Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #154844 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-07 10:48 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-08 11:55 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 321 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-07 10:48 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-07 23:49 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-07 22:38 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center maus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-12-08 10:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 11:55 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2015-12-08 17:57 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-08 10:16 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-08 14:18 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-08 16:58 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-08 23:10 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-09 07:15 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-08 14:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-08 12:02 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-12-09 01:07 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center maus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-12-09 11:18 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-09 08:47 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:17 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-09 16:53 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-09 17:22 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-12-09 17:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-09 18:21 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-10 04:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 14:06 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-09 12:20 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 19:32 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-09 21:53 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-10 15:23 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-10 23:03 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-11 22:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-11 07:17 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-09 20:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-09 18:27 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-09 11:04 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-09 16:06 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-10 10:36 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-10 07:53 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-10 16:27 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-10 19:11 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 17:58 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-11 01:04 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-11 15:18 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-11 07:16 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-11 15:21 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-09 17:47 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-09 22:17 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Ranger" <r5432@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 17:20 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-11 08:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-12-10 01:41 -0400
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-10 10:44 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 17:51 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-12-10 16:45 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-11 07:26 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-12-11 14:29 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-11 15:31 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-12 08:11 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-12 16:58 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-12 11:32 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-13 15:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 10:46 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 16:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 17:12 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 20:36 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-04 06:13 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 10:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 09:58 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:28 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-04 21:16 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:16 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 12:51 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-03 20:20 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 06:48 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 10:17 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:29 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 09:51 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 17:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 19:04 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:30 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:37 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 12:24 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:30 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 05:02 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:19 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 10:22 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:38 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:19 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 06:35 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 16:07 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-06 07:49 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 11:26 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:36 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 17:52 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 17:00 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:44 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-01-07 23:56 -0400
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-08 07:33 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 06:37 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:32 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 20:42 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-08 11:03 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 06:14 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 06:52 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:48 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:50 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-07 10:49 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 12:51 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:40 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 11:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:43 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 06:56 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 19:01 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 09:40 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:12 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 20:38 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-05 22:11 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:28 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 11:35 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-09 02:00 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:36 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-09 11:48 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-09 20:45 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 05:46 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:37 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 08:16 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-06 18:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-05 14:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:46 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 12:17 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 20:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-05 12:50 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 13:02 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-06 15:02 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-06 10:53 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-07 14:54 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-07 09:58 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-08 14:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 06:03 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-08 14:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 09:44 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:14 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 14:56 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-07 20:22 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:19 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 10:42 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 10:45 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-08 16:08 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 05:29 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 16:39 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:18 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-06 18:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:28 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 13:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-07 14:54 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 20:02 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 14:30 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 08:16 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 11:33 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:57 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 13:43 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 15:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 16:14 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 19:59 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 18:52 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 08:28 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:33 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 09:56 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-07 08:25 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-06 08:06 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-07 08:33 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 08:24 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 16:38 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 22:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:28 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-06 15:04 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:22 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:46 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:29 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:33 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 10:23 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 08:10 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 12:29 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-05 19:11 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 19:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-05 20:02 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 20:12 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-05 20:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 21:28 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 18:00 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:10 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:49 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 16:51 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:36 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 13:24 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 13:52 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 19:54 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 21:30 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 16:22 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:51 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:31 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 11:44 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 13:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:13 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:16 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 10:23 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 15:59 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-06 08:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-06 09:09 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:09 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 09:49 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 18:07 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:47 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-06 11:01 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:30 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:06 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-07 20:46 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:44 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 10:49 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 05:48 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 06:21 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 13:21 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 13:05 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 21:15 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 21:30 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-07 05:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 14:57 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 16:46 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:19 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:42 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 16:01 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 13:05 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-07 03:42 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-07 07:45 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 08:30 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-07 09:55 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 17:01 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-07 09:52 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-11 12:34 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 10:22 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 16:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 23:01 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 17:14 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 23:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:57 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 11:14 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 12:11 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 11:46 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:39 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 14:46 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:32 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-07 11:33 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 06:11 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-07 13:28 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:30 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 17:57 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 17:12 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 18:55 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:59 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:58 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 18:04 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 06:55 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 06:37 