The future of CDMA and EV-DO now in doubt.

[email protected] wrote:
>>Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
>>Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
>>as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.
> Gasp! You mean the people trying to work out an international agreement
> to stop global heating will do as much damage as my neighbors in this town
> of 30,000? Yikes!

All they did on their little pleasure trip was to decide that they should
decide on a schedule for doing something about global warming.

I seriously doubt your neighbors in your town of 30,000 have 20,000 cars,
but I bet they can't do all that damage in two weeks like the wild-eyed
econazis did.

--
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.

---

› See More: The future of CDMA and EV-DO now in doubt.

Larry wrote:
> Global Warming is caused by solar activity....alone.

I beg to differ...you forgot to include the hot air that
some people spout off in news groups.

DTC wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>> Global Warming is caused by solar activity....alone.
>
> I beg to differ...you forgot to include the hot air that
> some people spout off in news groups.

No, that's counterbalanced by the cool reception it gets.

--
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali,
Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause
as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.

clifto wrote:
> DTC wrote:
>> Larry wrote:
>>> Global Warming is caused by solar activity....alone.
>> I beg to differ...you forgot to include the hot air that
>> some people spout off in news groups.
>
> No, that's counterbalanced by the cool reception it gets.

I stand corrected.

clifto <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> No, that's counterbalanced by the cool reception it gets.
>
>

Now that IS funny....(c; Thanks...


Larry
--
Next time some broker tells you what a great investment he's selling,
ask him about Rhodium, a shiny metal used in Catalytic Converters.
Jan 1st 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Rhodium $452 $1341 $3006 $5339 $6775 PER OUNCE!
How much longer can we pay for new cars at this rate?
Feb '97 it was $182/oz

clifto <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> I seriously doubt your neighbors in your town of 30,000 have 20,000 cars,
>

That's not true, here in the South. 30,000 rednecks would have 40,000 cars
and 52,800 pickup trucks......in various states of disrepair, of course.

"Y'ALL BOYS COME GET THIS TRANSMISSION OUTA THE BATHTUB! I WANNA TAKE A
BATH!" - Mama.

Larry
--
Jeff Foxworthy isn't really a comedian. He's more of a historian!

In article <[email protected]>,
Larry <[email protected]> wrote:

> Larry
> --
> Next time some broker tells you what a great investment he's selling,
> ask him about Rhodium, a shiny metal used in Catalytic Converters.
> Jan 1st 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
> Rhodium $452 $1341 $3006 $5339 $6775 PER OUNCE!
> How much longer can we pay for new cars at this rate?
> Feb '97 it was $182/oz

Had to remark on your sig. Here in L.A., big problem with catalytic
converter theft because of high price of Rhodium - article in LA TImes
says while many cut them off, pros can use 14mm socket wrenches and
remove one in 90 seconds. Trucks are easier targets because higher
clearance.
Theft-proofing requires spot welding CCs as deterrence.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

In article <[email protected]>,
DTC <[email protected]> wrote:

> clifto wrote:
> > DTC wrote:
> >> Larry wrote:
> >>> Global Warming is caused by solar activity....alone.
> >> I beg to differ...you forgot to include the hot air that
> >> some people spout off in news groups.
> >
> > No, that's counterbalanced by the cool reception it gets.
>
> I stand corrected.

I think the newsgroup overuse of fanboy (or fanboi) does it.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

Kurt <[email protected]> wrote in news:labolide-61C4BC.18420006012008
@news.giganews.com:

> Had to remark on your sig. Here in L.A., big problem with catalytic
> converter theft because of high price of Rhodium - article in LA TImes
> says while many cut them off, pros can use 14mm socket wrenches and
> remove one in 90 seconds. Trucks are easier targets because higher
> clearance.
> Theft-proofing requires spot welding CCs as deterrence.
>
>

I fully suspect to find the cars in the neighborhood stripped of R-134c
refridgerant, catalytic converters, and other valuable pieces, while the
carcass of the car remains in place, quite soon. They won't be stealing
the car as noone can afford to drive it at $US10/gallon or more.

My Honda Reflex scooter is kept in a locked cage. It gets nearly 80mpg if
I stop driving it like I stole it...(c; 1 cylinder transportation is quite
appropriate, much more than gas guzzling SUVs. $6 runs about 200 miles of
city driving.....unless it rains..(c;

Larry
--
As the price of Monopoly money rises, at some point it will equal
Federal Reserve Private Bank fake banknotes in value!

