know, it really ****es me off to hear western Europeans whining about America. Where the hell would you have been in the 1940s, without America's belief that there are no limits? This nation came out of the worst economy of modern times and built a massive military machine _from_scratch_ to free your sorry asses from a dictator that you weren't able to get rid of on your own(and in the case of your nation specifically, weren't *willing* to get rid of), because we knew it was the right thing to do - and because of our persistent belief that We Can. We don't ever see any limits, and instead of "bitterly griev[ing]" that you should be on your knees giving thanks for six decades of freedom that you owe *solely* to the United States. Who do you suppose it was that kept you free *after* the war ended? It sure as hell wasn't your *own* armies that kept the Soviets out. Yes, we screwed up at Yalta, and abandoned eastern Europe, to our shame. But if it hadn't been for the American military, and American nuclear weapons [I bet that'll *really* get your panties twisted in a knot, but it's true], the Iron Curtain would've been at the Atlantic Ocean instead of in the middle of the continent. And this is the thanks we get. -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:01:27 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote: On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:40:20 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote: ... Right. I've got 17 acres of it myself. Well, as I suspected, your experience "back there" :) is in the buffer or wetland programs... Right, I only have 30 acres total. So, I'm happy leaving it in the long term crop it's growing now (trees). 8000 planted, plus a few thousand volunteers (mostly ash...nice lumber,that) is enough to keep me busy between keeping the listed weeds down, and keeping the lumber shaped properly. Yes. The days of people being ignorant of crop rotation and soil quality are long gone. Some may choose not to do any of it, but they're at lesat not ignorant of it. I know none that are real production farmers that aren't both aware and serious practicioners--it is simply not possible to survive economically otherwise. All those who used to operate that way are long gone, at least around here. In my part of Wisconsin, no-till is just getting to be common in the family farm setting. So things move slow. Like I said, it's not that they're ignorant of it, they're just chosing not to use it in some cases. At 60 bucks an acre per year for CRP contracts, I can't see planting soybeans any time soon. If fuel goes waaaaaaaaaay up, then maybe. At 38-40/A, I didn't either. At 28-32/A it starts looking different. Is that what it's down to now? My contract is good for a few more years, I didn't know it was that low. We got an infestation of sericea lespedeza from the forb seed they required us to overseed into it for improved wildlife habitat. Now that has been placed on the noxious weed list and it is incredibly difficult to eradicate and at $80/gal (including the County Noxious Office kickback), Nice going to whichever idiot told you to plant it then, eh? I bet he's not real popular... it costs $20/A just for the chemical, w/o application cost. It just really chaps me that they made us plant the damn weeds in the grass in the first place (which incidentally cost us half that cost out of pocket besides), introducing the stuff in the first place, and now the entire control cost comes out of our pocket on top of which the new leases are for 20% or more less than the initial. If that occurs again, it's almost a given it will not be renewed. It may stay in grass, but it at least will be able to be hayed and grazed even if it doesn't go back into grain production. I'm almost to the point where the trees make changing my mind a non-option. I've got (thinks....) maybe 5-6 acres in native wildflowers, the university sent out a couple of people to do a site survey and plan & got us started. Looks nice, keeps the weeds out. |
Doug Miller wrote:
....[regarding his view of US participation in WWII in Europe]... ...This nation came out of the worst economy of modern times and built a massive military machine _from_scratch_ to free ... [Axis-occupied Europe] because we knew it was the right thing to do ... Well, I just finished re-reading Churchill which chillingly reminds us that actually, until France fell and Japan attacked Pearl Harbor we were content to simply watch, participating only by Lend-Lease which took FDR an inordinate amount of collusion to get passed. If it hadn't become imperative to our own survival, it's not cleat there would ever have been sufficient sentiment in the US to intervene in Europe alone until it would (probably) have been too late to prevent the fall of England. After that, while the eventual result would probably have been the same, it would have become a LOT more dicey... The recounting of the history in the first volume between the end of WWI and the beginning of WWII is quite disconcerting, actually, and none come off very good, including the US. :( |
