Jump to content

Borg warner

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Borg warner

  1. That is such a beautiful car and it's the perfect two-tone color combination. But if I had it, I'd take off the fender skirts. Fender skirts are popular now with restored '50's cars because fender skirts are now regarded as a "50's" kind of thing, but I've never liked them and most people back the 50's either never ordered them as an option or took them off if they already had them just like I did with my 1950 Cadillac that I owned in 1973. And most of the ones you see these days are reproductions and most likely are not original. Another change I would make would be to take out the original 324 cubic inch engine and put it aside and replace it with a later J2 394 cubic inch engine that is externally identical to both the 324 and the original gen 1 303 cubic inch "Rocket" V8. then I would put on the original engine's air cleaner, valve covers, and exhaust manifolds and pretend that was the original 324 but one that just happened to have a lot more tire smoking horsepower and torque which would make it a lot more fun to drive. The most powerful engine available in 1955 had a four barrel, a compression of 8.5:1 and produce 202 hp and 332 lb⋅ft of torque. That was not bad for 1955 when a four barrel 283 produced 180 hp but in the early sixties before the Gen 1 engine was replaced by the Gen 2 330, 400, an 455, the 394 had 10.25:1 compression, a higher CFM 4 barrel, more displacement, and developed 345 HP and 460 lb⋅ft of torque.
  2. Guy walks into a bar in Madison Wisconsin, where there's a robot bartender. The robot says, "What will you have?" The guy says, "Whiskey." The robot brings back his drink and says to the man, "What's your IQ?" The guy says," 168."The robot then proceeds to talk about physics, space exploration and medical technology. Another guy walks into the bar. The robot bartender says, "What will you have?" The guy says, "Bud." Again, the robot brings the man his drink and says, "What's your IQ?" The guy says, "100."The robot then starts to talk about Nascar, Football, and the latest news. Another guy walks into the bar.The robot says, "What will you have?" The guy says, "Lite Beer," and the robot brings him his beer. The robot then says, "What's your IQ?" The guy says, "Uh, about 50." The robot leans in real close and says,"So, how 'bout that Joe Biden, isn't he doing a great job?"
  3. Anyone remember "The Man From U.N.C.L.E."?
  4. Public service message to violent suspects who resist arrest:
  5. I've been to plenty of pot luck dinners and I'm diabetic and there's always something I can't eat, so I just don't eat it. and anytime I've ever gone to a pancake breakfast, I've always brought my own bottle of diet syrup. The problem with trying to make everything foolproof is that it accommodates the fools who don't know how to deal with their own limitations.
  6. Snopes says it wasn't bird poop. They say Biden was standing near piles of processed corn and that it wasn't birdshit, it was a "Corn by-product".
  7. Once again I'm made to wonder, are they just incredibly stupid or are they trying to destroy the country on purpose? --A long article. but the facts are all there to show how devastating the results of bureaucratic bungling will be on the supply chain. And what does the Securities and Exchange Commission have to do with environmental regulations anyway??? The Green U.S. Supply-Chain Rules Set to Unspool and Rattle the Global Economy By Vince Bielski, RealClearInvestigations April 7, 2022 Making a box of Cocoa Puffs is a complicated global affair. It could start with cocoa farms in Africa, corn fields in the U.S. or sugar plantations in Latin America. Then thousands of processors, transporters, packagers, distributors, office workers and retailers join the supply chain before a kid in Minnesota, where General Mills is based, pours the cereal into a bowl. Now imagine the challenge that General Mills faces in counting the greenhouse gas emissions from all of these people, machines, vehicles, buildings and other products involved in this Cocoa Puff supply chain – then multiply that by the 100-plus brands belonging to the food giant. Thousands of public companies may soon have such a daunting task to comply with a new set of climate rules proposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Hailed by prominent environmental groups as a long sought victory, the sweeping plan released in late March would force companies to grapple with the unpredictable impact of climate change by disclosing reams of new information to investors. What are your company’s climate risks, such as severe weather, and the possible financial impacts? How have the threats affected your business strategies and what’s the plan to avoid the dangers? The most