HOYA SWALLOWS PENTAX !

Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:12:26 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article ,
"Frank ess" wrote:

is
infinitely more convenient than owning a car even in rural parts of
America.
Non-sequitir, for certain; all subsequent and many previous assertions
by this blindered soont are rendered suspect.
My first language was English and I'm not sure sure what your typos
translate into.

I had a car in rural Virginia and after more than enough fun with it, I
moved to Philadelphia and traded the car for a month's rent on a second
room in the house I was sharing.

Except: Yes, car people _are_ nuts.

Sweet, sweet insanity.
The funny thing about cars is the main reason we need them is to get to
work and work from about 1940 on was built in places where the land was
cheap so we had to have a car to get there.

Intelligent people are seeing that we will be using more public trans in
the future and are building thing like the Comcast Center over major in
city transportation hubs. Trump is trying to build a major casino
between two regional rail lines in Philadelphia, too.

And most of it will be built to put the workers' butt in the owner's
places of employment.
So your idea of an ideal life would be the high-rise with schools,
churches, grocery stores, warehousing, rail, and maybe a small airport on
the roof, and tiny cells for people to exist in, where they never have to
leave the building? Sounds like hell, to me.
Perhaps, but if you were involved in music or the arts back in the 20's in
New York City, as were my parents, then living and working in an apartment
in New York was a very exciting place to be.
Just for a moment, put yourself in the shoes of a young man who plays
the trumpet for the New York Ballet orchestra, for a living, and lives in a
New York apartment close to where he works......Tell me where you would
advise him to move, and what you would tell him to do with his life?


You've hit the nail on the head, but do you understand that?
Hoeses for courses. Sauce for the goose, etc.
Sure, if your lifestyle is such that living that way is exciting, go
for it.
However, there really are a LOT of people who would not put up with
what they see as in intolerable way of life just to be within several
blocks of that much culture.
And, as well, there are many more people for whom art and "culture"
are simply not worth much at all; not everyone can afford that much
free time.

Lots of people think 'culture' is a part of the word 'cultured
buttermilk'. Furthermore, they like the buttermilk better, especially
with cornbread.

Different strokes for different folks.

Rebecca Ore wrote:
In article ,
Bill Funk wrote:


What you said (and what I was responding to) was this:
"The problem with poverty in the US is that not only do you get to be
poor, you're forced to buy and maintain a car."
If you now want to say "most", fine.

Most people who are poor in the US, okay

You're doing what a lot of people do: you're overstating your case.

Who was it who took an average of murder rates without any high murder
rate southern states to compare against NYC without looking at
individual states with similar demographics?

Plus, you're being dishonest: hoiw much of that $5-10K you say the
poor must spend on a car are you paying for public transit (in total,
including taxes) as well as higher rent?

I'm paying a little under $1,000 for public trans a year and maybe
another $100 a year on taxis (if that). My housing costs are $520 a
month (including insurance and taxes, not counting utilities) for a two
bedroom, one bath row house with a stone walled back yard. I can walk
my dog to the vet's, can take the train to work (train station about two
blocks away). My car had been paid for, so all the out of pocket
expenses I had on that were insurance, gas, and maintenance, which on an
older car is considerable.

If anything happened to my car, I was stranded.

It's been my experience that people who overstate their case, and are
dishonest about it, have an agenda.

Like the pro-capital punishment guy whose stats didn't match what I
found?

What I don't like about cars is being forced to own one, so I live in a
city where I could buy a cheap house (compared to any number of places,
then) and would not have to have a car. Cars may be freedom for some
people, but for most, they're a requirement that's much more an economic
burden than anything else.

We've been reading posts from someone whose night vision makes him a
dangerous driver, who doesn't feel that he has any choice other than to
put other people at risk to live his life. I've heard of people not
being able to get jobs because they didn't have cars, of having to
budget not just between housing and food, but housing, food, car
insurance, and car repairs.

I said the US was car-centric. The other person started yammering about
how we love cars because we love freedom. Most people have a car
because they can't live without one, because most jobs outside of cities
and certain small towns are not near work places. Driving a car in rush
hour traffic to get to work is not the ideal use of a car.

When I lived in Virginia, we had people who moved to rural Virginia to
get their kids away from drugs and crime. No amount of "we've got
14,000 people here and a murder or two every year" could get them to
think that one through. That's a murder rate per 100,000 well over
NY's. It looked idyllic. The drug kids didn't stop using drugs. Some
of the vacation home owners were burglarized multiple times in the years
that they owned their homes. But we only showed a couple of burglaries
a week in the local paper. Nobody ever burglarized an occupied building
because everyone had guns, but burglaries of unoccupied buildings were
quite common.

