Fuel prices aren't dropping
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
I am really sorry guys...
A quick search revealed that indeed US fluid ounces and IMP fluid ounces
are not the same. My whole theory was based on that fact.
You have just made a more than 30 years belief of mine go down the drain ;-(
http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictF.html
The US threw the fluid ounce back in the sea along with the tea in
Boston it looks like. It makes perfect sense after all.
Although silly, the plane crash story is true:
http://www.ia-planet.com/ACS/2MY/MY2.html
Damn, thinking of it, I could have been the one which caused it
At least I'll sleep less stupid tonight
Where would I be without the newsgroups?
Reminds me the time I bet 50$ with a friend of mine that Silvester
Stalone was playing in ScarFace. hehehe...
Thanks guys and sorry again, I own you one.
-john
George wrote:
> I think this argument is stupid, but a quick google found this link.
> There's lots more to it, but for the sake of this argument, here's what it
> says. Your story about the plane crashing is the "silliest thing I've heard
> of." In aircraft, fuel is measured in pounds, not gallons. Metric
> measurement is not the same as imperial so when they converted to metric, it
> would have been in kilograms or some such . Anyway, a pump jockey is
> not the guy that converts the measurement. He would have already be told
> the capacity and his meter would be metric. And, after all that, the pilot
> has a fuel gage.
>
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_unit
>
> In the customary British system the units of dry measure are the same as
> those of liquid measure. In the United States these two are not the same,
> the gallon and its subdivisions are used in the measurement of liquids; the
> bushel, with its subdivisions, is used in the measurement of certain dry
> commodities. The U.S. gallon is divided into four liquid quarts and the U.S.
> bushel into 32 dry quarts. All the units of capacity or volume mentioned
> thus far are larger in the customary British system than in the U.S. system.
> But the British fluid ounce is smaller than the U.S. fluid ounce, because
> the British quart is divided into 40 fluid ounces whereas the U.S. quart is
> divided into 32 fluid ounces.
>
> From this we see that in the customary British system an avoirdupois ounce
> of water at 62°F has a volume of one fluid ounce, because 10 pounds is
> equivalent to 160 avoirdupois ounces, and 1 gallon is equivalent to 4
> quarts, or 160 fluid ounces. This convenient relation does not exist in the
> U.S. system because a U.S. gallon of water at 62°F weighs about 8 1/3
> pounds, or 133 1/3 avoirdupois ounces, and the U.S. gallon is equivalent to
> 4 x 32, or 128 fluid ounces.
>
>
> a.. 1 U.S. fluid ounce = 1.041 British fluid ounces
> b.. 1 British fluid ounce = 0.961 U.S. fluid ounce
> c.. 1 U.S. gallon = 0.833 British Imperial gallon
> d.. 1 British Imperial gallon = 1.201 U.S. gallons
> "john" <rsx18@mistralaero.com> wrote in message
> news:3F0B8734.2080402@mistralaero.com...
>
>>liquid ounces are the same whether US or IMP:
>>
>> Quart Gallon
>>IMP 40 ounces 160 ounces
>>US 32 ounces 128 ounces
>>
>>Now do the math.
>>That 1.20095 value is the silliest thing I ever heard of.
>>
>>Free "the brain" t-shirt for the correct answer!
>>
>>Is this a joke or some kind of a hoax?
>>
>>As an interesting side note,
>>-1 liquid ounce of water weights one ounce
>>-1 IMP gallon of water weights 10 pounds.
>>-1 gram of water is 1 ml
>>-1 pound is aproxiamatly 454 grams
>>-1 IMP gallon is aproxiamatly 4,54 l
>>
>>
>>Quiz:
>>Now, give the US values given the information in the beginnig of the
>>message.
>>
>>A plane actually ran out of fuel in mid-air and almost crashed on
>>landing in Canada when it went metric because the guys fueling the plane
>>could not figure that out ;-(
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>-john
>>
>>
>>
>>rick nelson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mike Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>rick nelson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Bob P wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hey, I just thought of something....isn't the Imperial gallon larger
>>>>>>
> than
>
>>>>>>the US gallon? Like 5 quarts instead of 4 quarts for ours....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>BobP
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>An Imperial gallon is 1.20095 US gallons.
