Fuel prices aren't dropping
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
In article <v5YOP1eFRR4miGeF+HSHUNb8lWb8@4ax.com>,
Gordon <grafzerk@bigfoot.no.spam.please.com> wrote:
> <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
Another problem: Schools are THE political football. Anytime some new
oiece of 'PC' comes down the pike, the public scool system gets to
practise it first: Outcome based education, "New" Math, Ebonics, and
other disasters which, ultimately get in the way of a school system's
"prime directive": to produce at least minimally educated, useful,
informed members of a democratic republic.
> > 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.
You're right there. I guess it's pretty much the same everywhere.
--
George Graves
Gordon <grafzerk@bigfoot.no.spam.please.com> wrote:
> <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
Another problem: Schools are THE political football. Anytime some new
oiece of 'PC' comes down the pike, the public scool system gets to
practise it first: Outcome based education, "New" Math, Ebonics, and
other disasters which, ultimately get in the way of a school system's
"prime directive": to produce at least minimally educated, useful,
informed members of a democratic republic.
> > 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.
You're right there. I guess it's pretty much the same everywhere.
--
George Graves
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 23:13:33 GMT, George Graves <gmgraves@pacbell.net>
wrote:
>In article <v5YOP1eFRR4miGeF+HSHUNb8lWb8@4ax.com>,
> Gordon <grafzerk@bigfoot.no.spam.please.com> wrote:
Guys this is *still* OT. Please take it to email
--
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:
>In article <v5YOP1eFRR4miGeF+HSHUNb8lWb8@4ax.com>,
> Gordon <grafzerk@bigfoot.no.spam.please.com> wrote:
Guys this is *still* OT. Please take it to email
--
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
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
BTW: It was an Air Canada plane, going from Montreal to Edmonton, and it
landed safety in Gimli Manitoba by way of a dead stick landing. Not easy to
do on an airliner. One chance only! It was a miscalculation of fuel all
right, but it was a whole whack of screw ups that led to it.
Funniest part was the Air Canada guys dispatched to work on the plane ran
out gas for their van in the backwoods of Manitoba on the way there.
Link to the whole story of AC 143:
http://airsports.fai.org/aug2000/aug200004.html
Rick
"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
> >
>
landed safety in Gimli Manitoba by way of a dead stick landing. Not easy to
do on an airliner. One chance only! It was a miscalculation of fuel all
right, but it was a whole whack of screw ups that led to it.
Funniest part was the Air Canada guys dispatched to work on the plane ran
out gas for their van in the backwoods of Manitoba on the way there.
Link to the whole story of AC 143:
http://airsports.fai.org/aug2000/aug200004.html
Rick
"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
> >
>
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
Actually, the volume of a US fluid ounce is not the same as the volume
of an imperial (British) fluid ounce. To be pedantic, fluid ounce is
strictly a measure of volume, and should be converted to "decilitre
cubed", which is not numerically equal to litres. Hence disputes about
the nth decimal place.
However, he DRY ounces have exactly equal masses in both US and Britain.
>
>
>"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
>> >
>>
>
>
--
Tom Jones
of an imperial (British) fluid ounce. To be pedantic, fluid ounce is
strictly a measure of volume, and should be converted to "decilitre
cubed", which is not numerically equal to litres. Hence disputes about
the nth decimal place.
However, he DRY ounces have exactly equal masses in both US and Britain.
>
>
>"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
>> >
>>
>
>
--
Tom Jones
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
chez-jones wrote:
> Oops, that should have read "decimetre cubed". No wonder the Mars probe
> crashed and the airliner ran out of fuel.
>
> Not to be contentious (!), but wouldn't it be easier if the whole world
> worked only on the SI units?
Yes! I often confert from English units to SI units, do my unit conversion,
then convert back to English units because I find it FAR easier to do unit
conversion in SI than in English.
But, hey, we're the US and we just GOTTA be different, no matter how stupid
it is.
-Dirt-
> Oops, that should have read "decimetre cubed". No wonder the Mars probe
> crashed and the airliner ran out of fuel.
>
> Not to be contentious (!), but wouldn't it be easier if the whole world
> worked only on the SI units?
Yes! I often confert from English units to SI units, do my unit conversion,
then convert back to English units because I find it FAR easier to do unit
conversion in SI than in English.
But, hey, we're the US and we just GOTTA be different, no matter how stupid
it is.
-Dirt-
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
Mark Allread wrote:
> (top post corrected)
>
>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:27:10 GMT, "Ron" <ron@ron10.com> wrote:
>>> This is way OT for a.a.a-r please cease crossposting it to this group
>>> TIA
>>
>
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:55:24 -0400, john <rsx18@mistralaero.com> wrote:
>
>> and how are we supposed to know which group you are talking about? )
>> hehe..
