Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #36333 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-02-06 09:51 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-02-12 20:03 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 78 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-06 09:51 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-06 11:10 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-07 00:01 -0500
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-08 17:43 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-09 07:48 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-09 08:21 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-02-09 20:07 +0000
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-09 22:01 -0500
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-10 00:48 -0500
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-09 22:39 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-10 08:27 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-10 23:30 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-11 01:04 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-13 22:27 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-14 12:58 -0500
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-14 21:02 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-14 22:12 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-15 16:12 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-15 19:26 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-16 17:46 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-17 19:17 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Tessa Bonting <tessa.bonting@gmail.com> - 2015-02-18 07:00 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-18 11:42 -0500
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Hannu Vuolasaho <vuokkosetae@gmail.com> - 2015-02-18 19:27 +0200
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-18 17:54 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-18 18:32 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-18 18:58 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-18 20:10 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2015-02-19 11:18 +0000
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-19 05:29 -0500
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Tessa Bonting <tessa.bonting@gmail.com> - 2015-02-19 06:24 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-19 19:40 -0500
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Tessa Bonting <tessa.bonting@gmail.com> - 2015-02-20 03:42 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-02-20 20:45 +0100
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-20 13:45 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-20 14:02 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-20 20:12 -0500
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-20 18:28 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-02-20 17:49 -1000
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-21 08:09 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-02-21 09:12 -1000
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-21 14:33 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-02-21 21:39 -1000
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-02-22 09:13 +0000
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-21 12:07 -0500
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-20 19:18 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-02-21 14:22 +0100
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-02-21 14:24 +0100
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-02-21 14:25 +0100
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-21 07:42 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-21 12:55 -0500
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-23 20:45 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-24 03:00 -0500
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-02-24 06:42 +0100
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-24 03:01 -0500
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-23 16:59 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-24 03:00 -0500
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-20 14:06 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-20 20:13 -0500
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-02-19 12:06 -1000
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-19 19:38 -0500
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-02-19 16:47 -1000
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-20 00:54 -0500
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-19 22:29 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-20 04:21 -0500
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-20 01:27 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-20 01:39 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-02-19 10:43 +0000
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-18 11:39 -0500
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-16 01:24 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-16 19:17 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-17 01:14 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-02-18 17:36 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-02-19 11:47 +0000
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-02-18 11:47 -0500
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-18 20:29 -0500
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-02-19 00:55 -0800
Re: The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-02-12 20:03 -0500
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-06 09:51 -0800 |
| Subject | The Technocrats Control Our Food Supply |
| Message-ID | <dbf267ce-a994-4e44-ae19-36201dad812c@googlegroups.com> |
Well, not exactly, but when there is a computer in everything, and in 50 years when Forth is completely forgotten, then... www.wired.com/2015/02/new-high-tech-farm-equipment-nightmare-farmers/ I wrote this on my Google+ This kind of situation is what I think about when I think of the Technocrats controlling every aspect of our lives and computerizing everything. The answer to the problem is to buy older equipment which is not computerized. The solution is to leave the computer out of the situation. Not everything needs a computer. Apple's 1984 need not be has turned into 2024 is the new 1984.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-06 11:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e4918bc3-8952-4565-966e-b41dd824f40f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36333 |