>>>>>
>>>>> rick
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Huh? It's 1.2 gallons exactly. 5 quarts instead of 4. You must be
>>>>using an old Pentium, huh?
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Mike Smith
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Such is the legacy of a generation who learned math on a calculator.
>>> Allow me to demonstrate. If an Imperial Gallon were 5 US quarts, that
>>>would be 1.25 gallons *exactly*. 1 US quart is .25 of a US gallon. 5 US
>>>quarts qould be 1.25 US gallons.
>>> A British Imperial quart is 1.20095 US quarts and a British imperial
>>>gallon is 1.20095 US gallons.
>>> The source for this measurement is the New York Public Library Desk
>>>Reference, copyright 1989 by Simon & Schuster, Inc.
>>>
>>> I would be interested to see your source and how you did the math to
>>>make *approximately* 1.2 gallons equal 5 quarts.
>>>
>>>rick
>>>
>>>
>
>
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
I read with some interest the story of the plane crash. I worked for Boeing
for 14 years before getting kicked out and I can say that the inspection
processes makes hard to build junk. I've never worked for an airline but
have flown a number of times. I've watched luggage handlers, galley
workers, ticket and boarding people. This story puts another dent in my
confidence while flying.
..
"john" <rsx18@mistralaero.com> wrote in message
news:3F0C057D.8000802@mistralaero.com...
>
> I am really sorry guys...
>
> A quick search revealed that indeed US fluid ounces and IMP fluid ounces
> are not the same. My whole theory was based on that fact.
>
> You have just made a more than 30 years belief of mine go down the drain
;-(
>
> http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictF.html
>
> The US threw the fluid ounce back in the sea along with the tea in
> Boston it looks like. It makes perfect sense after all.
>
> Although silly, the plane crash story is true:
>
> http://www.ia-planet.com/ACS/2MY/MY2.html
>
> Damn, thinking of it, I could have been the one which caused it
>
> At least I'll sleep less stupid tonight
>
> Where would I be without the newsgroups?
>
> Reminds me the time I bet 50$ with a friend of mine that Silvester
> Stalone was playing in ScarFace. hehehe...
>
> Thanks guys and sorry again, I own you one.
>
> -john
>
>
> George wrote:
>
> > I think this argument is stupid, but a quick google found this link.
> > There's lots more to it, but for the sake of this argument, here's what
it
> > says. Your story about the plane crashing is the "silliest thing I've
heard
> > of." In aircraft, fuel is measured in pounds, not gallons. Metric
> > measurement is not the same as imperial so when they converted to
metric, it
> > would have been in kilograms or some such . Anyway, a pump jockey
is
> > not the guy that converts the measurement. He would have already be
told
> > the capacity and his meter would be metric. And, after all that, the
pilot
> > has a fuel gage.
> >
> > http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_unit
> >
> > In the customary British system the units of dry measure are the same as
> > those of liquid measure. In the United States these two are not the
same,
> > the gallon and its subdivisions are used in the measurement of liquids;
the
> > bushel, with its subdivisions, is used in the measurement of certain dry
> > commodities. The U.S. gallon is divided into four liquid quarts and the
U.S.
> > bushel into 32 dry quarts. All the units of capacity or volume mentioned
> > thus far are larger in the customary British system than in the U.S.
system.
> > But the British fluid ounce is smaller than the U.S. fluid ounce,
because
> > the British quart is divided into 40 fluid ounces whereas the U.S. quart
is
> > divided into 32 fluid ounces.
> >
> > From this we see that in the customary British system an avoirdupois
ounce
> > of water at 62°F has a volume of one fluid ounce, because 10 pounds is
> > equivalent to 160 avoirdupois ounces, and 1 gallon is equivalent to 4
> > quarts, or 160 fluid ounces. This convenient relation does not exist in
the
> > U.S. system because a U.S. gallon of water at 62°F weighs about 8 1/3
> > pounds, or 133 1/3 avoirdupois ounces, and the U.S. gallon is equivalent
to
> > 4 x 32, or 128 fluid ounces.
