If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#521
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
Bill Funk wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:01:09 GMT, Rebecca Ore wrote: In article , Bill Funk wrote: Mass transit is paid for by the aera the system serves, usually through taxes. There's a very big difference between mass transit and the airline companies. This is a relatively new way of funding mass transit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport is more like what I'm talking about. That may be, but you did say, "mass transit." Wikipedia is often fine, but when I look up the definition of "mass transit", I get a different thing than "public transit." For example, a Google query on "define: mass transit" gets: ======== Definitions of mass transit on the Web: * Travel by public transportation system such as bus or subway. commpres.env.state.ma.us/content/glossary.asp * A term used to describe public transportation facilities and vehicles such as rapid rail and buses. http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/dpz/comp...glossary/m.htm * Public transport comprises all transport systems in which the passengers do not travel in their own vehicles. It is also called public transit or mass transit. While it is generally taken to mean rail and bus services, wider definitions would include scheduled airline services, ferries, taxicab services etc. — any system that transports members of the general public. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_transit ======== I know of no one myself who looks at airlines and railroads as mass transit, though all would agree they are public transportation. And, paying for mass transit by governments is hardly new; ever hear of city trolleys? I would consider ANY form of transport that conveys the general public in groups larger than can fit in a personal vehicle as 'mass transit'. How else would one define it? |
#522
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
William Graham wrote: wrote in message s.com... William Graham wrote: A truck is made for hauling garbage.....A race car is made for racing....There is no comparison between the two. Go and look at an Indy racing car. Compare it to your pick-up truck. Okay, I'm back. Wow, you're right! There is no comparison between my truck and an Indy race car, other than the fact that they both have four wheels, a V-8 internal combustion engine that drives the rear wheels, disk brakes, a steering wheel, racket pinned-on steering (whatever THAT is) and a seat for the driver, them two ain't got much o' innythang in common. Why, did you know that Indy car got's sumpin called a "mono cock"? Hell, it's a wonder they let them lil' ol' girls drive 'em these days! It's rack and pinion steering......When you turn your steering wheel, you turn a pinion gear which is attached to the bottom of the steering column....This gear moves a rack, which is a flat piece of steel with gear teeth on it, to the left and right, which is what turns your wheels...... Why, I never! Thanks for the explanation! Now, what do you s'pose that mono cock design is? |
#523
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 03:49:23 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote: Bill Funk wrote: On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:01:09 GMT, Rebecca Ore wrote: In article , Bill Funk wrote: Mass transit is paid for by the aera the system serves, usually through taxes. There's a very big difference between mass transit and the airline companies. This is a relatively new way of funding mass transit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport is more like what I'm talking about. That may be, but you did say, "mass transit." Wikipedia is often fine, but when I look up the definition of "mass transit", I get a different thing than "public transit." For example, a Google query on "define: mass transit" gets: ======== Definitions of mass transit on the Web: * Travel by public transportation system such as bus or subway. commpres.env.state.ma.us/content/glossary.asp * A term used to describe public transportation facilities and vehicles such as rapid rail and buses. http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/dpz/comp...glossary/m.htm * Public transport comprises all transport systems in which the passengers do not travel in their own vehicles. It is also called public transit or mass transit. While it is generally taken to mean rail and bus services, wider definitions would include scheduled airline services, ferries, taxicab services etc. — any system that transports members of the general public. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_transit ======== I know of no one myself who looks at airlines and railroads as mass transit, though all would agree they are public transportation. And, paying for mass transit by governments is hardly new; ever hear of city trolleys? I would consider ANY form of transport that conveys the general public in groups larger than can fit in a personal vehicle as 'mass transit'. How else would one define it? As public transport. Try looking for a definition of "mass transit". Other places than Wikipedia, anyway. -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a" |
#524
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 03:41:28 -0600, Ron Hunter
wrote: Bill Funk wrote: On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 19:25:57 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote: 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. If you assume that the people who do this are *forced* to be dishonest, then we are going to have a problem discussing it. Who said anything about anyone being dishonest? IN these days, a bad credit rating can result from a person losing his job, or incurring excessive expenses due to any number of perfectly legitimate unexpected situations. TYhose who buy insurance only to fill a legal need, then refuse to pay the premiums, and have a crash before the policy is canceled for non-payment but expect the insurance company to pay out anyway, are dishonest. It's called insurance fraud. And *I* said it was dishonest. -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a" |
#525
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
And lo, Ron Hunter emerged from the ether
and spake thus: Rebecca Ore wrote: In article , Ron Hunter wrote: Rebecca Ore wrote: In article , Ron Hunter wrote: That's sane? And if those people are so sane, why do they manage to kill so many of their fellow men each year? I suppose it depends on how one defines 'sane'. The per capita murder rate in NYC is actually quite a bit lower than the per capital murder rate in any number of southern states, but we know that people in capital punishment state are insane (they all have higher murder rates than the states without capital punishment). Perhaps, but they don't do it AGAIN. Yes, but the State has told its citizens that killing to solve problems is totally okay. Someone irritates you -- blow them away. The question is then would these people be even more murderous without killing a few of them (and even in capital punishment states, very few people are actually executed)? I assume that without capital punishment, everyone in Texas would be blasting at everyone else in Texas. Nope. You totally miss the point. I consider it very strange that a state which allows innocent unborn children to be killed for no reason more significant than convenience, but seems to be horrified at killing a person who has raped and murdered people. It seems the innocent are good for killing, but the guilty, are protected. What sense does this make? If a rapist and murderer were embedded within his mother's womb and attached to her body for survival, then it would be within the mother's rights to terminate him. Insofar as these "innocent unborn children" are not able to survive without that umbilical connection, that makes them indisputably part of the mother's body and I fail to see how it should be anyone's decision but hers what becomes of them. Furthermore, to imply that abortions are performed at the drop of a hat, and that most women would undergo such an invasive, uncomfortable, and emotionally difficult procedure for "no reason more significant than convenience" is presumptuous at best and insulting at worst. Many abortions are performed with the child's interests in mind, its mother being unable to care for it, perhaps herself the victim of a sex crime. The bottom line is that it is hardly your place, or the place of stuffy legislators, to tell a woman what she can do with her body, or what is medically safe for her. It is for a woman and her doctor to decide. Nobody else. Legislators do not set laws regarding the amount of radiation that a person may be exposed to during cancer therapy; those levels are determined by physicians--scientists. People with knowledge and experience who have taken a Hippocratic oath. -- Aaron http://www.fisheyegallery.com http://www.singleservingphoto.com |
#526
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
And lo, Rebecca Ore emerged from the ether
and spake thus: In article , "William Graham" wrote: My "excuse" as you put it, is that I just had an eye check up, and got a new 6 year license from the DMV. The fact that I can barely see after dark, didn't even enter the picture.....that's not my fault. I use the transportation method chosen for me by the society, and I comply with all their regulations.....If that is inadequate, then whose fault is that? Just be advised that there are lots of people like me out there on the roads, and our number is growing as more and more of us retire and move up here to Oregon. - If you want to keep your roads safe, then you'd better do something about us, because we aren't going to go away, and we do have to get where we are going. Driving eye exams only show problems under normal lighting conditions. You should not be driving at night -- and it's just too bad that you don't live somewhere with decent public transportation. If Oregon wants to keep its roads safe, they need to take geezers who can't see in the dark well enough to drive off the roads. Fact: America's motor vehicle licensing standards are lax at best and lethal at worst. I have friends who passed the licensing test on the first try who, in my humble opinion, have no business being in control of a several thousand pound, explosive container barrelling down the highway at sixty miles per hour. Not only do I support more stringent examinations, but I also support driver re-testing. The idea that someone can pass this examination when they're 16 years old and continue to drive until they're 85 and effectively blind is scary. The reason air travel is so safe (and so much safer than terrestrial motor vehicle travel) is the strict regulation of its pilots as well as the capability to automate much of the navigation. Thanks to autopilot and national and international air traffic control, the pilot really doesn't have to worry about hitting other planes. Nevertheless, in today's very competitive atmosphere, you basically have to be an ex-air force pilot to even think about getting hired by an airline. Most pilots today are ex-air force pilots with hundreds of hours of jet fighter experience and flying a 747 is like a joke to them. Clearly we cannot afford to train drivers so well. -- Aaron http://www.fisheyegallery.com http://www.singleservingphoto.com |
#527
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
William Graham wrote:
"Ken Lucke" wrote in message You are a scary, arrogant, and thoughtless person, only interested in what YOU want - from your posts, all that matters to you is that you be able to get to your music playing gig in Mt Angel, despite the fact that you admit that you are literally so f%*^$^&ing night blind that you are a considerable danger to everyone else. Your "freedom" is all important, even when it starts impinging on the freedom and safety of others. And what about the other ten thousand or so of us that retire up here every year? Are you going to plonk them too? (you idiot) No, asshat. I'd expect them to excercise some personal responsibility. Your self serving whine, "It's not MY fault - society made me do it!" is something I'd expect from a whimpering Feinstein supporter, not a Limbaugh worshipping blowhard like you. "Buy (me) lights on all the streets" is no different than that New Orleans welfare queen whining "Where's MY trailer?!" Classic Fundyf**k. You talk the talk, but cut and run when the going gets tough. -- "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush. |
#528
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
William Graham wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message ... William Graham wrote: My "excuse" as you put it, is that I just had an eye check up, and got a new 6 year license from the DMV. The fact that I can barely see after dark, didn't even enter the picture.....that's not my fault. I use the transportation method chosen for me by the society, and I comply with all their regulations.....If that is inadequate, then whose fault is that? Just be advised that there are lots of people like me out there on the roads, and our number is growing as more and more of us retire and move up here to Oregon. - If you want to keep your roads safe, then you'd better do something about us, because we aren't going to go away, and we do have to get where we are going. Oh *now* you want somebody else to meddle? A bunch of liberal *******s perhaps? Meddle? - Is that what you call spending this taxpayers money? - Meddling? I think I have the right to inform the city fathers that the best way to prevent accidents is to light our roads at night. - That this is how I would prefer them to spend my tax dollars.......As far as I know, there exists no liberal law that prevents me from giving them advice. they may (and have) ignore it at their own peril. Here you are self-diagnosed medically incopmetent to drive at night, but you'll continue to drive at night becasue nobody told you you couldn't. Even my SO's father, one of the most stubborn people on the planet, won't drive after dark despite being licenced to do so. Stop being a hypocrite. Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
#529
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
William Graham wrote:
"Rebecca Ore" wrote in message ... In article , "William Graham" wrote: My "excuse" as you put it, is that I just had an eye check up, and got a new 6 year license from the DMV. The fact that I can barely see after dark, didn't even enter the picture.....that's not my fault. I use the transportation method chosen for me by the society, and I comply with all their regulations.....If that is inadequate, then whose fault is that? Just be advised that there are lots of people like me out there on the roads, and our number is growing as more and more of us retire and move up here to Oregon. - If you want to keep your roads safe, then you'd better do something about us, because we aren't going to go away, and we do have to get where we are going. Driving eye exams only show problems under normal lighting conditions. You should not be driving at night -- and it's just too bad that you don't live somewhere with decent public transportation. If Oregon wants to keep its roads safe, they need to take geezers who can't see in the dark well enough to drive off the roads. I won't say you are wrong, but how about lighting the roads a little better to lesson the number of those people? One of the greatest advancements in Boy that is Liberal with a capital "L". Now that YOU need something you want the public to pay for it. Tell ya what Mr. Capitalist Rules, hire yourself a driver and don't expect the long suffering tax payer to subsidize your driving habits. Get off the road at night. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
#530
|
|||
|
|||
End of an Era
On 28 Dec 2006 05:02:08 -0800, "
wrote: Since I'm selling my truck, which is the correct automobile for hauling my 800 pound Harley FLHXI to the dealer (60 miles away) for regular service? Won't it make a 60 mile trip? :-) Surely the dealer will lend you something to get home on, if he has to keep yours for a few days? How long does a service take, anyway? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pelican swallows pigeon | Daniel Silevitch | Digital Photography | 31 | October 31st 06 05:04 PM |
Hoya HMC CP filter | Eydz | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | October 22nd 06 01:21 AM |
Hoya 67mm circular polarizer + Hoya Skylight + Nikon D70 - some problems | Nicolae Fieraru | Digital Photography | 16 | April 10th 05 11:10 AM |
Hoya 67mm circular polarizer + Hoya Skylight + Nikon D70 - some problems | Nicolae Fieraru | Digital Photography | 0 | April 9th 05 06:03 AM |
Hoya Filters UV(0) OR UV(N) | ianr | Digital Photography | 0 | January 27th 05 10:31 PM |