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:01:27 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote: Dave Hinz wrote: On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:40:20 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote: ... Right. I've got 17 acres of it myself. Well, as I suspected, your experience "back there" :) is in the buffer or wetland programs... Right, I only have 30 acres total. So, I'm happy leaving it in the long term crop it's growing now (trees). 8000 planted, plus a few thousand volunteers (mostly ash...nice lumber,that) is enough to keep me busy between keeping the listed weeds down, and keeping the lumber shaped properly. 30 acres here is just almost enough to turn the combine around in... :) .... In my part of Wisconsin, no-till is just getting to be common in the family farm setting. So things move slow. Like I said, it's not that they're ignorant of it, they're just chosing not to use it in some cases. Not everyone is in full no-till here, either, of course. But there's nobody still turning enverything over w/ a oneway plow four times a year like was done in the 50s, either. Anyone farming here is using modern practices or thy're not surviving--fact of life w/ $3 wheat and $1.50 ag diesel... At 60 bucks an acre per year for CRP contracts, I can't see planting soybeans any time soon. If fuel goes waaaaaaaaaay up, then maybe. At 38-40/A, I didn't either. At 28-32/A it starts looking different. Is that what it's down to now? My contract is good for a few more years, I didn't know it was that low. Contract levels are based on conservation district and soil type, etc. Back there where it rains, :) conditions are grossly different than this dryland. But, for us, yes, that's what current are...what'll happen in 2007 is anybody's guess. We got an infestation of sericea lespedeza from the forb seed they required us to overseed into it for improved wildlife habitat. Now that has been placed on the noxious weed list and it is incredibly difficult to eradicate and at $80/gal (including the County Noxious Office kickback), Nice going to whichever idiot told you to plant it then, eh? I bet he's not real popular... Was part of the last CRP practices to "enhance recreational use"...out here, of course, that means pheasant hunting, primarily. The forbs were required practice to add to the seed availability. The lespedeza was weed seed in the forbs, not an intended consequence. That I can live with--shxx happens. What PO's me is no help in fixing a problem not of our causing. .... I'm almost to the point where the trees make changing my mind a non-option. I've got (thinks....) maybe 5-6 acres in native wildflowers, the university sent out a couple of people to do a site survey and plan & got us started. Looks nice, keeps the weeds out. Here, trees are a no-no...they're exotics. This is short grass prairie (although there was significant bluestem and other taller grasses. Coronado's journals talk of shoulder high in his wandering around.) |
(Doug Miller) writes:
In article , Juergen Hannappel wrote: (Doug Miller) writes: Here in America, we do not share the belief that there are any limits. That is well known and bitterly grieved over by the rest of the world which has to suffer the consequences. You know, it really ****es me off to hear western Europeans whining about America. Where the hell would you have been in the 1940s, without America's belief that there are no limits? This nation came out of the worst [... WWII (not the saw blade) and cold war arguments] And this is the thanks we get. You can get any thanks you want, I am really grateful that you helped end the Nazi regime and keep Stalinism at bay. Thanks. But. All those past merits are no excuse to ruin the world now, and I sincerely disbelieve that the economic and ecological policies pursued in the US are realy in the best interest of the American People in the long run. I do not want any harm to come to America (and the rest of the world), and that is why I think you cannot go on as if there were no limits to growth. Reconsider. It's for your own best. -- Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869 Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23 |
|
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message ... In my part of Wisconsin, no-till is just getting to be common in the family farm setting. So things move slow. Like I said, it's not that they're ignorant of it, they're just chosing not to use it in some cases. In northern climes there often isn't enough useful rotting time for low or no till to be effective. Depending on the next crop, it is often best to turn it under. |
On 27 Jun 2005 15:25:25 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:
Well, if it's going to be relevant when we're talking about a transportation device, yeah, it's kind of important. VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7 CITROEN C1 1398 D 83.1 HONDA Insight 995 P/ E 94.2 Would any of those pass USA'n crash tests? FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6 I sure hope so, considering the Ford dealership just sold me one. Doesn't get 70 mpg, though. I've got 41 without A/C so far, though- that's with the manual transmission and approximately 20% stop-and-go city traffic. With the A/C on, it drops to about 32 mpg. |
George wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message ... In my part of Wisconsin, no-till is just getting to be common in the family farm setting. So things move slow. Like I said, it's not that they're ignorant of it, they're just chosing not to use it in some cases. In northern climes there often isn't enough useful rotting time for low or no till to be effective. Depending on the next crop, it is often best to turn it under. Also, those areas typically do not have the moisture conservation pressure and wind erosion issues to the extent we have, both of which are addressed by low/no-till... |
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
