http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* uses for lawn "waste" leaves, etc. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/07fc038a7f6048b9?hl=en
* If Europe knew about the TibetanMonkey, there would be no riots! - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1ee07b32c92fbb9a?hl=en
* While the Dutch are happily riding bikes, here people is talking BS - 4
messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/c8669fcf3bad5b21?hl=en
* "Not flushing" is hard to do! - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f56f53c076df2592?hl=en
* How make cheap roll around desktop computer/monitor stand? - 2 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/655e6fa62fa327ce?hl=en
* un seened photos - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5eac604b0fc090a8?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: uses for lawn "waste" leaves, etc.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/07fc038a7f6048b9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 3 2010 2:18 pm
From: "Bob F"
Al wrote:
> VFW wrote:
>> pile in a row and run the lawn mower over it all and make a flair
>> mulch. a rotary mower does it. compost is king.
>> --
>> Karma, What a concept!
>
> Many folks just run a mulching mower blade over the lawn and save all
> the raking and piling in a row.
I use my snapper bagger to mow, then dump the mulch where needed. Leaving the
mulched leaves on the lawn guarantees dead spots all over by the end of winter
here. It works fine for a few leaves here and there during the rest of the year,
but the autumn leaf fall is way too much for leaving the leaves in place.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: If Europe knew about the TibetanMonkey, there would be no riots!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1ee07b32c92fbb9a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 3 2010 5:19 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle"
On Oct 3, 12:07 pm, Forrest Hodge <f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/2/2010 2:56 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of
>
>
>
> the Jungle wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 1:49 pm, Forrest Hodge<f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/1/2010 8:56 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey& the Spirits of
>
> >> the Jungle wrote:
> >>> On Sep 30, 1:36 pm, Forrest Hodge<f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 9/29/2010 10:23 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey& the Spirits of
>
> >>>> the Jungle wrote:
> >>>>> On Sep 29, 7:01 pm, Forrest Hodge<f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/29/2010 9:07 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey& the Spirits of
>
> >>>>>> the Jungle wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sep 29, 4:47 pm, Forrest Hodge<f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 9/29/2010 1:51 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey& the Spirits of
>
> >>>>>>>> the Jungle wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> (This is the way to survive a regular crisis in the capitalist jungle
> >>>>>>>>> without losing control. At least we should be able to come out the
> >>>>>>>>> cage and ride a bike, right?)
>
> >>>>>>>>> That's because the Wisdom of the TibetanMonkey is all about austerity,
> >>>>>>>>> not consumerism, meaning you can be happy with peanuts. Look at what
> >>>>>>>>> the unwise monkeys are doing in Europe...
>
> >>>>>>>>> "Anti-austerity protests sweep across Europe"
>
> >>>>>>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100929/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_europe_austerity_p...
>
> >>>>>>>>> Electricity costs? Dump the large screen TV and get a bunch of
> >>>>>>>>> parakeets or a mouse to entertain you. Transportation costs? Ride a
> >>>>>>>>> bike! Too hot? Get a hammock. Too cold? Get a girlfriend, if you
> >>>>>>>>> already don't have one. Can't get a girlfriend? Masturbate for peace!
>
> >>>>>>>>> I may have to go and lecture there. What's the going rate for the
> >>>>>>>>> Dalai Lama to give speeches?
>
> >>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>>>>>>>> "Praying for prosperity won't help. Only wisdom can bring inner peace"
>
> >>>>>>>>>http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
>
> >>>>>>>>>http://webspawner.com/users/MASTURBATIONFORPEACE
>
> >>>>>>>> Or they could just have a more realistic sense of entitlement.
>
> >>>>>>> Americans would riot over gas taxes where they riot over retirement
> >>>>>>> age. If there were riots against chaotic traffic, you could count me
> >>>>>>> in. ;)
>
> >>>>>> Keep in mind the gas prices in Europe are artificially high due to
> >>>>>> taxes. The wholesale price of a barrel of crude is about the same
> >>>>>> everywhere in the world.
>
> >>>>> I thought they were kept artificially low here. Anyway we need to
> >>>>> downsize our cars and consumption.
>
> >>>> Fuel is taxed here, but at a considerably lower rate than it is across
> >>>> the pond. In some countries, mostly those with vast oil reserves, oil is
> >>>> heavily subsidized though, but not in the U.S. As for the downsizing of
> >>>> our cars. What vehicle someone chooses to drive is up to them. Let the
> >>>> free market dictate what kind of cars are produced. If people want small
> >>>> cars with that get great fuel mileage, then the automakers will make them.
>
> >>> Let the "free markets," ADVERTISING and the FEAR OF ACCIDENTS dictate
> >>> what car you drive, ie. you better buy an SUV to look good and survive
> >>> accidents with other SUVs.
>
> >> My daily driver isn't an SUV, it's a 400+ HP 2 door car. I do have an
> >> SUV, but it's purpose is to tow my tows around, it's also 15 years old
> >> and has over 270k miles on it. I think my SUV looks good as they no
> >> longer make a 2 door full-sized SUV, but my daily driver looks better
> >> IMHO. I'm really unconcerned about the safety aspect of it, since I
> >> drive it so seldomly. Funnily enough neither vehicle gets particularly
> >> good fuel economy. The SUV gets about 9-12 MPG and the car gets about
> >> 18-22 MPG if I drive conservatively.
>
> > To be deduced from your viewpoints.
>
> > However you can still own filthy vehicles and have a good footprint if
> > you ride instead of driving, say, 70% of the time.
>
> > I could get that high if the roads around me weren't "no man's land."
>
> Thing is I don't ride 70% of the time. It's simply not practical for me.
> I also don't care too much about emissions (neither vehicle has
> catalytic converters on them, and there's no emissions testing where I
> live either). I ride for pleasure and exercise only.
>
> also there's a typo it should read " I'm *not* really unconcerned about
> the safety aspect of it.." sorry for any confusion.
I respect your input, but the point is that we need to emphasize
practical cycling instead of cycling for pleasure or fitness. Funny
they called the SUV an utility vehicle when it's totally unnecessary.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: While the Dutch are happily riding bikes, here people is talking BS
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/c8669fcf3bad5b21?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 3 2010 5:23 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle"
On Oct 3, 11:41 am, Forrest Hodge <f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/3/2010 9:55 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of
>
>
>
> the Jungle wrote:
> > On Oct 2, 3:56 pm, Forrest Hodge<f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/2/2010 9:35 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey& the Spirits of
>
> >> the Jungle wrote:
> >>> On Oct 1, 1:43 pm, Forrest Hodge<f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/1/2010 8:51 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey& the Spirits of
>
> >>>> the Jungle wrote:
> >>>>> On Sep 30, 1:44 pm, Forrest Hodge<f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/30/2010 12:30 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey& the Spirits of
>
> >>>>>> the Jungle wrote:
> >>>>>>> While the Dutch are happily riding bikes, here people is talking BS
> >>>>>>> about whether or not you need separate facilities. It's simple: the
> >>>>>>> Dutch way or give the whole fucking lane to the cyclist. TAKE THE LANE
> >>>>>>> and end of story. No more, finito, ciao, hasta la vista!
>
> >>>>>>> BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...
>
> >>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>>>>>> THE WISE TIBETAN MONKEY SAYS
>
> >>>>>>> "No bull, just sacrifice the Sacred Cows"
>
> >>>>>>>http://webspawner.com/users/BIKEFORPEACE
>
> >>>>>> Have you seen the kind of taxation the Dutch have? Just for fuel the tax
> >>>>>> rate is $3.50 USD per U.S. gallon of petrol *plus* a 20% VAT on top of
> >>>>>> that. I doubt all these people are cyclists by choice.
>
> >>>>> Exactly, that's exactly why we need to stop protecting the driver and
> >>>>> start punishing him for bad behavior. But don't worry, it won't happen
> >>>>> in America. ;)
>
> >>>> Depends what you think constitutes "bad behavior." I hold more contempt
> >>>> for the cyclist holding up traffic in morning rush hour than I do for
> >>>> the guy driving 85+ MPH on a highway where the speed limit is 65 MPH.
>
> >>> Maybe that cyclist doesn't need to drive a polluting car to get to
> >>> work rather than riding for sport.
>
> >>> If you hold contempt against someone riding a bike to work or
> >>> errand... you should be in contempt.
>
> >>> It's not that riding for the fun of it should be in contempt either.
>
> >> In certain situations where there's heavy low speed traffic, like in
> >> city it's not a huge deal because traffic (car, bus, and bicycle) is all
> >> moving at similar speeds. However for those of us that do not like in an
> >> urban area, and commutes on roads with few intersections and lanes, a
> >> single cyclist traveling at 25-30 MPH less than the prevailing speed is
> >> a problem, especially if the road is two lane, no passing, an certainly
> >> no sidewalks or bike lanes.
>
> >> My commute to work takes about 10-13 minutes by car, (depending on if
> >> the single traffic light is red or not when I get to it). There were two
> >> occasions last year where a particularly obnoxious, cyclist decided to
> >> go for a ride during morning rush hour. He was traveling about 15-20 MPH
> >> on a road where traffic normally travels about 45-50 MPH. The line of
> >> cars behind him was about 20 cars deep. My travel time for those days
> >> was over 20 minutes on each occasion. The gentleman on the bike likely
> >> wasn't going to work unless his place of employment's dress code
> >> includes spandex with logos all over it. But he made it his business to
> >> unnecessarily delay those who have to get to work. There are *many* back
> >> roads around here that have little to no traffic that he could've ridden
> >> on, still gotten some exercise and *not* caused undue delay to people
> >> who were not out driving for enjoyment. Coincidentally these are the
> >> same back roads I like to bike on. Of course he's perfectly in rights
> >> to do so, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea, in the same sense that
> >> it's legal to wear a ski mask into bank, but it's probably not a great
> >> idea.
>
> >> Basically it boils down to "Is it acceptable for the wants of the few to
> >> trump the needs of the many?"
>
> > Well, I can sort of agree with you if the guy is just "having fun" and
> > not using it for real transportation. Like you say, he can always go
> > to a back road.
>
> > The real problem is people that wished to ride for utility and don't
> > have the chance to do so. You may also argue that an SUV is out of
> > place on the roads, and belongs in the jungle somewhere.
>
> But the SUV doesn't have any trouble keeping up with traffic. But that's
> not to say that all people who drive them actually need them though.
> It's a matter of semantics though, who *needs* a bicycle when you can
> also just walk.
It's very simple: It's a matter of distance. I don't need to ride a
bike for the most part as most of the shops are within a mile. Beyond
that, I drive where I could be riding a bike simply because of the
risk.
The bicycle doesn't need to keep with traffic because it's a different
vehicle. Do you expect a wheelchair to keep up with a bike, and if not
they are handicapped? ;)
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 3 2010 5:51 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle"
(FROM MY LOCAL FORUM)
Quote Originally Posted by miamidesigner
if the right lane is only for bikes, cars will turn into them on right
turns in the intersections. If you put bikes and cars together, in any
sort of way, there will always be danger. Bike paths would have to be
isolated completely. But they are too impractical to build separated
paths just for them.
It is the way it is now because there's not a big enough need to make
changes. But I do agree the bus routes are horrible in Miami. I hear
NY has better transportation. They also have a lot more people to
manage.
In the end, there will be changes in the future. Just not anytime
soon.
***
(MY ANSWER)
Cars won't cut you off if you hold them responsible for any accident,
with a bike unless they are proven innocent. That's the way it is in
Holland... Only in a Darwinist system the little guy on the bike has
as many right as a stray dog, perhaps less because they claim the
cyclists know NOT to be on the road. That's why people ride on
sidewalks around here, placing pedestrians at risk.
It's a real shame that we are cooking the planet and we don't have a
choice but to be part of the problem. The drivers in turn are "driven"
to be part of it, not to think outside the box. We should remind them
of this...
ONE MORE BIKE = ONE FEWER CAR
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 3 2010 6:31 pm
From: Forrest Hodge
On 10/3/2010 8:23 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of
the Jungle wrote:
> On Oct 3, 11:41 am, Forrest Hodge<f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/3/2010 9:55 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey& the Spirits of
>>
>>
>>
>> the Jungle wrote:
>>> On Oct 2, 3:56 pm, Forrest Hodge<f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/2/2010 9:35 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey& the Spirits of
>>
>>>> the Jungle wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 1, 1:43 pm, Forrest Hodge<f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/1/2010 8:51 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey& the Spirits of
>>
>>>>>> the Jungle wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sep 30, 1:44 pm, Forrest Hodge<f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/30/2010 12:30 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey& the Spirits of
>>
>>>>>>>> the Jungle wrote:
>>>>>>>>> While the Dutch are happily riding bikes, here people is talking BS
>>>>>>>>> about whether or not you need separate facilities. It's simple: the
>>>>>>>>> Dutch way or give the whole fucking lane to the cyclist. TAKE THE LANE
>>>>>>>>> and end of story. No more, finito, ciao, hasta la vista!
>>
>>>>>>>>> BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...
>>
>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>>>>>>>> THE WISE TIBETAN MONKEY SAYS
>>
>>>>>>>>> "No bull, just sacrifice the Sacred Cows"
>>
>>>>>>>>> http://webspawner.com/users/BIKEFORPEACE
>>
>>>>>>>> Have you seen the kind of taxation the Dutch have? Just for fuel the tax
>>>>>>>> rate is $3.50 USD per U.S. gallon of petrol *plus* a 20% VAT on top of
>>>>>>>> that. I doubt all these people are cyclists by choice.
>>
>>>>>>> Exactly, that's exactly why we need to stop protecting the driver and
>>>>>>> start punishing him for bad behavior. But don't worry, it won't happen
>>>>>>> in America. ;)
>>
>>>>>> Depends what you think constitutes "bad behavior." I hold more contempt
>>>>>> for the cyclist holding up traffic in morning rush hour than I do for
>>>>>> the guy driving 85+ MPH on a highway where the speed limit is 65 MPH.
>>
>>>>> Maybe that cyclist doesn't need to drive a polluting car to get to
>>>>> work rather than riding for sport.
>>
>>>>> If you hold contempt against someone riding a bike to work or
>>>>> errand... you should be in contempt.
>>
>>>>> It's not that riding for the fun of it should be in contempt either.
>>
>>>> In certain situations where there's heavy low speed traffic, like in
>>>> city it's not a huge deal because traffic (car, bus, and bicycle) is all
>>>> moving at similar speeds. However for those of us that do not like in an
>>>> urban area, and commutes on roads with few intersections and lanes, a
>>>> single cyclist traveling at 25-30 MPH less than the prevailing speed is
>>>> a problem, especially if the road is two lane, no passing, an certainly
>>>> no sidewalks or bike lanes.
>>
>>>> My commute to work takes about 10-13 minutes by car, (depending on if
>>>> the single traffic light is red or not when I get to it). There were two
>>>> occasions last year where a particularly obnoxious, cyclist decided to
>>>> go for a ride during morning rush hour. He was traveling about 15-20 MPH
>>>> on a road where traffic normally travels about 45-50 MPH. The line of
>>>> cars behind him was about 20 cars deep. My travel time for those days
>>>> was over 20 minutes on each occasion. The gentleman on the bike likely
>>>> wasn't going to work unless his place of employment's dress code
>>>> includes spandex with logos all over it. But he made it his business to
>>>> unnecessarily delay those who have to get to work. There are *many* back
>>>> roads around here that have little to no traffic that he could've ridden
>>>> on, still gotten some exercise and *not* caused undue delay to people
>>>> who were not out driving for enjoyment. Coincidentally these are the
>>>> same back roads I like to bike on. Of course he's perfectly in rights
>>>> to do so, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea, in the same sense that
>>>> it's legal to wear a ski mask into bank, but it's probably not a great
>>>> idea.
>>
>>>> Basically it boils down to "Is it acceptable for the wants of the few to
>>>> trump the needs of the many?"
>>
>>> Well, I can sort of agree with you if the guy is just "having fun" and
>>> not using it for real transportation. Like you say, he can always go
>>> to a back road.
>>
>>> The real problem is people that wished to ride for utility and don't
>>> have the chance to do so. You may also argue that an SUV is out of
>>> place on the roads, and belongs in the jungle somewhere.
>>
>> But the SUV doesn't have any trouble keeping up with traffic. But that's
>> not to say that all people who drive them actually need them though.
>> It's a matter of semantics though, who *needs* a bicycle when you can
>> also just walk.
>
> It's very simple: It's a matter of distance. I don't need to ride a
> bike for the most part as most of the shops are within a mile. Beyond
> that, I drive where I could be riding a bike simply because of the
> risk.
>
> The bicycle doesn't need to keep with traffic because it's a different
> vehicle. Do you expect a wheelchair to keep up with a bike, and if not
> they are handicapped? ;)
And that's the main, the difference is speed. Aside from urban areas
where there's a traffic light every 100 yards, cars travel at speeds
well above those of the bicycle, when both vehicles are on the same road
it's inherently dangerous, especially for the cyclist.
Also you generally don't see wheel chairs on the road. You see them
mainly in places where people walk, the speed differential between
someone walking and someone in a wheelchair is not nearly as dramatic as
it is between a bicycle and car.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 3 2010 8:13 pm
From: The Real Bev
On 10/03/10 18:31, Forrest Hodge wrote:
> Also you generally don't see wheel chairs on the road. You see them
> mainly in places where people walk, the speed differential between
> someone walking and someone in a wheelchair is not nearly as dramatic as
> it is between a bicycle and car.
Funny you should say that. On our grocery-run bike ride the other day
we were passed by a legless guy in a sports-model chair who was in
training for the upcoming Santa Monica marathon. He and his GF (on a
regular bike) were taking the lane. There was very little traffic and
the street had two lanes and a parking lane in each direction. I
clocked him at 14 mph.
When cities wish to appear "bike friendly" they paint bike lanes in the
streets which are absolutely worthless. Cars can drive and park in the
bike lanes, and they generally put them on streets where they aren't
actually needed even if they DID perform a useful function. If they
were REALLY bike-friendly they'd fix the potholes and pavement
irregularities in the streets and sidewalks and NOT build those stupid
roundouts which just impede all traffic and decrease parking space.
They'd also provide bike racks within view of businesses' main doors so
that potential thieves ( bolt-cutters are cheap and fast) will be unsure
that the adrenalin-charged bike owner is not only a few seconds away.
They'd make controlled signals switch when a bicycle rode over the
sensors. Lots of other things that would make life easier for
everybody, but NOOOOO!</rant>
--
Cheers, Bev
===================================================
"I love deadlines... especially the whooshing sound
they make as they go by." -Douglas Adams
==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Not flushing" is hard to do!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f56f53c076df2592?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 3 2010 5:44 pm
From: "Bill"
"h" wrote in message
>
> Wow! Our entire water bill for the year is $60 (we never use more
> than the minimum fee). Do you live in the southwest?
Oregon. The minimum water and sewer is about $50 a month! If you don't
use any water, it is $50 a month.
We have a new water treatment plant built to all the federal
environmental regulations ($$).
And a new sewage treatment plant which discharges into a river built
to all the federal environmental regulations ($$). They even have to
refrigerate the water to cool it down before it goes in the river so
the fish will be happy, etc.
Anyway we have to pay for all this.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 3 2010 6:16 pm
From: tmclone
On Oct 3, 5:44 pm, "Bill" <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "h" wrote in message
>
> > Wow! Our entire water bill for the year is $60 (we never use more
> > than the minimum fee). Do you live in the southwest?
>
> Oregon. The minimum water and sewer is about $50 a month! If you don't
> use any water, it is $50 a month.
>
> We have a new water treatment plant built to all the federal
> environmental regulations ($$).
>
> And a new sewage treatment plant which discharges into a river built
> to all the federal environmental regulations ($$). They even have to
> refrigerate the water to cool it down before it goes in the river so
> the fish will be happy, etc.
>
> Anyway we have to pay for all this.
Ah, we all have septic out here (boonnies), and very low water usage
in a
very high water/resevoir area, and a small population. You can't swing
a
dead kid around here without hitting a water supply. At
last...something
cheaper in my county! We're in the top ten counties, USA-wide, for
taxes,
and always will be, even though we are barely in the bottom twenty
percent
for income level. Weird. I guess I should be happy that I'm saving a
few
hundred bucks a year on water. Only "savings" I will ever experience.
Over
$5000 a year in taxes for a house assessed (full value) at $160,000.
When I
tried to sell it last year the best offer I got was $109,000. Are the
assessors insane? Well...yeah.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How make cheap roll around desktop computer/monitor stand?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/655e6fa62fa327ce?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 3 2010 8:28 pm
From: Jeff Thies
On 10/3/2010 11:51 AM, Lou wrote:
> "Jeff Thies"<jeff_thies@att.net> wrote in message
> news:i89215$p6e$2@news.albasani.net...
>> On 10/2/2010 7:18 PM, Lou wrote:
>>> <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:8fafa6trigjqtvt7p3d7oqmgtoev6e01ae@4ax.com...
>>>> Id like to have my desktop computer mounted on a stand
>>>> similar to this Ergotron model in link:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> http://www.ergotron.com/Products/tabid/65/PRDID/116/language/en-US/Default.aspx
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't need to be this fancy and doesn't even need
>>>> a keyboard platform as would be using wireless keyboard
>>>> and mouse. It just needs to hold the monitor AND CPU
>>>> (down low) and roll around
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking maybe using parts from an old office
>>>> desk chair would be a good start
>>>>
>>>> Any other ideas out there to create something on the
>>>> cheap?
>>>
>>> I don't know what your cut off for "cheap" is, or what scenario you have
> in
>>> mind (what kind of range you might need) but if you're using a wireless
>>> keyboard and wireless mouse, might you consider a wireless monitor
> adaptor,
>>
>>
>> Wireless monitor? I've never seen that. That's a lot more bandwidth than
>> a keyboard or a mouse!
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>> and leaving the cpu in one place?
>
> Just because you've never seen one doesn't mean they don't exist - try
> looking it up.
You are right, but they are far from frugal coming in at $130 and up.
Probably why I've never seen one.
>
> It seems to me that the biggest problem with moving the cpu, and for that
> matter the monitor, around like that is that these things need electricity,
> and that usually means they need to be plugged in. So every time you move
> the contraption, the computer has to be powered down, moved, and re-booted.
>
> If portability is important, a laptop sounds far more practical to me, but
> that may not fit the original poster's definition of "cheap".
I think by the time you add all the wireless gizmos and such it is in
the neighborhood of a cheap or used laptop. It could network into the
existing desktop.
>
> However, if moving things around is important, I think it's be easier and
> cheaper to use something like a tea cart (for instance something like what
> you can at http://www.teacart.org/ or
> http://www.webstaurantstore.com/sub243/products/serving-carts.html?gclid=CInj_PKDt6QCFSVM5QodPmYF0A ), or any two or three decker table on wheels. Some
> come with built in electrical sockets, so you only have to plug/unplug the
> cart, not each individual piece of hardware on it.
That sounds like a good idea. IKEA, I believe has some roll arounds also.
Jeff
>
>
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 3 2010 9:00 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
me@privacy.net wrote:
> Most likely will wind up using one of these
> http://tinyurl.com/3aj5rop
That config is certainly a lot more stable than
the original swivel base or the equivalent table.
> The reason I just don't use a laptop is cause
> I want the horsepower of a desktop.... but
> want it on a "mobile" platform of some type.
> I ideally it would be adjustable in height so that I
> could use it a sit down desk.....or a STAND UP desk
None of the modified swivel chairs or table with a
single pole and swivel base would go up high enough.
And even with the ones like your original I would worry about the stability myself.
It might be alright with enough weight added to the base.
> http://www.ergotron.com/Products/tabid/65/PRDID/116/language/en-US/Default.aspx
==============================================================================
TOPIC: un seened photos
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5eac604b0fc090a8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 3 2010 11:14 pm
From: shiv shankar
FOR HOT SEXY PHOTOS&VIDEOS [EXPOSING PHOTO]
http://hotheroinesphotos.blogspot.com/2010/09/exposing-photo.html
FOR HOT VIDEOS WITH SEXY PHOTO
http://hotheroinesphotos.blogspot.com/2010/09/kangana-in-sexy-feel.html
HOT MALLU AUNTY
http://hotheroinesphotos.blogspot.com/2010/09/mallu-aunty.html
LASYA HOT SEXY PHOTO
http://hotheroinesphotos.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexy-lasya.html
[FOR 3 IN 1 SEX PHOTOS ]
AMISHAPATEL HOT BOOBS
http://babes-devi.blogspot.com/2010/07/amishpatel-latest-photos.html
ARCHANA UNSEENED EXPOSING PHOTOS
http://babes-devi.blogspot.com/2010/07/archana-unseened-photos.html
KATRINA KAIF HOT SEXY PHOTOS
http://babes-devi.blogspot.com/2010/07/katrina-sexy-looking-photos.html
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
