Bruce is famous again!

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Howard, Jul 10, 2004.

  1. Howard

    Howard Guest

    Howard, Jul 10, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Howard

    Collector_NZ Guest

    Howard said the following on 10/07/2004 12:15:

    > Bruce Simpson of New Zealand has been left destitute by hastily-imposed
    > restrictions of his national authorities, and is now offering his services
    > to any non-terrorist willing to provide room, board, travel, expenses, and
    > a negotiated rate.
    >
    > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/09/1253201&mode=thread&tid=137&tid=98&tid=99
    > or
    > http://snipurl.com/7nbj
    >
    > You deserve the best Bruce. Best of luck!
    >
    > -H

    Good luck to him, but that is one scary way of saying F**K YOU to the
    Govt. Almost as scary as Bruces and my discussion in the groups about a
    visit to Parliment with the LCCM on the back of a ute and a hand held GPS.
     
    Collector_NZ, Jul 10, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>, says...
    > Howard said the following on 10/07/2004 12:15:
    >
    > > Bruce Simpson of New Zealand has been left destitute by hastily-imposed
    > > restrictions of his national authorities, and is now offering his services
    > > to any non-terrorist willing to provide room, board, travel, expenses, and
    > > a negotiated rate.
    > >
    > > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/09/1253201&mode=thread&tid=137&tid=98&tid=99
    > > or
    > > http://snipurl.com/7nbj
    > >
    > > You deserve the best Bruce. Best of luck!
    > >
    > > -H

    > Good luck to him, but that is one scary way of saying F**K YOU to the
    > Govt. Almost as scary as Bruces and my discussion in the groups about a
    > visit to Parliment with the LCCM on the back of a ute and a hand held GPS.


    Well bruce has been saying f you to the government for years, if you look
    at his political leanings. Still, it's one thing to make the kind of
    claims he has, and another thing to prove them. Take out the political
    bias and there's no substance.
     
    Patrick Dunford, Jul 10, 2004
    #3
  4. Howard

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Patrick Dunford wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >> Howard said the following on 10/07/2004 12:15:
    >>
    >>> Bruce Simpson of New Zealand has been left destitute by
    >>> hastily-imposed restrictions of his national authorities, and is
    >>> now offering his services to any non-terrorist willing to provide
    >>> room, board, travel, expenses, and a negotiated rate.
    >>>
    >>>

    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/09/1253201&mode=thread&tid=137&tid=
    98&tid=99
    >>> or
    >>> http://snipurl.com/7nbj
    >>>
    >>> You deserve the best Bruce. Best of luck!
    >>>
    >>> -H

    >> Good luck to him, but that is one scary way of saying F**K YOU to the
    >> Govt. Almost as scary as Bruces and my discussion in the groups
    >> about a visit to Parliment with the LCCM on the back of a ute and a
    >> hand held GPS.

    >
    > Well bruce has been saying f you to the government for years, if you
    > look at his political leanings. Still, it's one thing to make the
    > kind of claims he has, and another thing to prove them. Take out the
    > political bias and there's no substance.


    You're entitled to your opinion.
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Jul 10, 2004
    #4
  5. In article <p7KHc.9233$>, misfit61nz@yahoo-
    mung.co.nz says...
    > Patrick Dunford wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > says...
    > >> Howard said the following on 10/07/2004 12:15:
    > >>
    > >>> Bruce Simpson of New Zealand has been left destitute by
    > >>> hastily-imposed restrictions of his national authorities, and is
    > >>> now offering his services to any non-terrorist willing to provide
    > >>> room, board, travel, expenses, and a negotiated rate.
    > >>>
    > >>>

    > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/09/1253201&mode=thread&tid=137&tid=
    > 98&tid=99
    > >>> or
    > >>> http://snipurl.com/7nbj
    > >>>
    > >>> You deserve the best Bruce. Best of luck!
    > >>>
    > >>> -H
    > >> Good luck to him, but that is one scary way of saying F**K YOU to the
    > >> Govt. Almost as scary as Bruces and my discussion in the groups
    > >> about a visit to Parliment with the LCCM on the back of a ute and a
    > >> hand held GPS.

    > >
    > > Well bruce has been saying f you to the government for years, if you
    > > look at his political leanings. Still, it's one thing to make the
    > > kind of claims he has, and another thing to prove them. Take out the
    > > political bias and there's no substance.

    >
    > You're entitled to your opinion.


    From my POV Bruce had more credibility back when his web pages were less
    political than they are now. I read this paghe referred to and suddenly
    it occurred to me that the kinds of attacks he was making on the
    government were not new at all. He had been making them as a political
    activist for years.
     
    Patrick Dunford, Jul 10, 2004
    #5
  6. Howard

    Chris Guest

    Patrick Dunford <> wrote in
    news::

    > In article <p7KHc.9233$>, misfit61nz@yahoo-
    > mung.co.nz says...
    >> Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >> > In article <>,
    >> > says...
    >> >> Howard said the following on 10/07/2004 12:15:
    >> >>
    >> >>> Bruce Simpson of New Zealand has been left destitute by
    >> >>> hastily-imposed restrictions of his national authorities, and is
    >> >>> now offering his services to any non-terrorist willing to provide
    >> >>> room, board, travel, expenses, and a negotiated rate.
    >> >>>
    >> >>>

    >> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/09/1253201&mode=thread&tid=13
    >> 7&tid= 98&tid=99
    >> >>> or
    >> >>> http://snipurl.com/7nbj
    >> >>>
    >> >>> You deserve the best Bruce. Best of luck!
    >> >>>
    >> >>> -H
    >> >> Good luck to him, but that is one scary way of saying F**K YOU to
    >> >> the Govt. Almost as scary as Bruces and my discussion in the
    >> >> groups about a visit to Parliment with the LCCM on the back of a
    >> >> ute and a hand held GPS.
    >> >
    >> > Well bruce has been saying f you to the government for years, if
    >> > you look at his political leanings. Still, it's one thing to make
    >> > the kind of claims he has, and another thing to prove them. Take
    >> > out the political bias and there's no substance.

    >>
    >> You're entitled to your opinion.

    >
    > From my POV Bruce had more credibility back when his web pages were
    > less political than they are now. I read this paghe referred to and
    > suddenly it occurred to me that the kinds of attacks he was making on
    > the government were not new at all. He had been making them as a
    > political activist for years.
    >


    What worries me is that he says "Note however, that I will not knowingly
    work for anyone involved in the planning or committing of terrorist acts."
    while, in the past, he sold 7am.com to a local company that *promised* not
    to sell it off shore and took their word for it. The article IMO is more
    about political point scoring than the enegineering side of what he has
    achieved, which, as I understand it, a long life/reusable V2 rocket. While
    some have said that it is to noisy to be of any use if you were launching a
    space vehicle from a plane the noise aspect wouldn't be that great a
    problem, if at all. If I had designed such a rocket as Bruce, I'd be
    trying to get in with these people that are launching these space vehicles.

    --
    Chris

    "Two men walk into a bar. You'd think the second one would've ducked..."
     
    Chris, Jul 11, 2004
    #6
  7. Howard

    Bruce Hoult Guest

    In article <>,
    Chris <> wrote:

    > the enegineering side of what he has
    > achieved, which, as I understand it, a long life/reusable V2 rocket. While
    > some have said that it is to noisy to be of any use if you were launching a
    > space vehicle from a plane the noise aspect wouldn't be that great a
    > problem, if at all. If I had designed such a rocket as Bruce, I'd be
    > trying to get in with these people that are launching these space vehicles.


    Uhh .. point of order...

    Bruce's engine is a pulse jet. That's an air-breathing engine as in the
    V1, not a rocket as in the V2. It has nothing whatsoever to do with
    going into space.


    As for "these people that are launching these space vehicles", under
    current ITAR rules they are not allowed to employ anyone who is not a US
    citizen, lest valuable knowledge escape. This applies even if the
    non-US citizen knows more about the subject than they do ... e.g. this
    *has* prevented them from hiring very experienced Russian engineers.


    Rutan's SpaceShipOne, which I watched fly into space last month, is
    close to being a reusable V2. Not quite, as it needs to be air
    launched, and it uses a sold fuel instead of liquid. XCOR's 'Xerus',
    when built, will be almost exactly a long life, reusable (several times
    a day, hopefully), V2-with-wings.

    -- Bruce
     
    Bruce Hoult, Jul 11, 2004
    #7
  8. Howard

    Chris Guest

    Bruce Hoult <> wrote in
    news::

    > In article <>,
    > Chris <> wrote:
    >
    >> the enegineering side of what he has
    >> achieved, which, as I understand it, a long life/reusable V2 rocket.
    >> While some have said that it is to noisy to be of any use if you were
    >> launching a space vehicle from a plane the noise aspect wouldn't be
    >> that great a problem, if at all. If I had designed such a rocket as
    >> Bruce, I'd be trying to get in with these people that are launching
    >> these space vehicles.

    >
    > Uhh .. point of order...
    >
    > Bruce's engine is a pulse jet. That's an air-breathing engine as in
    > the V1, not a rocket as in the V2. It has nothing whatsoever to do
    > with going into space.
    >

    OK, it's more like a V1 than a V2, my point was, however, that a more
    constructive use of energy would be to get in with like minded people
    (example as above, though might not be the best example) rather than the
    course of action that is being taken which, on the face of it, is more self
    gratifaction than anything else.
    >
    > As for "these people that are launching these space vehicles", under
    > current ITAR rules they are not allowed to employ anyone who is not a
    > US citizen, lest valuable knowledge escape. This applies even if the
    > non-US citizen knows more about the subject than they do ... e.g. this
    > *has* prevented them from hiring very experienced Russian engineers.
    >

    I'm not so sure about this, as I understood there was a team from the EU
    trying to do the same, but maybe I am thinking of somrthing else.
    >
    > Rutan's SpaceShipOne, which I watched fly into space last month, is
    > close to being a reusable V2. Not quite, as it needs to be air
    > launched, and it uses a sold fuel instead of liquid. XCOR's 'Xerus',
    > when built, will be almost exactly a long life, reusable (several
    > times a day, hopefully), V2-with-wings.
    >
    > -- Bruce
    >

    I saw it on the TV, was very impresive.


    --
    Chris

    "Two men walk into a bar. You'd think the second one would've ducked..."
     
    Chris, Jul 11, 2004
    #8
  9. Howard

    Bruce Hoult Guest

    In article <>,
    Chris <> wrote:

    > > As for "these people that are launching these space vehicles", under
    > > current ITAR rules they are not allowed to employ anyone who is not a
    > > US citizen, lest valuable knowledge escape. This applies even if the
    > > non-US citizen knows more about the subject than they do ... e.g. this
    > > *has* prevented them from hiring very experienced Russian engineers.

    >
    > I'm not so sure about this, as I understood there was a team from the EU
    > trying to do the same, but maybe I am thinking of somrthing else.


    The EU is of course a different matter, but the fact is that most
    companies in this line are in the USA because that tends to be where
    both experienced people and venture capital are -- and equally as
    important, government agencies that when you tell them you want to do a
    crazy thing like fly rocket-powered aircraft at Mach 3.5 to 350,000 ft
    say "sure ... just let's sit down together and work out sensible rules
    for doing that" rather than "are you out of your mind? Go *away*".

    Same with airspace. Mojave airfield (er, "spaceport") is four miles
    from the edge of the Edwards AFB restricted area. They fly all sorts of
    test stuff around in there at often supersonic speeds. But when they're
    not actually doing that it's not hard for civilians to get access. Both
    XCOR and Scaled certainly get access when they ask for it. I went for a
    glider flight to Mojave and back from California City and the person
    from the glider hire place said it's no problem to get permission to fly
    into the Edwards restricted airspace when it's not busy. That's
    completely different from the situation here in NZ where private
    aviation is getting totally pushed out of more and more airspace every
    year just because an airline flies a turboprop vaguely near there three
    or four times a day.


    And I know first-hand from spending a few days at XCOR last month that
    the office with the engineers and engineering diagrams is required to be
    off-limits to non US citizens, and has signs saying as much. It's all
    pretty silly really as there's nothing to say that US citizens are
    necessarily loyal to the country. And on the night before the SS1
    flight there were people with sleeping bags and air mattresses all
    throughout the XCOR hangar, including several in the aforementioned
    engineers' office. (I slept in the business development/investor
    relations guy's cubicle, a reporter from LA Magazine was across from me,
    bloggers from Transterrestrial Musings and Samizdata were next to me...)

    -- Bruce
     
    Bruce Hoult, Jul 11, 2004
    #9
  10. Howard

    Chris Guest

    Bruce Hoult <> wrote in
    news::

    > In article <>,
    > Chris <> wrote:
    >
    >> > As for "these people that are launching these space vehicles",
    >> > under current ITAR rules they are not allowed to employ anyone who
    >> > is not a US citizen, lest valuable knowledge escape. This applies
    >> > even if the non-US citizen knows more about the subject than they
    >> > do ... e.g. this *has* prevented them from hiring very experienced
    >> > Russian engineers.

    >>
    >> I'm not so sure about this, as I understood there was a team from the
    >> EU trying to do the same, but maybe I am thinking of somrthing else.

    >
    > The EU is of course a different matter, but the fact is that most
    > companies in this line are in the USA because that tends to be where
    > both experienced people and venture capital are -- and equally as
    > important, government agencies that when you tell them you want to do
    > a crazy thing like fly rocket-powered aircraft at Mach 3.5 to 350,000
    > ft say "sure ... just let's sit down together and work out sensible
    > rules for doing that" rather than "are you out of your mind? Go
    > *away*".
    >
    > Same with airspace. Mojave airfield (er, "spaceport") is four miles
    > from the edge of the Edwards AFB restricted area. They fly all sorts
    > of test stuff around in there at often supersonic speeds. But when
    > they're not actually doing that it's not hard for civilians to get
    > access. Both XCOR and Scaled certainly get access when they ask for
    > it. I went for a glider flight to Mojave and back from California
    > City and the person from the glider hire place said it's no problem to
    > get permission to fly into the Edwards restricted airspace when it's
    > not busy. That's completely different from the situation here in NZ
    > where private aviation is getting totally pushed out of more and more
    > airspace every year just because an airline flies a turboprop vaguely
    > near there three or four times a day.
    >
    >
    > And I know first-hand from spending a few days at XCOR last month that
    > the office with the engineers and engineering diagrams is required to
    > be off-limits to non US citizens, and has signs saying as much. It's
    > all pretty silly really as there's nothing to say that US citizens are
    > necessarily loyal to the country. And on the night before the SS1
    > flight there were people with sleeping bags and air mattresses all
    > throughout the XCOR hangar, including several in the aforementioned
    > engineers' office. (I slept in the business development/investor
    > relations guy's cubicle, a reporter from LA Magazine was across from
    > me, bloggers from Transterrestrial Musings and Samizdata were next to
    > me...)
    >
    > -- Bruce
    >


    That was very interesting reading, thanks. Your comments "are you out of
    your mind? Go *away*" pretty much sums up the goverment responce to
    anything out of the ordinary, or as Peter Jackson but (so well) a day late
    and a $ short. Americans, from my limited experience of them, have a some
    what different attitude when it comes to doing some things. I was, for
    example, taken back on how they build Interstates - to last (i've never
    seen so much concrete and steel go into a road).


    --
    Chris

    "Two men walk into a bar. You'd think the second one would've ducked..."
     
    Chris, Jul 11, 2004
    #10
  11. Howard

    Bruce Hoult Guest

    In article <>,
    Chris <> wrote:

    > That was very interesting reading, thanks. Your comments "are you out of
    > your mind? Go *away*" pretty much sums up the goverment responce to
    > anything out of the ordinary, or as Peter Jackson but (so well) a day late
    > and a $ short.


    My previous message may have made it sound really trivial to get the US
    government to allow these flights. That's not really the case and there
    has been quite a lot of pushing needed from several small companies for
    several years. But they *have* been listened to, and sensible and fair
    rules seveloped, which is really something.

    Here's a little more background on this stuff...

    There has basically been a bit of a turf war betwen the FAA (responsible
    for planes) and the people responsible for traditional rockets.

    With traditional rockets what you need is a "launch license", which has
    specified the time and place of your launch. To get it you have to
    prove that the bits you're going to drop from the sky (they assume that
    you *will* drop bits, because conventional rockets do) probably aren't
    going to hit anyone. You also have to show that you have adequate
    self-destruct explosives on your rocket so that if it goes wrong the
    government guy can press a button and blow the whole thing up. And,
    yes, the space shuttle has that lovely little feature. You also have
    to give notice of each launch and the intended payload 90 days in
    advance, which upsets the little companies who want to be able to have
    someone turn up with a big chequebook and say "I'd like to take one of
    those 100 km high flights this afternoon".

    With the FAA and traditional aircraft you have basically two choices for
    what sort of bit of paper lets you fly it. If you want to take paying
    passengers then you must have a certificated aircraft, which costs tens
    of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars for the paperwork.
    Passengers are assumed to be innocent and stupid and you have to prove
    that you're not going to kill them. If you don't need to take paying
    passengers then you can fly as an "experimental" aircraft. This is very
    very easy and cheap to do the paperwork for, but you can't fly over
    populated areas for the first 50 hours of engine run time and you can't
    charge people money. But in exchange the FAA deesn't worry too much
    about the safety of the pilots and passengers, but only about 3rd
    parties on the ground.

    None of these options are terribly attractive ways for the new reusable
    rocket companies to be regulated under. Self destruct? No thanks, this
    isn't a missile. 50 hours engine run time in testing? When it takes 2
    - 3 minutes engine run time to get you into space? And it's taken 100
    years for airliners to get as safe as they now have to be -- early ones
    were very dangerous to ride in. It's going to be a long time before
    spacecraft develop to the same degree -- and no one can *possibly* say
    rigth now what the necessary design and construction rules will turn out
    to be.

    Three years ago XCOR started pushing the issue by putting some of their
    rocket engines on a homebuilt aircraft (a Rutan Long-EZ). Two years ago
    they showed it off and flew it at the huge annual Airventure airshow in
    Oshkosh, Wisconsin (I was there working with on their display stand,
    talking to the public about the EZ-Rocket and future plans). XCOR
    learned a lot about how to actually put liquid fuelled rocket engines in
    an aeroplane and what it took to operate it and maintain it. But
    probably the biggest effect was that it served as a kick up the behind
    for the various government agencies. XCOR could fly the EZ-Rocket as an
    experimental plane, but it was clear that faster and more powerful
    versions were just around the corner and there had to be appropriate and
    fair rules for them.

    To cut a long story short, the FAA ended up with responsibility for
    regulating such things, and they have come up with a 3rd classification:
    Suborbital Launch License. As I recall it, the basics are roughly:

    - it covers a number of flights and/or a period of time, not a single
    flight

    - the extension of the flight path must intersect the earth (can't be
    orbital)

    - design must be such that engine thrust exceeds aerodynamic lift for
    the majority of the powered flight time. (This is basically to stop
    someone taking a model rocket engine and strapping it to a 747 and
    claiming that they don't need certification as a result)

    - you can take paying passengers if you can show you have made them
    aware of the risks

    - your flight path can overfly populated areas if you can prove that the
    chances of crashing onto them are sufficiently low. This seems to mean
    that it's going to be hard to get permission to launch vertically out of
    Los Angeles International airport because that would expose LA to
    something going wrong for a long time, but its ok to launch from Mojave
    and overfly LA if you're going so fast at that point that it takes only
    a handful of seconds to pass LA so the chances of blowing up in *those*
    particular few seconds are low. NASA, after all, managed to drop 100
    tonnes of Space Shuttle unplanned onto Texas without hitting anyone.

    - a really fun part if that if someone applies for a Suborbital Launch
    License, the FAA has 180 days to either grant the license or else to
    explain to congress exactly why they are declining it. I couldn't see
    *that* happening here in NZ.


    At present two companies have been granted launch licenses, both in
    April:

    - Scaled Composites to fly the SpaceShipOne for the X-Prize

    - XCOR to fly a liquid-fuelled tourist aircraft called Sphinx. It's
    still on the drawing board and they're looking for investors to finance
    it. That's probably gotten a *lot* easier for them since a) getting the
    license, and b) the publicity around SS1's recent flight.



    > Americans, from my limited experience of them, have a some
    > what different attitude when it comes to doing some things. I was, for
    > example, taken back on how they build Interstates - to last (i've never
    > seen so much concrete and steel go into a road).


    Unfortunately they don't last forever. After a while concrete freeways
    with heavy traffic develop the same sort of washboard surface that
    unsealed roads do, only on a somewhat larger scale ... several meters
    per wave instead of several inches. It's really rather unpleasant and
    *very* expensive to fix -- you have to rip the whole thing up. After a
    while driving around LA you really wish for motorways like in NZ that
    are only soft tarmac but get resurfaced every year or two.

    I've got a rescued old National Geographic somewhere that show how they
    built the rural interstates in the 50's. You know how it seems to take
    several years to build any little thing here? Well, they completed
    something like 10 km (I'd have to lok it up to confirm) of freeway per
    *day* in open countryside. *Massive* machinery that rolled along and
    did the whole thing in one pass. Amazing stuff.

    -- Bruce
     
    Bruce Hoult, Jul 11, 2004
    #11
  12. On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 22:55:35 +1200, Bruce Hoult <>
    wrote:

    >Unfortunately they don't last forever. After a while concrete freeways
    >with heavy traffic develop the same sort of washboard surface that
    >unsealed roads do, only on a somewhat larger scale ... several meters
    >per wave instead of several inches. It's really rather unpleasant and
    >*very* expensive to fix -- you have to rip the whole thing up. After a
    >while driving around LA you really wish for motorways like in NZ that
    >are only soft tarmac but get resurfaced every year or two.


    Yeah, that's the first thing that struck me about LA -- the crappy
    surface on the freeways.

    Kerthunk, kerthunk, kerthunk... I suppose you'd get used to it but it
    reminded me of a train ride on poorly maintained tracks more than a
    car-ride :)

    --
    you can contact me via http://aardvark.co.nz/contact/
    Need a cruise missile?
    http://www.interestingprojects.com/needamissile.shtml
     
    Bruce Simpson, Jul 11, 2004
    #12
  13. Howard

    Tarla Guest

    On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 00:23:19 +1200, Bruce Simpson
    <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 22:55:35 +1200, Bruce Hoult <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Unfortunately they don't last forever. After a while concrete freeways
    >>with heavy traffic develop the same sort of washboard surface that
    >>unsealed roads do, only on a somewhat larger scale ... several meters
    >>per wave instead of several inches. It's really rather unpleasant and
    >>*very* expensive to fix -- you have to rip the whole thing up. After a
    >>while driving around LA you really wish for motorways like in NZ that
    >>are only soft tarmac but get resurfaced every year or two.

    >
    >Yeah, that's the first thing that struck me about LA -- the crappy
    >surface on the freeways.
    >
    >Kerthunk, kerthunk, kerthunk... I suppose you'd get used to it but it
    >reminded me of a train ride on poorly maintained tracks more than a
    >car-ride :)


    Costs less to maintain and is easier on your tires than NZ roads.
    --
    Tarla
    ****
    Dammit, Jeb, I'm as Amish as the next guy, but if we
    don't take out that sub, there won't be a Pennsylvania
    to go home TO."

    -my son,Eric
     
    Tarla, Jul 11, 2004
    #13
  14. Howard

    Bruce Hoult Guest

    In article <>,
    Tarla <> wrote:

    > >Yeah, that's the first thing that struck me about LA -- the crappy
    > >surface on the freeways.
    > >
    > >Kerthunk, kerthunk, kerthunk... I suppose you'd get used to it but it
    > >reminded me of a train ride on poorly maintained tracks more than a
    > >car-ride :)

    >
    > Costs less to maintain and is easier on your tires than NZ roads.


    Tyres, sure.

    How about shock absorbers?
     
    Bruce Hoult, Jul 12, 2004
    #14
  15. Howard

    Tarla Guest

    On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:35:59 +1200, Bruce Hoult <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > Tarla <> wrote:
    >
    >> >Yeah, that's the first thing that struck me about LA -- the crappy
    >> >surface on the freeways.
    >> >
    >> >Kerthunk, kerthunk, kerthunk... I suppose you'd get used to it but it
    >> >reminded me of a train ride on poorly maintained tracks more than a
    >> >car-ride :)

    >>
    >> Costs less to maintain and is easier on your tires than NZ roads.

    >
    >Tyres, sure.
    >
    >How about shock absorbers?


    I don't know. I've never had to replace a pair of shock absorbers. I
    had my old Nissan for 13 years and never needed to replace them.
    --
    Tarla
    ****
    Dammit, Jeb, I'm as Amish as the next guy, but if we
    don't take out that sub, there won't be a Pennsylvania
    to go home TO."

    -my son,Eric
     
    Tarla, Jul 12, 2004
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. El Capitán©

    the famous blue screen.....

    El Capitán©, Nov 26, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    515
    trout
    Nov 28, 2003
  2. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Brian_H=B9=A9?=

    Why don't the rich and famous

    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Brian_H=B9=A9?=, Jun 27, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    504
    uh Clem
    Jul 1, 2005
  3. Anon Y Mous

    Is Stefan famous?

    Anon Y Mous, Sep 11, 2005, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    598
  4. Autodidact

    Famous Players - No More Cheese

    Autodidact, Aug 22, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,735
  5. AceoHearts

    Almost Famous Question

    AceoHearts, Feb 1, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    442
    Dyuob Poltice
    Feb 1, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page