>> -john
>
>
> I don't know how you'll figure it out, but the rest of us will merely
> have to check the headers of the message he was responding to, where we
> find a.a.a-r to be alt.autos.alfa-romeo.
>
you are right, maybe I should have guessed a.a.a-r meant alfa-romeo
Although I know alfa-romeo exists, I have never looked to this brand of
car neither was I close to be able to guess that a.a.a-r meant
alfa-romeo, unless I spend some cycles of my brain to a.a.a-r complains.
What so special about a.a.a-r ng?? People from a.a.a-r keep on
complaining about netiquette, top post corrected and crap . The
president or some important guy from a.a.a-r even spammed this thread
with a link to the the group pseudo home page.
Let people live, cross-posted threads are one of the funniest thing on
the ng as long as it remains under control, is not spam, and remains
under acceptable level of politeness, then again )
Do you have an alpha I can test-drive (misspelling intended). Maybe I
will sleep better after driving one.
Peace man live and let live.
-john
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
Pete wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:06:05 -0400, "Gordo" <statsman@excite.com>, wrote:
>
>
>>Why aren't fuel prices dropping like expected? There is a web site that
>>shows a graph of fuel prices since 1995. I thought after the war we would
>>see a decrease, but regular gas is up 10 cents a gallon from the same time
>>last year. See it at www.storydata.com
>>
>
> You wanted a war, now you get the bill.
>
> Pete
> ========================================
> <iowna156@clubalfa.com>
> 156 2.0 TS (2001) - Proteo Rosso (his)
> 147 2.0 TS (2002) - Gem Green (her's)
> ========================================
Americans and Canadians have been spoiled with generally low prices over
the years. Get used to higher prices and drive smaller more efficient
vehicles
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:06:05 -0400, "Gordo" <statsman@excite.com>, wrote:
>
>
>>Why aren't fuel prices dropping like expected? There is a web site that
>>shows a graph of fuel prices since 1995. I thought after the war we would
>>see a decrease, but regular gas is up 10 cents a gallon from the same time
>>last year. See it at www.storydata.com
>>
>
> You wanted a war, now you get the bill.
>
> Pete
> ========================================
> <iowna156@clubalfa.com>
> 156 2.0 TS (2001) - Proteo Rosso (his)
> 147 2.0 TS (2002) - Gem Green (her's)
> ========================================
Americans and Canadians have been spoiled with generally low prices over
the years. Get used to higher prices and drive smaller more efficient
vehicles
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
Pete wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:06:05 -0400, "Gordo" <statsman@excite.com>, wrote:
>
>
>>Why aren't fuel prices dropping like expected? There is a web site that
>>shows a graph of fuel prices since 1995. I thought after the war we would
>>see a decrease, but regular gas is up 10 cents a gallon from the same time
>>last year. See it at www.storydata.com
>>
>
> You wanted a war, now you get the bill.
>
> Pete
> ========================================
> <iowna156@clubalfa.com>
> 156 2.0 TS (2001) - Proteo Rosso (his)
> 147 2.0 TS (2002) - Gem Green (her's)
> ========================================
Americans and Canadians have been spoiled with generally low prices over
the years. Get used to higher prices and drive smaller more efficient
vehicles
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:06:05 -0400, "Gordo" <statsman@excite.com>, wrote:
>
>
>>Why aren't fuel prices dropping like expected? There is a web site that
>>shows a graph of fuel prices since 1995. I thought after the war we would
>>see a decrease, but regular gas is up 10 cents a gallon from the same time
>>last year. See it at www.storydata.com
>>
>
> You wanted a war, now you get the bill.
>
> Pete
> ========================================
> <iowna156@clubalfa.com>
> 156 2.0 TS (2001) - Proteo Rosso (his)
> 147 2.0 TS (2002) - Gem Green (her's)
> ========================================
Americans and Canadians have been spoiled with generally low prices over
the years. Get used to higher prices and drive smaller more efficient
vehicles
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
> Americans and Canadians have been spoiled with generally low prices over
> the years. Get used to higher prices and drive smaller more efficient
> vehicles
Thanks God! I can't understand why North-Americans use cars with so big
engines, that more than 80 mph simply doesen't run.
It's impossible to think of a V8 engine on a city-car, or a Van... But
actually, American do.
Everyone, except someone
--
Jacopo
Bolzano, Italia
--
> the years. Get used to higher prices and drive smaller more efficient
> vehicles
Thanks God! I can't understand why North-Americans use cars with so big
engines, that more than 80 mph simply doesen't run.
It's impossible to think of a V8 engine on a city-car, or a Van... But
actually, American do.
Everyone, except someone
--
Jacopo
Bolzano, Italia
--