On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 12:51:33 PM UTC-5, Jason Damisch wrote: > Well, not exactly, but when there is a computer in everything, and in 50 years when Forth is completely forgotten, then... > > www.wired.com/2015/02/new-high-tech-farm-equipment-nightmare-farmers/ > > I wrote this on my Google+ > > This kind of situation is what I think about when I think of the Technocrats > controlling every aspect of our lives and computerizing everything. > The answer to the problem is to buy older equipment which is not computerized. > The solution is to leave the computer out of the situation. > Not everything needs a computer. > Apple's 1984 need not be has turned into 2024 is the new 1984. Since years I am thinking when computers are working without maintenance for decades, we will be back in stone age when then computers are failing and nobody knows how to fix it. This case is worse. And I guess this is not the only one. More will come up. Imagine Home Automation and you are not able to fix a light! Look at this: Your rights are under attack! Tell the Copyright Office to fix the DMCA. https://dmca.digitalrighttorepair.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-07 00:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op.xtn770fjv6dtjm@localhost> |
| In reply to | #36333 |
On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 12:51:32 -0500, Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> wrote: > Well, not exactly, but when there is a computer in everything, and in 50 > years when Forth is completely forgotten, then... > > www.wired.com/2015/02/new-high-tech-farm-equipment-nightmare-farmers/ > > I wrote this on my Google+ > > This kind of situation is what I think about when I think of the > Technocrats controlling every aspect of our lives and computerizing > everything. The answer to the problem is to buy older equipment > which is not computerized. The solution is to leave the computer > out of the situation. Not everything needs a computer. > Apple's 1984 need not be has turned into 2024 is the new 1984. > It's just going to get worse. New hybrid corn (maize) varieties are expected to triple the field density of corn. To harvest rows of such tightly packed plants, the farmers have to use computerized tractors with satellite positioning and automated driving. In the case cited linked to, the real issue is the mis-use of the DMCA by companies, which prohibits breaking software security in a mis-guided attempt to stop piracy. The DMCA also legally prohibits owners of products from fixing of modifying devices with protected software, which, if one is to believe the "internet of things" concept, will eventually become everything. IIRC, even the new Keurig coffee maker has DRM or DMCA protections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_of_Things Even scarier is the new U.S. government financed robot that can survive walking through fires ... If reading that didn't make you drop a load, you're not paranoid enough. That's right, the U.S. government just built a robot nearly identical to the one in the first "Terminator" movie. No joke. It looks the same too. This is for real people. The official purpose of this robot is to put out high temperature fires on military vessels ... I guess government types can rationalize anything. So, SkyNet is already here! "Run to the hills, run for your lives!" - Iron Maiden Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-08 17:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <96915e67-8420-4227-b275-598ac4b6ef49@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36333 |
On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 10:51:33 AM UTC-7, Jason Damisch wrote: > Well, not exactly, but when there is a computer in everything, and in 50 years when Forth is completely forgotten, then... > > www.wired.com/2015/02/new-high-tech-farm-equipment-nightmare-farmers/ > > I wrote this on my Google+ > > This kind of situation is what I think about when I think of the Technocrats > controlling every aspect of our lives and computerizing everything. > The answer to the problem is to buy older equipment which is not computerized. > The solution is to leave the computer out of the situation. > Not everything needs a computer. I grew up on a small cattle-ranch, and not long ago I worked on large cattle-ranch belonging to a neighbor. The large ranch previously used classic hay-bails (called "idiot cubes" by some); these are nominally 75 lbs (+-10) and can be picked up by one guy (thrown to the top of a hay stack, if he is strong). The ranch had enough cattle that they were feeding 250 bails per day, which is quite labor intensive. Haying is also labor intensive. The large ranches would provide housing for laborers (usually trailers for permanent workers, and a barracks for seasonal workers). The large ranches have mostly switched over to big round bails that weigh about 1500 lbs.. The round bails are handled entirely by machinery (a spear is installed on the scoop of a front-loader, and it sticks into the middle of the bail allowing it to be lifted). Sometimes big square bails are used; these stack better on flatbed trucks, but they require more expensive and complicated machinery to handle, so these are only used if the hay is going to be transported off-site. All of the equipment is big, and requires powerful diesel tractors. I mostly operated the mower, and it is 12-ft long; I drove a big John Deere tractor for this, and I could go pretty fast. With two mowers in operation continuously (myself and the other employee), we still took 2 months to do the haying for all of the fields, and we ended up with something like 115 tons of hay. Using the 8-ft mowers and the smaller slower tractors, you would need 4 mowers in operation continuously. Also, we had one rake and one bailer. Using the classic hay-bails, you would need 3 or 4 of each in operation continuously. So you need 3 or 4 times as many pieces of old-school equipment as you need of modern equipment, but the total cost of the old-school equipment is still maybe 1/8 that of the modern equipment. The primary cost in the old days was in paying the wages of dozens of employees --- nowadays only 1 or 2 employees are needed, so wages are negligible. The reason that people switched from the old-school labor-intensive technology to the modern technology, is political. It is very difficult to find Americans who will work in the fields nowadays. The ranchers blame this on the welfare system, that allows people to avoid hard work (tossing idiot-cubes does build up the muscles!) --- this may be true --- whether welfare is the cause or not though, it is certainly true that people nowadays are soft and weak compared to the 1980s, and the people of the 1980s were soft and weak compared to the 1940s. Over time, the ranchers became increasingly dependent upon Mexican stalwarts to do the labor. There are political problems here though. For one thing, a lot of people in the community are racist, and they don't like having Mexicans living in trailers on the ranches nearby. Many of the Mexicans' wives were working in town (clerks at the stores, maids at the motels, etc.), but people complained a lot about their marginal English and how they were stealing jobs from American citizens, and so they all got fired and replaced with white women. Also, as a practical matter, it is very difficult to get green cards for the workers, and so a lot of ranchers were hiring illegal aliens --- but "illegal" means that the rancher risks getting fined by the government. Anyway, to