.... But. All those past merits are no excuse to ruin the world now, and I sincerely disbelieve that the economic and ecological policies pursued in the US are realy in the best interest of the American People in the long run. I do not want any harm to come to America (and the rest of the world), and that is why I think you cannot go on as if there were no limits to growth. Well, I don't think there's any significant difference in US policy and other Western economies other than style. And certainly the Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, etc., are going to overarch anything we're doing now in the very near term. Not to even mention the past abuses in former Iron Curtain industrial areas... Reconsider. It's for your own best. I think your viewpoint is quite narrowly focussed by a political bent not closely related to reality, unfortunately. (Not to feel badly, there are many in the US w/ the same myopia and wishful thinking... :) ) What is your realistic and achievable solution to raising economic status of those on the lower rungs in both the developed countries as well as the rest of the world other than growth? Wishing for the "haves" to slide back is both unrealistic and counter-productive. |
In article , Bob Martin wrote:
in 1216854 20050629 222345 (Doug Miller) wrote: In article , Juergen Hannappel wrote: (Doug Miller) writes: Here in America, we do not share the belief that there are any limits. That is well known and bitterly grieved over by the rest of the world which has to suffer the consequences. You know, it really ****es me off to hear western Europeans whining about America. Where the hell would you have been in the 1940s, without America's belief that there are no limits? This nation came out of the worst economy of modern times and built a massive military machine _from_scratch_ to free your sorry asses from a dictator that you weren't able to get rid of on your own(and in the case of your nation specifically, weren't *willing* to get rid of), because we knew it was the right thing to do - and because of our persistent belief that We Can. We don't ever see any limits, and instead of "bitterly griev[ing]" that you should be on your knees giving thanks for six decades of freedom that you owe *solely* to the United States. Who do you suppose it was that kept you free *after* the war ended? It sure as hell wasn't your *own* armies that kept the Soviets out. Yes, we screwed up at Yalta, and abandoned eastern Europe, to our shame. But if it hadn't been for the American military, and American nuclear weapons [I bet that'll *really* get your panties twisted in a knot, but it's true], the Iron Curtain would've been at the Atlantic Ocean instead of in the middle of the continent. And this is the thanks we get. Doug, we don't need to start this "battle of the allies" yet again. To correct your somewhat skewed view of history please read the relevant discussions in soc.history.war.world-war-ii I'm not interested in revisionism. I was responding to Dr. Hannappel's somewhat skewed view of the value of American economic growth to the rest of the world. It was American economic growth that enabled the United States to defeat the Axis powers in WWII; it was American economic growth that enabled the United States to fight, and win, the Cold War - and I didn't even mention the Marshall Plan (also fueled by American economic growth). -- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com) It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again. |
In article , George
wrote: In northern climes there often isn't enough useful rotting time for low or no till to be effective. Depending on the next crop, it is often best to turn it under. Zero-till is quite common, and becoming more so, north of the 49th, actually. -- ~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~ ------------------------------------------------------ One site: http://www.balderstone.ca The other site, with ww linkshttp://www.woodenwabbits.com |
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:05:17 GMT, the opaque Tom Quackenbush
spake: Mark & Juanita wrote: snip The decision for which, I will reiterate, was rendered by the *liberal* block of the Supreme Court with the collusion of the "moderate" Sandra O'Connor (moderate in this usage being defined as a liberal without the brazos to declare themselves so). snip Can you elaborate on how O'Conner colluded with the "liberal" block in the Kelo case? Since -she- fielded the main dissention paper, it seems doubtful that he would be able to. O'Connor, Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist were the 4 Conservative(+ Mod) dissenters. The Libs pulled this one themselves and Souter is about to pay for it heavily. His land may be next. Is this justice, or what? http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html The nasty Kelo decision and opinions of the justices is he http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf I'm surprised there haven't been any shootings yet. - This product cruelly tested on defenseless furry animals - -------------------------------------------------------- http://diversify.com Web App & Database Programming |
Duane Bozarth writes:
[...] Well, I don't think there's any significant difference in US policy and other Western economies other than style. And certainly the True. Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, etc., are going to overarch anything we're doing now in the very near term. Not to even mention the past abuses in former Iron Curtain industrial areas... This is why in order to change economic workings its first necessary to undo the connection of wellbeing and economic growth in our minds. Also the american way of life is sill presented as the way to go and therefore influences all the world. [...] What is your realistic and achievable solution to raising economic status of those on the lower rungs in both the developed countries as well as the rest of the world other than growth? Wishing for the "haves" to slide back is both unrealistic and counter-productive. None. This is why I don't have children and why I also do not really engage in political action: I think it's futile, we will be assimilated. -- Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869 Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23 |
(Doug Miller) writes:
[...] I was responding to Dr. Hannappel's somewhat skewed view of the value of American economic growth to the rest of the world. It was American economic I am not so much considering American economic growth, on our small planet we should always consider all of the planet and all of the people. Of course America as leader in economics (and waste of energy) and influencing the way we think everywhere is the single most important country if something is to change. growth that enabled the United States to defeat the Axis powers in WWII; it was American economic growth that enabled the United States to fight, and win, the Cold War - and I didn't even mention the Marshall Plan (also fueled by American economic growth). True. Economic growth worked and enabled a vast array of very good things. I do not deny that. I just say that it can't go on like this forever, and the less we plan for the era after the growth the worse it will hit. -- Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869 Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23 |
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
.... True. Economic growth worked and enabled a vast array of very good things. I do not deny that. I just say that it can't go on like this forever, and the less we plan for the era after the growth the worse it will hit. But otoh, in your reply to me you pointed out specifically you have no clue of what to do nor do you intend to help in creating or drafting a solution... :( Whiners and hand-wringers the world has plenty of already... |
"Prometheus" wrote in message FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6 I sure hope so, considering the Ford dealership just sold me one. Doesn't get 70 mpg, though. I've got 41 without A/C so far, though- that's with the manual transmission and approximately 20% stop-and-go city traffic. With the A/C on, it drops to about 32 mpg. That's a big drop with AC. Both my cars have 3.8 liter engines and the difference is no more than 1 mpg. Neither gets 42 mpg and struggle to get 30 on all highway |
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:56:36 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote: Right, I only have 30 acres total. So, I'm happy leaving it in the long term crop it's growing now (trees). 30 acres here is just almost enough to turn the combine around in... :) I understand, believe me. Not many people out here have a full quarter, though. Lots of family farms, lots of custom farmers working other folks' land. In my part of Wisconsin, no-till is just getting to be common in the family farm setting. So things move slow. Like I said, it's not that they're ignorant of it, they're just chosing not to use it in some cases. Not everyone is in full no-till here, either, of course. But there's nobody still turning enverything over w/ a oneway plow four times a year like was done in the 50s, either. Anyone farming here is using modern practices or thy're not surviving--fact of life w/ $3 wheat and $1.50 ag diesel... It's very spotty, and surprising which people are doing new stuff and which aren't. Again, the custom for-hire guys seem to do the tech more so than the guy who's using his dad's stuff from the 1950's. At 38-40/A, I didn't either. At 28-32/A it starts looking different. Is that what it's down to now? My contract is good for a few more years, I didn't know it was that low. Contract levels are based on conservation district and soil type, etc. Back there where it rains, :) conditions are grossly different than this dryland. But, for us, yes, that's what current are...what'll happen in 2007 is anybody's guess. Well, I was thinking about this last night; the effort I've got in those trees, combined with the fact that I've got to keep the weeds down _anyway_, well, I think I'll renew at whatever price I can get - within reason. We got an infestation of sericea lespedeza from the forb seed they required us to overseed into it for improved wildlife habitat. Now that has been placed on the noxious weed list and it is incredibly difficult to eradicate and at $80/gal (including the County Noxious Office kickback), Nice going to whichever idiot told you to plant it then, eh? I bet he's not real popular... Was part of the last CRP practices to "enhance recreational use"...out here, of course, that means pheasant hunting, primarily. The forbs were required practice to add to the seed availability. The lespedeza was weed seed in the forbs, not an intended consequence. Ah, got it. I thought that it was the species they wanted you to plant, but I admit I didn't read it twice or anything. That I can live with--shxx happens. What PO's me is no help in fixing a problem not of our causing. Me, I'd like them to help with the purple loostrife problem. Sure, I can _buy_ the beetles to eat it, from the DNR, for LOTS of