consequential and controversial piece of the SEC’s proposed regulations would require corporations to calculate their total greenhouse gas footprint, including from the supply chain. The regulations also carry political weight for Democrats in the runup to the midterms in November. The Biden administration and centrist Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia are trying once again to breathe life into clean energy legislation that died earlier this year amid a feud between them. If this latest effort at compromise fails – with Manchin reportedly looking for federal support for fossil fuels as well as renewable energy – then much of President Biden’s ambitious climate agenda will be left riding on the SEC proposal. SEC head Gary Gensler says shareholders are demanding climate risk disclosures to make smarter investment decisions and hold companies accountable for “greenwashing” their operations. The regulations will also provide investors in the Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) movement more leverage in their ongoing campaigns to pressure companies to reduce their carbon footprints. While many companies like Walmart and business groups like the Chamber of Commerce generally support the idea of required climate disclosures, they object to what they see as the SEC’s heavy-handedness in standardizing rules across the economy. The Chamber is calling for flexibility so companies can customize their climate disclosures based on what’s relevant to their businesses and investors. The biggest beef from companies is the rule that would require them to calculate and disclose supply chain emissions, called Scope 3. Big companies have thousands of suppliers operating in hundreds of countries, making the task of coming up with a reasonable accounting enormously complicated. First of all, many suppliers of products and services are private companies not under the control of the SEC. They may refuse to cooperate in a count because of the costs and the implications that they might have to change their business practices to reduce emissions, said Professor Gerald Patchell, who has analyzed the problems of supply chain reporting. Another obstacle is that many smaller suppliers, like General Mills’ cocoa farmers in Africa, don’t have the capacity to measure the emissions from their own fertilizers, tractors and farming practices. So companies will have to rely on broad country or industry averages that likely don’t reflect the actual emissions created by the suppliers, according to researchers. “The data that companies will be asked to collect from thousands of suppliers is mind-boggling and certainly unprecedented,” said Patchell, who researches environmental policy and business. “It’s an idealized concept of what can actually be done by a company.” The upshot is that regulations meant to bring clarity to investors on climate risk may end up providing highly unreliable emissions disclosures, leaving them “worse off,” wrote SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, a Trump appointee who voted against the 500-page proposal. It “forces investors to view companies through the eyes of a vocal set of stakeholders, for whom a company's climate reputation is of equal or greater importance than a company's financial performance." Two decades ago, the international environmental group CDP pioneered the strategy of organizing institutional investors to pressure companies around the world to reveal at least a piece of their carbon footprint. The CDP pitch: If companies figure out which parts of their sprawling global operations produce the most emissions – from farming and manufacturing to distribution and consumer use – they are better able to reduce them. For automakers, most emissions come from driving vehicles, not making them. For tech firms, it’s the opposite. Manufacturing devices is a bigger climate issue than using them. CDP’s campaigns have made grinding progress over the years. In 2021, it gathered more than 160 global investment firms, including bond giant Pimco, Harvard Management Company and hedge fund AQR Capital Management, to target 1,300 companies worldwide. They are asked to make a long list of climate-related disclosures on CDP’s platform. Some companies have resisted the pressure while others likely have been shamed into making rudimentary examinations of their emissions to appease investors. In all, about 570 U.S. public companies – an estimated 15% of the total – have reported a bit of climate data to London-based CDP, with Intel and PepsiCo among the dozens that earned high marks for transparency. More recently, some companies have come to see climate change as a direct threat to the bottom line, particularly those that depend on commodities like General Mills. It didn’t require much pushing from investors to begin