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 23:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:59 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 20:45 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-06 04:09 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 08:05 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:38 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 16:09 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 18:10 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 11:21 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 20:38 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 16:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 21:40 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-04 21:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 10:24 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:44 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:21 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 06:36 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 18:52 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:32 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 04:27 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-04 15:03 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 16:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:34 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 16:53 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-04 18:12 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 21:38 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:35 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 10:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:43 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 11:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:43 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 13:40 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 16:09 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 17:09 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 07:02 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 13:30 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 09:17 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 18:52 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 12:42 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:53 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 21:19 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 21:40 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 21:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-08 21:25 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 11:55 -0500
Page 8 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 17 Next page →
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 14:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000528D3BCA14439@aca202dc.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #156218 |
Rod Speed wrote: > > > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message > news:PM000528BFA163085B@aca411c3.ipt.aol.com... >>> one of the arguments for flat tax was that (distorted) taxes can result >>> in less efficient, non-optimal business decisions/choices. >>> >>> I've periodically referenced roundtable broadcast at national economist >>> meeting a few years ago. That current federal tax code costs 5-6% of >>> GDP. Going to (simplified) flat tax gains 2-3% GDP in (wasted) time >>> people spend dealing with the tax code and 2-3% GDP in people making >>> more optimal business decisions (there is intense lobbying tax preparers >>> & related organizations against any simplification of tax code). > >> Why don't I ever hear the argument that a flat tax would promote >> creation of new business? > > You would if you had enough of a clue to > get a decent internet service and use it. > https://www.google.com/search?q=flat+tax+small+business Please reread what I wrote. googling is not the same as hearing. > >> anyone trying to start out is up to his/her ears in paperwork >> w.r.t. business and employment taxes, fees, and regulations. > > BULLSHIT and I've done it and just helped one of the kids > doing it just lately too. And the bulk of new business just > uses an accountant to handle their tax anyway. > Speedo, you are not in the US. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-09 09:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfasffFu8kjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156253 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote > Rod Speed wrote >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote >>>> one of the arguments for flat tax was that (distorted) taxes can >>>> result in less efficient, non-optimal business decisions/choices. >>>> I've periodically referenced roundtable broadcast at national economist >>>> meeting a few years ago. That current federal tax code costs 5-6% of >>>> GDP. Going to (simplified) flat tax gains 2-3% GDP in (wasted) time >>>> people spend dealing with the tax code and 2-3% GDP in people making >>>> more optimal business decisions (there is intense lobbying tax >>>> preparers >>>> & related organizations against any simplification of tax code). >>> Why don't I ever hear the argument that a flat >>> tax would promote creation of new business? >> You would if you had enough of a clue to >> get a decent internet service and use it. >> https://www.google.com/search?q=flat+tax+small+business > Please reread what I wrote. No point, it stays mindless silly shit no matter how often its read. > googling is not the same as hearing. Its even better with that sort of argument. >>> anyone trying to start out is up to his/her ears in paperwork >>> w.r.t. business and employment taxes, fees, and regulations. >> BULLSHIT and I've done it and just helped one of the kids >> doing it just lately too. And the bulk of new business just >> uses an accountant to handle their tax anyway. > Speedo, you are not in the US. Its no worse in the US. You don’t have a fucking clue what is involved.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "879" <879@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 15:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <df670oFo1tkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156022 |
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message news:n6hfei212nk@news3.newsguy.com... > On 2016-01-05, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > >> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 3:50:30 PM UTC-5, Anne & Lynn Wheeler >> wrote: >> >>> past posts that highway design is based on expected ton-miles lifetime >>> expectancy (80kN equivalent single axle loads - ESAL) ... road >>> wear&tear, maintenance and replace is all based on heavy truck 18wheeler >>> use (light trucks and autos play no factor). In effect the majority of >>> consumer and light vehicle taxes are to subsidize heavy trucking. If >>> heavy trucking was taxed directly proportional to their associated >>> costs, their taxes would enormously skyrocket ... and taxes for other >>> vehicles would be slashed (not as much as no tax for off-road vehicles >>> ... but getting close). Of course, if heavy trucking paid their full, >>> fair share, they might want to start demanding highway priorities. >>> >>> that is separate from cheap gas enabling all sort of life-style choices. >> >> But if heavy trucks had to pay their true fair share of highway >> construction, a lot more freight would be hauled by rail or >> manufactured locally. The railroad industry would be a lot >> healthier. > > So would local manufacturers. Don’t believe it with either. We'd just pay more for what we buy and those don’t buy much gas would end up paying less relatively. Western europe does in fact gas prices that high and have done for decades and they don’t have any more local manufacture now. They don’t even have a lot more local food production either, most of the food they eat moves just as far across europe by truck mostly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "879" <879@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 