In article <[email protected]>,
Larry <[email protected]> wrote:

> Kurt <[email protected]> wrote in news:labolide-61C4BC.18420006012008
> @news.giganews.com:
>
> > Had to remark on your sig. Here in L.A., big problem with catalytic
> > converter theft because of high price of Rhodium - article in LA TImes
> > says while many cut them off, pros can use 14mm socket wrenches and
> > remove one in 90 seconds. Trucks are easier targets because higher
> > clearance.
> > Theft-proofing requires spot welding CCs as deterrence.
> >
> >
>
> I fully suspect to find the cars in the neighborhood stripped of R-134c
> refridgerant, catalytic converters, and other valuable pieces, while the
> carcass of the car remains in place, quite soon. They won't be stealing
> the car as noone can afford to drive it at $US10/gallon or more.
>
Sad to say, but the only way US drivers will change to small efficient
vehicles is with high gas prices.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

Kurt wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Kurt <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:labolide-61C4BC.18420006012008 @news.giganews.com:
>>
>> > Had to remark on your sig. Here in L.A., big problem with catalytic
>> > converter theft because of high price of Rhodium - article in LA TImes
>> > says while many cut them off, pros can use 14mm socket wrenches and
>> > remove one in 90 seconds. Trucks are easier targets because higher
>> > clearance.
>> > Theft-proofing requires spot welding CCs as deterrence.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I fully suspect to find the cars in the neighborhood stripped of R-134c
>> refridgerant, catalytic converters, and other valuable pieces, while the
>> carcass of the car remains in place, quite soon. They won't be stealing
>> the car as noone can afford to drive it at $US10/gallon or more.
>>
> Sad to say, but the only way US drivers will change to small efficient
> vehicles is with high gas prices.
>

And the sudden suicidal desire to be squashed like a grape if one gets hit.
Econo-coffins are not the answer, alternative fuels are and no, not E85. I
prefer Methanol to Ethanol as Methanol has nearly the same calories per
cubic foot as gasoline, Ethanol doesn't so more is needed to get the same
power. Methanol is easier to make as it is only a modified methane
molecule, maybe future sewers will help produce Methanol? Take a huge dump
and fill 'er up? I see corn subsidies as a big factor in the push for E85.
Still, I'm a big fan of hydrogen but it's not the most practical and
economical. Is having a nuclear powered vehicle out of the question?


Dave

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> amazed us all with the
following in news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> David W Studeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Sad to say, but the only way US drivers will change to small
>> > efficient vehicles is with high gas prices.
>> >
>>
>> And the sudden suicidal desire to be squashed like a grape if one
>> gets hit. Econo-coffins are not the answer
>
> OK, so suppose everyone is now driving a 6000 pound vehicle.
>
> Do the math.
>
> Suddenly, no one is particularly safe. You're no safer in your 6000
> pound vehicle than I am.
>
> And if we're both driving 3000 pound vehicles, same thing. Nobody
> gets squashed like a grape, or everybody gets squashed.
>
>

Almost. Onr thing to keep in mind- the more weight, the more mass there is
to dissipate the energy of a crash. From that perspective, the heavier the
better.

David W Studeman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Kurt wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Kurt <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:labolide-61C4BC.18420006012008 @news.giganews.com:
>>>
>>> > Had to remark on your sig. Here in L.A., big problem with
>>> > catalytic converter theft because of high price of Rhodium -
>>> > article in LA TImes says while many cut them off, pros can use
>>> > 14mm socket wrenches and remove one in 90 seconds. Trucks are
>>> > easier targets because higher clearance.
>>> > Theft-proofing requires spot welding CCs as deterrence.
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> I fully suspect to find the cars in the neighborhood stripped of
>>> R-134c refridgerant, catalytic converters, and other valuable
>>> pieces, while the carcass of the car remains in place, quite soon.
>>> They won't be stealing the car as noone can afford to drive it at
>>> $US10/gallon or more.
>>>
>> Sad to say, but the only way US drivers will change to small
>> efficient vehicles is with high gas prices.
>>
>
> And the sudden suicidal desire to be squashed like a grape if one gets
> hit. Econo-coffins are not the answer, alternative fuels are and no,
> not E85. I prefer Methanol to Ethanol as Methanol has nearly the same
> calories per cubic foot as gasoline, Ethanol doesn't so more is needed
> to get the same power. Methanol is easier to make as it is only a
> modified methane molecule, maybe future sewers will help produce
> Methanol? Take a huge dump and fill 'er up? I see corn subsidies as a
> big factor in the push for E85. Still, I'm a big fan of hydrogen but
> it's not the most practical and economical. Is having a nuclear
> powered vehicle out of the question?
>
>
> Dave
>

I'm green, here. 2 diesel Mercedes cars and a diesel GM stepvan all run
on used vegetable oil from 3 Chinese restaurants. 3 of us vegoil guys
have a little group. One has a warehouse for storage and separation, I
have the van for pickup and delivery to the warehouse and the third guy
is an excellent mechanic who built and maintains the final filtering
facility. We all have Frybrid vehicles (www.frybrid.com) but that's
only my stepvan which was a total waste of money in the Southern
climate. It rarely freezes here, so heating the oil before injection is
hardly necessary. My two cars are unmodified and run on a blend of
mineral spirits (paint thinner), which is dirt cheap from commercial
places, and filtered vegoil. There is no sulphur emissions dino has.
There is no smoke, either. The blend costs me about 23c/gallon to make,
plus my time, of course.

We collect the oil from the restaurants already primary filtered. We
bought each restaurant a filter funnel they use to pour the oil back
into the plastic-lined boxes the oil comes to them in. We dispose of
not only the oil but the box for them, saving them more money. They
really appreciate me carrying off their waste that was costing them
hundreds/month to dispose of.

