Rachel | 3 Mar 05:19 2003

Re: Another Mystery Person

--- In CarFree@..., Ken Kifer <kenkifer <at> k...> wrote:
> Very oddly this forum has received several posts from people who 
had never
> posted before or since, all opposed to comments against the space 
program!
> 
I lurk regularly and have been carfree for several years. I'm not 
opposed to comments against the space program but I am opposed to a 
blanket condemnation of the space program as I feel that not only do 
we learn from it but it fills a need for exploration and hope for 
many people. Saving the snail darter just isn't going to cut it as a 
final frontier for most people. I think we need to not only save the 
earth but also look out to the stars. If we neglect either we will 
deny something in us that both wants to protect our home and go into 
the unknown.

mgagnonlv | 3 Mar 16:47 2003
Picon

Re: Recumbent Bikes

Someone wrote:
> >> I wonder why there are so few recumbent riders.
> > This is a common question among recumbent enthusiasts.
> > The shortest answer I can think of is that they're
> > relatively expensive (for a bike).
> 

Apart from Jym Dyer's excellent arguments, I would add a few:

- Too many designs. Concepts like ASS, USS, LWB, SWB, etc are quite 
intimidating for new riders. Each design has its own merits and 
shortfalls, and it's hard to see which model would best suit one 
rider doing, say, commuting, urban riding, loaded touring, etc.

- Not enough bike shops with them. Do we have 2 or 3 bikes on display 
in Montréal? I know 2 shops that rent them -- but they don't rent 
cheaply and don't sell them -- and 1 shop that sells them but hardly 
keeps any on the floor. We probably need shops with a rent to own 
policy where rental fees on _any_ recumbrent design could be applied 
to the price of the bike one finally buys (whether it's a recumbrent 
or a traditional bike). IOW, no-risk or low-risk trial.

- Quite noticeable on a bike rack. Good or bad?

- Poor options for carrying stock, probably because fewer people have 
thought about that issue. Think about panniers that were commercially 
available 30 years ago.

Regards

(Continue reading)

Barbara Watson | 4 Mar 22:20 2003
Picon

Re: Another Mystery Person

Hi Rachel, 
Looks like these conspiracy theorists think that everyone's lives 
revolve around the Internet. I'm lucky to have time to read this 
group once a week, time to post is even rarer. Isn't it silly how so 
many people who's lives do revolve around the Internet are so afraid 
of anything new? Most of us do have a need for exploration and I try 
to cultivate that in my students, but there are always some that keep 
turning inward.
Barbara 

De Clarke | 6 Mar 02:08 2003

ultimate "safety" car?


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=573&ncid=757&e=3&u=/nm/20030305/od_nm/autos_show_bulletproof_dc

.............................................................................
:De Clarke, Software Engineer UCO/Lick Observatory, UCSC:
:Mail: de@... | :
:Web: www.ucolick.org | Don't Fear the Penguins :
:1024D/B9C9E76E F892 5F17 8E0A F095 05CD EE8B D169 EDAA B9C9 E76E:

Will | 6 Mar 03:27 2003
Picon
Picon

Re: Another Mystery Person

--- In CarFree@..., "Barbara Watson <babswatson2000 <at> y...>"
<babswatson2000@...> wrote:
> ... these conspiracy theorists think ... Isn't it silly how so 
> many people who's lives do revolve around the Internet are so afraid 
> of anything new? ... always some that keep 
> turning inward...

All I seem to see from Barbara is vague dismissals and demeaning
pejoratives. Rachel did mention the advancements that we obtain from
space research, but I still haven't seen any substantive support for
massive scale asteroid mining and thousands of space factories to
maintain the current population levels. BTW, I am for space
exploration in many forms, having performed mission planning and
engineering on the Space Station and am an active amateur astronomer.
No conspiracies or fear here.

Will

David Hansen | 6 Mar 08:23 2003
Picon

Re: [CF] ultimate "safety" car?

