Discussion:
Pearls Before Swine: Rat The Luddite
(too old to reply)
Lynn McGuire
2024-07-06 21:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Pearls Before Swine: Rat The Luddite
https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2024/07/06

You just gotta wonder how many people are like Rat.

Lynn
Your Name
2024-07-07 00:58:24 UTC
Permalink
On 2024-07-06 21:53:05 +0000, Lynn McGuire said:
>
> Pearls Before Swine: Rat The Luddite
> https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2024/07/06
>
> You just gotta wonder how many people are like Rat.
>
> Lynn

"It's supposed to last 100,000 hours" ... SUPPOSED being the important
word. Nobody actually knows because nobody has been able to test them
for that long.

LED bulbs are largely a scam for bulb makers to stuff more money into
their pockets. They are not really any "greener" than normal old bulbs
and they do not last anywhere near that predicted lifetime (especially
in houses around here with silly in-ceiling light fittings), unless of
course you rarely switch them on. The problem is that shops also
wanting to make themselves look greener and make more money have been
'phasing out' regular light bulbs forcing people to buy the more
expensive ones. :-(
Christian Weisgerber
2024-07-07 12:38:27 UTC
Permalink
On 2024-07-07, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:

> LED bulbs are largely a scam for bulb makers to stuff more money into
> their pockets.

Here's some realistic numbers: I replace a 40 W incandescent bulb
with a LED one. Aldi middle isle, 2 euros. Residental power is
about 0.40 euros/kWh here, so the bulb will have paid for itself once
it has saved 2/0.40 = 5 kWh. It produces the same illumination at
1/10 of the power of the incandescent, so it saves 40 - 40/10 = 36 W.
5000 Wh / 36 W = 140 h, so if used one hour each day, it will have
paid for itself in under five months. If it eventually dies after
10,000 hours instead of a promised 30,000, so be it.

You can plug in numbers that are applicable to your situation and
in your part of the world.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Bobbie Sellers
2024-08-06 03:14:09 UTC
Permalink
On 7/7/24 05:38, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2024-07-07, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
>> LED bulbs are largely a scam for bulb makers to stuff more money into
>> their pockets.
>
> Here's some realistic numbers: I replace a 40 W incandescent bulb
> with a LED one. Aldi middle isle, 2 euros. Residental power is
> about 0.40 euros/kWh here, so the bulb will have paid for itself once
> it has saved 2/0.40 = 5 kWh. It produces the same illumination at
> 1/10 of the power of the incandescent, so it saves 40 - 40/10 = 36 W.
> 5000 Wh / 36 W = 140 h, so if used one hour each day, it will have
> paid for itself in under five months. If it eventually dies after
> 10,000 hours instead of a promised 30,000, so be it.
>
> You can plug in numbers that are applicable to your situation and
> in your part of the world.
>

That is theoretical saving. Down at the Power Company the
receipts are down due to power saving so to pay for maintenance
and emergency repair service they must raise the price of your
power. This is what happened in California at least in the
San Francisco Bay Area and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company
is now mainly a power distribution company and they are putting
lines under ground now in sensitive areas which we are helping
to pay for. As well as Battery Farms to save all the wind & solar
power generated while the sun is shining and wind is blowing for
those times we call night.
And if stops some wild fires in sensitive areas
then it will be worth the additional cost because the day
after the sky turns red with smoke it comes down to where
we must breath.

bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com
Your Name
2024-08-06 04:25:08 UTC
Permalink
On 2024-08-06 03:14:09 +0000, Bobbie Sellers said:
> On 7/7/24 05:38, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>> On 2024-07-07, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>
>>> LED bulbs are largely a scam for bulb makers to stuff more money into
>>> their pockets.
>>
>> Here's some realistic numbers: I replace a 40 W incandescent bulb
>> with a LED one. Aldi middle isle, 2 euros. Residental power is
>> about 0.40 euros/kWh here, so the bulb will have paid for itself once
>> it has saved 2/0.40 = 5 kWh. It produces the same illumination at
>> 1/10 of the power of the incandescent, so it saves 40 - 40/10 = 36 W.
>> 5000 Wh / 36 W = 140 h, so if used one hour each day, it will have
>> paid for itself in under five months. If it eventually dies after
>> 10,000 hours instead of a promised 30,000, so be it.
>>
>> You can plug in numbers that are applicable to your situation and
>> in your part of the world.
>>
>
> That is theoretical saving. Down at the Power Company the
> receipts are down due to power saving so to pay for maintenance
> and emergency repair service they must raise the price of your
> power. This is what happened in California at least in the
> San Francisco Bay Area and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company
> is now mainly a power distribution company and they are putting
> lines under ground now in sensitive areas which we are helping
> to pay for. As well as Battery Farms to save all the wind & solar
> power generated while the sun is shining and wind is blowing for
> those times we call night.
> And if stops some wild fires in sensitive areas
> then it will be worth the additional cost because the day
> after the sky turns red with smoke it comes down to where
> we must breath.
>
> bliss

Yep. and none of that new greeny nonsense, including LED bulbs, are
actually any better for the environment than the old versions anyway.
So it's simply a waste of money "look good" promotional exercise.
Mad Hamish
2024-08-06 11:40:02 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 16:25:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
wrote:

>On 2024-08-06 03:14:09 +0000, Bobbie Sellers said:
>> On 7/7/24 05:38, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-07, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> LED bulbs are largely a scam for bulb makers to stuff more money into
>>>> their pockets.
>>>
>>> Here's some realistic numbers: I replace a 40 W incandescent bulb
>>> with a LED one. Aldi middle isle, 2 euros. Residental power is
>>> about 0.40 euros/kWh here, so the bulb will have paid for itself once
>>> it has saved 2/0.40 = 5 kWh. It produces the same illumination at
>>> 1/10 of the power of the incandescent, so it saves 40 - 40/10 = 36 W.
>>> 5000 Wh / 36 W = 140 h, so if used one hour each day, it will have
>>> paid for itself in under five months. If it eventually dies after
>>> 10,000 hours instead of a promised 30,000, so be it.
>>>
>>> You can plug in numbers that are applicable to your situation and
>>> in your part of the world.
>>>
>>
>> That is theoretical saving. Down at the Power Company the
>> receipts are down due to power saving so to pay for maintenance
>> and emergency repair service they must raise the price of your
>> power. This is what happened in California at least in the
>> San Francisco Bay Area and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company
>> is now mainly a power distribution company and they are putting
>> lines under ground now in sensitive areas which we are helping
>> to pay for. As well as Battery Farms to save all the wind & solar
>> power generated while the sun is shining and wind is blowing for
>> those times we call night.
>> And if stops some wild fires in sensitive areas
>> then it will be worth the additional cost because the day
>> after the sky turns red with smoke it comes down to where
>> we must breath.
>>
>> bliss
>
>Yep. and none of that new greeny nonsense, including LED bulbs, are
>actually any better for the environment than the old versions anyway.
>So it's simply a waste of money "look good" promotional exercise.
>
No doubt you actualy have figures to prove that assertion is
correct...
Paul S Person
2024-08-06 15:51:17 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Aug 2024 21:40:02 +1000, Mad Hamish
<***@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:

>On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 16:25:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 2024-08-06 03:14:09 +0000, Bobbie Sellers said:
>>> On 7/7/24 05:38, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-07, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> LED bulbs are largely a scam for bulb makers to stuff more money into
>>>>> their pockets.
>>>>
>>>> Here's some realistic numbers: I replace a 40 W incandescent bulb
>>>> with a LED one. Aldi middle isle, 2 euros. Residental power is
>>>> about 0.40 euros/kWh here, so the bulb will have paid for itself once
>>>> it has saved 2/0.40 = 5 kWh. It produces the same illumination at
>>>> 1/10 of the power of the incandescent, so it saves 40 - 40/10 = 36 W.
>>>> 5000 Wh / 36 W = 140 h, so if used one hour each day, it will have
>>>> paid for itself in under five months. If it eventually dies after
>>>> 10,000 hours instead of a promised 30,000, so be it.
>>>>
>>>> You can plug in numbers that are applicable to your situation and
>>>> in your part of the world.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is theoretical saving. Down at the Power Company the
>>> receipts are down due to power saving so to pay for maintenance
>>> and emergency repair service they must raise the price of your
>>> power. This is what happened in California at least in the
>>> San Francisco Bay Area and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company
>>> is now mainly a power distribution company and they are putting
>>> lines under ground now in sensitive areas which we are helping
>>> to pay for. As well as Battery Farms to save all the wind & solar
>>> power generated while the sun is shining and wind is blowing for
>>> those times we call night.
>>> And if stops some wild fires in sensitive areas
>>> then it will be worth the additional cost because the day
>>> after the sky turns red with smoke it comes down to where
>>> we must breath.
>>>
>>> bliss
>>
>>Yep. and none of that new greeny nonsense, including LED bulbs, are
>>actually any better for the environment than the old versions anyway.
>>So it's simply a waste of money "look good" promotional exercise.
>>
>No doubt you actualy have figures to prove that assertion is
>correct...

It has been noted here already that the power saved by LCDs/LEDs is
power made available for other uses (bitcoin mining and, I should
think, EV charging and even heat pumps) so a lot of the power "saved"
isn't saved at all, just repurposed.

However, LEDs have the advantage over LCDs of being disposable in the
landfill (ie, put in the trash as opposed to having to be dropped off
at special locations) when they stop working. Well, if that /is/ an
advantage, of course. And both have the advantage over incandescents
that they work a lot longer.

As to utility rates and improvements -- you get what you pay for.

That's an /optimistic/ statement, of course.

But it is true that only thieves try to get without paying.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Christian Weisgerber
2024-08-06 17:33:24 UTC
Permalink
On 2024-08-06, Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

> However, LEDs have the advantage over LCDs of being disposable in the
> landfill (ie, put in the trash as opposed to having to be dropped off
> at special locations) when they stop working. Well, if that /is/ an
> advantage, of course. And both have the advantage over incandescents
> that they work a lot longer.

LED lights are electronics and are collected along with other
electronics for recycling. At least in Europe.

Actually, according to the signage at the local station for bulk
waste, recycling, etc., LED tubes go into the same container as
fluorescents. Which seems odd.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Your Name
2024-08-06 21:05:38 UTC
Permalink
On 2024-08-06 17:33:24 +0000, Christian Weisgerber said:

> On 2024-08-06, Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> However, LEDs have the advantage over LCDs of being disposable in the
>> landfill (ie, put in the trash as opposed to having to be dropped off
>> at special locations) when they stop working. Well, if that /is/ an
>> advantage, of course. And both have the advantage over incandescents
>> that they work a lot longer.
>
> LED lights are electronics and are collected along with other
> electronics for recycling. At least in Europe.
>
> Actually, according to the signage at the local station for bulk
> waste, recycling, etc., LED tubes go into the same container as
> fluorescents. Which seems odd.

It's not odd at all. It's currently fairly standard practicve in many places.

Here in New Zealand we have separate household wheelie bins that are
used for "recycling" and general rubbish, and a smaller bin for kitchen
waste (All these bins and collections are paid for from our annual city
council taxes, even if you do not need to use the service / use a
thid-party service!). Not long ago there was a consumer TV show report
that found most of that stuff, after being collected by different
trucks, simply goes to normal landfill anyway, so is a complete waste
of everybody's time and money.

More recently, the idiots in government have changed the rules about
what can and cannot go in the recycling bin, which has made it far more
confusing and means a lot more plastic has to go in the general rubbish
bin instead.

A lot of packaging has the recycling triabnlge on it, yet the
recuycling companies here claim they cannot recycle it (in relaity they
mean it's not worth their money for them to do it).

In many places item were collected for "recycling" and then simply
shipped to poorer countries to clean up, but most of those countries
are now no longer accepting it, and as above, it's not worth the costs
for the original country to recycle it either, so again simply goes to
landfill.
Chris Buckley
2024-08-07 12:49:43 UTC
Permalink
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.arts.sf.written.]
On 2024-08-06, Christian Weisgerber <***@mips.inka.de> wrote:
> On 2024-08-06, Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> However, LEDs have the advantage over LCDs of being disposable in the
>> landfill (ie, put in the trash as opposed to having to be dropped off
>> at special locations) when they stop working. Well, if that /is/ an
>> advantage, of course. And both have the advantage over incandescents
>> that they work a lot longer.
>
> LED lights are electronics and are collected along with other
> electronics for recycling. At least in Europe.
>
> Actually, according to the signage at the local station for bulk
> waste, recycling, etc., LED tubes go into the same container as
> fluorescents. Which seems odd.

It sounds like things are changing here (near DC). LED bulbs were
collected for recycling for many years along with the fluorescents,
but that's not the case anymore. They may still be considered mild
hazardous waste (the website is inconsistent now) but not recyclable.
Ordinary trash may be fine.

Strings of LED Christmas lights are still recycled, but I assume that's
for the wire rather than the bulbs.

Chris
Dimensional Traveler
2024-08-07 15:28:09 UTC
Permalink
On 8/7/2024 5:49 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.arts.sf.written.]
> On 2024-08-06, Christian Weisgerber <***@mips.inka.de> wrote:
>> On 2024-08-06, Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> However, LEDs have the advantage over LCDs of being disposable in the
>>> landfill (ie, put in the trash as opposed to having to be dropped off
>>> at special locations) when they stop working. Well, if that /is/ an
>>> advantage, of course. And both have the advantage over incandescents
>>> that they work a lot longer.
>>
>> LED lights are electronics and are collected along with other
>> electronics for recycling. At least in Europe.
>>
>> Actually, according to the signage at the local station for bulk
>> waste, recycling, etc., LED tubes go into the same container as
>> fluorescents. Which seems odd.
>
> It sounds like things are changing here (near DC). LED bulbs were
> collected for recycling for many years along with the fluorescents,
> but that's not the case anymore. They may still be considered mild
> hazardous waste (the website is inconsistent now) but not recyclable.
> Ordinary trash may be fine.
>
> Strings of LED Christmas lights are still recycled, but I assume that's
> for the wire rather than the bulbs.
>
Actual recycling turns out to be a lot more finicky than we were lead to
believe. "Just recycle your plastic!" Which kind of plastic? There
are a few hundred different types and a lot of them simply CAN'T be
recycled economically, if at all. Separating metals costs and so on.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
Paul S Person
2024-08-08 17:30:49 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 08:28:09 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<***@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 8/7/2024 5:49 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.arts.sf.written.]
>> On 2024-08-06, Christian Weisgerber <***@mips.inka.de> wrote:
>>> On 2024-08-06, Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> However, LEDs have the advantage over LCDs of being disposable in the
>>>> landfill (ie, put in the trash as opposed to having to be dropped off
>>>> at special locations) when they stop working. Well, if that /is/ an
>>>> advantage, of course. And both have the advantage over incandescents
>>>> that they work a lot longer.
>>>
>>> LED lights are electronics and are collected along with other
>>> electronics for recycling. At least in Europe.
>>>
>>> Actually, according to the signage at the local station for bulk
>>> waste, recycling, etc., LED tubes go into the same container as
>>> fluorescents. Which seems odd.
>>
>> It sounds like things are changing here (near DC). LED bulbs were
>> collected for recycling for many years along with the fluorescents,
>> but that's not the case anymore. They may still be considered mild
>> hazardous waste (the website is inconsistent now) but not recyclable.
>> Ordinary trash may be fine.
>>
>> Strings of LED Christmas lights are still recycled, but I assume that's
>> for the wire rather than the bulbs.
>>
>Actual recycling turns out to be a lot more finicky than we were lead to
>believe. "Just recycle your plastic!" Which kind of plastic? There
>are a few hundred different types and a lot of them simply CAN'T be
>recycled economically, if at all. Separating metals costs and so on.

Locally, there is an online list that can be used when doubt exists.
And recycle glyphs cannot always be relied on here.

Something that popped up some years back is recycling films (bread
wrappers, TP wrappers, bottled water plastic holding the bottles in,
certain Amazon mailers, stuff like that) based on returning them to
the grocery store or drugstore (well, some of them, anyway). They are
not allowed in the home recycle bin. And so it goes.

There is some hope: some time back, /Science News/ had an article
about a form of plastic that could be made into a bag, recycled into
its chemical constituents, and remade into a bag -- and after 100
cycles was as strong at the end as it was at the beginning.

But whether it can be commercialized was not known.

Some plastic items (bookshelves, carts), of course, unless they are
actually broken, can be re-used (that is, donated to an organization
that can get them to someone who needs them). No landfill needed.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Scott Lurndal
2024-08-08 18:35:55 UTC
Permalink
Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Wed, 7 Aug 2024 08:28:09 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
><***@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>>On 8/7/2024 5:49 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>> ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.arts.sf.written.]
>>> On 2024-08-06, Christian Weisgerber <***@mips.inka.de> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-08-06, Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> However, LEDs have the advantage over LCDs of being disposable in =
>the
>>>>> landfill (ie, put in the trash as opposed to having to be dropped =
>off
>>>>> at special locations) when they stop working. Well, if that /is/ an
>>>>> advantage, of course. And both have the advantage over incandescents
>>>>> that they work a lot longer.
>>>>
>>>> LED lights are electronics and are collected along with other
>>>> electronics for recycling. At least in Europe.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, according to the signage at the local station for bulk
>>>> waste, recycling, etc., LED tubes go into the same container as
>>>> fluorescents. Which seems odd.
>>>=20
>>> It sounds like things are changing here (near DC). LED bulbs were
>>> collected for recycling for many years along with the fluorescents,
>>> but that's not the case anymore. They may still be considered mild
>>> hazardous waste (the website is inconsistent now) but not recyclable.
>>> Ordinary trash may be fine.
>>>=20
>>> Strings of LED Christmas lights are still recycled, but I assume =
>that's
>>> for the wire rather than the bulbs.
>>>=20
>>Actual recycling turns out to be a lot more finicky than we were lead to=
>=20
>>believe. "Just recycle your plastic!" Which kind of plastic? There=20
>>are a few hundred different types and a lot of them simply CAN'T be=20
>>recycled economically, if at all. Separating metals costs and so on.
>
>Locally, there is an online list that can be used when doubt exists.
>And recycle glyphs cannot always be relied on here.
>
>Something that popped up some years back is recycling films (bread
>wrappers, TP wrappers, bottled water plastic holding the bottles in,
>certain Amazon mailers, stuff like that) based on returning them to
>the grocery store or drugstore (well, some of them, anyway). They are
>not allowed in the home recycle bin. And so it goes.
>
>There is some hope: some time back, /Science News/ had an article
>about a form of plastic that could be made into a bag, recycled into
>its chemical constituents, and remade into a bag -- and after 100
>cycles was as strong at the end as it was at the beginning.

The only solution is to completely eliminate single-use
plastics. I'd even go so far as to include milk and
juice jugs in that ban (glass is far more recyclable
and aside shipping weight, similar in cost).

Paper milk cartons can eliminate the plastic lid.
The Horny Goat
2024-08-14 05:15:25 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 18:35:55 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>The only solution is to completely eliminate single-use
>plastics. I'd even go so far as to include milk and
>juice jugs in that ban (glass is far more recyclable
>and aside shipping weight, similar in cost).
>
>Paper milk cartons can eliminate the plastic lid.

What does "single use" mean? I understand in the context of fast food
cups but how about less common items like those 4 liter milk jugs I
get my milk in (and generally put out each week in the recycling bin)
or similar such items - for instance my cheddar comes wrapped in
plastic and once the cheese is eaten, that plastic wrapper isn't
getting used again <grin>
Paul S Person
2024-08-14 15:39:18 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:15:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 18:35:55 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>>The only solution is to completely eliminate single-use
>>plastics. I'd even go so far as to include milk and
>>juice jugs in that ban (glass is far more recyclable
>>and aside shipping weight, similar in cost).
>>
>>Paper milk cartons can eliminate the plastic lid.
>
>What does "single use" mean? I understand in the context of fast food
>cups but how about less common items like those 4 liter milk jugs I
>get my milk in (and generally put out each week in the recycling bin)
>or similar such items - for instance my cheddar comes wrapped in
>plastic and once the cheese is eaten, that plastic wrapper isn't
>getting used again <grin>

He is explicitly including milk and juice, suggesting we go back to
glass.

Which is fine, so long as, when I drop one on the floor and it breaks,
he comes over, cleans up the mess, and gives me my money back.

Plastic jugs don't break as often, although I suppose you could get
one to do so if you tried hard enough.

There is a /reason/ we replaced glass with plastic, at least in some
cases.

Interestingly, while, until they were banned, one-time-use plastic
shopping bags were taxed (as were and still are papter one-time-use
paper bags), smaller bags used to contain fruits and veggies were
exempt, despite clearly being one-time-use.

The plastic and paper bags, of course, were merely /intended/ for
one-time use. They could be, and were by some, used again and again
and again. Until more permanent re-usable bags came along, generally
of (you guessed it) plastic and not (IIRC) recyclable (due to being
"dirty" in some undefined sense). Now I am using what amount to
lidless cardboard boxes covered in (you guessed it) plastic. The
cardboard should be recyclable, even if the plastic (ie, the box as
such) is not.

BTW, the last paper milk carton I bought had no lid, and was
definitely not recyclable, apparently because it was heavily waxed. It
did eventually come to be accepted as compostable, however.

Endless variations on a common theme, that's what we have here.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Scott Lurndal
2024-08-14 16:12:35 UTC
Permalink
Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:15:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 18:35:55 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The only solution is to completely eliminate single-use
>>>plastics. I'd even go so far as to include milk and
>>>juice jugs in that ban (glass is far more recyclable
>>>and aside shipping weight, similar in cost).
>>>
>>>Paper milk cartons can eliminate the plastic lid.
>>
>>What does "single use" mean? I understand in the context of fast food
>>cups but how about less common items like those 4 liter milk jugs I

As noted below, I explicitly included 4liter/1gallon milk jugs.