The oil is simply left to separate from its food particles in the
warehouse for about 60 days, not moved at all. The oldest stored boxes
are pipetted about 3" off the bottom by the pump-powered filter system
consisting of two big truck fuel filters/water separators and a gear
pump from a hydraulic system. Suction guages warn us when filters need
changing. We've never found any water in the separators as the oil was
450F and boils it off during the cooking. The cleaned oil is pumped
into 55 gallon plastic drums, ready for use. Two drums are marked for
my blending, about a quart of mineral spirits to 20 gallons of oil (in
summer) and 12 gallons of oil (in winter when it's near freezing some
mornings). These drums have a home-made agitator in them for mixing and
are agitated just before I pump them into the cars. The other guys all
have Frybrids so run pure oil, after the oil is warmed by the Frybrid
before its computer switches from fuel oil to vegoil.

Unlike alcohol, explosive gasses like propane/hydrogen/etc., even
explosive spirits like gasoline or gasohol, vegoil, even more than
diesel fuel, has no vapors and is SAFE to handle, store and burn at high
pressure in the diesel engines.

Vegoil isn't as powerful as fuel oil, but who cares as long as it's
free...(c;

The whole energy industry can kiss our collective asses.....

I guess we better get back to fighting over SELLphones....(c;

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> wrote in news:elmop-
[email protected]:

> uddenly, no one is particularly safe. You're no safer in your 6000
> pound vehicle than I am.
>
> And if we're both driving 3000 pound vehicles, same thing. Nobody gets
> squashed like a grape, or everybody gets squashed.
>
>

For just this once, Elmo and I agree. Here's a case in point....The Smart
Car Crash Test:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s

No humans would have survived this test, not because of the Smart Car, but
because their weakly-made bodies would have been torn apart from the
physics of the sudden deceleration. Their guts would have been torn out.

As to being crushed, SUV owners should have been here when Mike died. My
friend Mike drove a Ford Expedition gas guzzling monster. He thought it
protected him, too. He was involved in a T-bone crash with an EMPTY, but
heavy dump truck. The Expedition, and Mike inside it, were simply crushed
from above. The Expedition provided no more protection from this weight
than a Smart Car would. It's a really stupid illusion of safety. What
killed Mike was the government doesn't FORCE all trucks to have protective
bumpers fore and aft AS LOW AS THE BUMPERS ON THE CARS. The truck would
have shoved the Expedition out of the way, giving Mike a chance. But, with
such a high bumper, it simply drove over the top of him and the weight of
the truck smashed down on the PoS sheet metal framed Expedition. He might
have made it with a roll cage. LOW bumpers are the answer...even down the
side of all tractor trailers so you can't drive UNDER them.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <[email protected]> amazed us all with the
following in news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > OK, so suppose everyone is now driving a 6000 pound vehicle.
>> >
>> > Do the math.
>> >
>> > Suddenly, no one is particularly safe. You're no safer in your
>> > 6000 pound vehicle than I am.
>> >
>> > And if we're both driving 3000 pound vehicles, same thing. Nobody
>> > gets squashed like a grape, or everybody gets squashed.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Almost. Onr thing to keep in mind- the more weight, the more mass
>> there is to dissipate the energy of a crash. From that perspective,
>> the heavier the better.
>
> You plainly didn't pay attention in physics class.


I paid very good attention in Physics, Elmo. Don't go throwing a hissy
bacuase you're being challenged.

>
> You're correct--as far as it goes.
>
> But now we're both driving 6000 pound vehicles.

I never said that.

>
> The more mass there is coming at you, the more energy there is to
> dissipate.

Well, you are leaving many variables out of the equation, but basically
correct, in an elementary school kind of way.

>
> If we're both driving 6000 pound vehicles at each other at 30mph, it's
> the same effect as if we're both driving 2000 pound vehicles at each
> other at 30mph. Relatively speaking, that is.

Actually, if I remember my phycis correctly, it is not the 1:1
correlation you are trying to make here.

>
> The ONLY time your statement makes sense in terms of "I'm safer" is if
> I'm in the 6000 pound vehicle and it's being hit by the 3000 pound
> vehicle. The 3000 pound vehicle has less energy to transfer to my
> 6000 pound vehicle.

Only if you assume that every crash is head-on with maximum energy
transferred during the crash. That would apply to what? .001% of all
accidents? In an average crash, the smaller vehicle is able to
adequately absorb the energy, with any excess resulting in a change of
direction in momentum. I'll think you'll find a greater number of
injuries and fatalities in accidents where only one body is in motion,
and comes across stationary object.

>
> But if I'm being hit by a 6000 pound vehicle, there's much more energy
> for MY 6000 pound vehicle to absorb.
>
> If we all drove 2000 pound vehicles, we'd use less fuel and nobody
> would have any inherent safety advantage.


Why is a safety advantage a bad thing?

>
> Study up on basic 10th grade physics.
>
>

Back at you, Elmo.