> >
> >
> > a.. 1 U.S. fluid ounce = 1.041 British fluid ounces
> > b.. 1 British fluid ounce = 0.961 U.S. fluid ounce
> > c.. 1 U.S. gallon = 0.833 British Imperial gallon
> > d.. 1 British Imperial gallon = 1.201 U.S. gallons
> > "john" <rsx18@mistralaero.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F0B8734.2080402@mistralaero.com...
> >
> >>liquid ounces are the same whether US or IMP:
> >>
> >> Quart Gallon
> >>IMP 40 ounces 160 ounces
> >>US 32 ounces 128 ounces
> >>
> >>Now do the math.
> >>That 1.20095 value is the silliest thing I ever heard of.
> >>
> >>Free "the brain" t-shirt for the correct answer!
> >>
> >>Is this a joke or some kind of a hoax?
> >>
> >>As an interesting side note,
> >>-1 liquid ounce of water weights one ounce
> >>-1 IMP gallon of water weights 10 pounds.
> >>-1 gram of water is 1 ml
> >>-1 pound is aproxiamatly 454 grams
> >>-1 IMP gallon is aproxiamatly 4,54 l
> >>
> >>
> >>Quiz:
> >>Now, give the US values given the information in the beginnig of the
> >>message.
> >>
> >>A plane actually ran out of fuel in mid-air and almost crashed on
> >>landing in Canada when it went metric because the guys fueling the plane
> >>could not figure that out ;-(
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >>
> >>-john
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>rick nelson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Mike Smith wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>rick nelson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Bob P wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Hey, I just thought of something....isn't the Imperial gallon larger
> >>>>>>
> > than
> >
> >>>>>>the US gallon? Like 5 quarts instead of 4 quarts for ours....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>BobP
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>An Imperial gallon is 1.20095 US gallons.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> rick
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>Huh? It's 1.2 gallons exactly. 5 quarts instead of 4. You must be
> >>>>using an old Pentium, huh?
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Mike Smith
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Such is the legacy of a generation who learned math on a calculator.
> >>> Allow me to demonstrate. If an Imperial Gallon were 5 US quarts, that
> >>>would be 1.25 gallons *exactly*. 1 US quart is .25 of a US gallon. 5 US
> >>>quarts qould be 1.25 US gallons.
> >>> A British Imperial quart is 1.20095 US quarts and a British imperial
> >>>gallon is 1.20095 US gallons.
> >>> The source for this measurement is the New York Public Library Desk
> >>>Reference, copyright 1989 by Simon & Schuster, Inc.
> >>>
> >>> I would be interested to see your source and how you did the math to
> >>>make *approximately* 1.2 gallons equal 5 quarts.
> >>>
> >>>rick
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
for 14 years before getting kicked out and I can say that the inspection
processes makes hard to build junk. I've never worked for an airline but
have flown a number of times. I've watched luggage handlers, galley
workers, ticket and boarding people. This story puts another dent in my
confidence while flying.
..
"john" <rsx18@mistralaero.com> wrote in message
news:3F0C057D.8000802@mistralaero.com...
>
> I am really sorry guys...
>
> A quick search revealed that indeed US fluid ounces and IMP fluid ounces
> are not the same. My whole theory was based on that fact.
>
> You have just made a more than 30 years belief of mine go down the drain
;-(
>
> http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictF.html
>
> The US threw the fluid ounce back in the sea along with the tea in
> Boston it looks like. It makes perfect sense after all.
>
> Although silly, the plane crash story is true:
>
> http://www.ia-planet.com/ACS/2MY/MY2.html
>
> Damn, thinking of it, I could have been the one which caused it
>
> At least I'll sleep less stupid tonight
>
> Where would I be without the newsgroups?
>
> Reminds me the time I bet 50$ with a friend of mine that Silvester
> Stalone was playing in ScarFace. hehehe...
>
> Thanks guys and sorry again, I own you one.
>
> -john
>
>
> George wrote:
>
> > I think this argument is stupid, but a quick google found this link.