make a long story short --- it is all about politics (the dual issues of welfare and immigration) --- but we are making ourselves very vulnerable, and the whole badly-designed system could collapse resulting in a famine. P.S. The ranch that I worked on switched over to modern equipment primarily because of an incident in which one of the workers accidentally set a trailer on fire, causing a lot of property damage and a lot of risk of people getting injured or killed (although I don't think anybody actually did get seriously hurt; only some minor burns). I don't really know what happened because I wasn't there, but the story I heard was that somebody was cooking while drunk, and he started a grease fire that got out of control --- also, it was a gringo who started the fire, but it was mostly Mexicans who lost their jobs as a result. Anyway, the more employees that you have, the more chance there is of human error --- so that is another reason why some ranchers prefer the modern technology (hire only 1 or 2 employees, and make sure that neither is overly fond of whiskey). > Apple's 1984 need not be has turned into 2024 is the new 1984. What?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-09 07:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <45070958-2ba3-4a41-8b84-8eb501fb088a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36400 |
On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 5:43:58 PM UTC-8, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > I grew up on a small cattle-ranch, and not long ago I > worked on large cattle-ranch belonging to a neighbor. I have only worked in the fields briefly. I have picked blackberries around Salem, Oregon when I was a kid. My grandma used to take us out picking because that his how she grew up, and she thought that it was a decent way to make a little money. I remember the stickers. You have to avoid the stickers when picking those, or get poked. > > Apple's 1984 need not be has turned into 2024 is the new 1984. > > What? The Apple 1984 Advertisement https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIUcNLTsyYo But I'd rather think that Apple has turned into what this commercial portrays. I say this because of Foxcon and all of the slaves that make our stuff. I say 2024 because in the future we may be even more reliant on technology which was can't understand or repair. This is what happens to hippies, punks, ravers and hip hoppers, they join the establishment and become what they said they were against. Jason
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-09 08:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6a569f78-fa6e-4819-95e7-80455a869b15@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36414 |
Here's another one. > Not in front of the telly: Warning over 'listening' TV http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31296188 > Privacy campaigners said the technology smacked of the > telescreens, in George Orwell's 1984, which spied on citizens. Jason
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-09 20:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mbb40r$ult$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #36415 |
on 09/02/2015 16:21:12, Jason Damisch wrote: > Here's another one. > >> Not in front of the telly: Warning over 'listening' TV > > http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31296188 > >> Privacy campaigners said the technology smacked of the >> telescreens, in George Orwell's 1984, which spied on citizens. > > Jason > A small request; could you post these to alt.conspiracy please?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-09 22:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mbbs8g$efq$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #36416 |
On 2/9/2015 3:07 PM, Alex McDonald wrote: > on 09/02/2015 16:21:12, Jason Damisch wrote: >> Here's another one. >> >>> Not in front of the telly: Warning over 'listening' TV >> >> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31296188 >> >>> Privacy campaigners said the technology smacked of the >>> telescreens, in George Orwell's 1984, which spied on citizens. >> >> Jason >> > > A small request; could you post these to alt.conspiracy please? Oh, I see... they've already gotten to you, eh? -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-10 00:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op.xttuejwxv6dtjm@localhost> |
| In reply to | #36416 |
On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 15:07:28 -0500, Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote: > on 09/02/2015 16:21:12, Jason Damisch wrote: >> Here's another one. >> >>> Not in front of the telly: Warning over 'listening' TV >> >> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31296188 >> >>> Privacy campaigners said the technology smacked of the >>> telescreens, in George Orwell's 1984, which spied on citizens. >> > > A small request; could you post these to alt.conspiracy please? Aw ... I'm still waiting for the good part. Aren't you? Hugh has yet to mention the alien visitations and anal probing on those remote cattle farms, which we've all been told occured there ... We're all really wondering how much of the anal probing was due to aliens and how much wasn't ... Those cowboys pretend to be straight, but seem to readily rape each other once they start working in abattoirs. Maybe, he even has a story on La Chupacabra or Bigfoot or cow tipping or how all American farms are just fronts for white supremicists and neo-nazi's who are planning yet another race war. Peyote is available in that region of the U.S. where he is. That could really explain alot ... "... goin' off the rails on a crazy train." - Ozzy Osbourne Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-09 22:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <73db4db2-a7d8-43eb-aafd-2cc2bca10c31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36414 |
On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 8:48:23 AM UTC-7, Jason Damisch wrote: > On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 5:43:58 PM UTC-8, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I grew up on a small cattle-ranch, and not long ago I > > worked on large cattle-ranch belonging to a neighbor. > > I have only worked in the fields briefly. I have picked blackberries > around Salem, Oregon when I was a kid. The only berries that I have ever picked were chokecherries --- they are used for making wine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-10 08:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <56f7a8ee-33c8-430a-86b6-3403cdc0ff93@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36424 |
On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 10:39:38 PM UTC-8, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > The only berries that I have ever picked were > chokecherries --- they are used for making wine. You would think that after working outside that people like us would really welcome sit down work, such as working infront of a computer. We should appreciate it. Jason