money, or I should be able to call 'em up, tell 'em 'Hey, your 180 acres behind my house has a problem, come fix it" and they should. But, they seem not to. But, God Forbid if I have some of it on my land, or I get the letter. AARGH. I'm almost to the point where the trees make changing my mind a non-option. I've got (thinks....) maybe 5-6 acres in native wildflowers, the university sent out a couple of people to do a site survey and plan & got us started. Looks nice, keeps the weeds out. Here, trees are a no-no...they're exotics. This is short grass prairie (although there was significant bluestem and other taller grasses. Coronado's journals talk of shoulder high in his wandering around.) Well, the trees I've put in are Spruce, Pine, Fir, Oak (Red & white around here), Walnut, Maple, and the Ash trees have just decided that they like it here so there's many thousands of those. A few cherry trees, but I'm not sure which variety. Looks like maybe chokecherry, I'll know in a few years. Way I look at it, the lumber-worthy trees, I trim up for straight trunks; the non-lumber trees I let be whatever shape they want so they can do the whole "turn CO2 into Oxygen" thing. At some point, the prairie will decide it's a forest, but I figure I'll let the plants work that out amongst themselves. I mow a 4' path around the wildflower areas to keep the weeds out; the wildflowers seem to be expanding about a foot per year so I move the mowed path out that much. Current project is picking rocks, and a closely coupled project of building a rock wall. Want some rocks? My hill is a glacial deposit... |
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:36:32 -0500, Prometheus wrote:
On 27 Jun 2005 15:25:25 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote: Well, if it's going to be relevant when we're talking about a transportation device, yeah, it's kind of important. VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7 CITROEN C1 1398 D 83.1 HONDA Insight 995 P/ E 94.2 Would any of those pass USA'n crash tests? FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6 I sure hope so, considering the Ford dealership just sold me one. Doesn't get 70 mpg, though. I've got 41 without A/C so far, though- that's with the manual transmission and approximately 20% stop-and-go city traffic. With the A/C on, it drops to about 32 mpg. So, why does this table show 70.6 and you see 41? Even the empirical vs. USA'n gallon size doesn't wash with the numbers. |
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"Prometheus" wrote in message FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6 I sure hope so, considering the Ford dealership just sold me one. Doesn't get 70 mpg, though. I've got 41 without A/C so far, though- that's with the manual transmission and approximately 20% stop-and-go city traffic. With the A/C on, it drops to about 32 mpg. That's a big drop with AC. Both my cars have 3.8 liter engines and the difference is no more than 1 mpg. Neither gets 42 mpg and struggle to get 30 on all highway I have no idea wha the hp of the Focus is, but the A/C load is much larger fraction in comparison... I've several GM 3.8L and a Chrysler 3.5L...they do similar, but the 3.5L is in a 300M which is geared more "peppy" so doesn't do quite as well as Mom's LeSabre for mileage, but is much more entertaining to drive... :) |
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
That's a big drop with AC. Both my cars have 3.8 liter engines and the difference is no more than 1 mpg. Neither gets 42 mpg and struggle to get 30 on all highway I believe most cars get better mileage on the highway with the AC turned on and the windows closed than with the AC off and the windows open. The added aerodynamic drag introduced by opening the windows is worse than turning the AC on. Best mileage is with the AC off and the windows up :-) |
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 07:01:32 -0400, George wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message ... In my part of Wisconsin, no-till is just getting to be common in the family farm setting. So things move slow. Like I said, it's not that they're ignorant of it, they're just chosing not to use it in some cases. In northern climes there often isn't enough useful rotting time for low or no till to be effective. Depending on the next crop, it is often best to turn it under. No-till around here usually involves round-up or similar. Same where you are? I suppose it kills the old whatever, while giving it more time to decompose while the next crop is growing. |
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:36:32 -0500, Prometheus wrote: On 27 Jun 2005 15:25:25 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote: Well, if it's going to be relevant when we're talking about a transportation device, yeah, it's kind of important. VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7 CITROEN C1 1398 D 83.1 HONDA Insight 995 P/ E 94.2 Would any of those pass USA'n crash tests? FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6 I sure hope so, considering the Ford dealership just sold me one. Doesn't get 70 mpg, though. I've got 41 without A/C so far, though- that's with the manual transmission and approximately 20% stop-and-go city traffic. With the A/C on, it drops to about 32 mpg. So, why does this table show 70.6 and you see 41? Even the empirical vs. USA'n gallon size doesn't wash with the numbers. The tests are simply that--tests. What bearing they have on actual driving results is minimal, at best. Their only value imo is to compare gross differences between themselves, but in most cases that is self-evident anyway. Miniscule differences between models, otoh, while perhaps "statistically significant" in the scope of the test, will be completely overshadowed by the difference in conditions between the test environment and actual usage. |