14:56 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <df65v5FnqsnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156008 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:79935a60-89f9-41b1-8b24-50620dbd34e5@googlegroups.com... > On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 3:50:30 PM UTC-5, Anne & Lynn Wheeler > wrote: > >> past posts that highway design is based on expected ton-miles lifetime >> expectancy (80kN equivalent single axle loads - ESAL) ... road >> wear&tear, maintenance and replace is all based on heavy truck 18wheeler >> use (light trucks and autos play no factor). In effect the majority of >> consumer and light vehicle taxes are to subsidize heavy trucking. If >> heavy trucking was taxed directly proportional to their associated >> costs, their taxes would enormously skyrocket ... and taxes for other >> vehicles would be slashed (not as much as no tax for off-road vehicles >> ... but getting close). Of course, if heavy trucking paid their full, >> fair share, they might want to start demanding highway priorities. >> >> that is separate from cheap gas enabling all sort of life-style choices. > > But if heavy trucks had to pay their true fair share of highway > construction, a lot more freight would be hauled by rail I doubt it. Rail just isnt suitable for the movement of most of what is moved using trucks, so the only effect that would have would be on the cost of the stuff we buy. > or manufactured locally. That isnt going to happen given the much higher cost of labor in other than China etc. > The railroad industry would be a lot healthier. I doubt believe that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 20:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ggq2mc-e51.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156180 |
In article <df65v5FnqsnU1@mid.individual.net>, 879 <879@nospam.com> wrote: > > ><hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message >news:79935a60-89f9-41b1-8b24-50620dbd34e5@googlegroups.com... >> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 3:50:30 PM UTC-5, Anne & Lynn Wheeler >> wrote: >> >>> past posts that highway design is based on expected ton-miles lifetime >>> expectancy (80kN equivalent single axle loads - ESAL) ... road >>> wear&tear, maintenance and replace is all based on heavy truck 18wheeler >>> use (light trucks and autos play no factor). In effect the majority of >>> consumer and light vehicle taxes are to subsidize heavy trucking. If >>> heavy trucking was taxed directly proportional to their associated >>> costs, their taxes would enormously skyrocket ... and taxes for other >>> vehicles would be slashed (not as much as no tax for off-road vehicles >>> ... but getting close). Of course, if heavy trucking paid their full, >>> fair share, they might want to start demanding highway priorities. >>> >>> that is separate from cheap gas enabling all sort of life-style choices. >> >> But if heavy trucks had to pay their true fair share of highway >> construction, a lot more freight would be hauled by rail > >I doubt it. Rail just isnt suitable for the movement of >most of what is moved using trucks, so the only effect >that would have would be on the cost of the stuff we buy. This is solved by containerisation. Ships for the long, intercontinental stretches. Rain for the continental ones. Trucks for the in-state/regional ones. Automated yards for the dispatch. This works very well in Europe, and also in China. >> or manufactured locally. > >That isnt going to happen given the much higher cost >of labor in other than China etc. > >> The railroad industry would be a lot healthier. > >I doubt believe that. The US has skewed the market towards trucking, and mostly at the expense of rail, but also of the shipping industry. This latest one is unionised to death, to the point of needing legislation to survive at all. Has been this way for a century. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "879" <879@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 15:19 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <df8rmmFe3l4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156226 |
"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message news:ggq2mc-e51.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... > In article <df65v5FnqsnU1@mid.individual.net>, 879 <879@nospam.com> wrote: >> >> >><hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message >>news:79935a60-89f9-41b1-8b24-50620dbd34e5@googlegroups.com... >>> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 3:50:30 PM UTC-5, Anne & Lynn Wheeler >>> wrote: >>> >>>> past posts that highway design is based on expected ton-miles lifetime >>>> expectancy (80kN equivalent single axle loads - ESAL) ... road >>>> wear&tear, maintenance and replace is all based on heavy truck >>>> 18wheeler >>>> use (light trucks and autos play no factor). In effect the majority of >>>> consumer and light vehicle taxes are to subsidize heavy trucking. If >>>> heavy trucking was taxed directly proportional to their associated >>>> costs, their taxes would enormously skyrocket ... and taxes for other >>>> vehicles would be slashed (not as much as no tax for off-road vehicles >>>> ... but getting close). Of course, if heavy trucking paid their full, >>>> fair share, they might want to start demanding highway priorities. >>>> >>>> that is separate from cheap gas enabling all sort of life-style >>>> choices. >>> >>> But if heavy trucks had to pay their true fair share of highway >>> construction, a lot more freight would be hauled by rail >> >>I doubt it. Rail just isnt suitable for the movement of >>most of what is moved using trucks, so the only effect >>that would have would be on the cost of the stuff we buy. > This is solved by containerisation. No it's not. Our rail system has been containerised for all except the bulk freight like wheat and coal and iron ore and other stuff that can't be containerised like livestock, but we see trucks used to move the containers most of the time. > Ships for the long, intercontinental stretches. > Rain for the continental ones. We mostly use trucks for the bulk of that containerised traffic, even on the Indian Pacific route. > Trucks for the in-state/regional ones. And obviously for the local movement of containers. > Automated yards for the dispatch. This works very well in Europe, In fact the bulk of containerised freight moves by truck in europe, not rail. > and also in China. >>> or manufactured locally. >>That isnt going to happen given the much higher cost >>of labor in other than China etc. >> >>> The railroad industry would be a lot healthier. >> >>I doubt believe that. > > The US has skewed the market towards trucking, And so has Europe, Australia, quite a bit of Canada etc too. > and mostly at the expense of rail, > but also of the shipping industry. Yes. > This latest one is unionised to death, Presumably you mean the shipping industry. There is certainly a lot of that, but there is also a lot of international heavy freight that moves that way on shipping that isnt unionised at all. > to the point of needing legislation to survive at all. That is not correct with the heaviest freight like iron ore, coal, cars, crude oil, gas etc. There is still a hell of a lot of what comes out of china to the rest of the world that moves by ship even now. > Has been this way for a century. The unionisation and ports has, sure. But getting back to the original point, charging loaded trucks for the entire cost of those major roads would have no real effect on what moves by truck and would just see a small change in who pays for that, those that buy what moves.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 10:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rtc4mc-lr.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156234 |