>>get my milk in (and generally put out each week in the recycling bin)
>>or similar such items - for instance my cheddar comes wrapped in
>>plastic and once the cheese is eaten, that plastic wrapper isn't
>>getting used again <grin>

Cheese was available for purchase before plastic packaging
was invented.

>
>He is explicitly including milk and juice, suggesting we go back to
>glass.
>
>Which is fine, so long as, when I drop one on the floor and it breaks,
>he comes over, cleans up the mess, and gives me my money back.

Why should I pay for your clumsiness?

>
>Plastic jugs don't break as often, although I suppose you could get
>one to do so if you tried hard enough.

Some plastic jugs have screw on lids, others have press-on. Guess
what happens when you drop the latter?

>
>There is a /reason/ we replaced glass with plastic, at least in some
>cases.

The primary reason is shipping weight.

>
>Interestingly, while, until they were banned, one-time-use plastic
>shopping bags were taxed (as were and still are papter one-time-use
>paper bags), smaller bags used to contain fruits and veggies were
>exempt, despite clearly being one-time-use.

The Trader Joes produce bags are biodegradable.
Cryptoengineer
2024-08-14 16:44:40 UTC
Permalink
On 8/14/2024 12:12 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:15:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 18:35:55 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only solution is to completely eliminate single-use
>>>> plastics. I'd even go so far as to include milk and
>>>> juice jugs in that ban (glass is far more recyclable
>>>> and aside shipping weight, similar in cost).
>>>>
>>>> Paper milk cartons can eliminate the plastic lid.
>>>
>>> What does "single use" mean? I understand in the context of fast food
>>> cups but how about less common items like those 4 liter milk jugs I
>
> As noted below, I explicitly included 4liter/1gallon milk jugs.
>
>>> get my milk in (and generally put out each week in the recycling bin)
>>> or similar such items - for instance my cheddar comes wrapped in
>>> plastic and once the cheese is eaten, that plastic wrapper isn't
>>> getting used again <grin>

Congratulations. Your jugs join the 9% of plastic that gets recycled
in America.

91% goes to the landfill or incinerator.

[...]
>>
>> There is a /reason/ we replaced glass with plastic, at least in some
>> cases.
>
> The primary reason is shipping weight.

I'd challenge that: The primary reason is money.

Yes, lower shipping weight saves money, but I expect
much larger is the savings from not having to maintain
a recycling chain to recover, wash, and reuse bottles
strong enough to sustain multiple uses (you may remember
what old school Coke bottles were like).

I've seen one gallon glass milk jugs, but they're heavy
enough to need included handles. More often I've seen
milk delivery using pint bottles - multiple if the family
requests it.

>> Interestingly, while, until they were banned, one-time-use plastic
>> shopping bags were taxed (as were and still are papter one-time-use
>> paper bags), smaller bags used to contain fruits and veggies were
>> exempt, despite clearly being one-time-use.
>
> The Trader Joes produce bags are biodegradable.

Single use plastic shopping bags are an interesting case of
tradeoffs. Banning them absolutely cuts down on unsightly
trash blowing around, but I've read that the 'resusable' bags
sold to replace them are so much heavier that they need to
be used hundreds of times before they pay off the extra
plastic used.

Paper bags I don't know enough to say, though I like them.


pt
Dimensional Traveler
2024-08-15 01:13:46 UTC
Permalink
On 8/14/2024 9:44 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> On 8/14/2024 12:12 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:15:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 18:35:55 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The only solution is to completely eliminate single-use
>>>>> plastics.    I'd even go so far as to include milk and
>>>>> juice jugs in that ban (glass is far more recyclable
>>>>> and aside shipping weight, similar in cost).
>>>>>
>>>>> Paper milk cartons can eliminate the plastic lid.
>>>>
>>>> What does "single use" mean? I understand in the context of fast food
>>>> cups but how about less common items like those 4 liter milk jugs I
>>
>> As noted below, I explicitly included 4liter/1gallon milk jugs.
>>
>>>> get my milk in (and generally put out each week in the recycling bin)
>>>> or similar such items - for instance my cheddar comes wrapped in
>>>> plastic and once the cheese is eaten, that plastic wrapper isn't
>>>> getting used again <grin>
>
> Congratulations. Your jugs join the 9% of plastic that gets recycled
> in America.
>
> 91% goes to the landfill or incinerator.
>
> [...]
>>>
>>> There is a /reason/ we replaced glass with plastic, at least in some
>>> cases.
>>
>> The primary reason is shipping weight.
>
> I'd challenge that: The primary reason is money.
>
> Yes, lower shipping weight saves money, but I expect
> much larger is the savings from not having to maintain
> a recycling chain to recover, wash, and reuse bottles
> strong enough to sustain multiple uses (you may remember
> what old school Coke bottles were like).
>
> I've seen one gallon glass milk jugs, but they're heavy
> enough to need included handles. More often I've seen
> milk delivery using pint bottles - multiple if the family
> requests it.
>
>>> Interestingly, while, until they were banned, one-time-use plastic
>>> shopping bags were taxed (as were and still are papter one-time-use
>>> paper bags), smaller bags used to contain fruits and veggies were
>>> exempt, despite clearly being one-time-use.
>>
>> The Trader Joes produce bags are biodegradable.
>
> Single use plastic shopping bags are an interesting case of
> tradeoffs. Banning them absolutely cuts down on unsightly
> trash blowing around, but I've read that the 'resusable' bags
> sold to replace them are so much heavier that they need to
> be used hundreds of times before they pay off the extra
> plastic used.
>
I use cloth bags....

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
Paul S Person
2024-08-15 15:49:53 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:13:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<***@sonic.net> wrote:

<snippo mucho, response is to plastic reusable shopping bags>

>I use cloth bags....

I did to, a long time ago.

The grocery store even had a special stand for them.

It allowed them to be kept open by wrapping the handles of the bags
around metal bars. Which they did with great enthusiasm, wrapping them
several times and very very tightly.

This, of course, caused the cloth to abrade and the handles to give
out long before the bags were otherwise unusable.

That doesn't work with plastic. Or, at least, not as quickly.

Endless games, that's what we have here.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Scott Lurndal
2024-08-15 16:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:13:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
><***@sonic.net> wrote:
>
><snippo mucho, response is to plastic reusable shopping bags>
>
>>I use cloth bags....

I have a box with handles (e.g. a document storage box) that
I keep in the car. Tell the checker to leave everything in
the cart and transfer from cart to box at car.

No bags necessary.
Paul S Person
2024-08-16 15:54:01 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:22:11 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:13:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>><***@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>><snippo mucho, response is to plastic reusable shopping bags>
>>
>>>I use cloth bags....
>
>I have a box with handles (e.g. a document storage box) that
>I keep in the car. Tell the checker to leave everything in
>the cart and transfer from cart to box at car.
>
>No bags necessary.

I'm non-motorized, so I not only need bags (currently boxes, as noted
elsewhere) but need exactly two of them (having exactly two arms to
tote them with), which affects how much I can buy at one time.

But walking to and (especially) from the store is great exercise!
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
William Hyde
2024-08-16 21:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:22:11 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>
>> Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:13:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <***@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snippo mucho, response is to plastic reusable shopping bags>
>>>
>>>> I use cloth bags....
>>
>> I have a box with handles (e.g. a document storage box) that
>> I keep in the car. Tell the checker to leave everything in
>> the cart and transfer from cart to box at car.
>>
>> No bags necessary.
>
> I'm non-motorized, so I not only need bags (currently boxes, as noted
> elsewhere) but need exactly two of them (having exactly two arms to
> tote them with), which affects how much I can buy at one time.
>
> But walking to and (especially) from the store is great exercise!

To, yes, but from is a cardiac arrest waiting to happen. Or a fall,
given the state of the sidewalks here in winter. But then, why not both?

I regret to say that I go less often, buy more, and take a taxi back. At
$10 the taxi fare doesn't increase the cost of a $250 purchase by that
much. Much less than the delivery fee.

My walk back takes me past a house where music lessons are given. There
is usually a parent in a car outside, waiting for their child. Last
time I walked by the parent offered me a lift, I declined with thanks as
my house was just around the corner. As I rounded the corner he drove
up, just to make sure. Not only offered to help, but followed up on it.

I know that there are a lot of good people out there, but it made my day
to meet one.


William Hyde
Paul S Person
2024-08-17 15:51:23 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 17:31:43 -0400, William Hyde
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:22:11 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:13:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>> <***@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snippo mucho, response is to plastic reusable shopping bags>
>>>>
>>>>> I use cloth bags....
>>>
>>> I have a box with handles (e.g. a document storage box) that
>>> I keep in the car. Tell the checker to leave everything in
>>> the cart and transfer from cart to box at car.
>>>
>>> No bags necessary.
>>
>> I'm non-motorized, so I not only need bags (currently boxes, as noted
>> elsewhere) but need exactly two of them (having exactly two arms to
>> tote them with), which affects how much I can buy at one time.
>>
>> But walking to and (especially) from the store is great exercise!
>
>To, yes, but from is a cardiac arrest waiting to happen. Or a fall,
>given the state of the sidewalks here in winter. But then, why not both?

Walking is aerobic. It strengthens the cardiovascular system. I began
with jogging back in the 70s. This has varied over the years, but a
lot of the time since then I have been doing something aerobic.

I have special shoes I wear when it is snowy. These are very heavy,
and I often walk heel-to-toe to be safe, but that just means I am
doing more work. Nothing wrong with that.

OTOH, the "freezing rain" we had a while back defeated me. I'd never
encountered it before. I'll be paying attention to it in the future.

>I regret to say that I go less often, buy more, and take a taxi back. At
>$10 the taxi fare doesn't increase the cost of a $250 purchase by that
>much. Much less than the delivery fee.

I don't tip generally but, for some reason, I /do/ tip taxi drivers.
So your $10 would be $20 for me.

But that isn't a bad strategy at all. Just not mine.

Well, not yet anyway. In another decade, who can say?

>My walk back takes me past a house where music lessons are given. There
>is usually a parent in a car outside, waiting for their child. Last
>time I walked by the parent offered me a lift, I declined with thanks as
>my house was just around the corner. As I rounded the corner he drove
>up, just to make sure. Not only offered to help, but followed up on it.

Up hear, on Nextdoor, that would be interpreted by some as spotting
for burglars. Nextdoor can be amusing, but it does tend to be a bit
negative.

I get offers for help as well. Sometimes offers to get in a car. I
never got one of those when I was a kid, but I was warned about them.

Mostly they give up when I say "No, thanks" but sometimes they are
more aggressive and I have to get a bit ... stern.

>I know that there are a lot of good people out there, but it made my day
>to meet one.

Indeed.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
William Hyde
2024-08-17 22:13:35 UTC
Permalink
Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 17:31:43 -0400, William Hyde
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:22:11 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:13:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>>> <***@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snippo mucho, response is to plastic reusable shopping bags>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I use cloth bags....
>>>>
>>>> I have a box with handles (e.g. a document storage box) that
>>>> I keep in the car. Tell the checker to leave everything in
>>>> the cart and transfer from cart to box at car.
>>>>
>>>> No bags necessary.
>>>
>>> I'm non-motorized, so I not only need bags (currently boxes, as noted
>>> elsewhere) but need exactly two of them (having exactly two arms to
>>> tote them with), which affects how much I can buy at one time.
>>>
>>> But walking to and (especially) from the store is great exercise!
>>
>> To, yes, but from is a cardiac arrest waiting to happen. Or a fall,
>> given the state of the sidewalks here in winter. But then, why not both?
>
> Walking is aerobic. It strengthens the cardiovascular system.

I am aware of this, but in current circumstances I must be careful.


I began
> with jogging back in the 70s. This has varied over the years, but a
> lot of the time since then I have been doing something aerobic.
>
> I have special shoes I wear when it is snowy. These are very heavy,
> and I often walk heel-to-toe to be safe, but that just means I am
> doing more work. Nothing wrong with that.

The problem is ice, not snow. Falling, not slogging.

Sidewalks around here are a 1950s disaster aggravated by decades of
neglect and corruption. They are narrow, often flooded, and not always
very level. We have several senior's residences in the area but you
never see the inhabitants out walking. Too difficult and/or dangerous.
This in turn leads to a lack of coffee shops and other amenities they
might wish to visit.

To get past one strip mall in icy weather I have to walk on the road.
Because if I was on the sidewalk I would soon be on the road anyway.
It's a very busy street.

Mind you, they are paradise itself compared to other places I've lived,
such as various university campuses (never money in the budget to repair
cracked walking surfaces, always enough for parking lots) or, to take a
particularly egregious example, Durham NC.

But as I explained to our local Councillor, being better than the worst
is nothing to be proud of.

>
> OTOH, the "freezing rain" we had a while back defeated me. I'd never
> encountered it before. I'll be paying attention to it in the future.

After one particularly gentle freezing rain event I was standing on a
sidewalk and slowly sliding down a hill I had never known was there.
Seemed flat to the eye, but not to gravity.
>
>> I regret to say that I go less often, buy more, and take a taxi back. At
>> $10 the taxi fare doesn't increase the cost of a $250 purchase by that
>> much. Much less than the delivery fee.
>
> I don't tip generally but,

I learned to tip more generously in the US, where to my surprise I found
that wait staff were often paid less than minimum wage, or not at all.
Most Canadian visitors to the US still don't know this.


for some reason, I /do/ tip taxi drivers.
> So your $10 would be $20 for me.

I tip also. About 20% in this case. A more distant grocery store with
a better selection would be about @20 away, but as this is comparable to
the delivery fee, I generally order from them online.
>
> But that isn't a bad strategy at all. Just not mine.
>
> Well, not yet anyway. In another decade, who can say?


I used to play bridge with an 86 year old retired professor whose daily
walk was at least two miles. Were it not for covid, I suspect he'd have
carried on into his next decade.

William Hyde
William Hyde
2024-09-04 22:35:27 UTC
Permalink
Titus G wrote:
> On 4/09/24 10:31, William Hyde wrote:
> snip
>> My first day in the US I wanted to eat at a restaurant across the street
>> from my hotel in Maryland.  As I got to the end of the hotel driveway I
>> was confronted with nine traffic lights.  I ate at the hotel.  In fact,
>> I never left the hotel except by cab.
>
> My first day in the US late last century was spent in Disneyland. We
> decided on a Mexican restaurant close to the hotel in the Disneyland
> area. Although the traffic wasn't heavy, the footpaths and surrounds
> were filthy, poorly maintained and empty of pedestrians. Despite the
> short distance we took a cab back to the hotel and did not attempt to
> walk anywhere local again.
>
> My favourite reads in recent decades include your recommendation of
> Robertson Davies' trilogies and Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria Quartet.
> Do you have two or three more to recommend? Thank you.

How I wish I did!

There must be many.

I started Anthony Powell's vast river novel and read two and a half
books virtually at a sitting.

But then I fell ill, and on recovery had bad headaches and read
virtually nothing for a while. And lost the books in a move.

So maybe?

I'm a long term fan of Snow's "Strangers and Brother" sequence, but it
holds to a very different view than either Davies or Durrell. There is
some humour, especially of character, but the books are largely
underlain by ethical issues (appeasement, the atomic bomb, class) as
well as the narrator's flaws - invisible to him, of course.

Some find the series to be too earnest, in particular one Anthony Powell
fan I conversed with. Not a dance, but more of a march to the music of
time. Though witty, I find that inaccurate, and in any event the
richness of character more than compensates.

Snow took a lot from real life (one art critic is pretty much a clone of
the mathematician G. H. Hardy) while his own career as a research
scientist and later civil servant gave him an insight into the workings
of society, including the corridors of power (a phrase he invented).

I started with the fifth book, "The Masters", which is about a
long-delayed election for the mastership of a Cambridge college in the
appeasement era. The book is packed with characters whose nature is
revealed in their reaction to the election. Human and political
motivations intermingle in complex ways. It echoes and personalizes the
larger struggle taking place in the world at that time.

If you don't like that book, best avoid the rest of the series. But if
you prefer to start at the beginning, either "George Passant", the first
written, or "Time of Hope", the first chronologically, will do.

The former is the story, largely, of a tremendously capable and
intelligent man confined to a job far beneath his abilities, in part,
but only in part, because of class, the latter the narrator's origin
story from humble(ish) beginnings (not poverty as Wikipedia says) to a
career at the Bar. Though, of course, both are far more than that.

So, a suggestion, not a recommendation. If you as yet haven't try one
of the above. I've friends who love it, others who question my sanity
on this issue.

There was a truly terrible TV series. Ignore it.

With Powell and Snow, if you like their books there are many to like.

I am missing two volumes of Durrell's "Avignon" quintet. What I have
read did not grab me as Alexandria did, but I keep meaning to return to it.

No doubt I am forgetting something. With luck, it will come to me just
after I hit "send".


William Hyde
Titus G
2024-09-06 03:25:41 UTC
Permalink
On 5/09/24 10:35, William Hyde wrote:
> Titus G wrote:
>> On 4/09/24 10:31, William Hyde wrote:
>> snip
>>
>> My favourite reads in recent decades include your recommendation of
>> Robertson Davies' trilogies and Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria Quartet.
>> Do you have two or three more to recommend? Thank you.
>
> How I wish I did!
>
> There must be many.
>
snip
Thank you for that longer than expected reply which I have saved.
I think I will start with George Passant by C P Snow who has written a
biography of Anthony Trollope whose novels I enjoy.
Perhaps Powell is too literary for me and too long. I stubbornly read
Proust to the end 25 years ago without understanding much and have just
finished Mislaid by Nell Zink where I was frequently bamboozled by
apparent literary references as well as US slang or brand names.
I also recently finished My Brilliant Friend by Elena Ferrante which is
the NY Times number one book of the 21st Century. My ignorance awarded
it three stars.
Second on the same NY Times list was The Warmth from Other Suns by
Isobel Wilkerson. Not literary but too factual and depressing being an
eight hundred page fictional account of the mass migration of black
Americans from South to North beginning during seggregation after
abolition. I managed less than two hundred pages. Two stars.
And other disappointments whose memories George might dispel.
Thank you.
Titus G
2024-09-10 03:42:52 UTC
Permalink
On 6/09/24 15:25, Titus G wrote:

> I think I will start with George Passant by C P Snow who has written a
> biography of Anthony Trollope whose novels I enjoy.

Thank you, William Hyde. George Passant was an interesting read as I
find those detailed analyses of 19th and early 20th Century social
conventions, politics, ethics and morality fascinating so will continue
the series. I was not so immersed in the characters as I am with
Trollope's, and as you initially implied, they are not of Robertson
Davies standard.
I am sorry but I have inadvertently deleted your longish post on this
topic. I hope you keep a copy and if so would you please resend it.
Thank you.
William Hyde
2024-09-10 20:07:15 UTC
Permalink
William Hyde wrote:
> Titus G wrote:


Reposted as requested.

>> On 4/09/24 10:31, William Hyde wrote:
>> snip
>>> My first day in the US I wanted to eat at a restaurant across the street
>>> from my hotel in Maryland.  As I got to the end of the hotel driveway I
>>> was confronted with nine traffic lights.  I ate at the hotel.  In fact,
>>> I never left the hotel except by cab.
>>
>> My first day in the US late last century was spent in Disneyland. We
>> decided on a Mexican restaurant close to the hotel in the Disneyland
>> area. Although the traffic wasn't heavy, the footpaths and surrounds
>> were filthy, poorly maintained and empty of pedestrians. Despite the
>> short distance we took a cab back to the hotel and did not attempt to
>> walk anywhere local again.
>>
>> My favourite reads in recent decades include your recommendation of
>> Robertson Davies' trilogies and Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria Quartet.
>> Do you have two or three more to recommend? Thank you.
>
> How I wish I did!
>
> There must be many.
>
> I started Anthony Powell's vast river novel and read two and a half
> books virtually at a sitting.
>
> But then I fell ill, and on recovery had bad headaches and read
> virtually nothing for a while.  And lost the books in a move.
>
> So maybe?
>
> I'm a long term fan of Snow's "Strangers and Brother" sequence, but it
> holds to a very different view than either Davies or Durrell. There is
> some humour, especially of character, but the books are largely
> underlain by ethical issues (appeasement, the atomic bomb, class) as
> well as the narrator's flaws - invisible to him, of course.
>
> Some find the series to be too earnest, in particular one Anthony Powell
> fan I conversed with.  Not a dance, but more of a march to the music of
> time. Though witty, I find that inaccurate, and in any event the
> richness of character more than compensates.
>
> Snow took a lot from real life (one art critic is pretty much a clone of
> the mathematician G. H. Hardy) while his own career as a research
> scientist and later civil servant gave him an insight into the workings
> of society, including the corridors of power (a phrase he invented).
>
> I started with  the fifth book, "The Masters", which is about a
> long-delayed election for the mastership of a Cambridge college in the
> appeasement era. The book is packed with characters whose nature is
> revealed in their reaction to the election.  Human and political
> motivations intermingle in complex ways. It echoes and personalizes the
> larger struggle taking place in the world at that time.
>
> If you don't like that book, best avoid the rest of the series.  But if
> you prefer to start at the beginning, either "George Passant", the first
> written, or "Time of Hope", the first chronologically, will do.
>
> The former is the story, largely, of a tremendously capable and
> intelligent man confined to a job far beneath his abilities, in part,
> but only in part, because of class, the latter the narrator's origin
> story from humble(ish) beginnings (not poverty as Wikipedia says) to a
> career at the Bar.  Though, of course, both are far more than that.
>
> So, a suggestion, not a recommendation.  If you as yet haven't  try one
> of the above.  I've friends who love it, others who question my sanity
> on this issue.
>
> There was a truly terrible TV series.  Ignore it.
>
> With Powell and Snow, if you like their books there are many to like.
>
> I am missing two volumes of Durrell's "Avignon" quintet.  What I have
> read did not grab me as Alexandria did, but I keep meaning to return to it.
>
> No doubt I am forgetting something. With luck, it will come to me just
> after I hit "send".
>
>
> William Hyde
>
>
Titus G
2024-10-04 04:48:39 UTC
Permalink
On 11/09/24 08:07, William Hyde wrote:
much snippage
>>
>> I'm a long term fan of Snow's "Strangers and Brother" sequence, but it
>> holds to a very different view than either Davies or Durrell. There is
>> some humour, especially of character, but the books are largely
>> underlain by ethical issues (appeasement, the atomic bomb, class) as
>> well as the narrator's flaws - invisible to him, of course.
>>
>> Some find the series to be too earnest, ........ in any event
>> the richness of character more than compensates.
>>
>> I started with  the fifth book, "The Masters", which is about a
>> long-delayed election for the mastership of a Cambridge college in the
>> appeasement era. The book is packed with characters whose nature is
>> revealed in their reaction to the election.  Human and political
>> motivations intermingle in complex ways. It echoes and personalizes
>> the larger struggle taking place in the world at that time.
>>
>> If you don't like that book, best avoid the rest of the series.  But
>> if you prefer to start at the beginning, either "George Passant", the
>> first written, or "Time of Hope", the first chronologically, will do.

Having decided to read them in publication order, I began with "George
Passant" about which I have already briefly written.

"The Light and the Dark" was about Roy Calvert, brilliant but subject to
melancholy and unable to control his self destructive impulse to mock
conventions and appearances at inappropriate times. The "Light" refers
to the Manichee religion's concept of man's spirit, the "Dark" to man's
flesh and their eternal battle so a similar main issue to George Passant
from a higher social standing with different circumstances and events.
The Manichee religion is "the most subtle and complex representation of
sexual guilt". It was a bit of a struggle as I didn't really understand
the main character, Roy, and the book often dragged. Perhaps that was
deliberate for the reader to empathise with Roy's frequent depression.

"A Time of Hope" about the narrator himself, was fascinating as a tale
of difficulty in upward social mobility, principally financial. Work
customs and relationships were also fascinating but I didn't understand
his relationship with the neurotic woman who became his neurotic wife.

"The Masters" as described by William above, was brilliant. The
characters created their natural conflict and I could now understand Roy
Calvert from "The Light and the Dark" a lot better and I was pleased I
had persevered with that.

In general, as you say, the characters are so well defined in their
attitudes and temperament that the ethics society demands of the middle
class in the early 20th Century are examined.
As each in the series is stand-alone, stories are compartmentalised,
with the events of "A Time of Hope" and "George Passant" concurrent but
hardly mentioning each other and the 300 plus pages of "The Masters" is
covered in a page and a half in "The Light and the Dark". However the
secondary characters common to several books also have a depth of
richness. The narrator and most others have almost implausibly high
levels of integrity but a "A Time of Hope" was more cynical.
I can't help feeling that I am missing something as I have not
identified any difference between the narrator's behavioural reasons and
events so I have not yet identified his flaws apart from vanity.
Between books I have been reading the Australian crime author, Garry
Disher - a different universe! Thank you for the recommendation.
William Hyde
2024-10-04 15:54:14 UTC
Permalink
Titus G wrote:
> On 11/09/24 08:07, William Hyde wrote:
> much snippage
>>>
>>> I'm a long term fan of Snow's "Strangers and Brother" sequence, but it
>>> holds to a very different view than either Davies or Durrell. There is
>>> some humour, especially of character, but the books are largely
>>> underlain by ethical issues (appeasement, the atomic bomb, class) as
>>> well as the narrator's flaws - invisible to him, of course.
>>>
>>> Some find the series to be too earnest, ........ in any event
>>> the richness of character more than compensates.
>>>
>>> I started with  the fifth book, "The Masters", which is about a
>>> long-delayed election for the mastership of a Cambridge college in the
>>> appeasement era. The book is packed with characters whose nature is
>>> revealed in their reaction to the election.  Human and political
>>> motivations intermingle in complex ways. It echoes and personalizes
>>> the larger struggle taking place in the world at that time.
>>>
>>> If you don't like that book, best avoid the rest of the series.  But
>>> if you prefer to start at the beginning, either "George Passant", the
>>> first written, or "Time of Hope", the first chronologically, will do.
>
> Having decided to read them in publication order, I began with "George
> Passant" about which I have already briefly written.
>
> "The Light and the Dark" was about Roy Calvert, brilliant but subject to
> melancholy and unable to control his self destructive impulse to mock
> conventions and appearances at inappropriate times. The "Light" refers
> to the Manichee religion's concept of man's spirit, the "Dark" to man's
> flesh and their eternal battle so a similar main issue to George Passant
> from a higher social standing with different circumstances and events.
> The Manichee religion is "the most subtle and complex representation of
> sexual guilt". It was a bit of a struggle as I didn't really understand
> the main character, Roy, and the book often dragged. Perhaps that was
> deliberate for the reader to empathise with Roy's frequent depression.
>
> "A Time of Hope" about the narrator himself, was fascinating as a tale
> of difficulty in upward social mobility, principally financial. Work
> customs and relationships were also fascinating but I didn't understand
> his relationship with the neurotic woman who became his neurotic wife.
>
> "The Masters" as described by William above, was brilliant. The
> characters created their natural conflict and I could now understand Roy
> Calvert from "The Light and the Dark" a lot better and I was pleased I
> had persevered with that.
>
> In general, as you say, the characters are so well defined in their
> attitudes and temperament that the ethics society demands of the middle
> class in the early 20th Century are examined.
> As each in the series is stand-alone, stories are compartmentalised,
> with the events of "A Time of Hope" and "George Passant" concurrent but
> hardly mentioning each other and the 300 plus pages of "The Masters" is
> covered in a page and a half in "The Light and the Dark". However the
> secondary characters common to several books also have a depth of
> richness. The narrator and most others have almost implausibly high
> levels of integrity but a "A Time of Hope" was more cynical.
> I can't help feeling that I am missing something as I have not
> identified any difference between the narrator's behavioural reasons and
> events so I have not yet identified his flaws apart from vanity.
> Between books I have been reading the Australian crime author, Garry
> Disher - a different universe! Thank you for the recommendation.
>
Glad you liked them, and you have many more to come.

There is also his early novel, "The Search" with which he was
dissatisfied, but it shows him feeling his way. After finishing the
river novel he wrote three more, of which I prefer "In Their Wisdom",
whose framing story is a lawsuit. It reminds me a bit of his earlier
"The Conscience of the Rich" in its portrayal of the upper class, but a
different upper class.

"A Coat of Varnish" may be a better novel, but it starts very slowly.
"The Malcontents" is a short novel which I remember best for a brief
scene in which someone is doing science, described without bewildering
detail, nor distorted to the point of caricature. I can't recall
anything else of that book.

Gary Disher you say?

I've enjoyed a few Australian crime novels. For a Canadian there's the
additional frisson of seeing what Canada might be like if it didn't snow
half the year.

William Hyde
Titus G
2024-10-05 05:01:04 UTC
Permalink
On 5/10/24 04:54, William Hyde wrote:
snip
>
> Gary Disher you say?
>
> I've enjoyed a few Australian crime novels.

The perspective of his Wyatt series is from an experienced professional
criminal working alone, (not organised crime.)
The first of his Paul Hirschhausen series was alright and I will
probably read the second.
The first of the Peninsula Crimes series was also enjoyable but the
second, Kittyhawk Down, was too over the top with so many one in fifty
years events happening in a few weeks.
I recommend any of the Wyatt series.
Thank you for the further C P Snow synopses.
William Hyde
2024-09-03 22:31:31 UTC
Permalink
***@rosettacondot.com wrote:
> William Hyde <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 17:31:43 -0400, William Hyde
>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:22:11 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:13:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>>>>> <***@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snippo mucho, response is to plastic reusable shopping bags>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I use cloth bags....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a box with handles (e.g. a document storage box) that
>>>>>> I keep in the car. Tell the checker to leave everything in
>>>>>> the cart and transfer from cart to box at car.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No bags necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm non-motorized, so I not only need bags (currently boxes, as noted
>>>>> elsewhere) but need exactly two of them (having exactly two arms to
>>>>> tote them with), which affects how much I can buy at one time.
>>>>>
>>>>> But walking to and (especially) from the store is great exercise!
>>>>
>>>> To, yes, but from is a cardiac arrest waiting to happen. Or a fall,
>>>> given the state of the sidewalks here in winter. But then, why not both?
>>>
>>> Walking is aerobic. It strengthens the cardiovascular system.
>>
>> I am aware of this, but in current circumstances I must be careful.
>
> At one of our houses the closest grocery store is 5.4 miles, at the other
> it's 1.9 miles. No sidewalks, no protected crossings.


Now you're making me feel nostalgic. Especially for the corner of Texas
and University, where you step (or run) off the street onto grass -
which turns out to be a few seedlings covering two feet of liquid mud.

There was also a wheelchair ramp up to this. Luckily nobody actually in
a wheelchair could get to the ramp to sink themselves axle-deep in the mud.

Ah memories.

Once the authorities figured out that I had gone for good, they did put
in sidewalks. Who knows what might come next? A non-toxic water supply?



The 5.4 miles is all
> two-lane roads with 50-60 MPH speed limits and a drop from the narrow and,
> in some places, unimproved breakdown lane into the bar ditch. The other is
> not so bad, but it requires crossing a six-lane road. I contemplated it one
> time (needed to drop off a car for service) but it felt too much like immersive
> Frogger.

My first day in the US I wanted to eat at a restaurant across the street
from my hotel in Maryland. As I got to the end of the hotel driveway I
was confronted with nine traffic lights. I ate at the hotel. In fact,
I never left the hotel except by cab.

Alas the hotel restaurant was a bit too good. I put on five pounds.

>
>>> OTOH, the "freezing rain" we had a while back defeated me. I'd never
>>> encountered it before. I'll be paying attention to it in the future.
>>
>> After one particularly gentle freezing rain event I was standing on a
>> sidewalk and slowly sliding down a hill I had never known was there.
>> Seemed flat to the eye, but not to gravity.
>
> That's the most common winter "weather event" in the places I've spent most of
> my life (central Oklahoma and north Texas). Dangerous stuff. I was headed
> home from work early one afternoon with freezing rain coming down. About a
> mile from home I was waiting to turn at a stop light. It was an out-sloped
> rural road with a deep bar ditch on the downslope side. The car in front of
> me, completely stopped, suddenly started to slide sideways and fell into the
> ditch. The driver waved at everyone to indicate he was ok and got on his
> phone. I made it home, but it was several days before we could get out of the
> neighborhood.
> We were lucky...a really bad ice storm left my dad without power for over a
> week. He was able to convince someone to deliver a good quantity of firewood
> and both he and the dog slept in front of the fireplace.

A Louisiana friend said something about "Indoor hog weather" when I
mentioned an ice storm.


William Hyde
Cryptoengineer
2024-09-04 13:37:38 UTC
Permalink
On 9/4/2024 3:51 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2024, Titus G wrote:
>
>> On 4/09/24 10:31, William Hyde wrote:
>> snip
>>> My first day in the US I wanted to eat at a restaurant across the street
>>> from my hotel in Maryland.  As I got to the end of the hotel driveway I
>>> was confronted with nine traffic lights.  I ate at the hotel.  In fact,
>>> I never left the hotel except by cab.
>>
>> My first day in the US late last century was spent in Disneyland. We
>> decided on a Mexican restaurant close to the hotel in the Disneyland
>> area. Although the traffic wasn't heavy, the footpaths and surrounds
>> were filthy, poorly maintained and empty of pedestrians. Despite the
>> short distance we took a cab back to the hotel and did not attempt to
>> walk anywhere local again.
>>
>> My favourite reads in recent decades include your recommendation of
>> Robertson Davies' trilogies and Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria Quartet.
>> Do you have two or three more to recommend? Thank you.
>>
>
> I recommend Chicago or Boston. Both, in my opinion, are excellent
> walking cities!

So is Manhattan. So much stuff to see, and decent public transport
when you've decide you've walked enough.

Once, for no particular reason, I spent an afternoon walking the
entire length of Broadway, about 12 miles.

pt
Bobbie Sellers
2024-09-06 04:28:53 UTC
Permalink
On 9/3/24 23:04, Titus G wrote:
> On 4/09/24 10:31, William Hyde wrote:
> snip
>> My first day in the US I wanted to eat at a restaurant across the street
>> from my hotel in Maryland.  As I got to the end of the hotel driveway I
>> was confronted with nine traffic lights.  I ate at the hotel.  In fact,
>> I never left the hotel except by cab.
>
> My first day in the US late last century was spent in Disneyland. We
> decided on a Mexican restaurant close to the hotel in the Disneyland
> area. Although the traffic wasn't heavy, the footpaths and surrounds
> were filthy, poorly maintained and empty of pedestrians. Despite the
> short distance we took a cab back to the hotel and did not attempt to
> walk anywhere local again.
>
> My favourite reads in recent decades include your recommendation of
> Robertson Davies' trilogies and Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria Quartet.
> Do you have two or three more to recommend? Thank you.
>

Currently, I recommend written and drawn mangam "Showa History of
Japan" in 4 thick volumes. Showa in case you missed that knowledge is
the name of the period during which the Emperor Hirohito
reigned and is also his Buddhist death name. Written by a mangaka
Shigero Mizuki who has the qulifications to be called the `Walt Disney
of Japan'. He is also was a man of Showa born about the time Hirohito
ascended to the Imperial Throne. If you have ever wondered why the
Japanese were so stupid as to annoy the USA at Pearl Harbor this
book gives you the reasons. As a comic artist Mizuki used Japanese
folklore and he uses them in the History to explicate matters.

I find it quite re-readable and have done so about 5
times by now and may read it again when I have trouble getting
to the San Francisco Public Library Main Branch to find something
new. SFPL has a graphic novel section that includes manga, but
if your PL has a Japanese history section you may find it there
as well. If you do not find it in your library you may make
a request to have it either borrowed or bought.

bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com
Paul S Person
2024-09-06 16:47:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 21:28:53 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<***@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>On 9/3/24 23:04, Titus G wrote:
>> On 4/09/24 10:31, William Hyde wrote:
>> snip
>>> My first day in the US I wanted to eat at a restaurant across the street
>>> from my hotel in Maryland.  As I got to the end of the hotel driveway I
>>> was confronted with nine traffic lights.  I ate at the hotel.  In fact,
>>> I never left the hotel except by cab.
>>
>> My first day in the US late last century was spent in Disneyland. We
>> decided on a Mexican restaurant close to the hotel in the Disneyland
>> area. Although the traffic wasn't heavy, the footpaths and surrounds
>> were filthy, poorly maintained and empty of pedestrians. Despite the
>> short distance we took a cab back to the hotel and did not attempt to
>> walk anywhere local again.
>>
>> My favourite reads in recent decades include your recommendation of
>> Robertson Davies' trilogies and Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria Quartet.
>> Do you have two or three more to recommend? Thank you.
>>
>
> Currently, I recommend written and drawn mangam "Showa History of
>Japan" in 4 thick volumes. Showa in case you missed that knowledge is
>the name of the period during which the Emperor Hirohito
>reigned and is also his Buddhist death name. Written by a mangaka
>Shigero Mizuki who has the qulifications to be called the `Walt Disney
>of Japan'. He is also was a man of Showa born about the time Hirohito
>ascended to the Imperial Throne. If you have ever wondered why the
>Japanese were so stupid as to annoy the USA at Pearl Harbor this
>book gives you the reasons. As a comic artist Mizuki used Japanese
>folklore and he uses them in the History to explicate matters.

The story of why go to Pearl I have run into in the military history
magazines is that they decided on the Southern Strategy, and that
required neutralizing the American fleet at Pearl. AKAIK, however,
these were all written by Westerners, so something may have been lost
in translation.

When I played the SPI game /U.S.N./, which starts with the attacks
that included Pearl Harbor, I chose to destroy the /port/ rather than
the ships. In the game, this required me to shift the fleet to
American Samoa to preserve the link to Australia. This was a major
pain. Whether that would have happened in real life I have no idea.

> I find it quite re-readable and have done so about 5
>times by now and may read it again when I have trouble getting
>to the San Francisco Public Library Main Branch to find something
>new. SFPL has a graphic novel section that includes manga, but
>if your PL has a Japanese history section you may find it there
>as well. If you do not find it in your library you may make
>a request to have it either borrowed or bought.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
The Horny Goat
2024-09-15 20:01:30 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 06 Sep 2024 09:47:09 -0700, Paul S Person
<***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>When I played the SPI game /U.S.N./, which starts with the attacks
>that included Pearl Harbor, I chose to destroy the /port/ rather than
>the ships. In the game, this required me to shift the fleet to
>American Samoa to preserve the link to Australia. This was a major
>pain. Whether that would have happened in real life I have no idea.

Hmmm that's one of the games I purchased but never played (the
counters are still unpunched). On the other hand I spent VAST amounts
of my time playing War in the East / War in Europe though focussed on
totally a-historical battles that would never actually have been
considered since WiE doesn't ever cause the destruction of units even
after they stay out of supply for months on end...
Paul S Person
2024-09-16 16:05:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 13:01:30 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Sep 2024 09:47:09 -0700, Paul S Person
><***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>When I played the SPI game /U.S.N./, which starts with the attacks
>>that included Pearl Harbor, I chose to destroy the /port/ rather than
>>the ships. In the game, this required me to shift the fleet to
>>American Samoa to preserve the link to Australia. This was a major
>>pain. Whether that would have happened in real life I have no idea.
>
>Hmmm that's one of the games I purchased but never played (the
>counters are still unpunched). On the other hand I spent VAST amounts
>of my time playing War in the East / War in Europe though focussed on
>totally a-historical battles that would never actually have been
>considered since WiE doesn't ever cause the destruction of units even
>after they stay out of supply for months on end...

I played a lot of solitaire Computer War in Europe.

In the DOS version, I discovered that the programmer had never
contemplated the Soviet Union declaring limited war and going through
Bulgaria into Greece: the Soviet units couldn't see, never mind
attack, the Greek units. Presumably, they were involved in cultural
exchanges involving bouzoukee/balalaika music and ouso/vodka and so
fighting was out of the question. This got fixed in the final version.

I also used a DOS version design flaw (each turn started with the last
random number from the prior turn, which meant that the order of die
roll results was /fixed/ and so manipulatable) to find a pattern of
actions that allowed my Axis forces to take Moscow by replaying the
same turn over and over and over. It took some time, but I eventually
cleared the entire Middle East and North Africa through Libya. Then
the Axis and the Allies ended up in a continent-wide (Casablanca to
Tunis) front. I ended the game at that point. Oh, and that was with a
60 6-5 garrison left in Russia, per an erratum.

With the Windows version (which, BTW, restarts the random number
sequence each time a turn is run so it is not repeatable), I found
that Minor Allied units (Belgium) could embark on Royal Navy vessels
-- but could only disembark in their own country and were subject to
Axis Air-Sea interdiction, which /eliminated the Royal Navy units/,
reducing it from a "permanent" 15 (IIRC) to 13. I also found that the
CW could put as many units as they wanted anywhere in France (that is,
ignore the BEF rules) provided that those units came from North Africa
to southern France. The BEF rules, IOW, were only applied to CW units
coming from Britain across the Channel. Whether either of /these/ got
fixed I have no idea.

Note that the SPI version of /U.S.N./ was a magazine game; it ends in
1943 because otherwise it would have required another counter sheet.
It stopped, IOW, just as US Naval Production was /really/ taking off.
DG redid it as a boxed game and, IIRC, extended it to the end of the
war (boxed games allowing more counters than magazine games), but I
have no idea if what I said above applies to the DG version.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
The Horny Goat
2024-09-18 16:04:08 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 09:05:08 -0700, Paul S Person
<***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>I played a lot of solitaire Computer War in Europe.=20
>
>In the DOS version, I discovered that the programmer had never
>contemplated the Soviet Union declaring limited war and going through
>Bulgaria into Greece: the Soviet units couldn't see, never mind
>attack, the Greek units. Presumably, they were involved in cultural
>exchanges involving bouzoukee/balalaika music and ouso/vodka and so
>fighting was out of the question. This got fixed in the final version.

One knock I have against the game is that unless the German player is
asleep at the switch, a Soviet-initiated "limited war" is suicidal
since the German play can EASILY win a war of attrition - the last
time I played that scenario as the German player I reached Smolensk in
the first 2-3 turns and advanced as quickly as my railroad repair
units advanced and never ever went "out of supply". I don't remember
the details but took Moscow well before the end of the summer season.
But mostly it was about unit killing and it was very easy to win a war
of attrition against "limited war production".

Interesting discussion of the MSDOS vs Windows version of the game...

>Note that the SPI version of /U.S.N./ was a magazine game; it ends in
>1943 because otherwise it would have required another counter sheet.
>It stopped, IOW, just as US Naval Production was /really/ taking off.
>DG redid it as a boxed game and, IIRC, extended it to the end of the
>war (boxed games allowing more counters than magazine games), but I
>have no idea if what I said above applies to the DG version.

I'm pretty sure I've still got the magazine version of the game still
unpunched in one of my storage bins (that I need to go through to get
rid of junk in this room) Any idea whether this would be of interest
to a collector?

(Bearing in mind it's a 40 year old 'classic' allegedly)

But no question there are several games from that era I tried to play
according to some counter-factual SF story - and few of them made any
sense at all since in most of them there was a killer strategy that
the SF author completely failed to take into account.

I once tried to figure out how to use War in Europe as the basis for a
Draka scenario but gave it up as a bad job.
Paul S Person
2024-09-19 15:49:36 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 09:04:08 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 09:05:08 -0700, Paul S Person
><***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I played a lot of solitaire Computer War in Europe.=20
>>
>>In the DOS version, I discovered that the programmer had never
>>contemplated the Soviet Union declaring limited war and going through
>>Bulgaria into Greece: the Soviet units couldn't see, never mind
>>attack, the Greek units. Presumably, they were involved in cultural
>>exchanges involving bouzoukee/balalaika music and ouso/vodka and so
>>fighting was out of the question. This got fixed in the final version.
>
>One knock I have against the game is that unless the German player is
>asleep at the switch, a Soviet-initiated "limited war" is suicidal
>since the German play can EASILY win a war of attrition - the last
>time I played that scenario as the German player I reached Smolensk in
>the first 2-3 turns and advanced as quickly as my railroad repair
>units advanced and never ever went "out of supply". I don't remember
>the details but took Moscow well before the end of the summer season.
>But mostly it was about unit killing and it was very easy to win a war
>of attrition against "limited war production".

I don't doubt it.

Another test game (these were all test games and all solitaire games,
BTW) found my continuing my attack (as the Axis) beyond Poland in
1939. This turned out to be a mistake for three reasons:

1. I had selected "variable weather". Guess who rolled "Mud"
each and every turn until "Snow" came?
2. The Soviets started Full Production immediately.
3. Since the Axis Allies had not yet activated (not enough
Political Points) it was the full Soviet Army against the /Northern/
part of the actual war (OK, including the northern part of AGC's area,
IIRC). Some screening forces were deployed to the South, but the Red
Army was very much concentrated on the German Army.
4. The German Army in 1939 is /not/ the German Army of 1941.

So I had fewer Germans fighting the pretty much the entire Red Army on
a much narrower front than in reality. Even if I had rolled "Clear"
every turn, the Axis would have been in deep doodoo.

The only advantage is that the Soviet Rail Net started much further
East and did not extend into the Baltic States. This made repairing
the rail net go a lot faster.

>Interesting discussion of the MSDOS vs Windows version of the game...
>
>>Note that the SPI version of /U.S.N./ was a magazine game; it ends in
>>1943 because otherwise it would have required another counter sheet.
>>It stopped, IOW, just as US Naval Production was /really/ taking off.
>>DG redid it as a boxed game and, IIRC, extended it to the end of the
>>war (boxed games allowing more counters than magazine games), but I
>>have no idea if what I said above applies to the DG version.
>
>I'm pretty sure I've still got the magazine version of the game still
>unpunched in one of my storage bins (that I need to go through to get
>rid of junk in this room) Any idea whether this would be of interest
>to a collector?
>
>(Bearing in mind it's a 40 year old 'classic' allegedly)

That is something I have only thought about investigating.

Originally, I punched out each game, organized the counters, read the
rules, and played at least a few turns solitaire. But eventually I
stopped punching the out, and now I have about 3 linear feet of
unpunched magazine games (not all S&T, to be sure).

One question might be whether you still have the issue of S&T it came
with. And if by "unpunched" you mean the rules are still in the
magazine.

And, of course, what condition it is in.

<https://grognard.com/> might have a marketplace or a discussion board
(although I don't see one). There may be useable Usenet groups that
could help. And eBay could be checked to see if there is a market.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Scott Dorsey
2024-09-05 20:43:26 UTC
Permalink
William Hyde <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>Titus G wrote:
>>
>> My favourite reads in recent decades include your recommendation of
>> Robertson Davies' trilogies and Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria Quartet.
>> Do you have two or three more to recommend? Thank you.
>
>How I wish I did!

Well, let me say that if you like the Alexandria Quartet you might like
the Antrobus stories by Durrell. They have the humor of the Alexandria
Quartet without any of the seriousness and they are extremely silly in
a good way.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Titus G
2024-09-06 03:40:38 UTC
Permalink
On 6/09/24 08:43, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> William Hyde <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Titus G wrote:
>>>
>>> My favourite reads in recent decades include your recommendation of
>>> Robertson Davies' trilogies and Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria Quartet.
>>> Do you have two or three more to recommend? Thank you.
>>
>> How I wish I did!
>
> Well, let me say that if you like the Alexandria Quartet you might like
> the Antrobus stories by Durrell. They have the humor of the Alexandria
> Quartet without any of the seriousness and they are extremely silly in
> a good way.
> --scott

Thank you. Having thought about it, I now want to reread the Alexandria
Quartet even though there were occasions when it dragged though the
seriousness assisted with impact.
Cryptoengineer
2024-09-04 13:34:15 UTC
Permalink
On 9/3/2024 4:50 PM, ***@rosettacondot.com wrote:
> William Hyde <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 17:31:43 -0400, William Hyde
>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:22:11 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:13:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>>>>> <***@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snippo mucho, response is to plastic reusable shopping bags>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I use cloth bags....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a box with handles (e.g. a document storage box) that
>>>>>> I keep in the car. Tell the checker to leave everything in
>>>>>> the cart and transfer from cart to box at car.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No bags necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm non-motorized, so I not only need bags (currently boxes, as noted
>>>>> elsewhere) but need exactly two of them (having exactly two arms to
>>>>> tote them with), which affects how much I can buy at one time.
>>>>>
>>>>> But walking to and (especially) from the store is great exercise!
>>>>
>>>> To, yes, but from is a cardiac arrest waiting to happen. Or a fall,
>>>> given the state of the sidewalks here in winter. But then, why not both?
>>>
>>> Walking is aerobic. It strengthens the cardiovascular system.
>>
>> I am aware of this, but in current circumstances I must be careful.
>
> At one of our houses the closest grocery store is 5.4 miles, at the other
> it's 1.9 miles. No sidewalks, no protected crossings. The 5.4 miles is all
> two-lane roads with 50-60 MPH speed limits and a drop from the narrow and,
> in some places, unimproved breakdown lane into the bar ditch. The other is
> not so bad, but it requires crossing a six-lane road. I contemplated it one
> time (needed to drop off a car for service) but it felt too much like immersive
> Frogger.
>
>>> OTOH, the "freezing rain" we had a while back defeated me. I'd never
>>> encountered it before. I'll be paying attention to it in the future.
>>
>> After one particularly gentle freezing rain event I was standing on a
>> sidewalk and slowly sliding down a hill I had never known was there.
>> Seemed flat to the eye, but not to gravity.
>
> That's the most common winter "weather event" in the places I've spent most of
> my life (central Oklahoma and north Texas). Dangerous stuff. I was headed
> home from work early one afternoon with freezing rain coming down. About a
> mile from home I was waiting to turn at a stop light. It was an out-sloped
> rural road with a deep bar ditch on the downslope side. The car in front of
> me, completely stopped, suddenly started to slide sideways and fell into the
> ditch. The driver waved at everyone to indicate he was ok and got on his
> phone. I made it home, but it was several days before we could get out of the
> neighborhood.
> We were lucky...a really bad ice storm left my dad without power for over a
> week. He was able to convince someone to deliver a good quantity of firewood
> and both he and the dog slept in front of the fireplace.
>
> Robert

Freezing rain is pretty much the worst weather event I experience here
in New England - I'd rather have a two foot blizzard.

I live in a pretty rural area, and there are trees around my house and
a forest behind it.

Freezing rain can coat trees and overhead wires with enough weight to
bring them down.

Back in 2008, I lost power for 8 days due to an icestorm.

Its not unusual for an icestorm to be followed by a clear, sunny day,
and the effect of having every branch and twig encased in clear ice,
twinkling in the sun, is extraordinarily beautiful - the world
is dipped in crystal.

pt
D
2024-08-17 09:21:27 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024, Paul S Person wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:22:11 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>
>> Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:13:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <***@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snippo mucho, response is to plastic reusable shopping bags>
>>>
>>>> I use cloth bags....
>>
>> I have a box with handles (e.g. a document storage box) that
>> I keep in the car. Tell the checker to leave everything in
>> the cart and transfer from cart to box at car.
>>
>> No bags necessary.
>
> I'm non-motorized, so I not only need bags (currently boxes, as noted
> elsewhere) but need exactly two of them (having exactly two arms to
> tote them with), which affects how much I can buy at one time.
>
> But walking to and (especially) from the store is great exercise!
>

This is the truth! I try to make it a point to walk to the store and walk
back with the bags for the exercise aspect.

I call it "micro-exercise" by which I mean all the small physical things
in life, that adds to our calory burn such as:

1. Walking to the store.
2. Carrying groceries.
3. Walking back.
4. Taking the stairs.
5. Walking to business meetings (if they are a maximum of 20-25 minutes
away).

It is my firm belief that this has a positive effect on my health. It is
also my firm belief, that calling home food, using electric
bikes/scooters, taking the elevator, in the aggregate detracts from ones
health.
Paul S Person
2024-08-17 15:57:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 11:21:27 +0200, D <***@example.net> wrote:

>
>
>On Fri, 16 Aug 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:22:11 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:13:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>> <***@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snippo mucho, response is to plastic reusable shopping bags>
>>>>
>>>>> I use cloth bags....
>>>
>>> I have a box with handles (e.g. a document storage box) that
>>> I keep in the car. Tell the checker to leave everything in
>>> the cart and transfer from cart to box at car.
>>>
>>> No bags necessary.
>>
>> I'm non-motorized, so I not only need bags (currently boxes, as noted
>> elsewhere) but need exactly two of them (having exactly two arms to
>> tote them with), which affects how much I can buy at one time.
>>
>> But walking to and (especially) from the store is great exercise!
>>
>
>This is the truth! I try to make it a point to walk to the store and walk
>back with the bags for the exercise aspect.
>
>I call it "micro-exercise" by which I mean all the small physical things
>in life, that adds to our calory burn such as:
>
>1. Walking to the store.
>2. Carrying groceries.
>3. Walking back.
>4. Taking the stairs.
>5. Walking to business meetings (if they are a maximum of 20-25 minutes
>away).
>
>It is my firm belief that this has a positive effect on my health. It is
>also my firm belief, that calling home food, using electric
>bikes/scooters, taking the elevator, in the aggregate detracts from ones
>health.

News articles on exercise go in cycles (no pun intended).

For a while, you /must/ have a special time (and special clothes) and
spend at least X hours a week for it to count.

Then, when it becomes apparent that that message merely discourages
people, we get minimum daily step counts, with no special stuff
needed.

Finally, the number of steps required to count decreases and we reach
the attitude we appear to share: everyday activity works. Or at least
helps.

Interestingly, I rarely see diet mentioned in those articles. Have the
Gurus of Health given up on getting people to eat sensibly and so
become fully focused on exercise? At least they tend to stress
cardiovascular exercise rather than calisthenics.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
D
2024-08-17 19:49:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 17 Aug 2024, Paul S Person wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 11:21:27 +0200, D <***@example.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Aug 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:22:11 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:13:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>>> <***@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snippo mucho, response is to plastic reusable shopping bags>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I use cloth bags....
>>>>
>>>> I have a box with handles (e.g. a document storage box) that
>>>> I keep in the car. Tell the checker to leave everything in
>>>> the cart and transfer from cart to box at car.
>>>>
>>>> No bags necessary.
>>>
>>> I'm non-motorized, so I not only need bags (currently boxes, as noted
>>> elsewhere) but need exactly two of them (having exactly two arms to
>>> tote them with), which affects how much I can buy at one time.
>>>
>>> But walking to and (especially) from the store is great exercise!
>>>
>>
>> This is the truth! I try to make it a point to walk to the store and walk
>> back with the bags for the exercise aspect.
>>
>> I call it "micro-exercise" by which I mean all the small physical things
>> in life, that adds to our calory burn such as:
>>
>> 1. Walking to the store.
>> 2. Carrying groceries.
>> 3. Walking back.
>> 4. Taking the stairs.
>> 5. Walking to business meetings (if they are a maximum of 20-25 minutes
>> away).
>>
>> It is my firm belief that this has a positive effect on my health. It is
>> also my firm belief, that calling home food, using electric
>> bikes/scooters, taking the elevator, in the aggregate detracts from ones
>> health.
>
> News articles on exercise go in cycles (no pun intended).
>
> For a while, you /must/ have a special time (and special clothes) and
> spend at least X hours a week for it to count.
>
> Then, when it becomes apparent that that message merely discourages
> people, we get minimum daily step counts, with no special stuff
> needed.
>
> Finally, the number of steps required to count decreases and we reach
> the attitude we appear to share: everyday activity works. Or at least
> helps.
>
> Interestingly, I rarely see diet mentioned in those articles. Have the
> Gurus of Health given up on getting people to eat sensibly and so
> become fully focused on exercise? At least they tend to stress
> cardiovascular exercise rather than calisthenics.

I have never followed any of this, and generally don't read health
articles. It seems to me, as you say, that one month X is bad for you, and
then a month later X is good for you, and then no one knows.

So I'll just do what I enjoy and try to keep moderately active, and so
far, basing it on the comments of my doctor, it seems as if it is working!
;)

When I was younger I did train boxing, which is probably the single best
exercise I have ever encountered. And no, one does not have to spar in
boxing, and if one does, one can choose to do so softly or without head
shots.
Don_from_AZ
2024-08-18 02:51:13 UTC
Permalink
D <***@example.net> writes:

> On Sat, 17 Aug 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 11:21:27 +0200, D <***@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 16 Aug 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:22:11 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:13:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>>>> <***@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snippo mucho, response is to plastic reusable shopping bags>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I use cloth bags....
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a box with handles (e.g. a document storage box) that
>>>>> I keep in the car. Tell the checker to leave everything in
>>>>> the cart and transfer from cart to box at car.
>>>>>
>>>>> No bags necessary.
>>>>
>>>> I'm non-motorized, so I not only need bags (currently boxes, as noted
>>>> elsewhere) but need exactly two of them (having exactly two arms to
>>>> tote them with), which affects how much I can buy at one time.
>>>>
>>>> But walking to and (especially) from the store is great exercise!
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is the truth! I try to make it a point to walk to the store and walk
>>> back with the bags for the exercise aspect.
>>>
>>> I call it "micro-exercise" by which I mean all the small physical things
>>> in life, that adds to our calory burn such as:
>>>
>>> 1. Walking to the store.
>>> 2. Carrying groceries.
>>> 3. Walking back.
>>> 4. Taking the stairs.
>>> 5. Walking to business meetings (if they are a maximum of 20-25 minutes
>>> away).
>>>
>>> It is my firm belief that this has a positive effect on my health. It is
>>> also my firm belief, that calling home food, using electric
>>> bikes/scooters, taking the elevator, in the aggregate detracts from ones
>>> health.
>>
>> News articles on exercise go in cycles (no pun intended).
>>
>> For a while, you /must/ have a special time (and special clothes) and
>> spend at least X hours a week for it to count.
>>
>> Then, when it becomes apparent that that message merely discourages
>> people, we get minimum daily step counts, with no special stuff
>> needed.
>>
>> Finally, the number of steps required to count decreases and we reach
>> the attitude we appear to share: everyday activity works. Or at least
>> helps.
>>
>> Interestingly, I rarely see diet mentioned in those articles. Have the
>> Gurus of Health given up on getting people to eat sensibly and so
>> become fully focused on exercise? At least they tend to stress
>> cardiovascular exercise rather than calisthenics.
>
> I have never followed any of this, and generally don't read health
> articles. It seems to me, as you say, that one month X is bad for you,
> and then a month later X is good for you, and then no one knows.
>
> So I'll just do what I enjoy and try to keep moderately active, and so
> far, basing it on the comments of my doctor, it seems as if it is
> working! ;)
>
> When I was younger I did train boxing, which is probably the single
> best exercise I have ever encountered. And no, one does not have to
> spar in boxing, and if one does, one can choose to do so softly or
> without head shots.

Was the train moving when you tried to box with it?
Bobbie Sellers
2024-08-18 00:16:46 UTC
Permalink
On 8/17/24 08:57, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 11:21:27 +0200, D <***@example.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Aug 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:22:11 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:13:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>>> <***@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snippo mucho, response is to plastic reusable shopping bags>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I use cloth bags....
>>>>
>>>> I have a box with handles (e.g. a document storage box) that
>>>> I keep in the car. Tell the checker to leave everything in
>>>> the cart and transfer from cart to box at car.
>>>>
>>>> No bags necessary.
>>>
>>> I'm non-motorized, so I not only need bags (currently boxes, as noted
>>> elsewhere) but need exactly two of them (having exactly two arms to
>>> tote them with), which affects how much I can buy at one time.
>>>
>>> But walking to and (especially) from the store is great exercise!
>>>
>>
>> This is the truth! I try to make it a point to walk to the store and walk
>> back with the bags for the exercise aspect.
>>
>> I call it "micro-exercise" by which I mean all the small physical things
>> in life, that adds to our calory burn such as:
>>
>> 1. Walking to the store.
>> 2. Carrying groceries.
>> 3. Walking back.
>> 4. Taking the stairs.
>> 5. Walking to business meetings (if they are a maximum of 20-25 minutes
>> away).
>>
>> It is my firm belief that this has a positive effect on my health. It is
>> also my firm belief, that calling home food, using electric
>> bikes/scooters, taking the elevator, in the aggregate detracts from ones
>> health.
>
> News articles on exercise go in cycles (no pun intended).
>
> For a while, you /must/ have a special time (and special clothes) and
> spend at least X hours a week for it to count.
>
> Then, when it becomes apparent that that message merely discourages
> people, we get minimum daily step counts, with no special stuff
> needed.
>
> Finally, the number of steps required to count decreases and we reach
> the attitude we appear to share: everyday activity works. Or at least
> helps.
>
> Interestingly, I rarely see diet mentioned in those articles. Have the
> Gurus of Health given up on getting people to eat sensibly and so
> become fully focused on exercise? At least they tend to stress
> cardiovascular exercise rather than calisthenics.

If people do not care enough to get into sane eating then why
should we do care about what we eat and the effect on our bodies then
why should we exhaust ourselves giving advice which is to be found on
the Internet if you care to look. I am working on 88, now nearly a year
away. I don't know if I will make it or not and frankly I do not much
care after 41 years of Systemic Exertional Intolerance Disease aka
Post-Virual Fatigue Syndrome which is like being about a Zombie without
any appetite for brains. But if you want to know about healthy diet
there are a thousand sources online. When you get too tired to hold up
a lightweight paperback, start your biography auto or otherwise.

bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2024-08-18 09:36:53 UTC
Permalink
On 18 Aug 2024 at 01:16:46 BST, "Bobbie Sellers"
<***@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> I don't know if I will make it or not and frankly I do not much
> care after 41 years of Systemic Exertional Intolerance Disease aka
> Post-Virual Fatigue Syndrome which is like being about a Zombie without
> any appetite for brains.

I get that whenever I'm on blood pressure meds, can barely sit upright
on a sofa. But when I'm off them I have other obvious issues. Sucks all
the balls. Good luck!

Cheers - Jaimie
--
Hell hath no fury like someone who is enraged that
someone else is getting away with something they're
scared to try. - lilairen, LJ
Paul S Person
2024-08-18 15:58:24 UTC
Permalink
On 18 Aug 2024 09:36:53 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
<***@usually.sessile.org> wrote:

>On 18 Aug 2024 at 01:16:46 BST, "Bobbie Sellers"
><***@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't know if I will make it or not and frankly I do not much
>> care after 41 years of Systemic Exertional Intolerance Disease aka
>> Post-Virual Fatigue Syndrome which is like being about a Zombie without
>> any appetite for brains.
>
>I get that whenever I'm on blood pressure meds, can barely sit upright
>on a sofa. But when I'm off them I have other obvious issues. Sucks all
>the balls. Good luck!

It's probably too late in your situation -- high blood pressure
apparently changes things irreversibly -- but when I retired I also
watched my sodium intake and used the BP machines at the local
pharmacy and grocery store (I think both had them) to check it.

I got it down pretty well. So well, in face, that I started seeing an
uncertain visual field when I got up. Adding a little more sodium to
my plan raised my BP closer to normal (it was rather below) and solved
that problem.

But I was, I suspect, fortunate -- I got on it while it still
responded to sodium intake. As I said above, high blood pressure
apparently makes this irrelevant.

Well, either that or the doctors have given up on it as nobody will
follow their low-sodium diet plan.

This what semantic mush looks like when it infests reality.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
William Hyde
2024-08-18 21:19:18 UTC
Permalink
Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> On 18 Aug 2024 at 01:16:46 BST, "Bobbie Sellers"
> <***@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't know if I will make it or not and frankly I do not much
>> care after 41 years of Systemic Exertional Intolerance Disease aka
>> Post-Virual Fatigue Syndrome which is like being about a Zombie without
>> any appetite for brains.
>
> I get that whenever I'm on blood pressure meds, can barely sit upright
> on a sofa. But when I'm off them I have other obvious issues. Sucks all
> the balls. Good luck!

When I first took certain meds my BP dropped to 75/48. Climbing stairs
was an opportunity to pass out. As the Toronto Transit Commission, in
its wisdom, does not provide escalators out of all of its stations,
going to the University was like climbing Mt Everest. I've never in my
life been so happy to see a chair!

I guess I was lucky as my body eventually adapted, I can't imagine
spending years like that.


William Hyde
Kevrob
2024-09-06 17:55:56 UTC
Permalink
On 8/17/2024 5:21 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:22:11 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:13:46 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>> <***@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snippo mucho, response is to plastic reusable shopping bags>
>>>>
>>>>> I use cloth bags....
>>>
>>> I have a box with handles (e.g. a document storage box) that
>>> I keep in the car.  Tell the checker to leave everything in
>>> the cart and transfer from cart to box at car.
>>>
>>> No bags necessary.
>>
>> I'm non-motorized, so I not only need bags (currently boxes, as noted
>> elsewhere) but need exactly two of them (having exactly two arms to
>> tote them with), which affects how much I can buy at one time.
>>
>> But walking to and (especially) from the store is great exercise!
>>
>
> This is the truth! I try to make it a point to walk to the store and
> walk back with the bags for the exercise aspect.
>
> I call it "micro-exercise" by which I mean all the small physical things
> in life, that adds to our calory burn such as:
>
> 1. Walking to the store.
> 2. Carrying groceries.
> 3. Walking back.
> 4. Taking the stairs.
> 5. Walking to business meetings (if they are a maximum of 20-25 minutes
> away).
>
> It is my firm belief that this has a positive effect on my health. It is
> also my firm belief, that calling home food, using electric bikes/
> scooters, taking the elevator, in the aggregate detracts from ones health.

I had to junk my vehicle as we got deep into the pandemic. As funds were
tight, spending on repairs would have been unwise, especially as it was
built it the mid-1990s and something else would have gone bad after what
was wrong with it was repaired. I only recently replaced it with a 2008
model. I have only used it as a "grocery-getter" pending my getting it
tuned up, tires replaced etc. As the pandemic approached, the firm I
was working for closed up shop in my state. As I no longer had to
commute, I returned to walking and taking transit for my infrequent
trips out of the house. I had groceries delivered often. I have used a
bicycle with suitable panniers and rack for grocery-getting and
commuting during other carless stretches of my life. One thing I liked
was putting the bike on a rack on the front of a bus, and doing a hybrid
commute. That could cut a 15-mile trip down to about 5 miles of
peddling. I even have an MTA permit to take my bike on local trains. One
can't use that during peak commuting hours, though.

I've been living halfway up a steep hill for some years. When it was
plain that I would not be immediately able to replace my old Jeep, I
invested in a foldable grocery cart - in New York slang, a "granny cart"
- and either walked or rode the bus to the store, filled that, and
either rolled all that home (1.6 miles one-way) or called an Uber,
depending on how much I had bought. I, too, have had neighbors stop and
offer me rides when I was returning home, trudging uphill. Apparently,
I could sometimes look like I was in rough shape. There was one weekend
where I really was, and eventually had to go to the hospital for an
emergency procedure. I'm fine, now. Usually, I would thank those who
offered help, explain that I was getting my daily exercise, and wanted
to finish my "workout."

Though I once again have a vehicle, if I want something from my local
convenience store, I will still walk there. It's 0.6 miles, round trip,
down the hill and back up it. The nearest liquor store is 1.4 miles
away, so a nearly 3 mile walk for a 6-pack.

I should get my bicycle back in good repair. Besides being good
exercise, I enjoy riding. As a kid I rode to hell-and-gone, often making
the rounds of my town in order to pick up all the latest comics and
eventually the SF digest magazines. For most of my school days I lived
half a mile from our public library, and I would stop in there several
times a month, and weekly or more in the summer.

--
Kevin R

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Cryptoengineer
2024-08-15 17:06:58 UTC
Permalink
On 8/14/2024 9:13 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 8/14/2024 9:44 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> On 8/14/2024 12:12 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:15:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 18:35:55 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only solution is to completely eliminate single-use
>>>>>> plastics.    I'd even go so far as to include milk and
>>>>>> juice jugs in that ban (glass is far more recyclable
>>>>>> and aside shipping weight, similar in cost).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paper milk cartons can eliminate the plastic lid.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does "single use" mean? I understand in the context of fast food
>>>>> cups but how about less common items like those 4 liter milk jugs I
>>>
>>> As noted below, I explicitly included 4liter/1gallon milk jugs.
>>>
>>>>> get my milk in (and generally put out each week in the recycling bin)
>>>>> or similar such items - for instance my cheddar comes wrapped in
>>>>> plastic and once the cheese is eaten, that plastic wrapper isn't
>>>>> getting used again <grin>
>>
>> Congratulations. Your jugs join the 9% of plastic that gets recycled
>> in America.
>>
>> 91% goes to the landfill or incinerator.
>>
>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> There is a /reason/ we replaced glass with plastic, at least in some
>>>> cases.
>>>
>>> The primary reason is shipping weight.
>>
>> I'd challenge that: The primary reason is money.
>>
>> Yes, lower shipping weight saves money, but I expect
>> much larger is the savings from not having to maintain
>> a recycling chain to recover, wash, and reuse bottles
>> strong enough to sustain multiple uses (you may remember
>> what old school Coke bottles were like).
>>
>> I've seen one gallon glass milk jugs, but they're heavy
>> enough to need included handles. More often I've seen
>> milk delivery using pint bottles - multiple if the family
>> requests it.
>>
>>>> Interestingly, while, until they were banned, one-time-use plastic
>>>> shopping bags were taxed (as were and still are papter one-time-use
>>>> paper bags), smaller bags used to contain fruits and veggies were
>>>> exempt, despite clearly being one-time-use.
>>>
>>> The Trader Joes produce bags are biodegradable.
>>
>> Single use plastic shopping bags are an interesting case of
>> tradeoffs. Banning them absolutely cuts down on unsightly
>> trash blowing around, but I've read that the 'resusable' bags
>> sold to replace them are so much heavier that they need to
>> be used hundreds of times before they pay off the extra
>> plastic used.
>>
> I use cloth bags....

What cloth? Is it a natural fiber? Or is it polyester/dacron, etc?

If its a plastic fiber, you've done little or nothing to reduce
plastic waste. How many single-use bags are required to equal the
weight of your reusable?

pt
D
2024-08-15 21:43:01 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:

> On 8/14/2024 9:13 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 8/14/2024 9:44 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>> On 8/14/2024 12:12 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:15:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 18:35:55 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only solution is to completely eliminate single-use
>>>>>>> plastics.    I'd even go so far as to include milk and
>>>>>>> juice jugs in that ban (glass is far more recyclable
>>>>>>> and aside shipping weight, similar in cost).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paper milk cartons can eliminate the plastic lid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does "single use" mean? I understand in the context of fast food
>>>>>> cups but how about less common items like those 4 liter milk jugs I
>>>>
>>>> As noted below, I explicitly included 4liter/1gallon milk jugs.
>>>>
>>>>>> get my milk in (and generally put out each week in the recycling bin)
>>>>>> or similar such items - for instance my cheddar comes wrapped in
>>>>>> plastic and once the cheese is eaten, that plastic wrapper isn't
>>>>>> getting used again <grin>
>>>
>>> Congratulations. Your jugs join the 9% of plastic that gets recycled
>>> in America.
>>>
>>> 91% goes to the landfill or incinerator.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a /reason/ we replaced glass with plastic, at least in some
>>>>> cases.
>>>>
>>>> The primary reason is shipping weight.
>>>
>>> I'd challenge that: The primary reason is money.
>>>
>>> Yes, lower shipping weight saves money, but I expect
>>> much larger is the savings from not having to maintain
>>> a recycling chain to recover, wash, and reuse bottles
>>> strong enough to sustain multiple uses (you may remember
>>> what old school Coke bottles were like).
>>>
>>> I've seen one gallon glass milk jugs, but they're heavy
>>> enough to need included handles. More often I've seen
>>> milk delivery using pint bottles - multiple if the family
>>> requests it.
>>>
>>>>> Interestingly, while, until they were banned, one-time-use plastic
>>>>> shopping bags were taxed (as were and still are papter one-time-use
>>>>> paper bags), smaller bags used to contain fruits and veggies were
>>>>> exempt, despite clearly being one-time-use.
>>>>
>>>> The Trader Joes produce bags are biodegradable.
>>>
>>> Single use plastic shopping bags are an interesting case of
>>> tradeoffs. Banning them absolutely cuts down on unsightly
>>> trash blowing around, but I've read that the 'resusable' bags
>>> sold to replace them are so much heavier that they need to
>>> be used hundreds of times before they pay off the extra
>>> plastic used.
>>>
>> I use cloth bags....
>
> What cloth? Is it a natural fiber? Or is it polyester/dacron, etc?
>
> If its a plastic fiber, you've done little or nothing to reduce
> plastic waste. How many single-use bags are required to equal the
> weight of your reusable?
>
> pt
>

I heard somewhere, sometime, that in order to benefit "nature" by using a
cloth bag, you have to use it at least 10000 times. I wonder if it is
true? I have no proof, just something I read or heard many years ago.
Dimensional Traveler
2024-08-16 00:52:27 UTC
Permalink
On 8/15/2024 10:06 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> On 8/14/2024 9:13 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 8/14/2024 9:44 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>> On 8/14/2024 12:12 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:15:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 18:35:55 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only solution is to completely eliminate single-use
>>>>>>> plastics.    I'd even go so far as to include milk and
>>>>>>> juice jugs in that ban (glass is far more recyclable
>>>>>>> and aside shipping weight, similar in cost).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paper milk cartons can eliminate the plastic lid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does "single use" mean? I understand in the context of fast food
>>>>>> cups but how about less common items like those 4 liter milk jugs I
>>>>
>>>> As noted below, I explicitly included 4liter/1gallon milk jugs.
>>>>
>>>>>> get my milk in (and generally put out each week in the recycling bin)
>>>>>> or similar such items - for instance my cheddar comes wrapped in
>>>>>> plastic and once the cheese is eaten, that plastic wrapper isn't
>>>>>> getting used again <grin>
>>>
>>> Congratulations. Your jugs join the 9% of plastic that gets recycled
>>> in America.
>>>
>>> 91% goes to the landfill or incinerator.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a /reason/ we replaced glass with plastic, at least in some
>>>>> cases.
>>>>
>>>> The primary reason is shipping weight.
>>>
>>> I'd challenge that: The primary reason is money.
>>>
>>> Yes, lower shipping weight saves money, but I expect
>>> much larger is the savings from not having to maintain
>>> a recycling chain to recover, wash, and reuse bottles
>>> strong enough to sustain multiple uses (you may remember
>>> what old school Coke bottles were like).
>>>
>>> I've seen one gallon glass milk jugs, but they're heavy
>>> enough to need included handles. More often I've seen
>>> milk delivery using pint bottles - multiple if the family
>>> requests it.
>>>
>>>>> Interestingly, while, until they were banned, one-time-use plastic
>>>>> shopping bags were taxed (as were and still are papter one-time-use
>>>>> paper bags), smaller bags used to contain fruits and veggies were
>>>>> exempt, despite clearly being one-time-use.
>>>>
>>>> The Trader Joes produce bags are biodegradable.
>>>
>>> Single use plastic shopping bags are an interesting case of
>>> tradeoffs. Banning them absolutely cuts down on unsightly
>>> trash blowing around, but I've read that the 'resusable' bags
>>> sold to replace them are so much heavier that they need to
>>> be used hundreds of times before they pay off the extra
>>> plastic used.
>>>
>> I use cloth bags....
>
> What cloth? Is it a natural fiber? Or is it polyester/dacron, etc?
>
> If its a plastic fiber, you've done little or nothing to reduce
> plastic waste. How many single-use bags are required to equal the
> weight of your reusable?
>
Less than the number of years I've been using them.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
Paul S Person
2024-08-16 16:07:44 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 13:06:58 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 8/14/2024 9:13 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

<snippo>

>> I use cloth bags....
>
>What cloth? Is it a natural fiber? Or is it polyester/dacron, etc?

Mine were -- well, they appeared to me to be -- canvas. But, whatever
they were, if they were not a natural fiber, they were very well
disguised.

I call my current bags (boxes, as noted elsewhere) "plastic" and they
are in fact polypropylene. One specifies "unwoven" but that is the
only one that even looks like cloth. I use them for as long as I can.
The ones the boxes replaced were probably a third duct tape, they had
been patched so much. (I once had a pair that had handles so long I
had to tie them off so I could carry them without the back dragging on
the ground and lasting maybe one or two uses, which led to my
discovery that duct tape could be used to repair the damage -- as I
say, this is a game that never ends).

>If its a plastic fiber, you've done little or nothing to reduce
>plastic waste. How many single-use bags are required to equal the
>weight of your reusable?

Who can say? Particularly since the cardboard inside the polypropylene
makes them heavier than bags of polypropylene alone are.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Joy Beeson
2024-08-20 00:56:36 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 13:06:58 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

> If its a plastic fiber, you've done little or nothing to reduce
> plastic waste. How many single-use bags are required to equal the
> weight of your reusable?

Despite being washed in hot water with bleach, my reusable bags were
well over thirty years old when I set them next to a leaking battery
and they all got large holes in the bottom.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
Cryptoengineer
2024-08-20 01:28:13 UTC
Permalink
On 8/19/2024 8:56 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 13:06:58 -0400, Cryptoengineer
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If its a plastic fiber, you've done little or nothing to reduce
>> plastic waste. How many single-use bags are required to equal the
>> weight of your reusable?
>
> Despite being washed in hot water with bleach, my reusable bags were
> well over thirty years old when I set them next to a leaking battery
> and they all got large holes in the bottom.
>

Very good.

pt
D
2024-08-20 08:34:20 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024, Joy Beeson wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 13:06:58 -0400, Cryptoengineer
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If its a plastic fiber, you've done little or nothing to reduce
>> plastic waste. How many single-use bags are required to equal the
>> weight of your reusable?
>
> Despite being washed in hot water with bleach, my reusable bags were
> well over thirty years old when I set them next to a leaking battery
> and they all got large holes in the bottom.
>

Note that it is not the age, but how many times you reuse them. I think
common knowledge is that you must use one of those reusables about 10 000
times in order for it to come out favourably against single use plastic
bags.

Needless to say, many hip and woke teenagers, probably throw them away
after a month or two when they become dirty or when a new shiny one is
received at the next convention.
Cryptoengineer
2024-08-20 16:23:47 UTC
Permalink
On 8/20/2024 4:34 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2024, Joy Beeson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 13:06:58 -0400, Cryptoengineer
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If its a plastic fiber, you've done little or nothing to reduce
>>> plastic waste. How many single-use bags are required to equal the
>>> weight of your reusable?
>>
>> Despite being washed in hot water with bleach, my reusable bags were
>> well over thirty years old when I set them next to a leaking battery
>> and they all got large holes in the bottom.
>>
>
> Note that it is not the age, but how many times you reuse them. I think
> common knowledge is that you must use one of those reusables about 10
> 000 times in order for it to come out favourably against single use
> plastic bags.
>
> Needless to say, many hip and woke teenagers, probably throw them away
> after a month or two when they become dirty or when a new shiny one is
> received at the next convention.


https://sites.psu.edu/marabelleolivia/2021/02/25/are-reusable-bags-worth-it/

This site, which is mainly concerned with greenhouse gases, points
out that all the reusables use more resources per bag than the
single use ones, but works out the break-even points:

Paper: 4 uses
Polypropylene: 14
Cotton: 173

So, it looks like the plastic reusables are a lot better than I
thought.

pt
D
2024-08-20 18:52:52 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:

> On 8/20/2024 4:34 AM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2024, Joy Beeson wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 13:06:58 -0400, Cryptoengineer
>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If its a plastic fiber, you've done little or nothing to reduce
>>>> plastic waste. How many single-use bags are required to equal the
>>>> weight of your reusable?
>>>
>>> Despite being washed in hot water with bleach, my reusable bags were
>>> well over thirty years old when I set them next to a leaking battery
>>> and they all got large holes in the bottom.
>>>
>>
>> Note that it is not the age, but how many times you reuse them. I think
>> common knowledge is that you must use one of those reusables about 10 000
>> times in order for it to come out favourably against single use plastic
>> bags.
>>
>> Needless to say, many hip and woke teenagers, probably throw them away
>> after a month or two when they become dirty or when a new shiny one is
>> received at the next convention.
>
>
> https://sites.psu.edu/marabelleolivia/2021/02/25/are-reusable-bags-worth-it/
>
> This site, which is mainly concerned with greenhouse gases, points
> out that all the reusables use more resources per bag than the
> single use ones, but works out the break-even points:
>
> Paper: 4 uses
> Polypropylene: 14
> Cotton: 173
>
> So, it looks like the plastic reusables are a lot better than I
> thought.
>
> pt
>

It is not clear cut. In this study from the ministry of environment and
food in Denmark, from 2018, looking at the life cycle assessment of
grocery carrier bags, cotton can reach up to 20 000 times when looking at
many environmental factors such as:

Climate change
Ozone depletion
Human toxicity, cancer effects
Human toxicity, non-cancer effects
Photochemical ozone formation
Ionizing radiation
Particulate matter
Terrestrial acidification
Terrestrial eutrophication
Freshwater eutrophication
Marine eutrophication
Ecosystem toxicity
Resource depletion, fossil
Resource depletion, abiotic
Water resource depletion

Also add to that, that single use plastic bags can frequently be reused as
well for garbage, lunch sandwiches etc. (well, I do) to further skew the
number towards plastic in favour of cotton.

Link here:
https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-73-4.pdf .
Bobbie Sellers
2024-08-20 20:45:10 UTC
Permalink
On 8/20/24 09:23, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> On 8/20/2024 4:34 AM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2024, Joy Beeson wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 13:06:58 -0400, Cryptoengineer
>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If its a plastic fiber, you've done little or nothing to reduce
>>>> plastic waste. How many single-use bags are required to equal the
>>>> weight of your reusable?
>>>
>>> Despite being washed in hot water with bleach, my reusable bags were
>>> well over thirty years old when I set them next to a leaking battery
>>> and they all got large holes in the bottom.
>>>
>>
>> Note that it is not the age, but how many times you reuse them. I
>> think common knowledge is that you must use one of those reusables
>> about 10 000 times in order for it to come out favourably against
>> single use plastic bags.
>>
>> Needless to say, many hip and woke teenagers, probably throw them away
>> after a month or two when they become dirty or when a new shiny one is
>> received at the next convention.
>
>
> https://sites.psu.edu/marabelleolivia/2021/02/25/are-reusable-bags-worth-it/
>
> This site, which is mainly concerned with greenhouse gases, points
> out that all the reusables use more resources per bag than the
> single use ones, but works out the break-even points:
>
> Paper: 4 uses
> Polypropylene: 14
> Cotton: 173
>
> So, it looks like the plastic reusables are a lot better than I
> thought.
>
> pt
>

But they do not beat the natural fibre bags at all.
I use plastics to protect the books going to and
from the library, I use plastics for the damp fruits and
vegetables I buy at the Farmer Market. I carry them around
in a cotton canvas bag that lasts years. Before FibroMyalgia
set in I used a backpack to carry purchases etc. home but
the FM turned both shoulders into pain producing points.
Now a canvas bag on my shoulder and a bag in each hand is
about the best I can manage if I don't weigth the shoulder
bag down with more than 4 lbs.

bliss - who may or may not refer to herself as the
old bag with a Bag full of bags.

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com
Cryptoengineer
2024-08-21 00:37:57 UTC
Permalink
On 8/20/2024 4:45 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> On 8/20/24 09:23, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> On 8/20/2024 4:34 AM, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2024, Joy Beeson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 13:06:58 -0400, Cryptoengineer
>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If its a plastic fiber, you've done little or nothing to reduce
>>>>> plastic waste. How many single-use bags are required to equal the
>>>>> weight of your reusable?
>>>>
>>>> Despite being washed in hot water with bleach, my reusable bags were
>>>> well over thirty years old when I set them next to a leaking battery
>>>> and they all got large holes in the bottom.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Note that it is not the age, but how many times you reuse them. I
>>> think common knowledge is that you must use one of those reusables
>>> about 10 000 times in order for it to come out favourably against
>>> single use plastic bags.
>>>
>>> Needless to say, many hip and woke teenagers, probably throw them
>>> away after a month or two when they become dirty or when a new shiny
>>> one is received at the next convention.
>>
>>
>> https://sites.psu.edu/marabelleolivia/2021/02/25/are-reusable-bags-
>> worth-it/
>>
>> This site, which is mainly concerned with greenhouse gases, points
>> out that all the reusables use more resources per bag than the
>> single use ones, but works out the break-even points:
>>
>> Paper: 4 uses
>> Polypropylene: 14
>> Cotton: 173
>>
>> So, it looks like the plastic reusables are a lot better than I
>> thought.
>>
>> pt
>>
>
>     But they do not beat the natural fibre bags at all.

Huh?

The numbers say that you'll produce less pollution using a
cotton bag than single use plastic ones only if you use the
cotton one 173 times.

Now, that *is* in line with reality - people can use them that
many times. But I was very surprised to see that the polypropylene
bags needed only 14 uses to do so.

I fully expected to see cotton producing less pollution than the
polypropylene, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

pt
Dimensional Traveler
2024-08-21 00:48:22 UTC
Permalink
On 8/20/2024 5:37 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> On 8/20/2024 4:45 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>> On 8/20/24 09:23, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>> On 8/20/2024 4:34 AM, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2024, Joy Beeson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 13:06:58 -0400, Cryptoengineer
>>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If its a plastic fiber, you've done little or nothing to reduce
>>>>>> plastic waste. How many single-use bags are required to equal the
>>>>>> weight of your reusable?
>>>>>
>>>>> Despite being washed in hot water with bleach, my reusable bags were
>>>>> well over thirty years old when I set them next to a leaking battery
>>>>> and they all got large holes in the bottom.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note that it is not the age, but how many times you reuse them. I
>>>> think common knowledge is that you must use one of those reusables
>>>> about 10 000 times in order for it to come out favourably against
>>>> single use plastic bags.
>>>>
>>>> Needless to say, many hip and woke teenagers, probably throw them
>>>> away after a month or two when they become dirty or when a new shiny
>>>> one is received at the next convention.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://sites.psu.edu/marabelleolivia/2021/02/25/are-reusable-bags-
>>> worth-it/
>>>
>>> This site, which is mainly concerned with greenhouse gases, points
>>> out that all the reusables use more resources per bag than the
>>> single use ones, but works out the break-even points:
>>>
>>> Paper: 4 uses
>>> Polypropylene: 14
>>> Cotton: 173
>>>
>>> So, it looks like the plastic reusables are a lot better than I
>>> thought.
>>>
>>> pt
>>>
>>
>>      But they do not beat the natural fibre bags at all.
>
> Huh?
>
> The numbers say that you'll produce less pollution using a
> cotton bag than single use plastic ones only if you use the
> cotton one 173 times.
>
> Now, that *is* in line with reality - people can use them that
> many times. But I was very surprised to see that the polypropylene
> bags needed only 14 uses to do so.
>
> I fully expected to see cotton producing less pollution than the
> polypropylene, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
>
They are probably including anything and everything from collecting the
seed thru making the bag for cotton.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
Paul S Person
2024-08-20 15:11:46 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 20:56:36 -0400, Joy Beeson
<***@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 13:06:58 -0400, Cryptoengineer
><***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If its a plastic fiber, you've done little or nothing to reduce
>> plastic waste. How many single-use bags are required to equal the
>> weight of your reusable?
>
>Despite being washed in hot water with bleach, my reusable bags were
>well over thirty years old when I set them next to a leaking battery
>and they all got large holes in the bottom.

Wash them? Oh, you're putting things that can leak into them.

Large holes in the bottom call for duct tape. Lots of duct tape.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Joy Beeson
2024-08-21 02:12:26 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:11:46 -0700, Paul S Person
<***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

> Wash them? Oh, you're putting things that can leak into them.


They did get leaked on now and again, but mostly it's just that dirt
accumulates during a few dozen uses.

And one washes food containers more often than garments.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
Paul S Person
2024-08-21 15:25:50 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 22:12:26 -0400, Joy Beeson
<***@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:11:46 -0700, Paul S Person
><***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Wash them? Oh, you're putting things that can leak into them.
>
>
>They did get leaked on now and again, but mostly it's just that dirt
>accumulates during a few dozen uses.

Dave Berry once articulated the theory that women can see dirt that
men can not.

Which is to say that I don't see any dirt accumulating on mine.

>And one washes food containers more often than garments.

Yes indeed; the two I use get washed every day.

But then, fruits/veggies /do/ tend to leave bits behind.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Bobbie Sellers
2024-08-21 18:45:47 UTC
Permalink
On 8/21/24 08:25, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 22:12:26 -0400, Joy Beeson
> <***@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:11:46 -0700, Paul S Person
>> <***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Wash them? Oh, you're putting things that can leak into them.
>>
>>
>> They did get leaked on now and again, but mostly it's just that dirt
>> accumulates during a few dozen uses.
>
> Dave Berry once articulated the theory that women can see dirt that
> men can not.

Men can see it too with practice and attention to details.
>
> Which is to say that I don't see any dirt accumulating on mine.
>
>> And one washes food containers more often than garments.
>
> Yes indeed; the two I use get washed every day.
>
> But then, fruits/veggies /do/ tend to leave bits behind.

Everything that touches anything tends to leave bits
behind which with DNA sequencing is why so many criminals
are being apprended later.

~40 years ago my mother was murdered and this year
they found the micreant. He was in prison for attempted
murder, I believe. Trial should start next month.

bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com
Paul S Person
2024-08-22 15:12:46 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 11:45:47 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<***@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>On 8/21/24 08:25, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 22:12:26 -0400, Joy Beeson
>> <***@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:11:46 -0700, Paul S Person
>>> <***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wash them? Oh, you're putting things that can leak into them.
>>>
>>>
>>> They did get leaked on now and again, but mostly it's just that dirt
>>> accumulates during a few dozen uses.
>>
>> Dave Berry once articulated the theory that women can see dirt that
>> men can not.
>
> Men can see it too with practice and attention to details.

If you say so. Note that Dave Berry is a /humor/ columnist. This was a
joke.

>> Which is to say that I don't see any dirt accumulating on mine.
>>
>>> And one washes food containers more often than garments.
>>
>> Yes indeed; the two I use get washed every day.
>>
>> But then, fruits/veggies /do/ tend to leave bits behind.
>
> Everything that touches anything tends to leave bits
>behind which with DNA sequencing is why so many criminals
>are being apprended later.

The things /I/ buy leave bits of cardboard box or plastic box or paper
bag behind. All food is safely contained.

I had a bagger once who wanted to put my boxed powder bleach into a
small plastic bag so my boxed food would be protected from it. I told
her she was thinking symbolically ("don't mix bleach and food" --
which, of course, is perfectly fine advise when they /can/ mix). I
could just as well have "magically", because only by magic could any
bleach bits have migrated into a box containing food, penetrated the
inner wrapper, and so met the food.

I'm currently reading Deaver. Although the book I am reading right now
is set in 1936 in Germany, most are set in the USA and are
contemporary with when they were written. They include a lot of
forensics, including DNA traces.

> ~40 years ago my mother was murdered and this year
>they found the micreant. He was in prison for attempted
> murder, I believe. Trial should start next month.

My sympathies for your loss. The capture and trial of the perp must be
very satisfying.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Bobbie Sellers
2024-08-14 18:17:01 UTC
Permalink
On 8/14/24 09:12, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:15:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 18:35:55 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only solution is to completely eliminate single-use
>>>> plastics. I'd even go so far as to include milk and
>>>> juice jugs in that ban (glass is far more recyclable
>>>> and aside shipping weight, similar in cost).
>>>>
>>>> Paper milk cartons can eliminate the plastic lid.
>>>
>>> What does "single use" mean? I understand in the context of fast food
>>> cups but how about less common items like those 4 liter milk jugs I
>
> As noted below, I explicitly included 4liter/1gallon milk jugs.
>
>>> get my milk in (and generally put out each week in the recycling bin)
>>> or similar such items - for instance my cheddar comes wrapped in
>>> plastic and once the cheese is eaten, that plastic wrapper isn't
>>> getting used again <grin>
>
> Cheese was available for purchase before plastic packaging
> was invented.
>
>>
>> He is explicitly including milk and juice, suggesting we go back to
>> glass.
>>
>> Which is fine, so long as, when I drop one on the floor and it breaks,
>> he comes over, cleans up the mess, and gives me my money back.
>
> Why should I pay for your clumsiness?
>
>>
>> Plastic jugs don't break as often, although I suppose you could get
>> one to do so if you tried hard enough.
>
> Some plastic jugs have screw on lids, others have press-on. Guess
> what happens when you drop the latter?
>
>>
>> There is a /reason/ we replaced glass with plastic, at least in some
>> cases.
>
> The primary reason is shipping weight.
>
>>
>> Interestingly, while, until they were banned, one-time-use plastic
>> shopping bags were taxed (as were and still are papter one-time-use
>> paper bags), smaller bags used to contain fruits and veggies were
>> exempt, despite clearly being one-time-use.
>
> The Trader Joe's produce bags are biodegradable.
>

So are those of many other stores. I shop Rainbow
Grocery, Trader Joe's, Safeway and the Local Farmer's Market.
The Farmers market uses non-composable but reusable bags
which I use to get more produce and to carry out some other
trash when they get too bad to be used again. I have canvas
bags, containing more modern plastic bags and a small
insulateed bag and have several of the washable paper bags
from Trader Joe's. Walgreen's still has plastic bags
which i use until they disintegrate for various matters.
For example I wrap library books in the sturdy Walgreen's
bags.

When I was a kid in the 1940s and early '50s, the
butcher wrapped cheese and meat in butcher paper, perhaps
with a strong waxed sheet of paper around it.
Soft drinks came in reusable bottles and you could
return them to the store for the deposit. That was how
I earned some extra cash over my allowance.
Milk came in glass bottles including half pints
pints and quarts. But waxed paper worked very well but
it seems that the simple milk carton with the folded
pour spout must be patented as the modern milks of
vegetable origin have invented complex plastic spouts.
(I got allergic to animal casein protein on my journey
halfway through life as I presently know it.)

bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com
Scott Dorsey
2024-08-15 00:21:40 UTC
Permalink
Scott Lurndal <***@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>He is explicitly including milk and juice, suggesting we go back to
>>glass.
>>
>>Which is fine, so long as, when I drop one on the floor and it breaks,
>>he comes over, cleans up the mess, and gives me my money back.
>
>Why should I pay for your clumsiness?

Returnable glass bottles with a deposit on them don't turn into litter.
And if they should turn into litter, kids will collect them to reclaim them.

And, in the modern age where gorilla glass is not expensive to make any
longer, the issue of breakage should be a non-issue. (In the past, of
course, reusable bottles were made thick enough to be very hard to break,
witness returnable coca-cola bottles as an example. But gorilla glass
can make them thinner and cheaper to transport.)

>The Trader Joes produce bags are biodegradable.

The biodegradable plastic bags usually are starch and an unstable
vinyl polymer. The idea is kind of cool, but don't expect to use them
for long term storage. I have kept electronic parts in grocery bags
to discover the bags were disintegrating in my cabinets.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Paul S Person
2024-08-15 16:03:48 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Aug 2024 00:21:40 -0000, ***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Scott Lurndal <***@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>He is explicitly including milk and juice, suggesting we go back to
>>>glass.
>>>
>>>Which is fine, so long as, when I drop one on the floor and it breaks,
>>>he comes over, cleans up the mess, and gives me my money back.
>>
>>Why should I pay for your clumsiness?
>
>Returnable glass bottles with a deposit on them don't turn into litter.
>And if they should turn into litter, kids will collect them to reclaim them.
>
>And, in the modern age where gorilla glass is not expensive to make any
>longer, the issue of breakage should be a non-issue. (In the past, of
>course, reusable bottles were made thick enough to be very hard to break,
>witness returnable coca-cola bottles as an example. But gorilla glass
>can make them thinner and cheaper to transport.)

Try it and see if the market will buy it. Or if plastic is so strongly
preferred that glass is purchased only if no alternative exists.

>>The Trader Joes produce bags are biodegradable.
>
>The biodegradable plastic bags usually are starch and an unstable
>vinyl polymer. The idea is kind of cool, but don't expect to use them
>for long term storage. I have kept electronic parts in grocery bags
>to discover the bags were disintegrating in my cabinets.

I was appalled to find that the biodegradable bags that I bought
(together with a small bin with lots of space in the sides to keep the
smell down) when the fad first started have long-since degraded in a
closed box sitting on a shelf which is mostly kept in the dark. When I
was told to bag my trash, I ended up buying plastic garbage bags
because I couldn't anything else locally and I don't want to buy 1000
biodegradable bags and find then unusable aftor only 20 or so have
been used. Once bitten, twice shy.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Bobbie Sellers
2024-08-16 01:17:41 UTC
Permalink
On 8/15/24 09:03, Paul S Person wrote:
> On 15 Aug 2024 00:21:40 -0000, ***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> Scott Lurndal <***@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>> He is explicitly including milk and juice, suggesting we go back to
>>>> glass.
>>>>
>>>> Which is fine, so long as, when I drop one on the floor and it breaks,
>>>> he comes over, cleans up the mess, and gives me my money back.
>>>
>>> Why should I pay for your clumsiness?
>>
>> Returnable glass bottles with a deposit on them don't turn into litter.
>> And if they should turn into litter, kids will collect them to reclaim them.
>>
>> And, in the modern age where gorilla glass is not expensive to make any
>> longer, the issue of breakage should be a non-issue. (In the past, of
>> course, reusable bottles were made thick enough to be very hard to break,
>> witness returnable coca-cola bottles as an example. But gorilla glass
>> can make them thinner and cheaper to transport.)
>
> Try it and see if the market will buy it. Or if plastic is so strongly
> preferred that glass is purchased only if no alternative exists.
>
>>> The Trader Joes produce bags are biodegradable.
>>
>> The biodegradable plastic bags usually are starch and an unstable
>> vinyl polymer. The idea is kind of cool, but don't expect to use them
>> for long term storage. I have kept electronic parts in grocery bags
>> to discover the bags were disintegrating in my cabinets.

Such bags are not meant for storage of electronic or hard
goods I have ascertained over years of experience and I use the plastic
vial that my medications come in for small parts or the anti-static bags
I buy locally or via mail order. I also long ago when I was more active
invested in small plastic cabinet to keep screws, nails and hard parts in.


> I was appalled to find that the biodegradable bags that I bought
> (together with a small bin with lots of space in the sides to keep the
> smell down) when the fad first started have long-since degraded in a
> closed box sitting on a shelf which is mostly kept in the dark. When I
> was told to bag my trash, I ended up buying plastic garbage bags
> because I couldn't anything else locally and I don't want to buy 1000
> biodegradable bags and find then unusable aftor only 20 or so have
> been used. Once bitten, twice shy.

Well my biodegradable bags in the boxes they come in sit on
top of my refrigerators. I live alone in a Studio Apartment and take
out bags of fruit and vegetable waste several times a week to keep the
insects and odor down. In San Francisco this stuff goes to a
Compostable bin. For other trash I use non-biodegradable bags with odor
suppression and that also carries out the animal food waste produced.
Paper and other recyclable materials go into their own bins.
I buy the bags i use locally in boxes of about 25 bags.
Buying a lot of bags is asking for losses.
Now whether or not the recycling is efficient I do not know
but that is the business of the city contractors picking up and
emptying these bins.

bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com
Paul S Person
2024-08-16 16:15:06 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:17:41 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<***@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

>On 8/15/24 09:03, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On 15 Aug 2024 00:21:40 -0000, ***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>> Scott Lurndal <***@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>> He is explicitly including milk and juice, suggesting we go back to
>>>>> glass.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is fine, so long as, when I drop one on the floor and it breaks,
>>>>> he comes over, cleans up the mess, and gives me my money back.
>>>>
>>>> Why should I pay for your clumsiness?
>>>
>>> Returnable glass bottles with a deposit on them don't turn into litter.
>>> And if they should turn into litter, kids will collect them to reclaim them.
>>>
>>> And, in the modern age where gorilla glass is not expensive to make any
>>> longer, the issue of breakage should be a non-issue. (In the past, of
>>> course, reusable bottles were made thick enough to be very hard to break,
>>> witness returnable coca-cola bottles as an example. But gorilla glass
>>> can make them thinner and cheaper to transport.)
>>
>> Try it and see if the market will buy it. Or if plastic is so strongly
>> preferred that glass is purchased only if no alternative exists.
>>
>>>> The Trader Joes produce bags are biodegradable.
>>>
>>> The biodegradable plastic bags usually are starch and an unstable
>>> vinyl polymer. The idea is kind of cool, but don't expect to use them
>>> for long term storage. I have kept electronic parts in grocery bags
>>> to discover the bags were disintegrating in my cabinets.
>
> Such bags are not meant for storage of electronic or hard
>goods I have ascertained over years of experience and I use the plastic
>vial that my medications come in for small parts or the anti-static bags
>I buy locally or via mail order. I also long ago when I was more active
>invested in small plastic cabinet to keep screws, nails and hard parts in.
>
>
>> I was appalled to find that the biodegradable bags that I bought
>> (together with a small bin with lots of space in the sides to keep the
>> smell down) when the fad first started have long-since degraded in a
>> closed box sitting on a shelf which is mostly kept in the dark. When I
>> was told to bag my trash, I ended up buying plastic garbage bags
>> because I couldn't anything else locally and I don't want to buy 1000
>> biodegradable bags and find then unusable aftor only 20 or so have
>> been used. Once bitten, twice shy.
>
> Well my biodegradable bags in the boxes they come in sit on
>top of my refrigerators. I live alone in a Studio Apartment and take
>out bags of fruit and vegetable waste several times a week to keep the
>insects and odor down. In San Francisco this stuff goes to a
>Compostable bin. For other trash I use non-biodegradable bags with odor
>suppression and that also carries out the animal food waste produced.
>Paper and other recyclable materials go into their own bins.
> I buy the bags i use locally in boxes of about 25 bags.
> Buying a lot of bags is asking for losses.
> Now whether or not the recycling is efficient I do not know
>but that is the business of the city contractors picking up and
>emptying these bins.

I have so little kitchen waste that it was a decade or more ago that I
discovered the problem (when I finally had enough to actually close
the bag and put in the Yard Waste cart), and it may be decades more
before I have another.

So buying them was definitely not as good an idea as I thought at the
time.

My 4-gal trash bags are plastic, sadly (compostible may be out but
paper would be fine if I found any), but they do come in large numbers
in a cardboard box (eventually recyclable) and feature a pull-string
(well, pull-plastic-tape) closure. Putting them a step up on the
locally available 4-gal trash bags with I had to close with leftover
bread bag fasteners because I couldn't figure out how to use the flaps
to close them (not that I tried particularly hard).
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Paul S Person
2024-08-15 15:58:44 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:12:35 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:15:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 18:35:55 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>The only solution is to completely eliminate single-use
>>>>plastics. I'd even go so far as to include milk and
>>>>juice jugs in that ban (glass is far more recyclable
>>>>and aside shipping weight, similar in cost).
>>>>
>>>>Paper milk cartons can eliminate the plastic lid.
>>>
>>>What does "single use" mean? I understand in the context of fast food
>>>cups but how about less common items like those 4 liter milk jugs I
>
>As noted below, I explicitly included 4liter/1gallon milk jugs.
>
>>>get my milk in (and generally put out each week in the recycling bin)
>>>or similar such items - for instance my cheddar comes wrapped in
>>>plastic and once the cheese is eaten, that plastic wrapper isn't
>>>getting used again <grin>
>
>Cheese was available for purchase before plastic packaging
>was invented.
>
>>
>>He is explicitly including milk and juice, suggesting we go back to
>>glass.
>>
>>Which is fine, so long as, when I drop one on the floor and it breaks,
>>he comes over, cleans up the mess, and gives me my money back.
>
>Why should I pay for your clumsiness?

Because /you/ are responsible for the results.

Not my clumsiness, but for the breaking and spillage.

>>Plastic jugs don't break as often, although I suppose you could get
>>one to do so if you tried hard enough.
>
>Some plastic jugs have screw on lids, others have press-on. Guess
>what happens when you drop the latter?

The ones I buy have screw-on caps. Which, if reattached after washing
the container, can be recycled with the container.

>>There is a /reason/ we replaced glass with plastic, at least in some
>>cases.
>
>The primary reason is shipping weight.

But they were accepted because they were clearly safer.

And, as others have pointed out, the glass ones had smaller volumes
than the larger plastic ones.

And involved paying/recovering deposits. Booze did to, back when I was
so young that picking up others' bottles, draining them and washing
the barf off them, and turning them in was a way to get pocket change.
But that was long ago.

But not milk. Those were delivered/recovered by a delivery driver on a
daily (or near-daily) basis. The grocery store I go to is built on the
site of the dairy that bottled and distributed the milk (and other
dairy products).

>>Interestingly, while, until they were banned, one-time-use plastic
>>shopping bags were taxed (as were and still are papter one-time-use
>>paper bags), smaller bags used to contain fruits and veggies were
>>exempt, despite clearly being one-time-use.
>
>The Trader Joes produce bags are biodegradable.

Good for them. No, seriously.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Scott Lurndal
2024-08-15 16:54:51 UTC
Permalink
Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:12:35 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:

>>>There is a /reason/ we replaced glass with plastic, at least in some
>>>cases.
>>
>>The primary reason is shipping weight.
>
>But they were accepted because they were clearly safer.
>
>And, as others have pointed out, the glass ones had smaller volumes
>than the larger plastic ones.
>
>And involved paying/recovering deposits. Booze did to, back when I was
>so young that picking up others' bottles, draining them and washing
>the barf off them, and turning them in was a way to get pocket change.
>But that was long ago.
>
>But not milk. Those were delivered/recovered by a delivery driver on a
>daily (or near-daily) basis.

And milk delivery worked well for centuries. It may be somewhat less convenient
(unless delivery returns) than disposable single-use plastic
jugs, but c'est la vie.
Paul S Person
2024-08-16 16:21:47 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:54:51 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:12:35 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>wrote:
>
>>>>There is a /reason/ we replaced glass with plastic, at least in some
>>>>cases.
>>>
>>>The primary reason is shipping weight.
>>
>>But they were accepted because they were clearly safer.
>>
>>And, as others have pointed out, the glass ones had smaller volumes
>>than the larger plastic ones.
>>
>>And involved paying/recovering deposits. Booze did to, back when I was
>>so young that picking up others' bottles, draining them and washing
>>the barf off them, and turning them in was a way to get pocket change.
>>But that was long ago.
>>
>>But not milk. Those were delivered/recovered by a delivery driver on a
>>daily (or near-daily) basis.
>
>And milk delivery worked well for centuries. It may be somewhat less convenient
>(unless delivery returns) than disposable single-use plastic
>jugs, but c'est la vie.

And milkmen/milk floats (vehicles) figured in many movies (/The 39
Steps/, /Kiss Me, Stupid/, /The Living Daylights/, maybe /The Longest
Day/, and at least one Steed/Peel Avengers episode. Among, no doubt,
many, many others.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Chris Buckley
2024-08-14 17:35:55 UTC
Permalink
On 2024-08-14, Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:15:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 18:35:55 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The only solution is to completely eliminate single-use
>>>plastics. I'd even go so far as to include milk and
>>>juice jugs in that ban (glass is far more recyclable
>>>and aside shipping weight, similar in cost).
>>>
>>>Paper milk cartons can eliminate the plastic lid.
>>
>>What does "single use" mean? I understand in the context of fast food
>>cups but how about less common items like those 4 liter milk jugs I
>>get my milk in (and generally put out each week in the recycling bin)
>>or similar such items - for instance my cheddar comes wrapped in
>>plastic and once the cheese is eaten, that plastic wrapper isn't
>>getting used again <grin>
>
> He is explicitly including milk and juice, suggesting we go back to
> glass.
>
> Which is fine, so long as, when I drop one on the floor and it breaks,
> he comes over, cleans up the mess, and gives me my money back.
>
> Plastic jugs don't break as often, although I suppose you could get
> one to do so if you tried hard enough.
>
> There is a /reason/ we replaced glass with plastic, at least in some
> cases.


In addition to the inconvenience of glass, it is not nearly as
economically recyclable as most people think.

Nearby local counties have stopped recycling glass because it just
costs too much. Much cheaper for the county to just throw it away.

An older news report (5 years ago, all I could easily find) among other
things says:
The issue is that glass comes in many colors and often breaks,
making it too difficult to separate from other materials. Plus,
there isn’t as big of a market for recycled glass, compared to
other products, such as cardboard and plastics.
https://wtop.com/local/2019/05/trashed-can-the-dc-area-clean-up-its-waste-problem/

Chris
Bobbie Sellers
2024-08-14 18:19:54 UTC
Permalink
On 8/14/24 10:35, Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2024-08-14, Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:15:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 18:35:55 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only solution is to completely eliminate single-use
>>>> plastics. I'd even go so far as to include milk and
>>>> juice jugs in that ban (glass is far more recyclable
>>>> and aside shipping weight, similar in cost).
>>>>
>>>> Paper milk cartons can eliminate the plastic lid.
>>>
>>> What does "single use" mean? I understand in the context of fast food
>>> cups but how about less common items like those 4 liter milk jugs I
>>> get my milk in (and generally put out each week in the recycling bin)
>>> or similar such items - for instance my cheddar comes wrapped in
>>> plastic and once the cheese is eaten, that plastic wrapper isn't
>>> getting used again <grin>
>>
>> He is explicitly including milk and juice, suggesting we go back to
>> glass.
>>
>> Which is fine, so long as, when I drop one on the floor and it breaks,
>> he comes over, cleans up the mess, and gives me my money back.
>>
>> Plastic jugs don't break as often, although I suppose you could get
>> one to do so if you tried hard enough.
>>
>> There is a /reason/ we replaced glass with plastic, at least in some
>> cases.
>
>
> In addition to the inconvenience of glass, it is not nearly as
> economically recyclable as most people think.
>
> Nearby local counties have stopped recycling glass because it just
> costs too much. Much cheaper for the county to just throw it away.
>
> An older news report (5 years ago, all I could easily find) among other
> things says:
> The issue is that glass comes in many colors and often breaks,
> making it too difficult to separate from other materials. Plus,
> there isn’t as big of a market for recycled glass, compared to
> other products, such as cardboard and plastics.
> https://wtop.com/local/2019/05/trashed-can-the-dc-area-clean-up-its-waste-problem/
>
> Chris
>

In California at least I believe wine bottlesm glass are recyclable and
have a market.

bliss
--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com
Paul S Person
2024-08-15 16:07:13 UTC
Permalink
On 14 Aug 2024 17:35:55 GMT, Chris Buckley <***@sabir.com> wrote:

>On 2024-08-14, Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:15:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 18:35:55 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>The only solution is to completely eliminate single-use
>>>>plastics. I'd even go so far as to include milk and
>>>>juice jugs in that ban (glass is far more recyclable
>>>>and aside shipping weight, similar in cost).
>>>>
>>>>Paper milk cartons can eliminate the plastic lid.
>>>
>>>What does "single use" mean? I understand in the context of fast food
>>>cups but how about less common items like those 4 liter milk jugs I
>>>get my milk in (and generally put out each week in the recycling bin)
>>>or similar such items - for instance my cheddar comes wrapped in
>>>plastic and once the cheese is eaten, that plastic wrapper isn't
>>>getting used again <grin>
>>
>> He is explicitly including milk and juice, suggesting we go back to
>> glass.
>>
>> Which is fine, so long as, when I drop one on the floor and it breaks,
>> he comes over, cleans up the mess, and gives me my money back.
>>
>> Plastic jugs don't break as often, although I suppose you could get
>> one to do so if you tried hard enough.
>>
>> There is a /reason/ we replaced glass with plastic, at least in some
>> cases.
>
>
>In addition to the inconvenience of glass, it is not nearly as
>economically recyclable as most people think.
>
>Nearby local counties have stopped recycling glass because it just
>costs too much. Much cheaper for the county to just throw it away.
>
>An older news report (5 years ago, all I could easily find) among other
>things says:
> The issue is that glass comes in many colors and often breaks,
> making it too difficult to separate from other materials. Plus,
> there isn’t as big of a market for recycled glass, compared to
> other products, such as cardboard and plastics.
>https://wtop.com/local/2019/05/trashed-can-the-dc-area-clean-up-its-waste-problem/

As others have noted, traditionally, glass bottles have been /reused/,
not recycled. The whole deposit folderol is based on reuse.

Here in Seattle, broken glass is garbage. At least some intact glass
objects are recyclable, IIRC (I don't have occasion to get rid of
intact glass objects very often, so it's been a while since I
checked).
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Scott Lurndal
2024-08-15 16:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On 14 Aug 2024 17:35:55 GMT, Chris Buckley <***@sabir.com> wrote:

>>An older news report (5 years ago, all I could easily find) among other
>>things says:
>> The issue is that glass comes in many colors and often breaks,
>> making it too difficult to separate from other materials. Plus,
>> there isn=92t as big of a market for recycled glass, compared to
>> other products, such as cardboard and plastics.
>>https://wtop.com/local/2019/05/trashed-can-the-dc-area-clean-up-its-wast=
>e-problem/
>
>As others have noted, traditionally, glass bottles have been /reused/,
>not recycled. The whole deposit folderol is based on reuse.
>
>Here in Seattle, broken glass is garbage. At least some intact glass
>objects are recyclable, IIRC (I don't have occasion to get rid of
>intact glass objects very often, so it's been a while since I
>checked).

Whereas I just placed a glass juice jar in the recycling bin
this morning.
Paul S Person
2024-08-16 16:27:02 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 16:56:40 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On 14 Aug 2024 17:35:55 GMT, Chris Buckley <***@sabir.com> wrote:
>
>>>An older news report (5 years ago, all I could easily find) among other
>>>things says:
>>> The issue is that glass comes in many colors and often breaks,
>>> making it too difficult to separate from other materials. Plus,
>>> there isn=92t as big of a market for recycled glass, compared to
>>> other products, such as cardboard and plastics.
>>>https://wtop.com/local/2019/05/trashed-can-the-dc-area-clean-up-its-wast=
>>e-problem/
>>
>>As others have noted, traditionally, glass bottles have been /reused/,
>>not recycled. The whole deposit folderol is based on reuse.
>>
>>Here in Seattle, broken glass is garbage. At least some intact glass
>>objects are recyclable, IIRC (I don't have occasion to get rid of
>>intact glass objects very often, so it's been a while since I
>>checked).
>
>Whereas I just placed a glass juice jar in the recycling bin
>this morning.

Actually, thinking about it overnight, it occurred to me that my
strawberry preserves still come in a glass jar. It not very large or
very heavy, however. So I do regularly dispose of one glass object in
the recycle bin. Washed, dried, and lid attached [1].

The mustard used to do the same, but a while back (5 yrs? 10?) it went
to plastic.

[1] I tend to stress this because, until 10 or 15 or so years ago lids
could only be recycled if they were ferrous metal or larger than 3
inches (something to do with jamming the grinders). Bottle caps were
not at all. But then lids/caps still attached to the bottle/jar became
recyclable regardless of size. Whether this represented any particular
/desire/ to process them or whether it was just to keep them from
messing up the grinders by being attached to something larger I have
no idea.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Chris Buckley
2024-08-16 16:56:01 UTC
Permalink
On 2024-08-16, Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>Whereas I just placed a glass juice jar in the recycling bin
>>this morning.
>
> Actually, thinking about it overnight, it occurred to me that my
> strawberry preserves still come in a glass jar. It not very large or
> very heavy, however. So I do regularly dispose of one glass object in
> the recycle bin. Washed, dried, and lid attached [1].
>
> The mustard used to do the same, but a while back (5 yrs? 10?) it went
> to plastic.
>
> [1] I tend to stress this because, until 10 or 15 or so years ago lids
> could only be recycled if they were ferrous metal or larger than 3
> inches (something to do with jamming the grinders). Bottle caps were
> not at all. But then lids/caps still attached to the bottle/jar became
> recyclable regardless of size. Whether this represented any particular
> /desire/ to process them or whether it was just to keep them from
> messing up the grinders by being attached to something larger I have
> no idea.

Interesting. In our area, lids/tops can be recycled but they need to be
separated from the jar or bottle, even if both are plastic. Different
sorts of plastics are recycled separately.

Chris
Jay E. Morris
2024-08-17 03:06:11 UTC
Permalink
On 8/16/2024 11:56 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>> [1] I tend to stress this because, until 10 or 15 or so years ago lids
>> could only be recycled if they were ferrous metal or larger than 3
>> inches (something to do with jamming the grinders). Bottle caps were
>> not at all. But then lids/caps still attached to the bottle/jar became
>> recyclable regardless of size. Whether this represented any particular
>> /desire/ to process them or whether it was just to keep them from
>> messing up the grinders by being attached to something larger I have
>> no idea.
> Interesting. In our area, lids/tops can be recycled but they need to be
> separated from the jar or bottle, even if both are plastic. Different
> sorts of plastics are recycled separately.
>
> Chris

I moved from one place where they had to be separated to a location
where they don't. Thing is that the move wasn't that far and I'm pretty
sure the two waste management companies use the same recycling facility.

What gets me is that many bottles of spray cleaners come with a wrap
over the bottle. The wrap has all the printing, the actual bottle is
just a clear bottle. The wrap is NOT recyclable and must be removed
before putting the bottle in the recycling.
Paul S Person
2024-08-17 16:04:07 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 22:06:11 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
<***@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:

>On 8/16/2024 11:56 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>> [1] I tend to stress this because, until 10 or 15 or so years ago lids
>>> could only be recycled if they were ferrous metal or larger than 3
>>> inches (something to do with jamming the grinders). Bottle caps were
>>> not at all. But then lids/caps still attached to the bottle/jar became
>>> recyclable regardless of size. Whether this represented any particular
>>> /desire/ to process them or whether it was just to keep them from
>>> messing up the grinders by being attached to something larger I have
>>> no idea.
>> Interesting. In our area, lids/tops can be recycled but they need to be
>> separated from the jar or bottle, even if both are plastic. Different
>> sorts of plastics are recycled separately.
>>
>> Chris
>
>I moved from one place where they had to be separated to a location
>where they don't. Thing is that the move wasn't that far and I'm pretty
>sure the two waste management companies use the same recycling facility.
>
>What gets me is that many bottles of spray cleaners come with a wrap
>over the bottle. The wrap has all the printing, the actual bottle is
>just a clear bottle. The wrap is NOT recyclable and must be removed
>before putting the bottle in the recycling.

There is a program for recycling "films" that might work. Some items
that aren't particularly filmy are included. If available, the dropoff
should be in a grocery store or pharmacy.

But, yes, some plastic simply cannot be recycled. At present, anyway.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Paul S Person
2024-08-17 16:01:45 UTC
Permalink
On 16 Aug 2024 16:56:01 GMT, Chris Buckley <***@sabir.com> wrote:

>On 2024-08-16, Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>Whereas I just placed a glass juice jar in the recycling bin
>>>this morning.
>>
>> Actually, thinking about it overnight, it occurred to me that my
>> strawberry preserves still come in a glass jar. It not very large or
>> very heavy, however. So I do regularly dispose of one glass object in
>> the recycle bin. Washed, dried, and lid attached [1].
>>
>> The mustard used to do the same, but a while back (5 yrs? 10?) it went
>> to plastic.
>>
>> [1] I tend to stress this because, until 10 or 15 or so years ago lids
>> could only be recycled if they were ferrous metal or larger than 3
>> inches (something to do with jamming the grinders). Bottle caps were
>> not at all. But then lids/caps still attached to the bottle/jar became
>> recyclable regardless of size. Whether this represented any particular
>> /desire/ to process them or whether it was just to keep them from
>> messing up the grinders by being attached to something larger I have
>> no idea.
>
>Interesting. In our area, lids/tops can be recycled but they need to be
>separated from the jar or bottle, even if both are plastic. Different
>sorts of plastics are recycled separately.

That's one of the problems with recycling plastic: the finished
product may have different types which are hard to separate.

And, while lids/tops would qualify, the article I read on this was
talking about the /mixed/ plastics being use to make the object (jar,
bottle, table, whatever) itself.

IOW, resolving some plastics to their original form is very difficult
because there are two or more mixed together that need to be separated
in order to be made re-usable.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
William Hyde
2024-08-14 20:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:15:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 18:35:55 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The only solution is to completely eliminate single-use
>>> plastics. I'd even go so far as to include milk and
>>> juice jugs in that ban (glass is far more recyclable
>>> and aside shipping weight, similar in cost).
>>>
>>> Paper milk cartons can eliminate the plastic lid.
>>
>> What does "single use" mean? I understand in the context of fast food
>> cups but how about less common items like those 4 liter milk jugs I
>> get my milk in (and generally put out each week in the recycling bin)
>> or similar such items - for instance my cheddar comes wrapped in
>> plastic and once the cheese is eaten, that plastic wrapper isn't
>> getting used again <grin>
>
> He is explicitly including milk and juice, suggesting we go back to
> glass.
>
> Which is fine, so long as, when I drop one on the floor and it breaks,
> he comes over, cleans up the mess, and gives me my money back.
>
> Plastic jugs don't break as often, although I suppose you could get
> one to do so if you tried hard enough.
>
> There is a /reason/ we replaced glass with plastic, at least in some
> cases.
>
> Interestingly, while, until they were banned, one-time-use plastic
> shopping bags were taxed (as were and still are papter one-time-use
> paper bags), smaller bags used to contain fruits and veggies were
> exempt, despite clearly being one-time-use.
>
> The plastic and paper bags, of course, were merely /intended/ for
> one-time use. They could be, and were by some, used again and again
> and again.



I used the same plastic bag for three years, approximately 200 trips to
the grocery store. I kept it wadded up in a corner of my backpack,
where it didn't take up space needed by more valuable things, like books.

They are really quite durable, but I didn't care to run a
test-to-destruction with my groceries and replaced it.

The polyester bags take up far to much space, so I generally don't have
one with me. I still carry a plastic bag.

When I order online my food comes delivered in thirteen or fourteen
bags, so they are basically "single use polyester bags".


William Hyde
Paul S Person
2024-08-15 16:14:52 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:40:32 -0400, William Hyde
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:15:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 18:35:55 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only solution is to completely eliminate single-use
>>>> plastics. I'd even go so far as to include milk and
>>>> juice jugs in that ban (glass is far more recyclable
>>>> and aside shipping weight, similar in cost).
>>>>
>>>> Paper milk cartons can eliminate the plastic lid.
>>>
>>> What does "single use" mean? I understand in the context of fast food
>>> cups but how about less common items like those 4 liter milk jugs I
>>> get my milk in (and generally put out each week in the recycling bin)
>>> or similar such items - for instance my cheddar comes wrapped in
>>> plastic and once the cheese is eaten, that plastic wrapper isn't
>>> getting used again <grin>
>>
>> He is explicitly including milk and juice, suggesting we go back to
>> glass.
>>
>> Which is fine, so long as, when I drop one on the floor and it breaks,
>> he comes over, cleans up the mess, and gives me my money back.
>>
>> Plastic jugs don't break as often, although I suppose you could get
>> one to do so if you tried hard enough.
>>
>> There is a /reason/ we replaced glass with plastic, at least in some
>> cases.
>>
>> Interestingly, while, until they were banned, one-time-use plastic
>> shopping bags were taxed (as were and still are papter one-time-use
>> paper bags), smaller bags used to contain fruits and veggies were
>> exempt, despite clearly being one-time-use.
>>
>> The plastic and paper bags, of course, were merely /intended/ for
>> one-time use. They could be, and were by some, used again and again
>> and again.
>
>I used the same plastic bag for three years, approximately 200 trips to
>the grocery store. I kept it wadded up in a corner of my backpack,
>where it didn't take up space needed by more valuable things, like books.

I've done that in the past. It can be handy when I buy something that
won't fit in the shoulder bag, or that I want to keep out for some
reason.

>They are really quite durable, but I didn't care to run a
>test-to-destruction with my groceries and replaced it.

I did this for years with an old Subway plastic bag. Occasionally, it
would be confiscated and a new bag provided. Now they use paper, so it
can be recycled or composted, depending on tightly the contents are
wrapped.

>The polyester bags take up far to much space, so I generally don't have
>one with me. I still carry a plastic bag.

I have a small one that a Dex phone book came in a decade or two ago
that I use. That folds up small enough to fit in my shoulder bag.

>When I order online my food comes delivered in thirteen or fourteen
>bags, so they are basically "single use polyester bags".

Good point.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Lynn McGuire
2024-08-16 02:55:55 UTC
Permalink
On 8/15/2024 11:14 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:40:32 -0400, William Hyde
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:15:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 18:35:55 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The only solution is to completely eliminate single-use
>>>>> plastics. I'd even go so far as to include milk and
>>>>> juice jugs in that ban (glass is far more recyclable
>>>>> and aside shipping weight, similar in cost).
>>>>>
>>>>> Paper milk cartons can eliminate the plastic lid.
>>>>
>>>> What does "single use" mean? I understand in the context of fast food
>>>> cups but how about less common items like those 4 liter milk jugs I
>>>> get my milk in (and generally put out each week in the recycling bin)
>>>> or similar such items - for instance my cheddar comes wrapped in
>>>> plastic and once the cheese is eaten, that plastic wrapper isn't
>>>> getting used again <grin>
>>>
>>> He is explicitly including milk and juice, suggesting we go back to
>>> glass.
>>>
>>> Which is fine, so long as, when I drop one on the floor and it breaks,
>>> he comes over, cleans up the mess, and gives me my money back.
>>>
>>> Plastic jugs don't break as often, although I suppose you could get
>>> one to do so if you tried hard enough.
>>>
>>> There is a /reason/ we replaced glass with plastic, at least in some
>>> cases.
>>>
>>> Interestingly, while, until they were banned, one-time-use plastic
>>> shopping bags were taxed (as were and still are papter one-time-use
>>> paper bags), smaller bags used to contain fruits and veggies were
>>> exempt, despite clearly being one-time-use.
>>>
>>> The plastic and paper bags, of course, were merely /intended/ for
>>> one-time use. They could be, and were by some, used again and again
>>> and again.
>>
>> I used the same plastic bag for three years, approximately 200 trips to
>> the grocery store. I kept it wadded up in a corner of my backpack,
>> where it didn't take up space needed by more valuable things, like books.
>
> I've done that in the past. It can be handy when I buy something that
> won't fit in the shoulder bag, or that I want to keep out for some
> reason.
>
>> They are really quite durable, but I didn't care to run a
>> test-to-destruction with my groceries and replaced it.
>
> I did this for years with an old Subway plastic bag. Occasionally, it
> would be confiscated and a new bag provided. Now they use paper, so it
> can be recycled or composted, depending on tightly the contents are
> wrapped.
>
>> The polyester bags take up far to much space, so I generally don't have
>> one with me. I still carry a plastic bag.
>
> I have a small one that a Dex phone book came in a decade or two ago
> that I use. That folds up small enough to fit in my shoulder bag.
>
>> When I order online my food comes delivered in thirteen or fourteen
>> bags, so they are basically "single use polyester bags".
>
> Good point.

What is a "phone book" ?

Lynn
Paul S Person
2024-08-16 16:30:31 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:55:55 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 8/15/2024 11:14 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:40:32 -0400, William Hyde
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:15:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2024 18:35:55 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The only solution is to completely eliminate single-use
>>>>>> plastics. I'd even go so far as to include milk and
>>>>>> juice jugs in that ban (glass is far more recyclable
>>>>>> and aside shipping weight, similar in cost).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paper milk cartons can eliminate the plastic lid.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does "single use" mean? I understand in the context of fast food
>>>>> cups but how about less common items like those 4 liter milk jugs I
>>>>> get my milk in (and generally put out each week in the recycling bin)
>>>>> or similar such items - for instance my cheddar comes wrapped in
>>>>> plastic and once the cheese is eaten, that plastic wrapper isn't
>>>>> getting used again <grin>
>>>>
>>>> He is explicitly including milk and juice, suggesting we go back to
>>>> glass.
>>>>
>>>> Which is fine, so long as, when I drop one on the floor and it breaks,
>>>> he comes over, cleans up the mess, and gives me my money back.
>>>>
>>>> Plastic jugs don't break as often, although I suppose you could get
>>>> one to do so if you tried hard enough.
>>>>
>>>> There is a /reason/ we replaced glass with plastic, at least in some
>>>> cases.
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly, while, until they were banned, one-time-use plastic
>>>> shopping bags were taxed (as were and still are papter one-time-use
>>>> paper bags), smaller bags used to contain fruits and veggies were
>>>> exempt, despite clearly being one-time-use.
>>>>
>>>> The plastic and paper bags, of course, were merely /intended/ for
>>>> one-time use. They could be, and were by some, used again and again
>>>> and again.
>>>
>>> I used the same plastic bag for three years, approximately 200 trips to
>>> the grocery store. I kept it wadded up in a corner of my backpack,
>>> where it didn't take up space needed by more valuable things, like books.
>>
>> I've done that in the past. It can be handy when I buy something that
>> won't fit in the shoulder bag, or that I want to keep out for some
>> reason.
>>
>>> They are really quite durable, but I didn't care to run a
>>> test-to-destruction with my groceries and replaced it.
>>
>> I did this for years with an old Subway plastic bag. Occasionally, it
>> would be confiscated and a new bag provided. Now they use paper, so it
>> can be recycled or composted, depending on tightly the contents are
>> wrapped.
>>
>>> The polyester bags take up far to much space, so I generally don't have
>>> one with me. I still carry a plastic bag.
>>
>> I have a small one that a Dex phone book came in a decade or two ago
>> that I use. That folds up small enough to fit in my shoulder bag.
>>
>>> When I order online my food comes delivered in thirteen or fourteen
>>> bags, so they are basically "single use polyester bags".
>>
>> Good point.
>
>What is a "phone book" ?

A book containing names, addresses, and phone numbers.

White pages for residential, yellow pages for business.

They still come out -- I got one a while back and had to go online yet
again and tell them not to send them to me.

Use of "book" may be local or something I picked up in, say, the Army
from colleagues from other parts of the country. It is shorter than
the perhaps more common "directory".

Or was the question intended to be humor?
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2024-09-04 13:44:19 UTC
Permalink
In article <vb9nr2$3rn95$***@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 9/4/2024 3:51 AM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 4 Sep 2024, Titus G wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/09/24 10:31, William Hyde wrote:
>>> snip
>>>> My first day in the US I wanted to eat at a restaurant across the street
>>>> from my hotel in Maryland.  As I got to the end of the hotel driveway I
>>>> was confronted with nine traffic lights.  I ate at the hotel.  In fact,
>>>> I never left the hotel except by cab.
>>>
>>> My first day in the US late last century was spent in Disneyland. We
>>> decided on a Mexican restaurant close to the hotel in the Disneyland
>>> area. Although the traffic wasn't heavy, the footpaths and surrounds
>>> were filthy, poorly maintained and empty of pedestrians. Despite the
>>> short distance we took a cab back to the hotel and did not attempt to
>>> walk anywhere local again.
>>>
>>> My favourite reads in recent decades include your recommendation of
>>> Robertson Davies' trilogies and Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria Quartet.
>>> Do you have two or three more to recommend? Thank you.
>>>
>>
>> I recommend Chicago or Boston. Both, in my opinion, are excellent
>> walking cities!
>
>So is Manhattan. So much stuff to see, and decent public transport
>when you've decide you've walked enough.
>
>Once, for no particular reason, I spent an afternoon walking the
>entire length of Broadway, about 12 miles.
>

They say the neon lights are bright, on Broadway!
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Paul S Person
2024-08-07 16:07:39 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Aug 2024 08:51:17 -0700, Paul S Person
<***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Aug 2024 21:40:02 +1000, Mad Hamish
><***@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 16:25:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 2024-08-06 03:14:09 +0000, Bobbie Sellers said:
>>>> On 7/7/24 05:38, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-07-07, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> LED bulbs are largely a scam for bulb makers to stuff more money into
>>>>>> their pockets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's some realistic numbers: I replace a 40 W incandescent bulb
>>>>> with a LED one. Aldi middle isle, 2 euros. Residental power is
>>>>> about 0.40 euros/kWh here, so the bulb will have paid for itself once
>>>>> it has saved 2/0.40 = 5 kWh. It produces the same illumination at
>>>>> 1/10 of the power of the incandescent, so it saves 40 - 40/10 = 36 W.
>>>>> 5000 Wh / 36 W = 140 h, so if used one hour each day, it will have
>>>>> paid for itself in under five months. If it eventually dies after
>>>>> 10,000 hours instead of a promised 30,000, so be it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can plug in numbers that are applicable to your situation and
>>>>> in your part of the world.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is theoretical saving. Down at the Power Company the
>>>> receipts are down due to power saving so to pay for maintenance
>>>> and emergency repair service they must raise the price of your
>>>> power. This is what happened in California at least in the
>>>> San Francisco Bay Area and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company
>>>> is now mainly a power distribution company and they are putting
>>>> lines under ground now in sensitive areas which we are helping
>>>> to pay for. As well as Battery Farms to save all the wind & solar
>>>> power generated while the sun is shining and wind is blowing for
>>>> those times we call night.
>>>> And if stops some wild fires in sensitive areas
>>>> then it will be worth the additional cost because the day
>>>> after the sky turns red with smoke it comes down to where
>>>> we must breath.
>>>>
>>>> bliss
>>>
>>>Yep. and none of that new greeny nonsense, including LED bulbs, are
>>>actually any better for the environment than the old versions anyway.
>>>So it's simply a waste of money "look good" promotional exercise.
>>>
>>No doubt you actualy have figures to prove that assertion is
>>correct...
>
>It has been noted here already that the power saved by LCDs/LEDs is
>power made available for other uses (bitcoin mining and, I should
>think, EV charging and even heat pumps) so a lot of the power "saved"
>isn't saved at all, just repurposed.
>
>However, LEDs have the advantage over LCDs of being disposable in the
>landfill (ie, put in the trash as opposed to having to be dropped off
>at special locations) when they stop working. Well, if that /is/ an
>advantage, of course. And both have the advantage over incandescents
>that they work a lot longer.
>
>As to utility rates and improvements -- you get what you pay for.
>
>That's an /optimistic/ statement, of course.
>
>But it is true that only thieves try to get without paying.

The responses suggest some followup:

the local official website
<https://www.seattle.gov/utilities/your-services/collection-and-disposal/where-does-it-go#/item/light-bulbs>
explains:

Fluorescent tubes and CFLs are banned from the garbage because they
contain mercury, which is highly toxic.

It also lists the bulbs that can go into the garbage:

Incandecent, LED, Halogen, LED commercial downlights and Xenon light
bulbs

Apparently, LEDs etc have no mercury.

CFLs can be picked up for $5 ("Limit: two 1-gallon bags per collection
for single family residence"), or taken to a special location for free
(up to 10) recycling (the latter includes tubes).

Nothing about CFLs being "electronics", which also have special
rules/locations/pickups. But whatever works.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Your Name
2024-08-06 21:18:12 UTC
Permalink
On 2024-08-06 11:40:02 +0000, Mad Hamish said:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 16:25:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
> wrote:
>> On 2024-08-06 03:14:09 +0000, Bobbie Sellers said:
>>> On 7/7/24 05:38, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-07, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> LED bulbs are largely a scam for bulb makers to stuff more money into
>>>>> their pockets.
>>>>
>>>> Here's some realistic numbers: I replace a 40 W incandescent bulb
>>>> with a LED one. Aldi middle isle, 2 euros. Residental power is
>>>> about 0.40 euros/kWh here, so the bulb will have paid for itself once
>>>> it has saved 2/0.40 = 5 kWh. It produces the same illumination at
>>>> 1/10 of the power of the incandescent, so it saves 40 - 40/10 = 36 W.
>>>> 5000 Wh / 36 W = 140 h, so if used one hour each day, it will have
>>>> paid for itself in under five months. If it eventually dies after
>>>> 10,000 hours instead of a promised 30,000, so be it.
>>>>
>>>> You can plug in numbers that are applicable to your situation and
>>>> in your part of the world.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is theoretical saving. Down at the Power Company the
>>> receipts are down due to power saving so to pay for maintenance
>>> and emergency repair service they must raise the price of your
>>> power. This is what happened in California at least in the
>>> San Francisco Bay Area and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company
>>> is now mainly a power distribution company and they are putting
>>> lines under ground now in sensitive areas which we are helping
>>> to pay for. As well as Battery Farms to save all the wind & solar
>>> power generated while the sun is shining and wind is blowing for
>>> those times we call night.
>>> And if stops some wild fires in sensitive areas
>>> then it will be worth the additional cost because the day
>>> after the sky turns red with smoke it comes down to where
>>> we must breath.
>>>
>>> bliss
>>
>> Yep. and none of that new greeny nonsense, including LED bulbs, are
>> actually any better for the environment than the old versions anyway.
>> So it's simply a waste of money "look good" promotional exercise.
>
> No doubt you actualy have figures to prove that assertion is
> correct...

You simply have to look at the facts.

Electric cars are claimed to be better for the environment, mainly due
to the lack of exhaust gases. The reality is that the manufacturing and
disposal of the battery pack is highly non-green, the extra weight of
the cars is causing all sorts of issues, and the generation of the
extra electricity to charge them is often non-green as well (including
the manufacture and disposal of solar panels, wind turbines, etc.).

And that doesn't even include the destruction / disturbance of large
areas of land and sea for electricity generation "farms" and the sheer
"visual pollution" ugliness of loads of wind turbines.

Most of these ridiculous ideas have been rushed through simply to
appease the greeny brigade with zero actual thought of the full
consequences.
Bobbie Sellers
2024-08-08 23:21:21 UTC
Permalink
On 8/6/24 14:18, Your Name wrote:
> On 2024-08-06 11:40:02 +0000, Mad Hamish said:
>> On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 16:25:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 2024-08-06 03:14:09 +0000, Bobbie Sellers said:
>>>> On 7/7/24 05:38, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-07-07, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> LED bulbs are largely a scam for bulb makers to stuff more money into
>>>>>> their pockets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's some realistic numbers:  I replace a 40 W incandescent bulb
>>>>> with a LED one.  Aldi middle isle, 2 euros.  Residental power is
>>>>> about 0.40 euros/kWh here, so the bulb will have paid for itself once
>>>>> it has saved 2/0.40 = 5 kWh.  It produces the same illumination at
>>>>> 1/10 of the power of the incandescent, so it saves 40 - 40/10 = 36 W.
>>>>> 5000 Wh / 36 W = 140 h, so if used one hour each day, it will have
>>>>> paid for itself in under five months.  If it eventually dies after
>>>>> 10,000 hours instead of a promised 30,000, so be it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can plug in numbers that are applicable to your situation and
>>>>> in your part of the world.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     That is theoretical saving. Down at the Power Company the
>>>> receipts are down due to power saving so to pay for maintenance
>>>> and emergency repair service they must raise the price of your
>>>> power. This is what happened in California at least in the
>>>> San Francisco Bay Area and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company
>>>> is now mainly a power distribution company and they are putting
>>>> lines under ground now in sensitive areas which we are helping
>>>> to pay for.  As well as Battery Farms to save all the wind & solar
>>>> power generated while the sun is shining and wind is blowing for
>>>> those times we call night.
>>>>     And if stops some wild fires in sensitive areas
>>>> then it will be worth the additional cost because the day
>>>> after the sky turns red with smoke it comes down to where
>>>> we must breath.
>>>>
>>>>     bliss
>>>
>>> Yep. and none of that new greeny nonsense, including LED bulbs, are
>>> actually any better for the environment than the old versions anyway.
>>> So it's simply a waste of money "look good" promotional exercise.
>>
>> No doubt you actualy have figures to prove that assertion is
>> correct...
>
> You simply have to look at the facts.
>
> Electric cars are claimed to be better for the environment, mainly due
> to the lack of exhaust gases. The reality is that the manufacturing and
> disposal of the battery pack is highly non-green, the extra weight of
> the cars is causing all sorts of issues, and the generation of the extra
> electricity to charge them is often non-green as well (including the
> manufacture and disposal of solar panels, wind turbines, etc.).
>
> And that doesn't even include the destruction / disturbance of large
> areas of land and sea for electricity generation "farms" and the sheer
> "visual pollution" ugliness of loads of wind turbines.
>
> Most of these ridiculous ideas have been rushed through simply to
> appease the greeny brigade with zero actual thought of the full
> consequences.
>

So you are a climate change denier?
Think that Global Warming is all a Chinese Scam?
Look at the numbers if your are not innumerate.
Do you not believe in the lack of Arctic Sea Ice?
Think that the changes in Antarctica ice pack are illusory?

Do you believe that the Moon Landing was faked?

bliss

--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com
Your Name
2024-08-09 06:19:28 UTC
Permalink
On 2024-08-08 23:21:21 +0000, Bobbie Sellers said:
> On 8/6/24 14:18, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2024-08-06 11:40:02 +0000, Mad Hamish said:
>>> On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 16:25:08 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 2024-08-06 03:14:09 +0000, Bobbie Sellers said:
>>>>> On 7/7/24 05:38, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-07, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LED bulbs are largely a scam for bulb makers to stuff more money into
>>>>>>> their pockets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's some realistic numbers:  I replace a 40 W incandescent bulb
>>>>>> with a LED one.  Aldi middle isle, 2 euros.  Residental power is
>>>>>> about 0.40 euros/kWh here, so the bulb will have paid for itself once
>>>>>> it has saved 2/0.40 = 5 kWh.  It produces the same illumination at
>>>>>> 1/10 of the power of the incandescent, so it saves 40 - 40/10 = 36 W.
>>>>>> 5000 Wh / 36 W = 140 h, so if used one hour each day, it will have
>>>>>> paid for itself in under five months.  If it eventually dies after
>>>>>> 10,000 hours instead of a promised 30,000, so be it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can plug in numbers that are applicable to your situation and
>>>>>> in your part of the world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     That is theoretical saving. Down at the Power Company the
>>>>> receipts are down due to power saving so to pay for maintenance
>>>>> and emergency repair service they must raise the price of your
>>>>> power. This is what happened in California at least in the
>>>>> San Francisco Bay Area and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company
>>>>> is now mainly a power distribution company and they are putting
>>>>> lines under ground now in sensitive areas which we are helping
>>>>> to pay for.  As well as Battery Farms to save all the wind & solar
>>>>> power generated while the sun is shining and wind is blowing for
>>>>> those times we call night.
>>>>>     And if stops some wild fires in sensitive areas
>>>>> then it will be worth the additional cost because the day
>>>>> after the sky turns red with smoke it comes down to where
>>>>> we must breath.
>>>>>
>>>>>     bliss
>>>>
>>>> Yep. and none of that new greeny nonsense, including LED bulbs, are
>>>> actually any better for the environment than the old versions anyway.
>>>> So it's simply a waste of money "look good" promotional exercise.
>>>
>>> No doubt you actualy have figures to prove that assertion is
>>> correct...
>>
>> You simply have to look at the facts.
>>
>> Electric cars are claimed to be better for the environment, mainly due
>> to the lack of exhaust gases. The reality is that the manufacturing and
>> disposal of the battery pack is highly non-green, the extra weight of
>> the cars is causing all sorts of issues, and the generation of the
>> extra electricity to charge them is often non-green as well (including
>> the manufacture and disposal of solar panels, wind turbines, etc.).
>>
>> And that doesn't even include the destruction / disturbance of large
>> areas of land and sea for electricity generation "farms" and the sheer
>> "visual pollution" ugliness of loads of wind turbines.
>>
>> Most of these ridiculous ideas have been rushed through simply to
>> appease the greeny brigade with zero actual thought of the full
>> consequences.
>
> So you are a climate change denier?

Oh dear, another fool with zero reading comprehension skills and makes
things up to suit themselves as to what they *think* I was saying
...game over, you lose. Another idiot for the killfile. :-\


> Think that Global Warming is all a Chinese Scam?
> Look at the numbers if your are not innumerate.
> Do you not believe in the lack of Arctic Sea Ice?
> Think that the changes in Antarctica ice pack are illusory?
>
> Do you believe that the Moon Landing was faked?
>
> bliss
Paul S Person
2024-07-07 16:00:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:58:24 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
wrote:

>On 2024-07-06 21:53:05 +0000, Lynn McGuire said:
>>
>> Pearls Before Swine: Rat The Luddite
>> https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2024/07/06
>>
>> You just gotta wonder how many people are like Rat.
>>
>> Lynn
>
>"It's supposed to last 100,000 hours" ... SUPPOSED being the important
>word. Nobody actually knows because nobody has been able to test them
>for that long.
>
>LED bulbs are largely a scam for bulb makers to stuff more money into
>their pockets. They are not really any "greener" than normal old bulbs
>and they do not last anywhere near that predicted lifetime (especially
>in houses around here with silly in-ceiling light fittings), unless of
>course you rarely switch them on. The problem is that shops also
>wanting to make themselves look greener and make more money have been
>'phasing out' regular light bulbs forcing people to buy the more
>expensive ones. :-(

My actual experience with CFLs is that they do last longer -- a lot
longer -- than incandescents did in the same sockets. The last time I
bought light bulbs, they were LEDs at about $2/ea. So far, they appear
to also be lasting longer than incandescents did, but it is really too
soon to be sure and longevity compared to CFLs is unknown.

Which is, of course, the basic problem with these claims: they cannot
be verified. That the bulbs last longer and so don't have to be
replaced as often, OTOH, becomes apparent after a few months.

The high-level savings in electricity consumption would be impressive
if the power weren't being used for other things, like bitcoin mining.
Getting everyone to save electricity in their homes so someone else
can use it is /not/ conservation.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Mad Hamish
2024-08-06 11:41:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 09:00:35 -0700, Paul S Person
<***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:58:24 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 2024-07-06 21:53:05 +0000, Lynn McGuire said:
>>>
>>> Pearls Before Swine: Rat The Luddite
>>> https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2024/07/06
>>>
>>> You just gotta wonder how many people are like Rat.
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>
>>"It's supposed to last 100,000 hours" ... SUPPOSED being the important
>>word. Nobody actually knows because nobody has been able to test them
>>for that long.
>>
>>LED bulbs are largely a scam for bulb makers to stuff more money into
>>their pockets. They are not really any "greener" than normal old bulbs
>>and they do not last anywhere near that predicted lifetime (especially
>>in houses around here with silly in-ceiling light fittings), unless of
>>course you rarely switch them on. The problem is that shops also
>>wanting to make themselves look greener and make more money have been
>>'phasing out' regular light bulbs forcing people to buy the more
>>expensive ones. :-(
>
>My actual experience with CFLs is that they do last longer -- a lot
>longer -- than incandescents did in the same sockets. The last time I
>bought light bulbs, they were LEDs at about $2/ea. So far, they appear
>to also be lasting longer than incandescents did, but it is really too
>soon to be sure and longevity compared to CFLs is unknown.
>
>Which is, of course, the basic problem with these claims: they cannot
>be verified. That the bulbs last longer and so don't have to be
>replaced as often, OTOH, becomes apparent after a few months.
>
>The high-level savings in electricity consumption would be impressive
>if the power weren't being used for other things, like bitcoin mining.
>Getting everyone to save electricity in their homes so someone else
>can use it is /not/ conservation.

You think people wouldn't be bitcoin mining if you were using
incandescent bulbs?
Paul S Person
2024-08-06 15:59:55 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 06 Aug 2024 21:41:25 +1000, Mad Hamish
<***@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 09:00:35 -0700, Paul S Person
><***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:58:24 +1200, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 2024-07-06 21:53:05 +0000, Lynn McGuire said:
>>>>
>>>> Pearls Before Swine: Rat The Luddite
>>>> https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2024/07/06
>>>>
>>>> You just gotta wonder how many people are like Rat.
>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>>
>>>"It's supposed to last 100,000 hours" ... SUPPOSED being the important
>>>word. Nobody actually knows because nobody has been able to test them
>>>for that long.
>>>
>>>LED bulbs are largely a scam for bulb makers to stuff more money into
>>>their pockets. They are not really any "greener" than normal old bulbs
>>>and they do not last anywhere near that predicted lifetime (especially
>>>in houses around here with silly in-ceiling light fittings), unless of
>>>course you rarely switch them on. The problem is that shops also
>>>wanting to make themselves look greener and make more money have been
>>>'phasing out' regular light bulbs forcing people to buy the more
>>>expensive ones. :-(
>>
>>My actual experience with CFLs is that they do last longer -- a lot
>>longer -- than incandescents did in the same sockets. The last time I
>>bought light bulbs, they were LEDs at about $2/ea. So far, they appear
>>to also be lasting longer than incandescents did, but it is really too
>>soon to be sure and longevity compared to CFLs is unknown.
>>
>>Which is, of course, the basic problem with these claims: they cannot
>>be verified. That the bulbs last longer and so don't have to be
>>replaced as often, OTOH, becomes apparent after a few months.
>>
>>The high-level savings in electricity consumption would be impressive
>>if the power weren't being used for other things, like bitcoin mining.
>>Getting everyone to save electricity in their homes so someone else
>>can use it is /not/ conservation.
>
>You think people wouldn't be bitcoin mining if you were using
>incandescent bulbs?

AFAIK, there are already areas where they have been banned from
hooking up to the local power utility because there just isn't enough
power to supply them at the local rates (ie, without forcing everyone
else to pay more because nonlocal supplies cost more). They are the
poster child for excessive power usage, but IIRC the recent AI
programs and really large server farms also use a lot of power. And EV
charging, if not already a part of this, will be eventually.

And, yes, the connection between saving electricity with
non-incandescent bulbs (taking the claims for savings expressed here
at face value) and unplugging toasters and other unlikely ghost
appliances when not in use and the newer power-hungry applications
should be obvious. This is why we keep trying for fusion reactors.
This is why fossil fuels aren't going away any time soon.

I should point out that there is difference between /recognizing/ a
change and expressing an opinion about it. It is not that bitcoin
mining is evil; it is that claiming switching from incandescents is
saving power when it is really making power available for other uses
is deceptive.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Loading...