> > There's lots more to it, but for the sake of this argument, here's what
it
> > says. Your story about the plane crashing is the "silliest thing I've
heard
> > of." In aircraft, fuel is measured in pounds, not gallons. Metric
> > measurement is not the same as imperial so when they converted to
metric, it
> > would have been in kilograms or some such . Anyway, a pump jockey
is
> > not the guy that converts the measurement. He would have already be
told
> > the capacity and his meter would be metric. And, after all that, the
pilot
> > has a fuel gage.
> >
> > http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_unit
> >
> > In the customary British system the units of dry measure are the same as
> > those of liquid measure. In the United States these two are not the
same,
> > the gallon and its subdivisions are used in the measurement of liquids;
the
> > bushel, with its subdivisions, is used in the measurement of certain dry
> > commodities. The U.S. gallon is divided into four liquid quarts and the
U.S.
> > bushel into 32 dry quarts. All the units of capacity or volume mentioned
> > thus far are larger in the customary British system than in the U.S.
system.
> > But the British fluid ounce is smaller than the U.S. fluid ounce,
because
> > the British quart is divided into 40 fluid ounces whereas the U.S. quart
is
> > divided into 32 fluid ounces.
> >
> > From this we see that in the customary British system an avoirdupois
ounce
> > of water at 62°F has a volume of one fluid ounce, because 10 pounds is
> > equivalent to 160 avoirdupois ounces, and 1 gallon is equivalent to 4
> > quarts, or 160 fluid ounces. This convenient relation does not exist in
the
> > U.S. system because a U.S. gallon of water at 62°F weighs about 8 1/3
> > pounds, or 133 1/3 avoirdupois ounces, and the U.S. gallon is equivalent
to
> > 4 x 32, or 128 fluid ounces.
> >
> >
> > a.. 1 U.S. fluid ounce = 1.041 British fluid ounces
> > b.. 1 British fluid ounce = 0.961 U.S. fluid ounce
> > c.. 1 U.S. gallon = 0.833 British Imperial gallon
> > d.. 1 British Imperial gallon = 1.201 U.S. gallons
> > "john" <rsx18@mistralaero.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F0B8734.2080402@mistralaero.com...
> >
> >>liquid ounces are the same whether US or IMP:
> >>
> >> Quart Gallon
> >>IMP 40 ounces 160 ounces
> >>US 32 ounces 128 ounces
> >>
> >>Now do the math.
> >>That 1.20095 value is the silliest thing I ever heard of.
> >>
> >>Free "the brain" t-shirt for the correct answer!
> >>
> >>Is this a joke or some kind of a hoax?
> >>
> >>As an interesting side note,
> >>-1 liquid ounce of water weights one ounce
> >>-1 IMP gallon of water weights 10 pounds.
> >>-1 gram of water is 1 ml
> >>-1 pound is aproxiamatly 454 grams
> >>-1 IMP gallon is aproxiamatly 4,54 l
> >>
> >>
> >>Quiz:
> >>Now, give the US values given the information in the beginnig of the
> >>message.
> >>
> >>A plane actually ran out of fuel in mid-air and almost crashed on
> >>landing in Canada when it went metric because the guys fueling the plane
> >>could not figure that out ;-(
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >>
> >>-john
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>rick nelson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Mike Smith wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>rick nelson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Bob P wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Hey, I just thought of something....isn't the Imperial gallon larger
> >>>>>>
> > than
> >
> >>>>>>the US gallon? Like 5 quarts instead of 4 quarts for ours....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>BobP
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>An Imperial gallon is 1.20095 US gallons.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> rick
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>Huh? It's 1.2 gallons exactly. 5 quarts instead of 4. You must be
> >>>>using an old Pentium, huh?
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Mike Smith
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Such is the legacy of a generation who learned math on a calculator.
> >>> Allow me to demonstrate. If an Imperial Gallon were 5 US quarts, that
> >>>would be 1.25 gallons *exactly*. 1 US quart is .25 of a US gallon. 5 US
> >>>quarts qould be 1.25 US gallons.
> >>> A British Imperial quart is 1.20095 US quarts and a British imperial
> >>>gallon is 1.20095 US gallons.