In article <df8rmmFe3l4U1@mid.individual.net>, 879 <879@nospam.com> wrote: > > >"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message >news:ggq2mc-e51.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... >> In article <df65v5FnqsnU1@mid.individual.net>, 879 <879@nospam.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>><hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message >>>news:79935a60-89f9-41b1-8b24-50620dbd34e5@googlegroups.com... >>>> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 3:50:30 PM UTC-5, Anne & Lynn Wheeler >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> past posts that highway design is based on expected ton-miles lifetime >>>>> expectancy (80kN equivalent single axle loads - ESAL) ... road >>>>> wear&tear, maintenance and replace is all based on heavy truck >>>>> 18wheeler >>>>> use (light trucks and autos play no factor). In effect the majority of >>>>> consumer and light vehicle taxes are to subsidize heavy trucking. If >>>>> heavy trucking was taxed directly proportional to their associated >>>>> costs, their taxes would enormously skyrocket ... and taxes for other >>>>> vehicles would be slashed (not as much as no tax for off-road vehicles >>>>> ... but getting close). Of course, if heavy trucking paid their full, >>>>> fair share, they might want to start demanding highway priorities. >>>>> >>>>> that is separate from cheap gas enabling all sort of life-style >>>>> choices. >>>> >>>> But if heavy trucks had to pay their true fair share of highway >>>> construction, a lot more freight would be hauled by rail >>> >>>I doubt it. Rail just isnt suitable for the movement of >>>most of what is moved using trucks, so the only effect >>>that would have would be on the cost of the stuff we buy. > >> This is solved by containerisation. > >No it's not. Our rail system has been containerised for all >except the bulk freight like wheat and coal and iron ore and >other stuff that can't be containerised like livestock, but we >see trucks used to move the containers most of the time. Yes, what you see is usually <1000km local transport of containers. This is about the limit for where trucks give way to rail in the economic transport, if it hasn't already given way to shipping. In Europe this last event happens a lot. There are big ports along the atlantic coast around every 1000 km. And countries like Britain or Ireland aren't big enough for rail to pay off moving containers. >> Ships for the long, intercontinental stretches. >> Rain for the continental ones. > >We mostly use trucks for the bulk of that containerised >traffic, even on the Indian Pacific route. > >> Trucks for the in-state/regional ones. > >And obviously for the local movement of containers. As I said above, around 1000km is needed before rail clearly pays off; there is an area between 600 and 1000 where the costs are pretty similar. >> Automated yards for the dispatch. This works very well in Europe, > >In fact the bulk of containerised freight moves by truck in europe, not >rail. > >> and also in China. > >>>> or manufactured locally. > >>>That isnt going to happen given the much higher cost >>>of labor in other than China etc. >>> >>>> The railroad industry would be a lot healthier. >>> >>>I doubt believe that. >> >> The US has skewed the market towards trucking, > >And so has Europe, Australia, quite a bit of Canada etc too. > >> and mostly at the expense of rail, >> but also of the shipping industry. > >Yes. > >> This latest one is unionised to death, > >Presumably you mean the shipping industry. > >There is certainly a lot of that, but there is also >a lot of international heavy freight that moves >that way on shipping that isnt unionised at all. I was referring to the US domestic shipping industry. This is a basket case of closed shop unionisation, probably the last one in the states. >> to the point of needing legislation to survive at all. > >That is not correct with the heaviest freight >like iron ore, coal, cars, crude oil, gas etc. >There is still a hell of a lot of what comes >out of china to the rest of the world that >moves by ship even now. The US domestic shipping industry does not move anything overseas, and is largely outcompeted for coast-to-coast too. >> Has been this way for a century. > >The unionisation and ports has, sure. > >But getting back to the original point, charging >loaded trucks for the entire cost of those major >roads would have no real effect on what moves >by truck and would just see a small change in >who pays for that, those that buy what moves. It would move the point for where rail becomes economic down quite a bit. These curves are pretty flat between 300 and 1500 km, so the current low oil prices probably moves a lot of traffic off rail and onto roads. The oil price shifts are almost an order of magnitude bigger than any road tax any politician would dare to impose anyway. Weird that it should be like this, a decade after peak oil. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 10:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn8v4q5.16c.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #156243 |
On 2016-01-08, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > In article <df8rmmFe3l4U1@mid.individual.net>, 879 <879@nospam.com> wrote: >> >> >>"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message >>news:ggq2mc-e51.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... >>> In article <df65v5FnqsnU1@mid.individual.net>, 879 <879@nospam.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>><hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message >>>>news:79935a60-89f9-41b1-8b24-50620dbd34e5@googlegroups.com... >>>>> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 3:50:30 PM UTC-5, Anne & Lynn Wheeler >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> past posts that highway design is based on expected ton-miles lifetime >>>>>> expectancy (80kN equivalent single axle loads - ESAL) ... road >>>>>> wear&tear, maintenance and replace is all based on heavy truck >>>>>> 18wheeler >>>>>> use (light trucks and autos play no factor). In effect the majority of >>>>>> consumer and light vehicle taxes are to subsidize heavy trucking. If >>>>>> heavy trucking was taxed directly proportional to their associated >>>>>> costs, their taxes would enormously skyrocket ... and taxes for other >>>>>> vehicles would be slashed (not as much as no tax for off-road vehicles >>>>>> ... but getting close). Of course, if heavy trucking paid their full, >>>>>> fair share, they might want to start demanding highway priorities. >>>>>> >>>>>> that is separate from cheap gas enabling all sort of life-style >>>>>> choices. >>>>> >>>>> But if heavy trucks had to pay their true fair share of highway >>>>> construction, a lot more freight would be hauled by rail >>>> >>>>I doubt it. Rail just isnt suitable for the movement of >>>>most of what is moved using trucks, so the only effect >>>>that would have would be on the cost of the stuff we buy. >> >>> This is solved by containerisation. >> >>No it's not. Our rail system has been containerised for all >>except the bulk freight like wheat and coal and iron ore and >>other stuff that can't be containerised like livestock, but we >>see trucks used to move the containers most of the time. > > Yes, what you see is usually <1000km local transport of containers. > This is about the limit for where trucks give way to rail in > the economic transport, if it hasn't already given way to shipping. > > In Europe this last event happens a lot. There are big ports along > the atlantic coast around every 1000 km. And countries like Britain > or Ireland aren't big enough for rail to pay off moving containers. > >>> Ships for the long, intercontinental stretches. >>> Rain for the continental ones. >> >>We mostly use trucks for the bulk of that containerised >>traffic, even on the Indian Pacific route. >> >>> Trucks for the in-state/regional ones. >> >>And obviously for the local movement of containers. > > As I said above, around 1000km is needed before rail clearly pays off; > there is an area between 600 and 1000 where the costs are pretty > similar. > >>> Automated yards