On 30 Jun 2005 11:05:23 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
Edwin Pawlowski wrote: That's a big drop with AC. Both my cars have 3.8 liter engines and the difference is no more than 1 mpg. Neither gets 42 mpg and struggle to get 30 on all highway I believe most cars get better mileage on the highway with the AC turned on and the windows closed than with the AC off and the windows open. The added aerodynamic drag introduced by opening the windows is worse than turning the AC on. Mythbusters just did this one, actually. Two identical vehicles, one with AC on, the other with the windows open. It was a Ford Expedition, which is hardly an example of an aerodynamic, efficient vehicle, but they found that the one with the A/C ran out of gas first, by a few percent. I don't have exact numbers, but google might. This might be vastly different with a more aerodynamic vehicle, where the aerodynamic change made by opening the windows takes it from "good" to "bad", rather than from "bad" to "more bad". Way I look at it, I'll run the A/C and be a bit more comfortable, either way. |
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message ... On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 07:01:32 -0400, George wrote: No-till around here usually involves round-up or similar. Same where you are? I suppose it kills the old whatever, while giving it more time to decompose while the next crop is growing. Kills the weeds. Rolling it under used to reduce them enough to allow the crop to sprout and defend itself. Still, it's tough to use a cultipacker with corn stubble in place. |
George wrote: "Dave Hinz" wrote in message ... On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 07:01:32 -0400, George wrote: No-till around here usually involves round-up or similar. Same where you are? I suppose it kills the old whatever, while giving it more time to decompose while the next crop is growing. Kills the weeds. Rolling it under used to reduce them enough to allow the crop to sprout and defend itself. Still, it's tough to use a cultipacker with corn stubble in place. Corn stubble. A million years ago (well, about 33) I moved to Wisconsin. Rented a farmhouse surrounded by acres of corn, which got cut along about mid-October. I rode my OSSA Six Days up and down the rows but since that part of Wisconsin has no hills, it was dull. So I rode across the rows. Yumpin' yiminey! And you do NOT want to unload in corn stubble. |
Dave Balderstone wrote:
: We ran a story a couple of weeks ago about a research pproject that was : close to producing bio-diesel from the animal parts that can no longer : be rendered due to the BSE scare and the closure of the US border to : our cattle. Thermal depolymerization. Interesting article he http://www.discover.com/may_03/gther...e=featoil.html -- Andy Barss |
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:38:06 -0500, Duane Bozarth
wrote: Juergen Hannappel wrote: ... True. Economic growth worked and enabled a vast array of very good things. I do not deny that. I just say that it can't go on like this forever, and the less we plan for the era after the growth the worse it will hit. But otoh, in your reply to me you pointed out specifically you have no clue of what to do nor do you intend to help in creating or drafting a solution... :( Whiners and hand-wringers the world has plenty of already... The views espoused by Dr. Hannappel and those of his political bent are driven by the vision of the world's economy as a zero-sum game. i.e., if one person gains, by definition, another person must lose. This is certainly true of many economic systems and those of the Eastern block countries as well as the model which many European countries seem to be following. These economic systems tend to concentrate decisions and control in the hands of a few people. This is not necessarily true in a market driven economy, when one person gains, others gain as well by the utilization of the wealth created by that person. Is the system perfect? No, that's because humans are not perfect, but it certainly has proven to be the most durable and consistent with human nature. There is simply no way in which an economy can survive at a steady-state for a sustained period of time, the economy is either going to grow, or it will become stagnant and wane. The benefit of the free market economy is that decisions (both good and bad) are spread among a broad, diverse group of people. The downfall of planned economies is that decisions are concentrated in the hands of a few (sometimes very few) people. These may be highly educated, intelligent, and maybe in a few cases, wise people, but they are still people, subject to error and mistakes. Since the decisions in such economies are concentrated in a few hands, the results of mistakes have a much larger impact upon a much greater number of people who have no power over those decisions. We were recently subjected to a seminar by a leading "expert" who was the head of a consulting company that was going to help our company build "green" products. Some of his ideas had merit. However, one of his comments really struck me. This man was very enamoured with China and how they do things, pointing to 5000 year old rice paddies and how the locals