One of my students had been a NYC homocide cop. One of my other
students was telling her about a community that had a murder a week.
She laughed and said something about the murders in NYC. The other
student explained that the community was only 400 people.

The hysteria about large Northern Cities tends to look unrealistic.
Most murders are between people who know each other, who are often
involved in illegal activities, and who are often inadequately policed
(the poor often find that the police trivialize their complaints), and
were brought up in cultures that believe violence, lethal and otherwise,
is a way to solve problems (a legacy of slavery).

I suspect that if one avoids places where people use drugs, or excessive
use of alcohol, and avoid those they know to be violent individuals, and
stay away from areas of town where they aren't wanted, their chances of
being killed in NYC are no worse than in Beeville, Tx. But the sad
truth is that many people DON'T avoid such things.

Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:22:39 GMT, "jeremy" wrote:

I live in Philadelphia and I wouldn't touch SEPTA (Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority--out mass transit agency) with a ten foot pole.
Riding with some of the subhumans that inhabit our trains and busses is
something too awful to imagine--plus we are about to break our all time
murder rate for any one year (it's at around 400 now, it keeps going up
every day and I can't stay on top of it).

Sorry, I'll use my car. Let 'em make the streets safe before they ask me to
commute. And, even then I won't. I'll move out first.

I have a friend who can't drive, and uses the Phoenix bus system.
Earlier this year, he talked me into using the bus to go to a UG
meeting.
During the ride, a young gentleman pulled a pistol out of his pocket,
shot through the floor into a rear tire, waqlked tot he front of the
bus, and told the driver to let him out. This young man then walked
away.
We missed the meeting.
Nevermore.

Sheeesh, what is wrong with just pulling the damn CORD?

"Pudentame" wrote in message
...

but when you get old and blind, and you live in a society that has
been totally automobile dependent for a century or more, it is sometimes
very hard to find any other way.....

.. is a little scary. Are you advocating that the old and blind should
be allowed to continue to drive????

Allowed? I think it should be mandatory, along with issuing every 6 year
old a set of lawn darts.

The old and blind are driving right now, even as we speak.....I thought I
had made that clear. I have been driving all of my life, and I was never
able to see very well in the dark. I have never been tested by the DMV or
anyone else for night vision. As a matter of fact, I was turned down by the
US Navy for pilot training because of, "weak ankles". Later on, I realized
how lucky I was, because I would have caught the lip of a carrier during
after dark air-ops and be dead right now, instead of talking to you guys on
the internet. I am 71 years old, and just passed my DMV eye exam for another
6 years a few months ago. I will be very lucky if I don't run off the road
and kill myself and perhaps someone else during the next 6 years. But,
apparently, you guys aren't listening to me. I am not alone....Thousands of
retired Californians are coming up here to Oregon to share these dark
streets with me every year.....Sooner or later, one of us is going to run
off the road and kill you. If I was you, I'd do something about it before
it's too late.

Bill Funk wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 03:38:33 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

Why, you've designed it already! And inadequately tested it, and already put
the poorly designed and tested device out on the market! - Amazing! I can't
believe you're so far ahead of me on this thing.......


Hey, seat belts kill people, and air bags kill children, and they are
STILL on cars. A neck bracing airbag on a motorcycle helmet would
probably be much the same. I have little confidence in such devices.

Oh, please!
Police kill people. Do you think they should be gotten rid of, too?
Can you give any credible evidence that, on the whole, air bags have
killed more people than they've saved? Even children?
Same for seat belts?
It's easy to point out the exceptions, and ignore the rest. it even
looks good on bumper stickers.
Buit it has no place in serious discussion.


I only meant to suggest that there are more effective, safer, and
cheaper ways to restrain a person in a car than airbags.

Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 11:58:06 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote:

As with cars, experience and exposure both go into the rate makeup.
Along with one's credit history (which is insane).

Not as insane as you might think.
There are a *LOT* of people who get insurance when they actually need
it, then just don't pay the premiums.
Until the coverage is dropped for non-payment, coverage remains in
force; often for more than a month.
Any chargable crashes in that time must still be covered by the
insurance company.
The people who do this also, by and large, have poor credit ratings (I
wonder why?).