for the dispatch. This works very well in Europe, >> >>In fact the bulk of containerised freight moves by truck in europe, not >>rail. >> >>> and also in China. >> >>>>> or manufactured locally. >> >>>>That isnt going to happen given the much higher cost >>>>of labor in other than China etc. >>>> >>>>> The railroad industry would be a lot healthier. >>>> >>>>I doubt believe that. >>> >>> The US has skewed the market towards trucking, >> >>And so has Europe, Australia, quite a bit of Canada etc too. >> >>> and mostly at the expense of rail, >>> but also of the shipping industry. >> >>Yes. >> >>> This latest one is unionised to death, >> >>Presumably you mean the shipping industry. >> >>There is certainly a lot of that, but there is also >>a lot of international heavy freight that moves >>that way on shipping that isnt unionised at all. > > I was referring to the US domestic shipping industry. > This is a basket case of closed shop unionisation, probably > the last one in the states. > >>> to the point of needing legislation to survive at all. >> >>That is not correct with the heaviest freight >>like iron ore, coal, cars, crude oil, gas etc. >>There is still a hell of a lot of what comes >>out of china to the rest of the world that >>moves by ship even now. > > The US domestic shipping industry does not move > anything overseas, and is largely outcompeted for > coast-to-coast too. > >>> Has been this way for a century. >> >>The unionisation and ports has, sure. >> >>But getting back to the original point, charging >>loaded trucks for the entire cost of those major >>roads would have no real effect on what moves >>by truck and would just see a small change in >>who pays for that, those that buy what moves. > > It would move the point for where rail becomes > economic down quite a bit. These curves are pretty > flat between 300 and 1500 km, so the current low > oil prices probably moves a lot of traffic off rail > and onto roads. > > The oil price shifts are almost an order of magnitude > bigger than any road tax any politician would dare > to impose anyway. > > Weird that it should be like this, a decade after > peak oil. > > -- mrr -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 16:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6omtg21q81@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #156243 |
On 2016-01-08, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote: > The oil price shifts are almost an order of magnitude > bigger than any road tax any politician would dare > to impose anyway. > > Weird that it should be like this, a decade after > peak oil. "Sometimes you have to look reality in the eye, and deny it." -- Garrison Keillor -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "879" <879@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-09 05:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfadfoFqds2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156243 |
"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message news:rtc4mc-lr.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... > In article <df8rmmFe3l4U1@mid.individual.net>, 879 <879@nospam.com> wrote: >> >> >>"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message >>news:ggq2mc-e51.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... >>> In article <df65v5FnqsnU1@mid.individual.net>, 879 <879@nospam.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>><hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message >>>>news:79935a60-89f9-41b1-8b24-50620dbd34e5@googlegroups.com... >>>>> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 3:50:30 PM UTC-5, Anne & Lynn Wheeler >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> past posts that highway design is based on expected ton-miles >>>>>> lifetime >>>>>> expectancy (80kN equivalent single axle loads - ESAL) ... road >>>>>> wear&tear, maintenance and replace is all based on heavy truck >>>>>> 18wheeler >>>>>> use (light trucks and autos play no factor). In effect the majority >>>>>> of >>>>>> consumer and light vehicle taxes are to subsidize heavy trucking. If >>>>>> heavy trucking was taxed directly proportional to their associated >>>>>> costs, their taxes would enormously skyrocket ... and taxes for other >>>>>> vehicles would be slashed (not as much as no tax for off-road >>>>>> vehicles >>>>>> ... but getting close). Of course, if heavy trucking paid their full, >>>>>> fair share, they might want to start demanding highway priorities. >>>>>> >>>>>> that is separate from cheap gas enabling all sort of life-style >>>>>> choices. >>>>> >>>>> But if heavy trucks had to pay their true fair share of highway >>>>> construction, a lot more freight would be hauled by rail >>>> >>>>I doubt it. Rail just isnt suitable for the movement of >>>>most of what is moved using trucks, so the only effect >>>>that would have would be on the cost of the stuff we buy. >> >>> This is solved by containerisation. >> >>No it's not. Our rail system has been containerised for all >>except the bulk freight like wheat and coal and iron ore and >>other stuff that can't be containerised like livestock, but we >>see trucks used to move the containers most of the time. > > Yes, what you see is usually <1000km local transport of containers. We see it with much longer distances than that, like Sydney/Perth which is 4K and Adelaide/Darwin which is 3K. Both of those have very viable rail alternatives. > This is about the limit for where trucks give way to rail in the > economic transport, Not here. > if it hasn't already given way to shipping. Not much of it moves by ship, essentially because of the union rorting of the shipping and ports. > In Europe this last event happens a lot. There are big ports along > the atlantic coast around every 1000 km. And countries like Britain > or Ireland aren't big enough for rail to pay off moving containers. Much of the movement of containerised freight in europe over those distances is done by truck now, not rail, essentially because you have to use trucks at each end so its no big deal to keep it on the truck for the entire trip and you get a lot more flexibility when you do that. >>> Ships for the long, intercontinental stretches. >>> Rain for the continental ones. >> >>We mostly use trucks for the bulk of that containerised >>traffic, even on the Indian Pacific route. >> >>> Trucks for the in-state/regional ones. >> >>And obviously for the local movement of containers. > > As I said above, around 1000km is needed before rail clearly pays off; It doesn’t here with the 4K and 3K routes I listed which have direct rail competition. > there is an area between 600 and 1000 where the costs are pretty > similar. That is just plain wrong. >>> Automated yards for the dispatch. This works very well in Europe, >> >>In fact the bulk of containerised freight moves by truck in europe, not >>rail. >> >>> and also in China. >> >>>>> or manufactured locally. >> >>>>That isnt going to happen given the much higher cost >>>>of labor in other than China etc. >>>> >>>>> The railroad industry would be a lot healthier. >>>> >>>>I doubt believe that. >>> >>> The US has skewed the market towards trucking, >> >>And so has Europe, Australia, quite a bit of Canada etc too. >> >>> and mostly at the expense of rail, >>> but also of the shipping industry. >> >>Yes. >> >>> This latest one is unionised to death, >> >>Presumably you mean the shipping industry. >> >>There is certainly a lot of that, but there is also >>a lot of international heavy freight that moves >>that way on shipping that isnt unionised at all. > > I was referring to the US domestic shipping industry. > This is a basket case of closed shop unionisation, probably > the last one in the states. That’s not correct. The cops are even worse. >>> to the point of needing legislation to survive at all. >> >>That is not correct with the heaviest freight >>like iron ore, coal, cars, crude oil, gas etc. >>There is still a hell of a lot of what comes >>out of china to the rest of the world that >>moves by ship even