> >>> The source for this measurement is the New York Public Library Desk
> >>>Reference, copyright 1989 by Simon & Schuster, Inc.
> >>>
> >>> I would be interested to see your source and how you did the math to
> >>>make *approximately* 1.2 gallons equal 5 quarts.
> >>>
> >>>rick
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
"john" wrote:
> liquid ounces are the same whether US or IMP:
>
> Quart Gallon
> IMP 40 ounces 160 ounces
> US 32 ounces 128 ounces
>
> Now do the math.
> That 1.20095 value is the silliest thing I ever heard of.
Except liquid ounces aren't the same:
one fluid us ounce = 1.041 fluid uk ounces
Now do the maths !!
Tony
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.497 / Virus Database: 296 - Release Date: 04/07/2003
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
Mike Smith schrieb am Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:18:57 -0400:
> So? I pay over $1200 a year for health insurance (employer pays the
So? I pay EUR 3200 per year (employer the other half, as yours). For
health insurance. 400 per year for "Pflegeversicherung", that's an
insurance for being able to pay for if you get in need of permanent
care. 4400 per year for my pension. 1450 per year for unemployment
insurance. The other half my employer (for all of that). Should I
complain? You haven't even seen the figures for the taxes I pay,
just because I *work* and earn money. I guess, you would weep.
But on the other hand, I have more than seven full weeks in a year,
where I do *not* have to work and earn my money nevertheless.
> other half) and I haven't been inside a doctor's office in over 10 years
Same here. Not quite, but I seldom need a doc.
> and have never had any surgery, or even any prescriptions beyond some
> basic antibiotics once or twice as a kid. That doesn't include eye
> care, which I have to pay for out of pocket anyway.
Same here, if I needed that.
> But hey, still I don't really complain, and I laugh when other people
Neither do I.
> do. *It's your health*. Isn't that worth more than *any* amount of money?
All that I ask myself (or my government for that matter...) is, why
do I pay for an insurance if I have to pay for the treatment too, just
less than without an insurance?
Markus
> So? I pay over $1200 a year for health insurance (employer pays the
So? I pay EUR 3200 per year (employer the other half, as yours). For
health insurance. 400 per year for "Pflegeversicherung", that's an
insurance for being able to pay for if you get in need of permanent
care. 4400 per year for my pension. 1450 per year for unemployment
insurance. The other half my employer (for all of that). Should I
complain? You haven't even seen the figures for the taxes I pay,
just because I *work* and earn money. I guess, you would weep.
But on the other hand, I have more than seven full weeks in a year,
where I do *not* have to work and earn my money nevertheless.
> other half) and I haven't been inside a doctor's office in over 10 years
Same here. Not quite, but I seldom need a doc.
> and have never had any surgery, or even any prescriptions beyond some
> basic antibiotics once or twice as a kid. That doesn't include eye
> care, which I have to pay for out of pocket anyway.
Same here, if I needed that.
> But hey, still I don't really complain, and I laugh when other people
Neither do I.
> do. *It's your health*. Isn't that worth more than *any* amount of money?
All that I ask myself (or my government for that matter...) is, why
do I pay for an insurance if I have to pay for the treatment too, just
less than without an insurance?
Markus
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
Mike Smith wrote:
> rick nelson wrote:
>
>> Bob P wrote:
>>
>>> Hey, I just thought of something....isn't the Imperial gallon larger
>>> than
>>> the US gallon? Like 5 quarts instead of 4 quarts for ours....
>>>
>>> BobP
>>
>>
>>
>> An Imperial gallon is 1.20095 US gallons.
>>
>> rick
>
>
> Huh? It's 1.2 gallons exactly. 5 quarts instead of 4. You must be
> using an old Pentium, huh?
D'oh, I meant 1.25 exactly! Sheesh.
--
Mike Smith
> rick nelson wrote:
>
>> Bob P wrote:
>>
>>> Hey, I just thought of something....isn't the Imperial gallon larger
>>> than
>>> the US gallon? Like 5 quarts instead of 4 quarts for ours....
>>>
>>> BobP
>>
>>
>>
>> An Imperial gallon is 1.20095 US gallons.