This is a case of self-fulfilling prophesy. If the price they are
forced (we MUST have insurance here) goes up, then they will have
problems paying, which will then lower their credit score, which
fulfills the prophesy of the insurance company when they can't pay.

Pudentame wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

You should know we have galleries, and fine local theaters, and great
restaurants here too. As for home prices, they are rather high in
most large cities. And people do interesting things around here too.
At a Japanese restaurant, recently, I met a guy who flies Jerry Jones
private jet around much of the world.

Ok, but who is Jerry Jones?

You are kidding, right? Owner of the Dallas Cowboys Football team, and
a BIG oil company exec.

Pudentame wrote:
Arnor Baldvinsson wrote:
Hi Rebecca,

Someone else is driving, I hope. The thing is that most people don't

ATMs here in Texas have the numbers printed on the keys in braille. I
guess that's in case a blind person drives up to get some cash...


McDonald's has braille menus available at the drive-thru. I kid you not!

Well, they might be for the passengers.
At least I HOPE so.

Arnor Baldvinsson wrote:
Hi Geen,

I will disagree with your assessment on this particular case. DFW-Houston
is a 45 minute flight. Then calculate getting up earlier to drive to the
airport, waiting at the airport, getting a rental car, returning said car,
waiting for the return flight, the return flight, the drive back home.

As I've said, my example for SA-Houston was not a good one. The point is
that I value my time when travelling and the faster I can get where I'm
going the less time I waste. So for me travelling by air is by far my
choice (even though I don't particularly like flyingg)

I used to fly from DFW to Houston, but the main reason was that I could
fly into Hobby, and have my brother pick me up (20 minute drive for
him). Now he is a bit old to be driving in Houston (but does), and my
wife refuses to put him to the trouble, so we drive, or fly in and rent
a car. I can still fly there in less time than it takes to drive, but
the difference in total time is not great, but I arrive much more rested
from the flight.

William Graham wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:17:20 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

Right now, both me and
millions of other Americans are virtually locked into personalized
transportation vehicles of one type or another....This isn't going to
change
overnight. Their character may change. Their fuel source may change.
But
millions of people can't just suddenly step into electric busses
overnight
because of some law or other....To believe such a thing shows lack of
basic
reasoning ability........
"I REALLY want personal transport. Therefore something will turn up
that enables me to continue having it".

Now, THAT'S lack of reasoning ability.
"Something" has already turned up......It has been with us for my
entire life.......I can buy an electric car right now, and plug it in
to my garage wall, and drive it where I have to go tomorrow. Why can't
you see this?
Because, with current battery technology, it doesn't scale up to the
number of vehicles it will take to displace gasoline. Consider the
environmental aspect of battery powered automobiles....
Disposal, and/or recovery of batteries for that many electric cars would
be a major problem, and a major source of pollution.
Oh, I see.....It has to be better than the gasoline powered vehicles that
we are buying at the rate of several million a year right now, or you
can't see any possibility of them ever replacing the gas
guzzlers.......Well, I claim that the cars of the future will run on
electricity.....Some combination of storage batteries and/or on board
generators that don't burn gasoline will power them. Or, they may pick up
power from the roads they run on. But however they do it, they will be an
individual transportation system that is capable of taking one or more
individuals to their specific destination, and not be a mass transit
system. Furthermore, it will happen as soon as it is economically
necessary, and not a minute before.
I tend to agree with you, but I don't see the progression as going from
gasoline to hydrogen. And I don't see chemical storage batteries as any
solution at all.

I see no reason why ni-me-hydride batteries couldn't power an electric car
right now....They are lightweight, capable or many thousands of recharging
cycles, and could be plugged in anywhere without releasing toxic gasses
while recharging.....I can see a future where you pull into a "filling
station", the attendant removes your battery pack, and replaces it with a
fully recharged one in a few seconds, charges your card, and you are on your
way again for 3 or 4 more hours of high speed driving......And where will
the power come from? - Well, right now, 60% of our electric power comes from
burning coal. But sometime in the future, I believe most of out electricity
will come from nuclear power.....Perhaps by then, we will have useful fusion
power....Who knows?


Useful fusion power? Grin. In the 1960's, it was '20 years away'. In
the 1980', it was '20 years away'. In 2000, it was still '20 years
away'. Now, six years later, it is still, guess what? 20 years away.
This is not simple technology. Progress IS being made, but commercial
use is not likely before I am six feet under.