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-10 23:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b84a7b7c-a327-4163-8757-a33fc96780ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36433 |
On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 9:27:40 AM UTC-7, Jason Damisch wrote: > On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 10:39:38 PM UTC-8, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > > > The only berries that I have ever picked were > > chokecherries --- they are used for making wine. > > You would think that after working outside that people like us > would really welcome sit down work, such as working infront of > a computer. We should appreciate it. > > Jason You have obviously never tried choke-cherry wine --- it is worth the effort! In regard to work, I like anything that I have to think about --- I tried data-entry once, and lasted only 2 weeks, as it was mind-numbing boredom --- I remember as a boy feeding the cows that I imagined that the cows worshiped me as their god for giving them hay, similar to how the Jews got their manna, so that kept my mind occupied. Anyway, getting back to the subject of this thread --- I can't blame John Deere for making their system closed --- they can't offer a warranty if they allow the users to tweak the computer settings. The situation is the same in automobiles --- you can get your car's micro-controller to upload its data to your computer, so you can find out which sensors are indicating what --- but you can't bypass a sensor or tweak the system at all. Police cars have different micro-controllers, which is why they have better performance --- if the general public could do that with their private cars, everybody would! A much bigger problem in regard to cattle is that it is illegal for cattle ranchers to sell beef. When I had that job at the cattle-ranch, I asked to be paid in beef rather than dollars --- but I was told that this was no longer legal. My plan was that the rancher deliver a cow to the butcher shop in town. The butcher would do the butchering and meat-cutting and storing of the meat in their freezer, the butcher would get a fraction of the meat, and the remainder of the meat would be mine --- this is they way it had always been done in the 1980s. I went to the butcher shop, which I had worked for long ago (my first-ever job at 14), and I was told that my plan is illegal now. Although the butcher shop is in the middle of cattle-ranching country, they can't buy cows from the cattle ranchers, but they are required by law to buy already-slaughtered beef from the big slaughter-houses --- all that they are allowed to do is the meat-cutting. The stated reason for this is so all beef will get health-inspected. This actually makes beef more dangerous though: 1.) The big slaughter-houses are fill of wage-earners who are motivated to not admit to mistakes (primarily, getting feces in the meat) in order to keep their jobs, and they just hope that by the time the mistake is discovered it will be unclear exactly who made the mistake and so nobody will get fired. By comparison, the small butcher-shops are motivated to discard any ruined beef, because their customers are their neighbors and they need to uphold their reputation for providing good meat in order to stay in business. 2.) The big slaughter-houses have enough money to pay any fines (or bribe the inspector), so they aren't going to go out of business if they sell tainted beef. Also, there are only a few slaughter-houses in America, so they are "too big to fail." By comparison, the small butcher-shop can't afford to make mistakes because they will go out of business --- so they are highly motivated to not make mistakes. 3.) The slaughter-houses slaughter cows on a production line, and they do it very quickly, so there is a lot of chance for feces to get in the meat. By comparison, the small butcher shops slaughter cows one at a time in no great rush, so there is much less chance of getting feces in the meat. The large-slaughter house uses a mechanical spool to pull the hide off the cow. By comparison, the butcher pulls the hide off by hand, so any feces on the hide is less likely to get into the meat. 4.) The cows going to the slaughter-house have been in a feedlot. Because of the crowding of the cows, they tend to have feces all over themselves, which increases the chance of the feces getting into the meat. By comparison, cows that come in from the field are cleaner. 5.) The cows going to the slaughter-house have been in a feedlot eating corn, which makes their large intestine excessively acidic, which allows E.Coli to thrive --- so if feces does get in the meat, it is likely to have E.Coli --- by comparison, if feces from grass-fed cattle gets in the meat, it will not have E.Coli and it will not make the person sick who eats the meat. 6.) There are very few slaughter-houses in America. Each one mixes the beef together, so if one cow with E.Coli gets through, its tainted beef will be spread all over America with thousands of people eating that cow. By comparison, if a small-town butcher makes a mistake and sells tainted beef, the problem will only affect a handful of people. Another problem with this law, is that the cattle-ranchers are required to sell their cows to the big feedlots, and it is illegal for them to sell to private citizens. The result is that the ranchers have to accept whatever price they can get at the auction, with the only bidders being the big feedlots. In the old days, if the ranchers couldn't get a good price from the big feedlots, they had the option of not selling their cattle to the feedlots, but instead selling to private citizens. Now they have to accept the feedlots' price, and rather predictably the price is so low that the ranchers can barely make any profit --- that is what happens when capitalism is outlawed --- the system we use in America today, is actually very similar to the system used in the Soviet Union in the 1980s, and it didn't work well for the Soviets. It is for these reasons that I think the beef supply in America could fail, and we could have a famine. P.S. Next time you go to a fast-food restaurant, be aware that your hamburger patty contains beef from upwards of 1000 different cows mixed together, and the chance of there being feces in your burger is pretty close to 100% --- just something to think about!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-11 01:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ae3e4982-98d4-4294-a85d-a4f3a4d03126@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36462 |