>>
>> rick
>
>
> Huh? It's 1.2 gallons exactly. 5 quarts instead of 4. You must be
> using an old Pentium, huh?
D'oh, I meant 1.25 exactly! Sheesh.
--
Mike Smith
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
rick nelson wrote:
>
> I would be interested to see your source and how you did the math to
> make *approximately* 1.2 gallons equal 5 quarts.
Relax, there, big fella. I slipped while typing. Of course 5/4 = 1.25,
not 1.2.
I still don't know where the hell 1.20095 comes from.
--
Mike Smith
>
> I would be interested to see your source and how you did the math to
> make *approximately* 1.2 gallons equal 5 quarts.
Relax, there, big fella. I slipped while typing. Of course 5/4 = 1.25,
not 1.2.
I still don't know where the hell 1.20095 comes from.
--
Mike Smith
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
George Graves wrote:
> In article <vgm5knbvae0r27@news.supernews.com>,
> Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Bob P wrote:
>>
>>>In Northern California diesel goes for about $2.03/gallon - you think you
>>>got it bad.....
>>
>>It's your own fault. You guys wanted all those environmental
>>restrictions - well now you've got 'em, and the specially formulated
>>fuels that they require, which are only made in CA...
>
>
> No we didn't. A vociferous minority of left-wing tree-huggers wanted
> them and screamed 'til they got 'em. That's how our system works, the
> wheel that squeeks the loudest gets the grease. The "silent majority"
> just "takes it." That's why the USA is so screwed up. Minority opinions
> have learned that the hoi paloi are so complacent that they rarely get
> involved in governmant at any level, so all that the minority opinion
> group has to do is scream and hollar and foment a comotion, and they get
> the media spotlight shined on them. The media makes it looks like this
> is some groundswell grassroots issue, and suddenly, our worthless
> representatives take notice, figure they would do well to ride this one
> and start introducing legislation. Next thing you know, the stupid is
> the law of the land. There's an old saying that goes: "People usually
> get the government they deserve." The USA is that bit of wisdom in
> action.
Believe me, I know how that goes. Let me put it differently :
apparently you Californians don't want those regulations *eliminated*
badly enough to write your legislators and be as vocal and squeaky as
the tree-huggers.
> BTW, we will likely never get the great Diesel engines that you
> Europeans get.
"Us Europeans"? I know Long Island is 3000 miles from CA, but it's not
part of Europe yet. ;-P
--
Mike Smith
> In article <vgm5knbvae0r27@news.supernews.com>,
> Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Bob P wrote:
>>
>>>In Northern California diesel goes for about $2.03/gallon - you think you
>>>got it bad.....
>>
>>It's your own fault. You guys wanted all those environmental
>>restrictions - well now you've got 'em, and the specially formulated
>>fuels that they require, which are only made in CA...
>
>
> No we didn't. A vociferous minority of left-wing tree-huggers wanted
> them and screamed 'til they got 'em. That's how our system works, the
> wheel that squeeks the loudest gets the grease. The "silent majority"
> just "takes it." That's why the USA is so screwed up. Minority opinions
> have learned that the hoi paloi are so complacent that they rarely get
> involved in governmant at any level, so all that the minority opinion
> group has to do is scream and hollar and foment a comotion, and they get
> the media spotlight shined on them. The media makes it looks like this
> is some groundswell grassroots issue, and suddenly, our worthless
> representatives take notice, figure they would do well to ride this one
> and start introducing legislation. Next thing you know, the stupid is
> the law of the land. There's an old saying that goes: "People usually
> get the government they deserve." The USA is that bit of wisdom in
> action.
Believe me, I know how that goes. Let me put it differently :
apparently you Californians don't want those regulations *eliminated*
badly enough to write your legislators and be as vocal and squeaky as
the tree-huggers.
> BTW, we will likely never get the great Diesel engines that you
> Europeans get.
