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.)

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:17:50 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:

Duane Bozarth (in ) said:

| Morris Dovey wrote:
| ....
|| We can expect that as the cost of fuel rises, more and more land
|| will be given over to ethanol production - and other crops will be
|| sacrificed until a (shifting) economic balance is achieved. Soybean
|| derivatives (everything from livestock feed to plastics) will
|| become sharply more expensive.
|
|| If the pressures to maximize ethanol production are sufficiently
|| high, we face the danger of taking a giant step backward to
|| repetitively planting the same crop on the same land until the
|| soil is exhausted. Should we get to that point, there will be
|| serious breakage - and the worst of it won't be in the corn belt.
|
| I think you overestimate this scenario extensively...for one thing,
| at present there are millions of acres of formerly-producing crop
| ground in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) that could, IF
| (that's the "big if" ) it were necessary and economical, be
| brought back into production for many of these ancillary crops as
| well as corn and soybeans. As for land "exhaustion", if there is
| any segment that is concerned w/ maintaining productivity of the
| land, it is we producers--after all, that is our direct
| livelihood, not indirect.

You're right, the scenario I presented assumed no major scientific
breakthrough - and a prolonged "emergency" (as defined by folks in
DC.)

The really sad scenario would be removing control of the land from
those who have a sense of stewardship in favor of management by larger
("more efficient") organizations who aren't able to do much of
anything well except make campaign contributions.

The Supreme Court's recent decision in the Connecticut condemnation
case provides precedent for other cases that *will* affect family
farms. The only questions are how many farms, and where, and for what
purpose...


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).

"National security interests" appears to have become a buzz phrase to
justify even the most outrageous behavior. These days it even trumps
principles like "due process".


Your reference above had nothing to do with "national security
interests" in the referenced case and everything to do with tax revenue and
the ability to advance the cause of statism.

Actually, screwing farmers for the sake of "national security" is nothing
new. Ask the heirs of some of the farmers during WWII who were "relocated"
by Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Denver or some of the other military
infrastructure needs at the time.


I wish I shared your confidence and optimism.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

(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

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

"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

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

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.

Hmmm. Fish stocks are being depleted, if not eliminated, by
overfishing. Land, as well as sea, animals and plants are going extinct
due to habitat loss, pollution, and overhunting, and the very atmosphere
is changing due to pollution. CO2 is going up, O is going down. The
reduction in the ozone layer is increasing skin cancer rates, and
nobody's quite sure what's happening to the amphibians.

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."

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

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...

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.

They did an episode of that "Mythbusters" show on that very thing. At
first it seemed like they were the same, but when they took identical
vehicles on a track and tried running them until they were out of gas,
the car running AC lost by a large margin. Seemed that the drag from
the open window wasn't nearly as much of a factor. They only tested
one make, though- I would imagine the body style has a lot to do with
how much drag is really there.

Best mileage is with the AC off and the windows up :-)