studying its own supply chain to find that farming is by far its biggest emissions hot spot, mostly through the use of chemical fertilizers and tilling of the soil which releases sequestered carbon. In a candid 2021 Global Responsibility Report, the company said extreme weather events were already hurting its ability to deliver quality food products. With the backing of CDP and investment goliaths like BlackRock, the SEC now wants to turn this scattershot voluntary reporting into a mandatory regime for most public companies. The easier pieces force companies to report emissions from operations they own or control such as a corporate headquarters (Scope 1), and the energy they use (Scope 2). Some firms already send this data to CDP without much trouble. The Scope 3 rule on counting emissions from the chain of thousands of suppliers, on the other hand, may be a world of trouble. The agency acknowledges that it doesn't have a handle on the costs but that they may be “significant” as companies hire consultants, accountants and data specialists to do the job. But since the vast majority of emissions come from supply chains, environmental groups are advocating that Scope 3 remain in the final SEC regulations after the 60-day public comment period. Big companies could start making disclosures to the agency as early as 2024, although lawsuits challenging the authority of the SEC to make climate rules are likely. “We see the disclosure of Scope 3 emissions as essential in order to make sure that companies have plans to be able to address those emissions,” said Julie Nash, a senior program director at Ceres, another prominent investor advocacy group. “Disclosure is the essential first step.” Ceres, however, also knows how tough it will be for companies to calculate supply chain emissions from its own campaign focusing on the food industry. The industry is the perfect target. It produces a third of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, according to a UN agency. For many of these companies, the supply chain generates about 80% of their total emissions. Last year, Boston-based Ceres organized more than 30 institutional investors, including giants such as Allianz Global Investors, to press 50 food companies to report Scope 3 emissions. Ceres used the same reporting requirements – called the Greenhouse Gas Protocol – as the SEC proposes in its rules. The protocol covers 15 reporting categories from the beginning of a product’s creation to the end of its life. McDonald’s, for instance, would have to account for emissions from the production of beef it buys from many countries. The disclosures would include processing and transporting the ingredients, packaging the products, disposing of waste and burning energy along the way. Then there are emissions from business offices, the commuting of 200,000 employees and the operations of 40,000 restaurants globally. So how is Ceres' young campaign going? So far, few if any of the 50 companies are fully reporting their supply chain emissions. Only 23 disclose some of them, according to Ceres. Julie Nash says the complexity of counting emissions and the lack of data pose big obstacles for food companies. Consider how a food company would have to account for beef supplied from Brazil. The cattle may move to five different ranches before reaching the slaughterhouse. The company would need to know precise details of the operations of each of those ranches. What did the cattle eat at each ranch? How efficiently did the animals turn food into meat? Did their grazing cause the destruction of forests, which store carbon in trees and soil? Each of these factors, which differ depending on the ranch and the country, significantly affects the carbon footprint of cattle. “It’s very difficult for companies to trace this information because there are so many different stages in the supply chain,” said Nash, a Ph.D. who directs Ceres’ food and forest program. “So there’s a great deal of work that's needed to improve traceability and transparency to have the most accurate numbers for a Scope 3 analysis.” General Mills stands out among the 50 companies. A spokesperson for the company, which makes breakfast cereals, soups, pizza, and pet food, says it follows almost all of the reporting protocols in its quest to reduce its emissions 30% by 2030. The company’s Scope 3 calculations revealed that 54% of its emissions come from growing and transporting crops and turning them into food ingredients, according to its website. General Mills breaks out 28 categories of emissions, including packaging at 8%, and consuming its products, such as shopping and cooking, at 17%. But how accurate are any of these emissions numbers? It’s impossible to say. The maker of Cocoa Puffs doesn’t send bean counters to every cocoa farm in Ghana and Cote d’lvoire to find out the precise types of fertilizers, tractors, fuel and agricultural practices they use. That would be prohibitively expensive, given that the company has suppliers operating in more than 100 countries. Instead, General Mills and other companies use Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) computer models to tally emissions. But these models, like those used in everything from economics to climate science, are only as accurate as the consultants who design them and the data that’s fed into them. The data is the biggest problem. General Mills hired the consulting firm Quantis to calculate its supply chain emissions. Quantis uses national averages for particular businesses like cocoa farms in Ghana that may be several steps removed from the actual farms that supply General Mills, creating uncertainty about the accuracy of the estimates. Nor do computer models typically include some of the biggest sources of emissions, such as the release from tilling the soil and from converting forests and grasslands, which sequester carbon, to crops. Quantis didn’t respond to a request for an interview. “We need a more accurate estimate of our baseline emissions,” Steven Rosenzweig, a soil scientist at General Mills, told the U.S. Department of Agriculture in February. “Using these databases means our current footprint is static, it doesn’t change from year to year. It also might be based on the global average that isn’t very relevant to the practices that farmers in our supply sheds are using.” To make better Scope 3 estimates, Rosenzweig said, companies need to develop more sophisticated data tracking systems, which will require satellites to monitor changes to land use. In the meantime, General Mills is taking the ambitious step of attempting to transform the agricultural practices of its farmers in the U.S. and abroad who supply key ingredients like wheat, oats, dairy and cocoa. The company and industry partners are financing efforts to support and train farmers in regenerative agriculture. It uses less fertilizer and tilling to reduce emissions and other methods to improve the health of soil, which is rapidly degrading worldwide. General Mills has more than 115,000 acres enrolled in its regenerative management programs and aims for one million acres by 2030. “We consider regenerative agriculture to be our greatest opportunity for meeting our commitment to reduce our climate footprint by 30% by 2030,” Rosenzweig said. Advocates of the SEC proposal say today’s reporting flaws will be improved as more companies develop Scope 3 expertise and collect better data to share with each other. The number of companies that disclose emissions to CDP continues to grow every year, showing it’s just a matter of time. Professor Patchell disagrees, saying that forcing companies to make such elaborate disclosures is a waste of resources. Big firms already have a general understanding of the main sources of their emissions, such as agriculture in the food industry. The money needed to produce a precise accounting of emissions, he says, would be better spent on actually reducing them. McDonald’s, for instance, didn’t need a full accounting of its greenhouse gas footprint to pledge to reach net-zero by 2050. Given the difficulties in determining supply chain emissions, the SEC has carved out a few exemptions. For instance small firms, such as those with less than $100 million in revenue, won’t have to comply. The companies also will be shielded from lawsuits for passing on faulty data provided they have a reasonable basis for disclosing it. The SEC says it will help investors judge the reliability of the disclosures by requiring companies to reveal the sources of the data, including economic and government studies, suppliers, consultants and other third parties. Asking investors to wade through all those footnotes is a tall order, but it’s not unlike what they already do with other financial disclosures, said Michael Lepech, a Stanford professor of environmental engineering who has worked with LCA models. “When you read a financial statement, businesses talk about significant uncertainties associated with the assets and liabilities,” he said. “It’s just buried in the extensive notes. And carbon accounting is in many regards no different than that.” But the Chamber of Commerce, a business lobby, says the Scope 3 mandate may leave investors more confused than informed. The Chamber is pushing for an open-ended reporting mandate based on general principles to determine what’s relevant for investors rather than precise rules, such as the Scope 3 protocol. Companies and their investors should be left to determine the necessary metrics, which means some may choose to report Scope 3 and others won’t, said Evan Williams, director of the chamber’s center for capital markets.
  8. Little known fact: He Co-wrote "She Loves You" (Yeah, Yeah, Yeah!) with John Lennon https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/05/entertainment/bobby-rydell/index.html
  9. My favorite, and in my opinion the best, hot dogs are Pink's chili dogs which unfortunately can only be found in two locations in the entire world. One, the original, is in Hollywood on the corner of Melrose and La Brea open 24 hours and has been there since 1941. The other location is in Las Vegas. The L.A. location is in a fairly safe part of town with fairly adequate parking. What makes these hot dogs the best in the world is they have the natural casings on them and are steamed, not boiled, and SNAP when you bite into them. The buns are also steamed and they re normally served with mustard, onions and chili but you can order them any any way tou like. I like to order mine with mustard onions, chili, and sauerkraut. Another really great hot dog. also only found in Hollywood and parts of L.A. is Oki-dog, named that way because the original owners of the first hot dog stand were Okinawan and one of the first hot dog stand was across the street from an Okinawan nursery. An Oki-dog consists of two hot dogs, two strips of pastrami, Chili, and American cheese wrapped in a flour tortilla like a burrito. The hot dogs and the chili are nowhere as good as Pinks, but the combination of hot dogs, pastrami, chili and Cheese is really good. There used to be 3 Oki-dog locations on the L.A. area and one location was a popular rock and roll and punk rock hangout and eventually became a gang hangout and was closed down. The location next to the nursery is on Fairfax Blvd near Santa Monica blvd and is the safest location to visit with plenty of parking. There is another location on Pico Boulevard that's still there but that part of town is probably pretty sketchy these days. Here's a story about the Oki-dog location that got closed down: https://thetakeout.com/we-ll-see-you-all-at-oki-dogs-the-story-of-l-a-s-le-1846561092
  10. Thanks for the hidden contents revealing that it was a 1963 chevy corvair concept car with an Eye-talian designed designed body. I wondered what itwas and what kind of engine it had and if it had gullwing doors.
  11. Yep. 1966 2+2 catalina. A friend of mine in high school, (I graduated in 66) his parents had a brand new 66 Safari station wagon with the 421 and he got to drive it sometimes and it was FAST and could light up the tires.
  12. Beautiful, but what is it?
  13. https://texashillcountry.com/orange-ladybugs-threat/
  14. President Biden on the border crisis: "Who do I need to fire, to fix this?"
  15. President Biden on the border crisis: "Who do I need to fire, to fix this?" WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden was livid. He had been in office only two months at the time, and there was already a crisis at the southwest border. Thousands of migrant children were jammed into unsanitary Border Patrol stations. Republicans were accusing Biden of flinging open the borders. And his aides were blaming one another. Biden came into office promising to dismantle what he described as the inhumane immigration policies of former President Donald Trump. But for much of Biden’s presidency so far, the White House has been divided by furious debates over how — and whether — to proceed in the face of a surge of migrants crossing the southwest border. Senior aides have been battling one another over how quickly to roll back the most restrictive policies and what kind of system would best replace them. Now Biden finds himself the target of attacks from all sides: Immigration activists accuse him of failing to prioritize the human rights of millions of immigrants. Conservatives have pointed to surges of migrants at the border as evidence that the president is weak and ineffective. And some moderate Democrats now fear that lifting Trump-era border restrictions could hurt them politically. This account of the Biden administration’s handling of the border over the past 15 months is based on interviews with 20 current and former officials, lawmakers and activists, most of whom requested anonymity to discuss private deliberations. Biden came into office with high hopes, saying he wanted a system that would allow the United States to determine, in a more compassionate way, which migrants should be allowed to stay in the country. He recruited a team of immigration advocates and others eager to put in place the humane system they had envisioned for years. But the slow pace of change has left some of Biden’s longtime allies doubting his commitment and wondering whether he is more interested in keeping the highly charged issue from dominating his presidency. Virtually all of the aides who came on board early in the administration have left the White House, frustrated by what they describe as repeated fights with some of the president’s most senior advisers over whether to lift Trump-era policies. Even some of Biden’s more enforcement-minded aides have departed. Ron Klain issued a warning to his staff last summer. Klain, the White House chief of staff, gathered senior aides, including Susan Rice, the president’s domestic policy adviser; Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, the homeland security adviser; and Amy Pope, the top migration adviser. Klain told them they needed to make sure the administration was not pandering to people who wanted an immediate end to Trump-era border restrictions. If they did not find a way to deter soaring illegal crossings at the southwest border, he said, accusations about border chaos would grow worse, anger moderate voters and potentially sink the party during the 2022 midterms. As border crossings increased, disagreements erupted over how quickly to dismantle Trump’s anti-immigrant policies and what to replace them with. Record numbers of migrants, including people driven out of their homes in Central America by the economic effects of the pandemic, gangs and natural disasters, surged to the border last summer, in part enticed by Biden’s promise of a less harsh approach to immigration than that of his predecessor. About 214,000 migrants were taken into custody in July 2021 — the first time that many people had been apprehended in a single month in more than two decades. Biden has taken a series of actions to reverse his predecessor’s policies. He halted construction of the border wall, created a task force to reunite families separated at the border and reversed Trump’s ban on considering domestic violence or gang violence as a basis for asylum. He also proposed sweeping legislation to overhaul the nation’s immigration system, though it has stalled in Congress. Despite those actions, the infighting among the president’s aides continued. Xavier Becerra, the secretary of health and human services, whose department runs shelters for migrant children, said the Department of Homeland Security needed to be more aggressive in turning away older teenagers, which would have changed Biden’s policy of letting all unaccompanied migrant children into the country. Rice repeatedly said Becerra should provide more shelters. Alejandro Mayorkas, the secretary of homeland security, said the Department of Health and Human Services needed to move the children more quickly out of overcrowded Border Patrol stations. For months, aides clashed over an effort intended to speed up consideration of asylum cases at the border by allowing immigration officers to decide the claims rather than overburdened judges. Some of the former immigration advocates in the West Wing, including Rice’s deputy for immigration, Esther Olavarria, worried that rushing through the new process would limit due process for migrants. Rice, Klain and others argued that processing claims faster — and swiftly deporting migrants who fail to win asylum — was an important way to ease the burden on the system and deter illegal crossings. Biden grew annoyed by the delays in putting the asylum changes into practice. In meetings on immigration with his top aides, he often asked what resources and funding the team of former advocates and immigration veterans needed for the policy. The administration did not release the final language for the new policy until last month. And because of staffing and funding issues, the plan will be rolled out slowly and not in time to offer significant help with the expected spike in migrants seeking asylum later this spring. One of the most fraught debates inside the West Wing over the last year has been what to do about Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, which forced migrants seeking asylum to wait south of the border until their cases were decided. Human rights advocates assailed the conditions in Mexico, where migrants often stayed in squalid camps. As a candidate, Biden had condemned the program. Once in office, he quickly terminated it. But it was one program that had been effective at keeping some migrants out of border detention facilities. Two longtime immigration experts who had agreed to short-term assignments — Pope, a former Obama administration official, and Roberta Jacobson, a former U.S. ambassador to Mexico — left after a few months. An official at the Department of Homeland Security, David Shahoulian, who served as the go-between with the White House, left in September. Who do I need to fire, to fix this?" Here's the obvious answer, staring this fool right in the face:
  16. Biden announces measures to crack down on ‘ghost guns’
  17. I've never heard of a Not-a-Lady bug. Do bugs have more than one gender now?
  18. 18 inch blade on the Cold steel Gladius.
  19. Not exactly a Sword, actually. it's a Cold Steel Gladius "Machete" that is much more like a Roman short sword than it is a machete. I had one years ago but gave it to my nephew and tehn later decided I liked it so much I wanted to get another one for my self. I have one other sword, a Samurai sword and I used to take lessons that were a combination of Kendo (sword fighting) and Bojitsu (staff fighting) and we learned the moves to use with the short staff to counter the sword. I have a nice modern Katana with a sturdy but plain handle but with an excellent steel blade that takes a razor sharp edge. It cost about 200 dollars. I ordered the Cold steel Gladius almost a year ago in August 2021 and unfortunately Cold steel was back ordered on a lot of their machetes which I was told by a friend at a local gun shop who I bought my original one from, came from South Africa. I ordered my newest one from a place called KnifeCenter, and it was less that what Cold steel charged but with shipping about the same, and after I placed my order they sent me an email and said that it was back-ordered from Cold steel and I could either get a refund or wait until cold steel had them again and that they would send me an email every two weeks updating me as to the status and would notify me when my order was shipped. Recently I was tired of waiting and almost canceled teh order but just this morning got an email that my order had shipped USPS and provided me with a tracking number.
  • Create New...