"Us Europeans"? I know Long Island is 3000 miles from CA, but it's not
part of Europe yet. ;-P
--
Mike Smith
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
In article <vgp06qh1hkc4e8@news.supernews.com>,
Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
>
> > In article <vgm5knbvae0r27@news.supernews.com>,
> > Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Bob P wrote:
> >>
> >>>In Northern California diesel goes for about $2.03/gallon - you think you
> >>>got it bad.....
> >>
> >>It's your own fault. You guys wanted all those environmental
> >>restrictions - well now you've got 'em, and the specially formulated
> >>fuels that they require, which are only made in CA...
> >
> >
> > No we didn't. A vociferous minority of left-wing tree-huggers wanted
> > them and screamed 'til they got 'em. That's how our system works, the
> > wheel that squeeks the loudest gets the grease. The "silent majority"
> > just "takes it." That's why the USA is so screwed up. Minority opinions
> > have learned that the hoi paloi are so complacent that they rarely get
> > involved in governmant at any level, so all that the minority opinion
> > group has to do is scream and hollar and foment a comotion, and they get
> > the media spotlight shined on them. The media makes it looks like this
> > is some groundswell grassroots issue, and suddenly, our worthless
> > representatives take notice, figure they would do well to ride this one
> > and start introducing legislation. Next thing you know, the stupid is
> > the law of the land. There's an old saying that goes: "People usually
> > get the government they deserve." The USA is that bit of wisdom in
> > action.
>
>
> Believe me, I know how that goes. Let me put it differently :
> apparently you Californians don't want those regulations *eliminated*
> badly enough to write your legislators and be as vocal and squeaky as
> the tree-huggers.
Like I said, the silent majority just takes it. Believe me I've written
my legislator dozens of times. Like most of them, he just ignors his
constituants.
>
> > BTW, we will likely never get the great Diesel engines that you
> > Europeans get.
>
>
> "Us Europeans"? I know Long Island is 3000 miles from CA, but it's not
> part of Europe yet. ;-P
Sorry, I "assumed."
--
George Graves
Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
>
> > In article <vgm5knbvae0r27@news.supernews.com>,
> > Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Bob P wrote:
> >>
> >>>In Northern California diesel goes for about $2.03/gallon - you think you
> >>>got it bad.....
> >>
> >>It's your own fault. You guys wanted all those environmental
> >>restrictions - well now you've got 'em, and the specially formulated
> >>fuels that they require, which are only made in CA...
> >
> >
> > No we didn't. A vociferous minority of left-wing tree-huggers wanted
> > them and screamed 'til they got 'em. That's how our system works, the
> > wheel that squeeks the loudest gets the grease. The "silent majority"
> > just "takes it." That's why the USA is so screwed up. Minority opinions
> > have learned that the hoi paloi are so complacent that they rarely get
> > involved in governmant at any level, so all that the minority opinion
> > group has to do is scream and hollar and foment a comotion, and they get
> > the media spotlight shined on them. The media makes it looks like this
> > is some groundswell grassroots issue, and suddenly, our worthless
> > representatives take notice, figure they would do well to ride this one
> > and start introducing legislation. Next thing you know, the stupid is
> > the law of the land. There's an old saying that goes: "People usually
> > get the government they deserve." The USA is that bit of wisdom in
> > action.
>
>
> Believe me, I know how that goes. Let me put it differently :
> apparently you Californians don't want those regulations *eliminated*
> badly enough to write your legislators and be as vocal and squeaky as
> the tree-huggers.
Like I said, the silent majority just takes it. Believe me I've written
my legislator dozens of times. Like most of them, he just ignors his
constituants.
>
> > BTW, we will likely never get the great Diesel engines that you
> > Europeans get.
>
>
> "Us Europeans"? I know Long Island is 3000 miles from CA, but it's not
> part of Europe yet. ;-P
Sorry, I "assumed."