On Wednesday, 11 February 2015 07:30:06 UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 9:27:40 AM UTC-7, Jason Damisch wrote: > > On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 10:39:38 PM UTC-8, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > The only berries that I have ever picked were > > > chokecherries --- they are used for making wine. > > > > You would think that after working outside that people like us > > would really welcome sit down work, such as working infront of > > a computer. We should appreciate it. > > > > Jason > > You have obviously never tried choke-cherry wine --- it is worth the effort! > > In regard to work, I like anything that I have to think about --- I tried data-entry once, and lasted only 2 weeks, as it was mind-numbing boredom --- I remember as a boy feeding the cows that I imagined that the cows worshiped me as their god for giving them hay, similar to how the Jews got their manna, so that kept my mind occupied. > > Anyway, getting back to the subject of this thread --- I can't blame John Deere for making their system closed --- they can't offer a warranty if they allow the users to tweak the computer settings. The situation is the same in automobiles --- you can get your car's micro-controller to upload its data to your computer, so you can find out which sensors are indicating what --- but you can't bypass a sensor or tweak the system at all. Police cars have different micro-controllers, which is why they have better performance --- if the general public could do that with their private cars, everybody would! > > A much bigger problem in regard to cattle is that it is illegal for cattle ranchers to sell beef. When I had that job at the cattle-ranch, I asked to be paid in beef rather than dollars --- but I was told that this was no longer legal. My plan was that the rancher deliver a cow to the butcher shop in town. The butcher would do the butchering and meat-cutting and storing of the meat in their freezer, the butcher would get a fraction of the meat, and the remainder of the meat would be mine --- this is they way it had always been done in the 1980s. I went to the butcher shop, which I had worked for long ago (my first-ever job at 14), and I was told that my plan is illegal now. Although the butcher shop is in the middle of cattle-ranching country, they can't buy cows from the cattle ranchers, but they are required by law to buy already-slaughtered beef from the big slaughter-houses --- all that they are allowed to do is the meat-cutting. The stated reason for this is so all beef will get health-inspected. > > This actually makes beef more dangerous though: > 1.) The big slaughter-houses are fill of wage-earners who are motivated to not admit to mistakes (primarily, getting feces in the meat) in order to keep their jobs, and they just hope that by the time the mistake is discovered it will be unclear exactly who made the mistake and so nobody will get fired. By comparison, the small butcher-shops are motivated to discard any ruined beef, because their customers are their neighbors and they need to uphold their reputation for providing good meat in order to stay in business. > 2.) The big slaughter-houses have enough money to pay any fines (or bribe the inspector), so they aren't going to go out of business if they sell tainted beef. Also, there are only a few slaughter-houses in America, so they are "too big to fail." By comparison, the small butcher-shop can't afford to make mistakes because they will go out of business --- so they are highly motivated to not make mistakes. > 3.) The slaughter-houses slaughter cows on a production line, and they do it very quickly, so there is a lot of chance for feces to get in the meat. By comparison, the small butcher shops slaughter cows one at a time in no great rush, so there is much less chance of getting feces in the meat. The large-slaughter house uses a mechanical spool to pull the hide off the cow. By comparison, the butcher pulls the hide off by hand, so any feces on the hide is less likely to get into the meat. > 4.) The cows going to the slaughter-house have been in a feedlot. Because of the crowding of the cows, they tend to have feces all over themselves, which increases the chance of the feces getting into the meat. By comparison, cows that come in from the field are cleaner. > 5.) The cows going to the slaughter-house have been in a feedlot eating corn, which makes their large intestine excessively acidic, which allows E.Coli to thrive --- so if feces does get in the meat, it is likely to have E.Coli --- by comparison, if feces from grass-fed cattle gets in the meat, it will not have E.Coli and it will not make the person sick who eats the meat. > 6.) There are very few slaughter-houses in America. Each one mixes the beef together, so if one cow with E.Coli gets through, its tainted beef will be spread all over America with thousands of people eating that cow. By comparison, if a small-town butcher makes a mistake and sells tainted beef, the problem will only affect a handful of people. > > Another problem with this law, is that the cattle-ranchers are required to sell their cows to the big feedlots, and it is illegal for them to sell to private citizens. The result is that the ranchers have to accept whatever price they can get at the auction, with the only bidders being the big feedlots. In the old days, if the ranchers couldn't get a good price from the big feedlots, they had the option of not selling their cattle to the feedlots, but instead selling to private citizens. Now they have to accept the feedlots' price, and rather predictably the price is so low that the ranchers can barely make any profit --- that is what happens when capitalism is outlawed --- the system we use in America today, is actually very similar to the system used in the Soviet Union in the 1980s, and it didn't work well for the Soviets. > > It is for these reasons that I think the beef supply in America could fail, and we could have a famine. > > P.S. Next time you go to a fast-food restaurant, be aware that your hamburger patty contains beef from upwards of 1000 different cows mixed together, and the chance of there being feces in your burger is pretty close to 100% --- just something to think about! Sounds like textbook Fascism to me. The collaboration of big-business and government and to squeeze out the smaller operators. Happening all over America. Witness the recent stories of raw-milk sellers getting SWAT teamed etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-13 22:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f2589a2c-694f-425d-a21f-e182989d4795@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36464 |