had to know exactly how to balance all their inputs and outputs to keep farming those same places for 5000 years. He then went on to mention his conversations with one of the leaders who was in charge of a large housing planning bureau. She told him she was responsible for the construction of approximately 24 million houses to house those in her charge. He marvelled at how she had such responsiblity and how she needed to be sure that the decisions she made took all factors into account. I sat there wondering why anyone would *want* an economy in which one person was responsible for the construction of 24 million houses. As far as the view that "this small planet" is desperately impacted by the actions of those within it; this seems to be hubris of a high order. Can one mess up one's local environment? Absolutely, 19'th century London is a prime example of that, as are some of our own industrial cities at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Can we "destroy the planet"? That is highly debateable; consider the amount of energy and pollution that just *one* volcanic explosion can produce compared to the output of an industrialized nation. Should we callously waste resources? Of course not, but to be miserly and live in misery with the idea that this is somehow a noble cause is equally ridiculous. When you look at the small amount of land mass that humans actually occupy, we are certainly not pushing the limits of growth at this time. There are resources both on land and sea that have not yet been utilized. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:05:17 GMT, Tom Quackenbush
wrote: Mark & Juanita wrote: snip The decision for which, I will reiterate, was rendered by the *liberal* block of the Supreme Court with the collusion of the "moderate" Sandra O'Connor (moderate in this usage being defined as a liberal without the brazos to declare themselves so). snip Can you elaborate on how O'Conner colluded with the "liberal" block in the Kelo case? My apologies, the vote for the siezure case was 5-4. In this case O'Connor actually voted in the dissent; the original story upon which I based my comment above had indicated she was one of the 5. (No, it was an AP posting shortly after the ruling, so don't go "right wing whacko media here"). That was obviously in error and has since been corrected as a Google search just indicated. My original rant was based upon that originally erroneous story and the fact that she has in the past sided with things such as upholding the reversal of first amendment rights in the campaign finance reform law decision. Given that occurence, I didn't question what I had originally read. R, Tom Q. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |
|
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:16:36 -0700, lgb wrote:
Hmmm. Fish stocks are being depleted, if not eliminated, by overfishing. In places. Land, as well as sea, animals and plants are going extinct due to habitat loss, pollution, and overhunting, Just as they've been doing for millions of years, and the very atmosphere is changing due to pollution. CO2 is going up, O is going down. Cite, please? The reduction in the ozone layer is increasing skin cancer rates, And, let's see. That's related to pollution how, exactly? and nobody's quite sure what's happening to the amphibians. Well then I'm not quite sure if I should be concerned. Seems to me the hubris, or maybe just plain ignorance, is on your side of the fence. "None are so blind as those who will not see." Seeing something doesn't mean that (a) it's real, (b) it's caused by what you think it's caused by, or (c) it's anything new or unique. Correlation is not the same thing as causation. You've seen the statistics regarding water drinking habits and mass murderers, haven't you? |
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:58:03 +0200, Juergen Hannappel
wrote: None. This is why I don't have children and why I also do not really engage in political action: I think it's futile, we will be assimilated. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. |
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:58:03 +0200, Juergen Hannappel
wrote: What is your realistic and achievable solution to raising economic status of those on the lower rungs in both the developed countries as well as the rest of the world other than growth? Wishing for the "haves" to slide back is both unrealistic and counter-productive. None. This is why I don't have children and why I also do not really engage in political action: I think it's futile, we will be assimilated. I hit send a little too fast, there. Just wanted to throw in that I'm not in agreement with you and trying to spur you on with that quote, just pointing out that if you've got a belief, it's senseless to sit on your hands and mope about it. We've got our way of doing things in the US, and Germany has it's own as well- what's good for the goose may not be good for the gander. No reason to assume that you must let power brokers "assimilate" you. |
In article ,