--
George Graves
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:15:38 GMT, George Graves <gmgraves@pacbell.net>
wrote:
Guys, I;ve said it before. This is OT in alt.autos.alfa-romeo
Please remove that group from the x-post
TIA
--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l. Really, Sprint 1.7
Ducati Monster 600 Metallic
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk
wrote:
Guys, I;ve said it before. This is OT in alt.autos.alfa-romeo
Please remove that group from the x-post
TIA
--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l. Really, Sprint 1.7
Ducati Monster 600 Metallic
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
<heheheh>
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:15:38 GMT, George Graves <gmgraves@pacbell.net>
wrote:
>Sounds a lot like California to me :->
>
>We pay around 38% Federal income tax here in the USA. On top of that, we
>Californians pay 11% state Income tax, and then on top of that, we pay
>between 8.0 and 8.5% (depending on the county) sales tax on everything
>EXCEPT for some food items. There is no sales tax on potato chips, for
>instance, but there is on soft drinks and alcoholic beverages. To add to
>that, we also pay property tax on real estate, and luxury taxes on some
>very expensive cars, yachts and jewelery.
I forgot about those alright....
>Difference: You probably get something in return for your taxes. Good
>schools,
Problem: nobody seems to think you can make a career out of teaching
> medical care,
Not really...
>retirement benefits,
I suspect by the time I get there the government will be bankrupt, so
I'll probably be hitting rock bottom
>excellent disability
>benefits,
Couldn't really tell. Only up to "minimum" life support I guess. Same
with unemployment: during the first 6 months you get a percentage of
you're last income so you can get used to go living on the downside of
society.
>etc. We get NOTHING. We have the worst public schools in the
>country, probably the worst in the western world, we have no national or
>even state medical benefits, we have to pay extra all our lives to get
>any retirement benefits at all, disability is finite, after which you're
>on your own, same with unemployment benefits, after 26 weeks of the
>barest of pittances, one is on their own.
>
>So don't complain too much about your taxes, at least you get some
>return on investment. Our politicians throw our money away like water
>down the drain. All we get for our hight taxation is the dubious
>distinction of having the world's most powerful military and the ability
>to boss the rest of the world around with it.
Nah, I'm just having fun wining along with the rest. I'm just curious
how it is that people tend to forget their displeasements when
elections are up. Somehow in politics it's always the guy with a hole
in his hand, the size that could fit the Golden Gate Bridge, that gets
the biggest chair.
Gordon
Giulietta 1.8 '82
GT Junior 2.0 '75
GT Junior 2.0 '74 (project)
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:15:38 GMT, George Graves <gmgraves@pacbell.net>
wrote:
>Sounds a lot like California to me :->
>
>We pay around 38% Federal income tax here in the USA. On top of that, we
>Californians pay 11% state Income tax, and then on top of that, we pay
>between 8.0 and 8.5% (depending on the county) sales tax on everything
>EXCEPT for some food items. There is no sales tax on potato chips, for
>instance, but there is on soft drinks and alcoholic beverages. To add to
>that, we also pay property tax on real estate, and luxury taxes on some
>very expensive cars, yachts and jewelery.
I forgot about those alright....
>Difference: You probably get something in return for your taxes. Good
>schools,
Problem: nobody seems to think you can make a career out of teaching
> medical care,
Not really...
>retirement benefits,
I suspect by the time I get there the government will be bankrupt, so
I'll probably be hitting rock bottom
>excellent disability
>benefits,
Couldn't really tell. Only up to "minimum" life support I guess. Same
with unemployment: during the first 6 months you get a percentage of
you're last income so you can get used to go living on the downside of
society.
>etc. We get NOTHING. We have the worst public schools in the
>country, probably the worst in the western world, we have no national or
>even state medical benefits, we have to pay extra all our lives to get
>any retirement benefits at all, disability is finite, after which you're
>on your own, same with unemployment benefits, after 26 weeks of the
>barest of pittances, one is on their own.
>
>So don't complain too much about your taxes, at least you get some
>return on investment. Our politicians throw our money away like water
>down the drain. All we get for our hight taxation is the dubious
>distinction of having the world's most powerful military and the ability
>to boss the rest of the world around with it.
Nah, I'm just having fun wining along with the rest. I'm just curious
how it is that people tend to forget their displeasements when
elections are up. Somehow in politics it's always the guy with a hole
in his hand, the size that could fit the Golden Gate Bridge, that gets
the biggest chair.
Gordon
Giulietta 1.8 '82
GT Junior 2.0 '75
GT Junior 2.0 '74 (project)