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 2:04:45 AM UTC-7, Mark Wills wrote: > Sounds like textbook Fascism to me. The collaboration of big-business and > government and to squeeze out the smaller operators. Happening all over > America. Witness the recent stories of raw-milk sellers getting SWAT teamed > etc. That butcher shop I mentioned has been sold. The owners took an early retirement because doing business the way that they have for decades is no longer legal (taking live cows from the ranchers, keeping a portion of the meat to be sold over the counter, and returning the remaining meat to the rancher). They sold to an employee --- they made sure that he understood that he can only do meat-cutting on sides of beef bought from the big slaughterhouses --- he was okay with this as he had been working as a meat-cutter for them, and now he is effectively working as a meat-cutter for the big slaughter-house (he has never been anything except an employee, so he is used to working for somebody else). Well, today I went to a radiator shop because my radiator was clogged up and my vehicle was overheating. The last time I did this was 18 months ago. At that time, the shop gave the radiator an acid bath to remove all the gunk from inside and the paint from outside, then they soldered any cracks that were leaking, then they painted it, and then they were done (I removed the radiator and reinstalled it myself to save money). This scenario is no longer legal. The guy who repaired my radiator told me that he used to own a very large facility, he had 9 employees, and he turned over 100 radiators per day. He had several trucks and drivers who would collect radiators from general-mechanics, bring them in for repair, then take them back. All of this came to an abrupt conclusion when OSHA showed up and fined him $100,000. In response, he fired all of his employees and sold his property. He went to court 3 times and finally convinced the judge to lower the fine to $35,000 on the basis that he had been in the radiator business for 30 years and had never gotten in trouble before. He bought another much smaller shop where he and his son work now. They can no longer clean radiators with acid. They have to totally dismantle the radiator and "rod it out," meaning stick a rod down each tube to physically push the gunk out. They can only clean the radiator with soap and water in preparation for soldering (soldering doesn't work if there is grease on the surface), and they have to use a solder without lead. When they paint the radiator, this has to be done with a water-based paint (this will wash off the first time I spill water on the radiator), and they have to use aerosol spray cans rather than a compressed-air spray-painter. Cleaning radiators manually like this is a time-consuming tedious process, so he had to raise his price (he charged me $85), and it is still hardly worth the effort. He only does this for a handful of general-mechanics --- he doesn't advertise at all, as he feels safer from OSHA if nobody knows that he is still in business (he is not listed by Google; I got his phone-number from a general-mechanic, although most general-mechanics won't provide this information to customers because they charge $90 per hour to remove and replace the radiator). The radiator man is semi-retired although he is only in his 50s, and he just does enough work to scrape by until he can qualify for Social Security. His son works there, but the son focuses primarily on fabricating custom radiators for 1930s antique cars (the Model-T, etc.), and he sells these on eBay --- he doesn't waste his time on modern cars at all, as there is obviously no future in radiator-repair. For the most part, if you have trouble with your radiator, you have to just buy a new radiator --- and you get a radiator with plastic tanks rather than all-metal like my radiator --- the plastic radiators are disposable items. The radiator guy told me that he used to sell all-metal radiators like mine for $185 (that is, in fact, what I paid for it) --- now my radiator, although used, is worth maybe $360 --- nobody is manufacturing all-metal radiators anymore because it is no longer legal to acid clean them, so they might as well sell the plastic ones that can't be acid cleaned anyway. The radiator man said that he knows who called OSHA on him; it was a neighbor who hates Mexicans. So I asked if only Mexican-owned shops are getting hit, but they guy said that all radiator shops have been hit and there isn't any shop in Phoenix that still does acid washing. When I wanted to flush out my cooling system with a hose before reinstalling the radiator, I was told that this is illegal. I wasn't going to dump antifreeze down the drains, as there hasn't been any antifreeze in my vehicle for days, but this doesn't matter and it is still illegal. He finally relented and let me do this, but I had to go behind the building where I couldn't be seen, and if I got caught he would deny knowledge of what I was doing back there. He says that the neighbor who called OSHA on him is still watching him with binoculars in the hope of catching him breaking a rule so he can be put out of business for good. All of this is just more fascism --- a government crack-down on small businesses --- the result is that everybody becomes dependent upon large corporations, and they can't repair anything themselves.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-14 12:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op.xt16vyg6v6dtjm@localhost> |
| In reply to | #36560 |
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 01:27:46 -0500, <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote: > When I wanted to flush out my cooling system with a hose > before reinstalling the radiator, I was told that this > is illegal. I wasn't going to dump antifreeze down the > drains, ... radiator fluid ... That stuff is nearly impossible to get rid of legally. Pouring it down the drain contaminates the water supply, and is illegal under my state's law. Although, most people probably do this at home 75% to 90% of the time. Putting into the trash, even if mixed in with an absorbant material, contaminates the landfill through leakage and is illegal under my state's law. Although, many people probably do this the other 10% to 25% of the time. Auto shops won't take it because they have no place for it, and putting it in with the used oil container contaminates the used oil. Their recycler won't pay them for used oil, if it's contaminated. Did you know that used oil could be contaminated? ... City recycling centers won't take it either, and putting it in with the used oil conatiner contaminates the used oil. The city then reminds people not to contaminate the used oil because they lose revenue when they can't sell contaminated used oil. The city also has to pay for it to be burned. When I asked the city how to legally dispose of the stuff, they told me it's a county issue. When I asked the county how to legally dispose of the stuff, they told me to contact the state. When I asked the state how to legally dispose of the stuff, they told me it's a city problem. Catch-22. Maybe, it falls under federal law since no one ever said to contact them ... So, what do businesses do? Well, they're supposed to pay for a license to dump into the sewer. They pay for a license from the fire marshall, which is only offered to licensed businesses, and isn't offered to individuals or homeowners. The license permits the licensee to mix a liquid contaminate, specified in the license, with a large quantity of water, also specified in the license, and pour it into the sewer. The license fee is for the fire department to come out and sample the sewer system near your location a few times during the year to make sure that the local levels of the legally dumped, diluted liquid pollutant is well below the legally allowed federal and state parts per billion regulations for that pollutant in the water supply. Of course, no auto related businesses, such as automotive repair shops, oil change shops, or gas stations ever pay for such a license. They simply reject accepting the stuff from customers. I have no idea what they do with the stuff when they come across it as part of their jobs. Probably, they dump it illegally down the drain, or soak it into rags or cat litter and put it in the trash, or put it into the used oil container when the boss isn't looking. So, since no businesses are paying for the license, there is no legal way to dispose of the stuff. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-14 21:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <de800f9b-9b29-44e8-8d59-4c9148674d05@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36567 |
On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 9:58:31 AM UTC-8, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 01:27:46 -0500, hugh wrote: > > > When I wanted to flush out my cooling system with a hose > > before reinstalling the radiator, I was told that this > > is illegal. I wasn't going to dump antifreeze down the > > drains, > > ... radiator fluid ... > > That stuff is nearly impossible to get rid of legally. > > Pouring it down the drain contaminates the water supply, > and is illegal under my state's law. Although, most people > probably do this at home 75% to 90% of the time. > > Putting into the trash, even if mixed in with an absorbant > material, contaminates the landfill through leakage and is > illegal under my state's law. Although, many people probably > do this the other 10% to 25% of the time. > > Auto shops won't take it because they have no place for it, > and putting it in with the used oil container contaminates > the used oil. Their recycler won't pay them for used oil, > if it's contaminated. > > Did you know that used oil could be contaminated? ... > The density differences of the two (or more) mixed liquids is sufficient to allow them to separate by gravity, given enough time. There are other active processes that can do the same thing more quickly, but I don't know the details. > > City recycling centers won't take it either, and putting it > in with the used oil conatiner contaminates the used oil. > The city then reminds people not to contaminate the used oil > because they lose revenue when they can't sell contaminated > used oil. The city also has to pay for it to be burned. > > When I asked the city how to legally dispose of the stuff, > they told me it's a county issue. When I asked the county > how to legally dispose of the stuff, they told me to > contact the state. When I asked the state how to legally > dispose of the stuff, they told me it's a city problem. > Catch-22. Maybe, it falls under federal law since no one > ever said to contact them ... > > So, what do businesses do? Well, they're supposed to pay > for a license to dump into the sewer. They pay for a license > from the fire marshall, which is only offered to licensed > businesses, and isn't offered to individuals or homeowners. > The license permits the licensee to mix a liquid contaminate, > specified in the license, with a large quantity of water, also > specified in the license, and pour it into the sewer. The > license fee is for the fire department to come out and sample > the sewer system near your location a few times during the > year to make sure that the local levels of the legally dumped, > diluted liquid pollutant is well below the legally allowed > federal and state parts per billion regulations for that > pollutant in the water supply. Of course, no auto related > businesses, such as automotive repair shops, oil change shops, > or gas stations ever pay for such a license. They simply > reject accepting the stuff from customers. I have no idea > what they do with the stuff when they come across it as part > of their jobs. Probably, they dump it illegally down the > drain, or soak it into rags or cat litter and put it in the > trash, or put it into the used oil container when the boss > isn't looking. So, since no businesses are paying for the > license, there is no legal way to dispose of the stuff. > > > Rod Pemberton > I have worked in small automotive shops for the last 30 years, and we have always had to store used lubricant, coolant, and lubricant/fuel filters in separate 55-gallon drums, and when they're full, we call a licensed facility to send a truck over to either pump it or haul it. They don't get too bent out of shape if there is some minor cross-contamination, of the type that would happen from a damaged engine or random human dumping error. We don't normally accept waste fluids from drive-up people, due to the expense of the disposal service. A city inspector comes by about once a year to make sure that the drums are appropriately marked and free of leaks, and checks our fire-extinguishers and our posted contingency plan. Exactly what they do with this hazardous waste is unknown to me, but they charge us enough for the service to make a profit. I have heard that waste oil can be legally used as heating oil under certain controlled conditions, and that waste anti-freeze/coolant can be reclaimed and used to make "new" anti-freeze coolant, in much the same manner that plastic and glass can be reclaimed, but I don't know the details of those processes, or if what I've heard is even correct. Out of sight, out of mind, right? :/ Mike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-14 22:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ec4a3983-f221-4f14-90a2-55eb59514abf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36560 |
On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 10:27:48 PM UTC-8, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > > Well, today I went to a radiator shop because my radiator was clogged up > and my vehicle was overheating. The last time I did this was 18 months > ago. At that time, the shop gave the radiator an acid bath to remove all > the gunk from inside and the paint from outside, then they soldered any > cracks that were leaking, then they painted it, and then they were done > (I removed the radiator and reinstalled it myself to save money). This > scenario is no longer legal. > 18 months between a major service like that is highly unusual. My '98 Kia Sephia is over 16 years old and has 120,000 miles on the odometer, and its aluminum and plastic radiator still works fine in 100° plus Summers here. I have never removed it or flushed it, and I have only drained and refilled it once, about 30,000 miles ago when I changed the timing belt and water pump. I would suspect that you have an internal engine problem or are using a sub-standard anti-freeze and/or water base. For most non-exotic vehicles built in the last century, you should always run a 50/50 mix of a quality anti-freeze and distilled water. It doesn't just protect against freezing, but has additive packages that are critical in the prevention of corrosion, cavitation and clogging. Mike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-15 16:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <21c3228e-b010-4b78-a72e-3e62df5ff7c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36580 |
