How (and why) to Ramble on your goat sideways
04-09-2011, 10:35 PM
#7481
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
Ah, for the days when we went trick-or-treating as teenagers, sans costumes, and getting beers from random dudes in the seedier neighborhoods.
Memories...
Memories...
Reply
0
0
04-10-2011, 03:32 PM
#7484
I got this in a chain letter today. Thought you guys might enjoy.
Originally Posted by Chain Letter
In the line at the store, the cashier told the older woman
that plastic bags weren’t good for the environment. The
woman apologized to her and explained, “We didn’t have
the green thing back in my day.”
That’s right, they didn’t have the green thing in her day. Back then,
they returned their milk bottles, Coke bottles and beer bottles to
the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and
sterilized and refilled, using the same bottles over and over. So
they really were recycled.
But they didn’t have the green thing back her day.
In her day, they walked up stairs, because they didn’t have an
escalator in every store and office building. They walked to the
grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every
time they had to go two blocks.
But she’s right. They didn’t have the green thing in her day.
Back then, they washed the baby’s diapers because they didn’t have
the throw-away kind. They dried clothes on a line, not in an energy
gobbling machine burning up 220 volts – wind and solar power really
did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their
brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.
But that old lady is right, they didn’t have the
green thing back in her day.
Back then, they had one TV, or radio, in the house – not a TV in
every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a pizza dish,
not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, they
blended and stirred by hand because they didn’t have electric
machines to do everything for you. When they packaged a fragile item
to send in the mail, they used wadded up newspaper to cushion it, not
styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.
Back then, they didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to
cut the lawn. They used a push mower that ran on human power. They
exercised by working so they didn’t need to go to a health club to
run on treadmills that operate on electricity.
But she’s right, they didn’t have the green thing back then.
They drank from a fountain when they were thirsty, instead of using a
cup or a plastic bottle every time they had a drink of water. They
refilled pens with ink, instead of buying a new pen, and they
replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the
whole razor just because the blade got dull.
But they didn’t have the green thing back then.
Back then, people took the streetcar and kids rode their bikes to
school or rode the school bus, instead of turning their moms into a
24-hour taxi service. They had one electrical outlet in a room, not
an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And they
didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from
satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest
pizza joint.
It’s a crying shame that we didn’t have “the green thing” back then!
that plastic bags weren’t good for the environment. The
woman apologized to her and explained, “We didn’t have
the green thing back in my day.”
That’s right, they didn’t have the green thing in her day. Back then,
they returned their milk bottles, Coke bottles and beer bottles to
the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and
sterilized and refilled, using the same bottles over and over. So
they really were recycled.
But they didn’t have the green thing back her day.
In her day, they walked up stairs, because they didn’t have an
escalator in every store and office building. They walked to the
grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every
time they had to go two blocks.
But she’s right. They didn’t have the green thing in her day.
Back then, they washed the baby’s diapers because they didn’t have
the throw-away kind. They dried clothes on a line, not in an energy
gobbling machine burning up 220 volts – wind and solar power really
did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their
brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.
But that old lady is right, they didn’t have the
green thing back in her day.
Back then, they had one TV, or radio, in the house – not a TV in
every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a pizza dish,
not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, they
blended and stirred by hand because they didn’t have electric
machines to do everything for you. When they packaged a fragile item
to send in the mail, they used wadded up newspaper to cushion it, not
styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.
Back then, they didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to
cut the lawn. They used a push mower that ran on human power. They
exercised by working so they didn’t need to go to a health club to
run on treadmills that operate on electricity.
But she’s right, they didn’t have the green thing back then.
They drank from a fountain when they were thirsty, instead of using a
cup or a plastic bottle every time they had a drink of water. They
refilled pens with ink, instead of buying a new pen, and they
replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the
whole razor just because the blade got dull.
But they didn’t have the green thing back then.
Back then, people took the streetcar and kids rode their bikes to
school or rode the school bus, instead of turning their moms into a
24-hour taxi service. They had one electrical outlet in a room, not
an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And they
didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from
satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest
pizza joint.
It’s a crying shame that we didn’t have “the green thing” back then!
Reply
0
0
04-10-2011, 06:10 PM
#7487
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
Yeah, the number of 300 hp cars today vs 50 years ago is probably similar. (Actually, I had a hard time finding a "muscle car" that only made 300 HP while looking at new cars on Edmunds.) Of course, a 300 HP car today gets about twice the average fuel economy of a 150 HP car from the 1960s.
It's kind of the same deal on the TV sets, actually. I looked up the specs on a few LED-LCD TVs in the 46-48" range, and they're all in the general neighborhood of 75-100 watts power consumption. Ye ole' 12" "pizza plate" TV sucked down a hell of a lot more power than that. So did old console-style tube based radios. (In fairness, I'm being a bit of a hypocrite here, as there's a 55" 3 CRT rear-projection TV sitting in the same room that I'm typing this.)
I honestly can't remember whether the dryer was gas or electric powered in the house I grew up in, but that place was built in the early 60s, and I'm pretty sure the appliances were all-original when we lived there. But I won't argue that clothes-lines were more efficient. Of course, 'lectric dryers came into being at about the same time as "modern" top-loading washing machines, which were a hell of a lot better than the ones they replaced. A childhood friend of my mother's lost an arm in one of those. (What is the "acceptable" loss rate in terms of amputations-per-TWh?)
Of course, back then we didn't have the capability to generate baseline power on the multi-GW level without burning fossil fuels or destroying whole ecosystems with dams.
If you really want to "go green", you have to go back a hell of a lot further than the 1950s. Greenpeace would have had a blast in the late 1800s, when trains were criss-crossing the country belching out clouds of black coal smoke.Some folks just won't be happy until we've gone all the way back to a pre-industrial hunter/gatherer society. Except that killing animals and eating them is evil, too.
Progress is good.
It's kind of the same deal on the TV sets, actually. I looked up the specs on a few LED-LCD TVs in the 46-48" range, and they're all in the general neighborhood of 75-100 watts power consumption. Ye ole' 12" "pizza plate" TV sucked down a hell of a lot more power than that. So did old console-style tube based radios. (In fairness, I'm being a bit of a hypocrite here, as there's a 55" 3 CRT rear-projection TV sitting in the same room that I'm typing this.)
I honestly can't remember whether the dryer was gas or electric powered in the house I grew up in, but that place was built in the early 60s, and I'm pretty sure the appliances were all-original when we lived there. But I won't argue that clothes-lines were more efficient. Of course, 'lectric dryers came into being at about the same time as "modern" top-loading washing machines, which were a hell of a lot better than the ones they replaced. A childhood friend of my mother's lost an arm in one of those. (What is the "acceptable" loss rate in terms of amputations-per-TWh?)
Of course, back then we didn't have the capability to generate baseline power on the multi-GW level without burning fossil fuels or destroying whole ecosystems with dams.
If you really want to "go green", you have to go back a hell of a lot further than the 1950s. Greenpeace would have had a blast in the late 1800s, when trains were criss-crossing the country belching out clouds of black coal smoke.Some folks just won't be happy until we've gone all the way back to a pre-industrial hunter/gatherer society. Except that killing animals and eating them is evil, too.
Progress is good.
Reply
0
0
04-10-2011, 07:53 PM
#7488
It was, I never thought about the glass bottles being recycled before. Seems like a better idea then recycling plastic bottles, plastics (i think) are melted down and recast, glass would just need to be sterilized. I'd think a lot less energy would go into sterilizing.
Animals are people too Joe.
Animals are people too Joe.
Reply
0
0
04-11-2011, 08:57 AM
#7491
Is it bad that I come back home to realize that Birmingham, Alabama isn't as scary as I thought it would be? Not that I would want to pack up and move there, but it really wasn't bad ata all. I will say that the old wrinkled ***** Don Panoz needs to take a trip over to Baber Motorsports Park to see how a real race track should look and be run. BMP really makes Road Atlanta look like a shithole.
BTW we were staying over off 280 near the Meadowbrook area. That whole area, whle pretty busy, wasn't bad at all. Went to Flip Burger at The Summit on Sat. night.......******* win right there. Drove around downtown quite a bit, seemed cool and the 20th Ave/Highland Ave/Magnolia Park area seemed to be the "happening" spot at night.
BTW we were staying over off 280 near the Meadowbrook area. That whole area, whle pretty busy, wasn't bad at all. Went to Flip Burger at The Summit on Sat. night.......******* win right there. Drove around downtown quite a bit, seemed cool and the 20th Ave/Highland Ave/Magnolia Park area seemed to be the "happening" spot at night.
Reply
0
0
04-11-2011, 10:24 AM
#7493
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,647
Total Cats: 3,009
I'm going to call BS on the idea that we had as many 300hp cars back then as today. First, the engines were rated differently (as was pointed out) and would make significantly less using the 1972-newer SAE ratings. Previous ratings were gross hp ratings and weren't standardized from manufacturer to manufacturer (temp, baro pressure etc.) and were not measured with air filters and housings, full exhausts, water pumps, and fans installed as they are today. A 140hp engine would often actually put down about 75hp at the wheels. It was not uncommon for cars factory rated at 300 gross hp to put down dyno or drag trap speeds that indicated 180whp.
More than half of the cars were sixes in the 50s and 60s. More than two thirds of the 67-69 Camaros were six cylinders according to production figures. Chevy used them in everything from pickups to intermediate size. For reference:
WIKI:
The 230 replaced 235 cubic inches (3.9 L). It was also used by Chevrolet and GMC trucks, primarily the half-tons. It produced 140 hp. This engine was used on the following vehicles:
* 1963-1964 Chevrolet & Chevelle
* 1965-1968 Checker Marathon
* 1965 Chevrolet El Camino
* 1966-1970 Chevrolet Nova
* 1966 Studebaker Commander, Wagonaire, Daytona and Cruiser
* 1967 Chevrolet Chevelle
* 1967 Chevrolet Camaro
* 1968 Chevrolet Chevelle Malibu
* 1969 Chevrolet Camaro
* 1969 Chevrolet Chevelle
The stroked 250 version produced 155 hp (116 kW) for Chevrolet and GMC.
This engine was used on the following vehicles:
* 1966-1984 Chevrolet (passenger cars to 1979, trucks/vans to 1984)
* 1968-1976 Pontiac Firebird
* 1968-1970 Pontiac Tempest
* 1968-1976 Pontiac LeMans
* 1968-1969 Buick Special
* 1968-1972 Oldsmobile F-85
* 1975-1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass
* 1971-1975 Pontiac Ventura
* 1968-1971 Buick Skylark
* 1973-1975 Buick Apollo
* 1968-1979 Chevrolet Camaro
* 1969-1979 Checker Marathon
FORD:
The 144 cu in (2.4 L) engine was first introduced in the 1960 Ford Falcon. The 144 was made from 1960 through 1964 and averaged 90 hp during the production run. While not known for being powerful or a stout engine, it proved to be economical and could get fairly good gas mileage for the time (up to 25-30mpg).
This engine was used in:
* 1960 - 1964 Ford Falcon
* 1960 - 1964 Ford Ranchero
* 1960 - 1964 Mercury Comet
* 1961 - 1964 Ford E-Series
In 1961 the 170 cu in (2.8 L) became an option for the Falcon line. The 170 was a stroked version of the 144, changing the stroke from 2.5" to 2.94". The original 1964½ Ford Mustang used a 101 hp version. The Econoline van and Ford Bronco received a heavier duty version with mechanical valve lifters.
The 200 engine model was introduced in the middle of 1963 and shared the four main bearing design used in the 170 engine. The 1965 Mustang used this engine as standard with 120 hp. The Mustang continued to use the 200 as its base engine until it was dropped in 1971. The 200 was used in the Ford Maverick and Mercury Comet models, and continued in the Ford Fairmont and Mercury Zephyr until the Fairmont and Zephyr models were retired at the end of the 1983 model year.
The 250 cu in (4.1 L) straight six was an engine option offered in 1969 in the Mustang, and 1970 in medium-sized Ford cars (Maverick). The 250 was a stroked 200, made by changing the stroke from 3.126" to 3.91". Output was 155 hp (115 kW) in the Mustang, and became the base engine in 1971. Power was re-evaluated at 98 hp for 1972 (due to power rating changes) and 88 hp the next year.
More than half of the cars were sixes in the 50s and 60s. More than two thirds of the 67-69 Camaros were six cylinders according to production figures. Chevy used them in everything from pickups to intermediate size. For reference:
WIKI:
The 230 replaced 235 cubic inches (3.9 L). It was also used by Chevrolet and GMC trucks, primarily the half-tons. It produced 140 hp. This engine was used on the following vehicles:
* 1963-1964 Chevrolet & Chevelle
* 1965-1968 Checker Marathon
* 1965 Chevrolet El Camino
* 1966-1970 Chevrolet Nova
* 1966 Studebaker Commander, Wagonaire, Daytona and Cruiser
* 1967 Chevrolet Chevelle
* 1967 Chevrolet Camaro
* 1968 Chevrolet Chevelle Malibu
* 1969 Chevrolet Camaro
* 1969 Chevrolet Chevelle
The stroked 250 version produced 155 hp (116 kW) for Chevrolet and GMC.
This engine was used on the following vehicles:
* 1966-1984 Chevrolet (passenger cars to 1979, trucks/vans to 1984)
* 1968-1976 Pontiac Firebird
* 1968-1970 Pontiac Tempest
* 1968-1976 Pontiac LeMans
* 1968-1969 Buick Special
* 1968-1972 Oldsmobile F-85
* 1975-1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass
* 1971-1975 Pontiac Ventura
* 1968-1971 Buick Skylark
* 1973-1975 Buick Apollo
* 1968-1979 Chevrolet Camaro
* 1969-1979 Checker Marathon
FORD:
The 144 cu in (2.4 L) engine was first introduced in the 1960 Ford Falcon. The 144 was made from 1960 through 1964 and averaged 90 hp during the production run. While not known for being powerful or a stout engine, it proved to be economical and could get fairly good gas mileage for the time (up to 25-30mpg).
This engine was used in:
* 1960 - 1964 Ford Falcon
* 1960 - 1964 Ford Ranchero
* 1960 - 1964 Mercury Comet
* 1961 - 1964 Ford E-Series
In 1961 the 170 cu in (2.8 L) became an option for the Falcon line. The 170 was a stroked version of the 144, changing the stroke from 2.5" to 2.94". The original 1964½ Ford Mustang used a 101 hp version. The Econoline van and Ford Bronco received a heavier duty version with mechanical valve lifters.
The 200 engine model was introduced in the middle of 1963 and shared the four main bearing design used in the 170 engine. The 1965 Mustang used this engine as standard with 120 hp. The Mustang continued to use the 200 as its base engine until it was dropped in 1971. The 200 was used in the Ford Maverick and Mercury Comet models, and continued in the Ford Fairmont and Mercury Zephyr until the Fairmont and Zephyr models were retired at the end of the 1983 model year.
The 250 cu in (4.1 L) straight six was an engine option offered in 1969 in the Mustang, and 1970 in medium-sized Ford cars (Maverick). The 250 was a stroked 200, made by changing the stroke from 3.126" to 3.91". Output was 155 hp (115 kW) in the Mustang, and became the base engine in 1971. Power was re-evaluated at 98 hp for 1972 (due to power rating changes) and 88 hp the next year.
Last edited by sixshooter; 04-11-2011 at 10:42 AM.
Reply
0
0
04-11-2011, 11:23 AM
#7495
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
Ok, how's this:
I think it's important when reading things such as the chain letter to not mistake poverty for altruism. The reason folks "only" had a single 12" TV is because that's all that was available and all most families could afford. But even back then, some would say more so back then, the average westerner (by which I count not just citizens of the US and Canada, but most of the European nations as well) were very quick to adopt "newer, faster, better!" They flocked in droves to the car when it became widely available in the 1940s and 50s. They fell over themselves to buy clothing and furniture made from synthetic materials in the 1960s.
Lots of folks like to argue that one of the bigger problems from a socio-enviro standpoint is the whole idea of suburban expansion and the long commuted and crowded roads that come with it. Well guess what? My generation didn't invent the 'burbs. That would be my parents. Or for a lot of folks here, their grandparents.
Go watch "Back to the Future." One thing that film portrayed pretty accurately was the rise of (and lust for) nice, groomed bedroom communities in the 1950s, as road infrastructure and affordable cars allowed folks to flee the crowded cities and own a "piece of the American dream" with a little white fence around it.
Don't try to idealize the '50s and '60s as a gold standard for sustainable living. Those bastards invented styrofoam packaging, disposable razors, battery-powered everything, and the modern traffic jam.
Cars, in general, are considerably more powerful today than they were during the 1950s and 60s. Despite this, average fuel consumption per mile has been reduced by perhaps 50%, and harmful emissions per mile have been decreased by many orders of magnitude.
Obviously, these same advances could be applied to build tiny, super-light automobiles which are modern analogues of the Peel P50 or the Reliant Robin, and in fact, some vehicles of this nature are available. The free market, however, has made it evident that there is a practical lower limit to what consumer are willing to accept when given a choice between vehicles of various costs / sizes / efficiencies. So long as no external force (eg: depletion of the global supply of oil) exists, only artificial pressure (eg: government mandate) will result in a meaningful change in consumer behavior in this regard.
Obviously, these same advances could be applied to build tiny, super-light automobiles which are modern analogues of the Peel P50 or the Reliant Robin, and in fact, some vehicles of this nature are available. The free market, however, has made it evident that there is a practical lower limit to what consumer are willing to accept when given a choice between vehicles of various costs / sizes / efficiencies. So long as no external force (eg: depletion of the global supply of oil) exists, only artificial pressure (eg: government mandate) will result in a meaningful change in consumer behavior in this regard.
I think it's important when reading things such as the chain letter to not mistake poverty for altruism. The reason folks "only" had a single 12" TV is because that's all that was available and all most families could afford. But even back then, some would say more so back then, the average westerner (by which I count not just citizens of the US and Canada, but most of the European nations as well) were very quick to adopt "newer, faster, better!" They flocked in droves to the car when it became widely available in the 1940s and 50s. They fell over themselves to buy clothing and furniture made from synthetic materials in the 1960s.
Lots of folks like to argue that one of the bigger problems from a socio-enviro standpoint is the whole idea of suburban expansion and the long commuted and crowded roads that come with it. Well guess what? My generation didn't invent the 'burbs. That would be my parents. Or for a lot of folks here, their grandparents.
Go watch "Back to the Future." One thing that film portrayed pretty accurately was the rise of (and lust for) nice, groomed bedroom communities in the 1950s, as road infrastructure and affordable cars allowed folks to flee the crowded cities and own a "piece of the American dream" with a little white fence around it.
Don't try to idealize the '50s and '60s as a gold standard for sustainable living. Those bastards invented styrofoam packaging, disposable razors, battery-powered everything, and the modern traffic jam.
Reply
0
0
04-11-2011, 11:50 AM
#7497
Is that pic in your driveway? You got that truck for $2500? Sounds like a great deal. What's that you say? It's a V6, with working A/C, 4wd, and a recently rebuilt automatic transmission? Wow, sounds like you made out.
What'd you say? Oh, you posted it online so you could feel validated by internet buddies for your extremely good deal? That's cool. Hmm? No one responded? That's okay, I'll chime in here and say, "Good job! What a steal!"
************************************************** *************
I feel better now.
What'd you say? Oh, you posted it online so you could feel validated by internet buddies for your extremely good deal? That's cool. Hmm? No one responded? That's okay, I'll chime in here and say, "Good job! What a steal!"
************************************************** *************
I feel better now.
Reply
0
0
04-11-2011, 02:03 PM
#7498
^^^
Nice find man! I saw your post but I didnt realize it was yours! lol
On a side note. This guy I know that's called "the greek" just showed up at the shop to ask me to read his mail for him (he can speak english but cant read/write well). We talked a bit and he told me he was tired from his heart medication. He's now sleeping sitting up in the chair, snoring. I'm going to take a picture of him now. lol
Nice find man! I saw your post but I didnt realize it was yours! lol
On a side note. This guy I know that's called "the greek" just showed up at the shop to ask me to read his mail for him (he can speak english but cant read/write well). We talked a bit and he told me he was tired from his heart medication. He's now sleeping sitting up in the chair, snoring. I'm going to take a picture of him now. lol
Reply
0
0
04-11-2011, 02:25 PM
#7499
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
Why the hell do printer manufacturers decide to size their papers trays such that they will accommodate, at a maximum, slightly less than one full ream of 20# paper? Do they sell paper in multiples of 437 sheets per pack in other parts of the world?
Reply
0
0