now. > The US domestic shipping industry does not move > anything overseas, and is largely outcompeted for > coast-to-coast too. That's because the US coast to coast shipping is uniquely awkward with the US. >>> Has been this way for a century. >> >>The unionisation and ports has, sure. >> >>But getting back to the original point, charging >>loaded trucks for the entire cost of those major >>roads would have no real effect on what moves >>by truck and would just see a small change in >>who pays for that, those that buy what moves. > > It would move the point for where rail becomes > economic down quite a bit. It is in fact much more complicated than the simple economics, particularly when you have to have the containers on a truck at each end. Much more efficient to have the truck go the whole way and get a lot more flexibility as a bonus. > These curves are pretty > flat between 300 and 1500 km, so the current low > oil prices probably moves a lot of traffic off rail > and onto roads. I don’t believe you would see any real change. > The oil price shifts are almost an order of magnitude > bigger than any road tax any politician would dare > to impose anyway. And even if they did, I don’t believe it would change the way trucks are used much. Even the much higher fuel costs in europe compared with the US doesn’t have all that much effect on the use of truck moving containers. It’s the other things that drive that, the fact that it has to be on a truck at the start and end anyway and the much greater flexibility of trucks over rail or shipping. > Weird that it should be like this, a decade after peak oil. And shows that the hyperventilation about peak oil misses the point utterly as always.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 16:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n6hd15$17v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155999 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > However, if, say, gasoline were to cost $5/gallon, there would be > massive riots in the U.S. (like there were in the 1970s). Riots over gas? Looks more like one riot in Levittown PA, 1979. We were just at $4. I can't see why $5 would be a problem. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 14:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5n9jy.64808$IX3.36480@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #156014 |
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > >> However, if, say, gasoline were to cost $5/gallon, there would be >> massive riots in the U.S. (like there were in the 1970s). > >Riots over gas? > >Looks more like one riot in Levittown PA, 1979. > >We were just at $4. >I can't see why $5 would be a problem. I paid over $6/gal at an El Portal[*] gas station four or five years ago. Wasn't happy, but paid it. [*] Rockslide on CA140 required the fuel delivery truck to take CA120 or CA41 instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 18:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6jlt71dj9@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #156091 |
On 2016-01-06, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: > Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: > >> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >> >>> However, if, say, gasoline were to cost $5/gallon, there would be >>> massive riots in the U.S. (like there were in the 1970s). >> >> Riots over gas? >> >> Looks more like one riot in Levittown PA, 1979. >> >> We were just at $4. >> I can't see why $5 would be a problem. > > I paid over $6/gal at an El Portal[*] gas station four > or five years ago. Wasn't happy, but paid it. > > [*] Rockslide on CA140 required the fuel delivery truck > to take CA120 or CA41 instead. The gas station at Furnace Creek in Death Valley was charging $6/gallon when we were there a couple of years ago. We found another gas station just up the road at the little village of Stovepipe Wells; they charged "only" $4.84. Mind you, this is a long way from nowhere. In Las Vegas at the time, gas was selling for between $2.75 and $3.00/gallon. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 07:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <706b5151-6592-45db-ba6a-3454c5bcfbd1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156014 |
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 4:39:18 PM UTC-5, D_J_E wrote: > hancock4 writes: > > > However, if, say, gasoline were to cost $5/gallon, there would be > > massive riots in the U.S. (like there were in the 1970s). > > Riots over gas? > > Looks more like one riot in Levittown PA, 1979. > > We were just at $4. > I can't see why $5 would be a problem. In NYC, people got shot over their place in a gasoline line. Yes, there was a riot in Levittown, PA, in 1979. It got ugly. During the last gas price spike, the general public became unhappy when gas climbed above $4/gal. Has it approached $5/gal, tensions rose, but fortunately, the price declined before it crossed it. Americans expect cheap gas and good roads as a matter of a basic right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 13:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n6jlcj$4g7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156112 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 4:39:18 PM UTC-5, D_J_E wrote: >> hancock4 writes: >> >> > However, if, say, gasoline were to cost $5/gallon, there would be >> > massive riots in the U.S. (like there were in the 1970s). >> >> Riots over gas? >> >> Looks more like one riot in Levittown PA, 1979. >> >> We were just at $4. >> I can't see why $5 would be a problem. > > In NYC, people got shot over their place in a gasoline line. Which is NOT a riot. > Yes, there was a riot in Levittown, PA, in 1979. It got ugly. > > During the last gas price spike, the general public became > unhappy when gas climbed above $4/gal. Has it approached > $5/gal, tensions rose, but fortunately, the price declined > before it crossed it. Any evidence for people being unhappy with $4 gas? (I still remember BAH blaming Obama for high prices in Michigan. What an idiot.) > Americans expect cheap gas and good roads as a matter of a > basic right. Apparently, only some Americans, maybe only the idiots. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 14:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000528BFB036EBB4@aca411c3.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #156136 |
Dan Espen wrote: > hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: > >> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 4:39:18 PM UTC-5, D_J_E wrote: >>> hancock4 writes: >>> >>> > However, if, say, gasoline were to cost $5/gallon, there would be >>> > massive riots in the U.S. (like there were in the 1970s). >>> >>> Riots over gas? >>> >>> Looks more like one riot in Levittown PA, 1979. >>> >>> We were just at $4. >>> I can't see why $5 would be a problem. >> >> In NYC, people got shot over their place in a gasoline line. > > Which is NOT a riot. > >> Yes, there was a riot in Levittown, PA, in 1979. It got ugly. >> >> During the last gas price spike, the general public became >> unhappy when gas climbed above $4/gal. Has it approached >> $5/gal, tensions rose, but fortunately, the price declined >> before it crossed it. > > Any evidence for people being unhappy with $4 gas? > > (I still remember BAH blaming Obama for high prices in Michigan. > What an idiot.) Cite? /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 20:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn8qsmt.26g.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #156112 |
On 2016-01-06, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 4:39:18 PM UTC-5, D_J_E wrote: >> hancock4 writes: >> >> > However, if, say, gasoline were to cost $5/gallon, there would be >> > massive riots in the U.S. (like there were in the 1970s). >> >> Riots over gas? >> >> Looks more like one riot in Levittown PA, 1979. >> >> We were just at $4. >> I can't see why $5 would be a problem. > > In NYC, people got shot over their place in a gasoline line. > > Yes, there was a riot in Levittown, PA, in 1979. It got ugly. > > During the last gas price spike, the general public became > unhappy when gas climbed above $4/gal. Has it approached > $5/gal, tensions rose, but fortunately, the price declined > before it crossed it. > > Americans expect cheap gas and good roads as a matter of a > basic right. > Petrol, your gas, is about 1.51 euros per litre at the local mom'n'pop place I get it. at the moment, the euro is slightly over the dollar. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "879" <879@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 14:30 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <df64egFngrmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155999 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:f547fd95-c295-4dfb-9077-e9bec8780162@googlegroups.com... > On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 1:46:52 PM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote: > >> Shouldn't we get rid of "act of sabotage" subsidies for roads as well >> (fuel taxes and license fees pay for less than half of the cost)? > > Havings roads (and airways) pay _all_ of their direct and indirect > costs would make transportation far more efficient by more honestly > allocating costs and resources. In essence, living in suburbia or > especially exurbia would cost a lot more, and force people to move > into higher density areas where transport can be more efficient. That is very arguable indeed given that the roads have to be there anyway and those who move around in cars don't actually produce most of the wear on roads, its loaded trucks that do that. So even if you did make the loaded trucks pay for the wear on the roads, that would just increase the cost of the stuff they move and not see people live in higher density areas at all. > However, if, say, gasoline were to cost $5/gallon, there would > be massive riots in the U.S. (like there were in the 1970s). There were no massive riots in the US due to the price of gasoline in the 70s. > Americans think living in wide open spaces is an absolute natural right. More accurately they are prepared to pay to live like that. > They aren't gonna give up their split levels without a fight. No reason why they would have to if the loaded trucks pay for the roads because they are what wears them out. > So, national policy will continue to be to throw a few crumbs at transit They get a hell of a lot more than a few crumbs. > so it can run a bus or two every hour, and at Amtrak to > run an LD train a few times a week. We will bulldoze > hundreds of square miles to build more airports and > highways, plowing under homes and businesses. And build more elsewhere, providing work for lots of people. > In reality, even just shifting the share-percentages only a few > points would have a great deal of benefits, And that is why public transport infrastructure is built where that makes sense. > but the automotive and airline interests absolutely panic at that. The voters aren't going to live in higher density areas when they have a choice because they prefer not to and are prepared to pay to live the way they prefer to live. > They spend a lot of lobbyists to fight even miniscule projects. That's all just piss and wind in the total spending on all transport infrastructure. > (I've been at public hearings where people show up > to protest any new transit project--yet they have > nothing to do with the specific project at hand.) Sure, some are just professional protesters about anything they don't agree with. Still just irrelevant piss and wind.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 08:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fpKdnVm5o-zsUBHLnZ2dnUU78eednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #155981 |
On 05/01/2016 18:46, Dave Garland wrote: > On 1/5/2016 8:39 AM, Andrew Swallow wrote: >> On 05/01/2016 11:23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >>> On 5 Jan 2016 10:22:33 GMT >>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> In article <20160105000414@news.eternal-september.org>, >>>>> rogblake@iname.invalid says... >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> So you deprive them of transportation and now they lose the crummy >>>>>>> job that they do have. Big help _you_ are. >>>>>> >>>>>> _You_ are free to help them with your own time, effort, and money. >>>>> >>>>> So let's see, somebody has a car, the state prevents him from >>>>> using it, >>>>> and now it's my responsibility to drive him to work. You are an >>>>> example of why we have so much poverty in the US--you have somebody >>>>> who's barely hanging on and your solution is to push him over the >>>>> edge. >>>> >>>> So, smartarse, what's your solution? >>> >>> Useful (subsidised if necessasry) public transport would be a big >>> help for this kind of thing. Requiring a pre-sale inspection might >>> reduce >>> the chance of having a wreck dumped on our poor victim. >>> >> Devise a bus service that makes a profit from taking people to work >> and bringing them back at night. No subsidies - they are an act of >> sabotage. Include cost of buying new buses every few years. Possibly >> by permitting the drivers to have a day job. > > Shouldn't we get rid of "act of sabotage" subsidies for roads as well > (fuel taxes and license fees pay for less than half of the cost)? > I am used to living in a country where the annual road tax was/is twice the cost of making and repairing roads. You may want to hire politicians that can count.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 11:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn8pus5.170.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #156060 |
On 2016-01-06, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 05/01/2016 18:46, Dave Garland wrote: >> On 1/5/2016 8:39 AM, Andrew Swallow wrote: >>> On 05/01/2016 11:23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >>>> On 5 Jan 2016 10:22:33 GMT >>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> In article <20160105000414@news.eternal-september.org>, >>>>>> rogblake@iname.invalid says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> So you deprive them of transportation and now they lose the crummy >>>>>>>> job that they do have. Big help _you_ are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _You_ are free to help them with your own time, effort, and money. >>>>>> >>>>>> So let's see, somebody has a car, the state prevents him from >>>>>> using it, >>>>>> and now it's my responsibility to drive him to work. You are an >>>>>> example of why we have so much poverty in the US--you have somebody >>>>>> who's barely hanging on and your solution is to push him over the >>>>>> edge. >>>>> >>>>> So, smartarse, what's your solution? >>>> >>>> Useful (subsidised if necessasry) public transport would be a big >>>> help for this kind of thing. Requiring a pre-sale inspection might >>>> reduce >>>> the chance of having a wreck dumped on our poor victim. >>>> >>> Devise a bus service that makes a profit from taking people to work >>> and bringing them back at night. No subsidies - they are an act of >>> sabotage. Include cost of buying new buses every few years. Possibly >>> by permitting the drivers to have a day job. >> >> Shouldn't we get rid of "act of sabotage" subsidies for roads as well >> (fuel taxes and license fees pay for less than half of the cost)? >> > > I am used to living in a country where the annual road tax was/is twice > the cost of making and repairing roads. You may want to hire politicians > that can count. Back in the 1970s, an irish government, newly elected, decided to eliminate road tax and put more tax on fuel. Wonderful idea, but ignored the fact that a large piece of this Island remained on the old system, and it was worthwhile to drive up, fill up there, and as the difference grew bigger, the distance that people would drive grew larger. The idea might work in the US. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web