On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 11:12:45 PM UTC-7, Michael Barry wrote: > On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 10:27:48 PM UTC-8, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Well, today I went to a radiator shop because my radiator was clogged up > > and my vehicle was overheating. The last time I did this was 18 months > > ago. At that time, the shop gave the radiator an acid bath to remove all > > the gunk from inside and the paint from outside, then they soldered any > > cracks that were leaking, then they painted it, and then they were done > > (I removed the radiator and reinstalled it myself to save money). This > > scenario is no longer legal. > > > > 18 months between a major service like that is highly unusual. My '98 > Kia Sephia is over 16 years old and has 120,000 miles on the odometer, > and its aluminum and plastic radiator still works fine in 100° plus > Summers here. I have never removed it or flushed it, and I have only > drained and refilled it once, about 30,000 miles ago when I changed > the timing belt and water pump. I would suspect that you have an > internal engine problem or are using a sub-standard anti-freeze and/or > water base. For most non-exotic vehicles built in the last century, > you should always run a 50/50 mix of a quality anti-freeze and > distilled water. It doesn't just protect against freezing, but has > additive packages that are critical in the prevention of corrosion, > cavitation and clogging. > > Mike I'm not entirely sure that it was 1 1/2 years (18 months) --- it might have been 2 1/2 years (30 months) --- all I remember for sure is that it was during the summer, and not very long ago. So, it was about one year ago, and not more than two years ago, that the whole radiator-repair business collapsed and everybody who was doing acid-wash got put out of business by OSHA. That radiator-man that I told about got caught by surprise. OSHA came and wanted to watch his operation for one week, and he felt confident that he would pass the inspection with flying colors as he had been doing this for decades and had a solid safety procedure in place (only one guy allowed in the acid room, full PPE, etc.) --- he didn't realize that any use of acid had been made illegal and that he was going to be closing his doors the next week and facing a $100,000 fine. I definitely do have an "internal engine problem" --- I blew my head gasket. I was going to throw away the vehicle, but then I tried one of the stop-leak formulas that are designed to fix blown head-gaskets or cracked blocks, and it worked. The downside was that my radiator got completely clogged up, which is why I had to get it cleaned out, but that was a small price to pay considering that I had been ready to junk the vehicle only a few days previous. BTW: The most common cause of radiator leaks is a bad radiator-cap --- if it doesn't release the pressure as needed, the high pressure can crack a solder joint in the radiator or blow out a hose, resulting in a leak --- those radiator caps fail after about two years (the gasket gets hard), so I recommend that you replace your radiator cap on your KIA if you haven't done so in over two years. Today I flushed out the system again (I had put only water in when I installed the radiator the other day), and I refilled it. I put in a bottle of water-pump lubricant and also some anti-freeze. I only put in 1/5 anti-freeze, rather than 1/2 (the 50:50 you recommended), as the bottle of lubricant said that the more anti-freeze there is, the more surface tension the coolant mixture has. Surface tension in the coolant causes the vehicle to run hot because the coolant sticking to the surface isn't getting cycled around by the water pump and it doesn't carry away the heat. When the vehicle overheats, there is a thin layer of steam between the metal surface and the coolant flowing over the surface. Steam, of course, doesn't conduct heat at all. The guy at the auto-parts store recommended to me that I use less than 1/2 anti-freeze. He does drag-racing, and doesn't use any anti-freeze, but for street use some anti-freeze is necessary to prevent boiling over --- but he thought that 1/2 was too high and I should go with less --- the 1/2 figure is primarily to prevent freezing in cold climates, but shouldn't be necessary in Phoenix where our problem is over-heating. Have you read about steam engines, or worked on one? My father has one that he built for fun. Those things would sometimes explode. What happened, is that a layer of steam built up on the bottom of the tank, so the water was sitting on top of this layer of steam and not touching the bottom of the tank. Steam doesn't conduct heat though, so within a matter of seconds the fire burned through the metal on the bottom of the tank --- then all that water fell through onto the fire and instantly vaporized in a big explosion. Something similar happens when a car engine overheats, although we don't blow anything up --- the worst that can happen is that the head warps and the head-gasket gives out. BTW: Did you know that KIA also makes lathes? When I was working as a CNC programmer, the lathe I was working with was a KIA --- it was accurate to about +-0.0005 inches, which I thought was quite impressive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-15 19:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ebb71953-0575-4a3f-83c8-30f67d44bea8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36588 |
On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 4:12:14 PM UTC-8, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > > ... The guy at the auto-parts store recommended to me that I use less > than 1/2 anti-freeze. He does drag-racing, and doesn't use any anti- > freeze, but for street use some anti-freeze is necessary to prevent > boiling over --- but he thought that 1/2 was too high and I should > go with less --- the 1/2 figure is primarily to prevent freezing in > cold climates, but shouldn't be necessary in Phoenix where our > problem is over-heating. > I would almost always question the validity of any advice from an auto- parts store employee, especially if it went against manufacturer recommendations or product instructions, as is the case here. I am in far better agreement with this guy: http://blog.chiltondiy.com/2013/06/which-antifreeze-is-right-for-your-vehicle/ I'm not sure of his credentials, but he has my unofficial seal of approval, and I am a twice re-certified ASE Master Technician and California smog technician, for whatever that's worth. Mike
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-16 17:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9321d8c7-7a9c-482d-be45-dad508a26805@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36592 |
On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 8:26:28 PM UTC-7, Michael Barry wrote: > I am a twice re-certified ASE Master Technician and > California smog technician, for whatever that's worth. Well, you are far ahead of me in regard to cars...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web