another semi web site shot to hell?
in [Design]
|
From: Joerg on 1 Oct 2006 17:14 Hello Jim, >>Since the rear window doesn't roll down I had to leave the hatch open. >>That load of lumber would sometimes start to sway because it was >>cantilevered. > > That's why I gave up and bought a pickup truck five years ago. No > more fretting that some village idiot will claim he didn't see the red > flag tied to the load. > True but most trucks only offer an 8ft bed. That would have left 14 ft sticking out in this case. Sounds unbelievable but about 12ft of lumber fits inside my Montero if I recline the passenger seat and shove the lumber all the way under the dash. That way it can hardly pop loose and cantilever into the road. > Also a whole lot easier to load bags of cement, sand and mortar. The > high-lipped trunks in the new car designs are murder on the back when > you have to lean in and over :-( > Most SUV's don't have that problem. They are almost like trucks. I've hauled loads of firewood in mine, plus tile, pellets, cement, HP gear and so on. The only problem is you can't get real truck tires for it and the Michelin LT 15-inchers squat a lot with a full load. As for the wood I bought it's increasingly disappointing. Installed the last long rail yesterday and this time it was so sappy that it gummed up the saw blade all the time. We have 70's style slanted deck railing which required and angled cut along the whole length of the support boards. Meaning lots of blue smoke. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
From: Keith on 2 Oct 2006 09:39 In article <wcWTg.7506$GR.5883(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net says... > Hello Jim, > > > >>Since the rear window doesn't roll down I had to leave the hatch open. > >>That load of lumber would sometimes start to sway because it was > >>cantilevered. > > > > That's why I gave up and bought a pickup truck five years ago. No > > more fretting that some village idiot will claim he didn't see the red > > flag tied to the load. > > > > True but most trucks only offer an 8ft bed. That would have left 14 ft > sticking out in this case. Sounds unbelievable but about 12ft of lumber > fits inside my Montero if I recline the passenger seat and shove the > lumber all the way under the dash. That way it can hardly pop loose and > cantilever into the road. You can put it on a rack in the pickup bed or on carriers on top of a cap. I don't have either and no post holes (they're an invitation to rust) for a rack. I borrowed a friend's (actually a dealership he works for) cargo van to pick up some 16' clapboards. > > > Also a whole lot easier to load bags of cement, sand and mortar. The > > high-lipped trunks in the new car designs are murder on the back when > > you have to lean in and over :-( > > > > Most SUV's don't have that problem. They are almost like trucks. I've > hauled loads of firewood in mine, plus tile, pellets, cement, HP gear > and so on. The only problem is you can't get real truck tires for it and > the Michelin LT 15-inchers squat a lot with a full load. > > As for the wood I bought it's increasingly disappointing. Installed the > last long rail yesterday and this time it was so sappy that it gummed up > the saw blade all the time. We have 70's style slanted deck railing > which required and angled cut along the whole length of the support > boards. Meaning lots of blue smoke. > Sounds like the blade is out of alignment with the fence. If it was that sappy isn't it going to warp like a pretzel? -- Keith
From: Ken Smith on 2 Oct 2006 09:52 In article <451f8bac$0$5647$e4fe514c(a)dreader28.news.xs4all.nl>, Frank Bemelman <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: [....] >My hope is, that at some time, sending an email will >cost 1-2 cent or something. Seems the only way to put >an end to spamming. Another idea that has been floated is to make it so that to send an email, you must first burn up some CPU time working on one of the great computer problems of out time. The normal user would not notice if 1/10 of a second was needed to do the work but a spammer would notice 10,000,000 tenths of second. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: jasen on 2 Oct 2006 06:05 On 2006-10-01, Joerg <notthisjoergsch(a)removethispacbell.net> wrote: > Hello Jim, > As for the wood I bought it's increasingly disappointing. Installed the > last long rail yesterday and this time it was so sappy that it gummed up > the saw blade all the time. We have 70's style slanted deck railing > which required and angled cut along the whole length of the support > boards. Meaning lots of blue smoke. Don't they have kiln dried timber over there? or is this railing going to be unpainted? IME dead wood won't stay put unless it's sealed from the elements. Bye. Jasen
From: Frank Bemelman on 2 Oct 2006 10:00
"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> schreef in bericht news:efr5it$sb7$1(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <451f8bac$0$5647$e4fe514c(a)dreader28.news.xs4all.nl>, > Frank Bemelman <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: > [....] >>My hope is, that at some time, sending an email will >>cost 1-2 cent or something. Seems the only way to put >>an end to spamming. > > Another idea that has been floated is to make it so that to send an email, > you must first burn up some CPU time working on one of the great computer > problems of out time. > > The normal user would not notice if 1/10 of a second was needed to do the > work but a spammer would notice 10,000,000 tenths of second. Well, I'm open to every suggestion that makes sending enourmous amounts of email a bit more of an effort than it is now. Time wise or money wise. -- Thanks, Frank. (remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email) |