says... As far as the view that "this small planet" is desperately impacted by the actions of those within it; this seems to be hubris of a high order. Can one mess up one's local environment? Absolutely, 19'th century London is a prime example of that, as are some of our own industrial cities at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Can we "destroy the planet"? That is highly debateable; consider the amount of energy and pollution that just *one* volcanic explosion can produce compared to the output of an industrialized nation. Ah, a Rush Limbagh fan. Can we destroy the planet? Probably not- but I've no doubt that we can make it a rather unpleasant place to live. I used to buy the line about global warming being junk science, but it's a little late in the game to keep pretending it isn't there- go watch the weather channel for a bit- the climate has changed quite a bit already. There are very few places on the Earth that aren't directly altered by human beings, and while one person using an aerosol can isn't going to a darn thing to the ecology, 6 billion of us doing it sure can. While we may not destroy the planet, or render it absolutely sterile, it's certainly possible that we can make it a worse place to live. That's reason enough to think about using resources sensibly. It may not take that much dramatic change on the part of every person to make a huge difference to the whole. We're still going to need oil, we're still going to have to cut down trees- it's not like we should all go back to living in caves and riding on horseback or any of that nonsense, but there is certainly room for admitting that something is happening and working towards a reasonable solution. |
"Prometheus" wrote in message
We're still going to need oil, we're still going to have to cut down trees- it's not like we should all go back to living in caves and riding on horseback or any of that nonsense, but there is certainly room for admitting that something is happening and working towards a reasonable solution. I agree with everything you've said except it's going to be a real problem changing the global consciousness. There's far too many people with the selfish attitude that they're not going to be here when the world turns into an unsalvageable garbage dump so why should they care? Then you have the people at the top of the economic food chain who are not going to relinquish their wealth without a great deal of kicking and screaming. At the same time, you've got the have-not population of the planet (and there's an overwhelming lot of them) who are aspiring to the lifestyle of the haves. If the have-nots ever come to approach even partially the economic status of the haves, the current destruction rate of the planet will increase exponentially. And lastly, there's the large segment of our population who believe science will find a way out. Me, I believe friendly aliens will visit earth and freely offer their advanced science to fix all our woes. |
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:01:41 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote: "Prometheus" wrote in message FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6 I sure hope so, considering the Ford dealership just sold me one. Doesn't get 70 mpg, though. I've got 41 without A/C so far, though- that's with the manual transmission and approximately 20% stop-and-go city traffic. With the A/C on, it drops to about 32 mpg. That's a big drop with AC. Both my cars have 3.8 liter engines and the difference is no more than 1 mpg. Neither gets 42 mpg and struggle to get 30 on all highway I thought so too, but what the heck. I'm just happy with the 42 mpg, and figure I can deal with the window most of the time to make that happen! |
On 30 Jun 2005 15:04:28 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:36:32 -0500, Prometheus wrote: On 27 Jun 2005 15:25:25 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote: Well, if it's going to be relevant when we're talking about a transportation device, yeah, it's kind of important. VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7 VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7 CITROEN C1 1398 D 83.1 HONDA Insight 995 P/ E 94.2 Would any of those pass USA'n crash tests? FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6 I sure hope so, considering the Ford dealership just sold me one. Doesn't get 70 mpg, though. I've got 41 without A/C so far, though- that's with the manual transmission and approximately 20% stop-and-go city traffic. With the A/C on, it drops to about 32 mpg. So, why does this table show 70.6 and you see 41? Even the empirical vs. USA'n gallon size doesn't wash with the numbers. That's a good question- the mfg sticker claims 35-51 hwy mpg. I have no idea where the table came from in the first place. Could be they used some kind of test that had nothing to do with real-world conditions. |
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:04:45 -0500, Duane Bozarth
wrote: Edwin Pawlowski wrote: "Prometheus" wrote in message FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6 I sure hope so, considering the Ford dealership just sold me one. Doesn't get 70 mpg, though. I've got 41 without A/C so far, though- that's with the manual transmission and approximately 20% stop-and-go city traffic. With the A/C on, it drops to about 32 mpg. That's a big drop with AC. Both my cars have 3.8 liter engines and the difference is no more than 1 mpg. Neither gets 42 mpg and struggle to get 30 on all highway I have no idea wha the hp of the Focus is, but the A/C load is much larger fraction in comparison... HP is not extremely high (I want to say it's 180 off the top of my head, but that could be wrong), but it is pretty zippy- 0-60 in 7.2 seconds, which is enough for me. Engine is a 2.0L Mazda. I've several GM 3.8L and a Chrysler 3.5L...they do similar, but the 3.5L is in a 300M which is geared more "peppy" so doesn't do quite as well as Mom's LeSabre for mileage, but is much more entertaining to drive... :) |
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter