OT Math/Logging Joke

Is there any truth to this one? In which decade did you learn math? *********************** Teaching Math in 1950: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit? *********************** Teaching Math in 1960: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit? *********************** Teaching Math in 1970: A logger exchanges a set "L" of lumber for a set "M" of money. The cardinality of set "M" is 100. Each element is worth one dollar. Make 100 dots representing the elements of the set "M." The set "C," the cost of production contains 20 fewer points than set "M." Represent the set "C" as subset of set "M" and answer the following question: What is the cardinality of the set "P" of profits? *********************** Teaching Math in 1980: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20. *********************** Teaching Math in 1990: By cutting down beautiful forest trees, the logger makes $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the forest birds and squirrels "feel" as the logger cut down the trees? There are no wrong answers. *********************** Teaching Math in 2000: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $120. How does Arthur Andersen determine that his profit margin is $60? *********************** Teaching Math in 2010: El hachero vende un camion carga de madero por 100 pesos. La cuesta de production es........ (eh, wot's that you say?)
of truth in this one.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 28 Aug 2003 10:04:06 -0700, Bob Boswood wrote:

LOL, that was a good one. I immediately forwarded that to my two uncles who are math teachers, they'll love it.
david
--
It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have
learned English -- up to 50 words used in correct context -- no human being
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@autotrimdesignalaska.com says...

Heh. I'd just like to know where I'm going to be able to buy a truckload of lumber for 100 pesos in 2010.
Cheers, Abe
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in message wrote:

I can think of one...no one will buy it. Except maybe Arianna Huffington. Of course, it will just sit in her garage because she'll be taking a limo to a friend's private jet to get around.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
@NOcomcastSPAM.net says...

No, not even she will buy it. Remember, when someone like Arianna H, or Barbara S. make a statement like, "We must preserve our natural resources" you always need to add the words "for me" to the end of the sentence, and usually change the "we" to "you" so you get "You must preserve our natural resources for me" This removes the hypocrisy from these folks statements.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 20:24:14 -0500, "todd"

Sure they will. Who's they? _Fleets_ for starters! <G>
Large fleets would kill for a 30+ MPG 1/2 or 3/4 ton pickup or van. Think the phone company, meter readers, USPS, etc... Heck, UPS has had it's vehicles custom built for years, with fuel efficiency a top goal.
Using current hybrid technology, the vehicle could have reasonable acceleration as well, it my simply have a limited top speed. In fact, hybrid technology also makes things like all wheel drive, traction control, regenerative braking, etc... simple, easy, and affordable. Simply put one motor at each wheel. We've been doing traction control, regenerative braking and one motor per axle in diesel locomotives for decades!
I was quite surprised at the acceleration of a Toyota Prius during a test drive. Electric motors can deliver much more torque than small IC's at low RPM's.
The real reason for a v-10 or a large v-8 in a typical pickup is purely marketing penis extension. The same goes for cars with 0-60 times under 6 seconds and top speeds of 150 MPH+, in a country with a 65 MPH speed limit. Some tractor trailers have 1/2 the horsepower of some off-the rack pickups. The TT purchasers care much more about fuel efficiency and less about beating the guy in the next lane to the next traffic light than Johnny Middle-aged Homeowner.
Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 01:48:32 GMT, Mark & Juanita

I didn't say "nobody". Of course there are folks that need that stuff. Most of the massively powered vehicles I see tow nothing more than a Jet Ski, snowmobile, or other small load that could be towed with a decent V6. Some tow *nothing*, as they aren't even equipped with a hitch. Heck my old Toyota with a 22R 4 banger would tow any of it.
1/2 or 3/4 ton in the bed is easily moved with a reasonable motor. I've owned (2) 250 CI equipped Chevys and one 300 CI equipped Ford, all six cylinders, that had no problem moving their rated loads. The Ford towed a 21' Travel Trailer.
Again, go compare the power plant in a typical fleet-owned TT rig to that on a typical pickup. 'Cause we all know that the big rig dosen't haul much. <G>

Big deal, so make it 75, you still don't need a vehicle with a 150 MPH top end.
I'm simply commenting on what I see around me and what it gets used for. While I'm totally against laws telling folks what to do, a whole lot of people are being incredibly irresponsible.
Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That "big rig" is efficient only on pound/mile. On mile/gallon, which is what transportation of humans is about, it sucks.
What we need is a good dictator to keep us efficient....
in message wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 11:19:04 GMT, B a r r y B u r k e J r .

I'd guess that the big rigs are geared just a little bit differently than an F150. Lot more low end torque, for example. Once you get the load moving and are cruising down the highway, it probably don't take near so much horsepower. They're not really known for their 0-60 acceleration times neither.

I can see you're not exactly a car person...
Renata

(no stain for email)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

At 60 mph, it takes more power to overcome the wind resistance than it does to haul the weight. That is why they've become so much more aerodynamic in recent years. Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

RIGHT ON!!! My point exactly. <G>
But they are efficient for the fuel they use to haul a given load. The Ford pickup and Chevy vans I owned with straight sixes were similar. They had enough power to get the job done, with reasonable use of resources.

Actually I am. I'm a huge fan of motorsport. I like NASCAR stuff for the attempted low-tech level playing field, and I enjoy the high tech focus of Pro Rally. I live within 1 hour or so of (3) NASCAR sanctioned short tracks, a nationally known road course, and attend races at them regularity. I'll be at the road course (LIme Rock Park) tomorrow for a vintage event. However, what belongs on the track should stay on the track.
The Mini Cooper and Subaru WRX are perfect examples of cars that are fun to drive within typical laws, while still good, reliable, and efficient daily transportation.
I just get wound up about the 5 and 6 thousand pound trucks that go back and forth from home, to the cubicle, and to the mall. The ones that never carry a load and never tow anything more than a typical mid-size car can tow.
People who use trucks for the purpose they are designed for are NOT who I'm talking about.
Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@stainsmart.net says...

Kind of a funny twisted irony there. The demise of the station wagon is directly attributable to the propensity of government to extend overarching regulations and the screaming minority of social do-gooders in society demanding that the government "do something" about automobile efficiency. When the original CAFE standards were written, decreeing by fiat what "fleet" mileage for an automobile manufacturer's product line must meet, auto manufacturers realized that continuing to produce station wagons (which fell under the CAFE standards as automobiles) would not be feasible and still allow producing products in their other lines that people would want to buy and drive. Thus, they eliminated station wagons from their product lines allowing them to meet the CAFE standards. Since light trucks (thank goodness) did not fall under that set of regulations, the auto manufacturers noted that people were buying utility vehicles like Suburbans -- thus the SUV trend was born.
So, in a way, all those screaming about the "SUV problem" are actually responsible for creating that problem by eliminating the product that had been fulfilling that demand for years.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not necessarily. At a given point the wind drag will hold the vehicle back. A car that cruises at 75 in the 2500 RPM range, in overdrive, will not necessarily go much faster if it dosen't have the HP to overcome the drag.
I had a 19911.8L DOHC Mazda Protege that demonstrated this perfectly. The car would turn about 2600 RPM @ 70 MPH, with highway mileage of about 36-38 MPG. The top speed on that car was in the mid-90's, PLENTY of top end. The car simply didn't have the horses to turn 6K in overdrive.
By comparison, my company issued 2001 Cavalier LS turns about the same R's but averages about 22 MPG. The Cavalier has better pickup than the Mazda did, at a cost of 14-16 MPG, with no other benefits. The Cavalier can't carry more people, it can't carry more weight, etc... This is progress? <G>
Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 31-Aug-2003, B a r r y B u r k e J r .

No, it's American. Too bad those idiots in Detroit can't get their crap together long enough to build cars worth buying.
Tools may be better made domestic, but cars and trucks are better designed overseas. Why? No good reason.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 11:35:33 GMT, B a r r y B u r k e J r .

Mostly true, but the majority of TT rigs run between 300 and 400 HP. My BIL drove one that had a 550 HP supercharged diesel! He didn't have to slow down for the hills too much.
The real difference between large trucks and small trucks and cars is the gearing. Most TT rigs have 9 to 13 forward gears. That allows you to get a heavy load moving with a *lot* less power than it would take with higher gears. The problem is that it also means that you have to go up hills more slowly. While I can pull my 6,000 LB trailer just fine with a 351 CID V8, I have to slow down a lot on hills. Personally it doesn't matter, because I like the mileage the 351 gives me when I'm not pulling the trailer, but there is a point where it becomes a problem.
I drove a friend's Geo Metro a few years ago. He got about 50 mpg with it normally. It had a 3 cyl. engine and a 6 speed trans. (IIRC). With one person in the car it was great. But when 4 of us climbed in you practically rowed it with the shifter. Slight hills I didn't even know were there suddenly required a downshift and a drop in speed. There was absolutely no way to maintain 65 in that thing with 4 people in it.
Personally I am looking toward hybrid technologies as the fuel economy solution. The only real problem they have is that for long, sustained travel they can't produce the electricity to maintain speed.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 10:11:30 -0700, Tim Douglass

Think about it as if your residence were powered by oil.
You could choose your supplier via 100% competition, depending on how involved the government gets. <G>
Also, the electric company would no longer need a distribution network, along with the very expensive equipment and right of way that goes with it. They would probably rather dispatch a delivery 2-3 times a year to replace it. In many places, they're still reading meters monthly, so they're going there anyway. Those here in the Northeast USA are currently battling over a cable in Long Island Sound. These battles would be a thing of the past.
In some areas of the company a right of way is pennies, elsewhere it's gold.
Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Renata responds:

Whatever happened to mini-vans? Seems like to me they replace station wagons more economically than do Yukons, Tahoes and Excursions, not to mention the Hummer POS that puled up next to me a week or so ago. 5-6 mpg and a hearty "I got mine, so screw the world!"
Charlie Self
"Old age is fifteen years older than I am." Oliver Wendell Holmes
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01 Sep 2003 16:24:41 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) wrote:

I wasn't talking about SUVs, I was talking about _trucks_. <G> Apparently, it is now the fashionable thing in some areas for women to drive full-size trucks. To them, SUV's are for soccer moms.
I know of four who are following this trend. Two of them are single, work in offices, and live in apartments. One of these is a 345 HP 3/4 ton, 4x4 Hemi Ram, used only as a daily driver. None of the four tow anything, nor put anything in the back that wouldn't fit in the trunk of a car. This is silly, as are men doing the same. <G>
I know women who need trucks, as they pursue careers and hobbies where they tow and haul big stuff. The four I'm talking about don't.
Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Keep_it_in_the_newsgroup snipped-for-privacy@aol.com says...

... and you know for sure they don't intend to pursue something in the future that might require such capabilities. What bothers me about these lines of discussion is the thought that you know better than they what they should be driving and what should suit their lifestyle. I'm sure there is someone out there who thinks that home woodworkers are wasting valuable natural resources that could better be used by "professional" firms and wasting precious electricity and using the resources required to manufacture WW machinery in an inefficient manner compared to what a dedicated industrial production facility can produce.
Even if those four folks don't have future plans, while one may question the wisdom in terms of expense that the four are incurring, that is a matter for those four to decide (between themselves and their means), not those standing to the sidelines determining what activities are good for one person and not another.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.