On 5 Mar 2003 at 17:08, De Clarke wrote:

> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=573&ncid=757&e=3&u=/n
> m/20030305/od_nm/autos_show_bulletproof_dc

>German security officials have rated the car "B6/B7," meaning the 
>vehicle can withstand fire from weapons as powerful as an M16 or 
>Kalashnikov AK47 rifle. 

Not impressive. RPG (Soviet rocket propelled grenade) launchers are 
rather common. If I was planning to murder anyone inside such a car 
it would no doubt not be difficult to get hold of one from some under 
paid person in the former Soviet Bloc.

>Drivers of a particularly nervous disposition can start the engine 
>by remote control before they get in to ensure no explosives are 
>wired up to the ignition,

Not much use if the explosives are wired to a motion detector.

To get back to car free such pseudo-security is probably counter-
productive. Far better for the so-called very important person to 
travel round on a bicycle.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will *always* explain why I revoke a key, unless the UK 
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

(Continue reading)

Jym Dyer | 6 Mar 16:57 2003

ALERT: Buncha Road Projects

=v= There are a bunch of road-widening priority projects across
the U.S., and Environmental Defense has set up a web page with
info on some of them, some with send-letters-to-the-government
links. Go for it:

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/priorityprojects.html

<_Jym_≥

Pedaldancer | 7 Mar 13:53 2003
Picon

Fewer cars would aid nature even more than cleaner cars

From: Paul Esbrandt

Signs of intelligent life. An actual American Newspaper reporter wrote this. I thought I better send this
out, because you don't see this too often in local print. P.E.

--------------------
Fewer cars would aid nature even more than cleaner cars
--------------------

Problems: If technology could create the perfect nonpolluting vehicle, it still would take up space,
require more roads and cause congestion.

Tom Horton

March 7, 2003

IF YOU BELIEVE that what's good for General Motors is good for America, then you'll probably believe what
Larry Burns, GM's vice president for research and development told The Wall Street Journal recently. 

Speaking about development of a pollution-free automobile, fueled by hydrogen, that emits only water
vapor from the exhaust, Burns said: "We think we can build a compelling and affordable car by 2010. It's a
big challenge, but as a technologist, you have to be optimistic." 

Where was GM's can-do spirit when it equated installing seat belts with the ruin of the auto industry, and
later on, cried wolf over catalytic converters and air bags? 

And where was the technological optimism last year when GM and other automakers successfully lobbied
Congress to hold off requirements that they improve overall vehicle mileage, which has slipped below
what it was 15 years ago? 

(Continue reading)

John O. Andersen | 7 Mar 14:33 2003

Re: [CF] Fewer cars would aid nature even more than cleaner cars

>>Signs of intelligent life. An actual American Newspaper reporter wrote this. I thought I better send
this out, because you don't see this too often in local print. P.E.<<

Yes, this sort of thinking is very rare to come from a newspaper reporter in America. Wow! Tom Horton
probably won't last long in that career.

John O. Andersen
Unconventional Ideas: 
Counter-Mainstream Thoughts on Living Meaningfully in the 21st Century
http://www.unconventionalideas.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Fabien Pichard | 7 Mar 17:49 2003
Picon

RE: [CF] Fewer cars would aid nature even more than cleaner cars

Hi everyone,

I am Fabien from Seattle, WA.
I'd say only one thing about the guy who wrote the article, Tom
Horton... DUH! :)

Sorry, that was the first word that came out of my mouth when I read the
title.. :)))

-- Fabien, pedal, pedal, wherever you are! :)
fabien_pichard@...
"God is a comic playing to an audience that's afraid to laugh."
-Voltaire (1694-1778) 

-----Original Message-----
From: Pedaldancer@... [mailto:Pedaldancer <at> webtv.net] 
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:53 AM
To: CarFree@...
Subject: [CF] Fewer cars would aid nature even more than cleaner cars

From: Paul Esbrandt

Signs of intelligent life. An actual American Newspaper reporter wrote
this. I thought I better send this out, because you don't see this too
often in local print. P.E.

--------------------
Fewer cars would aid nature even more than cleaner cars
--------------------

(Continue reading)


Gmane