You fall down and hit your head;pass out and when you wake its 1960

www.google.com/search?q=suddenly+it%27s+1960+ford&newwindow=1&sxsrf=ALiCzsYqIlqXOTeCffHob5_vooPGHwcqOA%3A1666325853882&source=hp&ei=XR1SY_z6MtqDoASXyqD4Ag&iflsig=AJiK0e8AAAAAY1IrbRv6lTa5kjudC9gEVA8MCQcPSRgk&oq=sud&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIECCMQJzIECCMQJzIECC4QQzIECAAQQzILCC4QsQMQ1AIQkQIyBAgAEEMyCggAELEDEIMBEEMyCwguELEDENQCEJECMgQIABBDMgQILhBDOgUILhCRAjoRCC4QgAQQsQMQgwEQxwEQ0QM6CwgAEIAEELEDEIMBOgcILhDUAhBDOgoILhDHARDRAxBDUABYxSdgsIUBaABwAHgAgAGMAYgBjgOSAQMwLjOYAQCgAQE&sclient=gws-wiz#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:29053486,vid:hadDgi9Ysno

. . . and you have to readjust your whole lifestyle. What would you miss the most?

I tell ya what I wouldnt mi$$... THE GARBAGE IN THE WORLD NOW!!

Would miss --

A larger selection of TV channels.

Wouldn't miss --

Too many channels, in particular paying for ones never watched.

(yes, these aren't contradictions.)

Would miss --

VCR's/other devices to record TV shows.

Wouldn't miss --

The smartphone thing--being so subservient to them so as to walk along staring at them or sit at the green light transfixed by them.

I would miss the internet, and having hundreds of channels to look at.

Living in that year wouldnt be too bad however. Lots of jobs. Housing is much cheaper. Not only that, move to California, housing is cheap there too, actually as cheap there as most of the country. Move to Las Vegas and work in a casino and get to see amazing acts for cheap.

What would you miss the most?
!

PBS, Personal computers, Environmental responsibility (we really believed that the environment could just absorb anything we threw at it)

Probably Nothing, my life was GOOD in the 60's, 70's.....

And great foods and terrific prices for good quality.

I'd be back to being the dancing queen.

Is it April 23,1960? I'd rush to Delaware to see the coming of the glory.

When you think about it, Septic tanks with local septic leech beds were still fairly common in smaller communities in 1960. Many back yards had that perpetually damp area that was no fun to play in.

And, if you got your water from a well.....gish!!

Sanitation (thankfully) has come a long way in the past 150 years.

https://i.imgur.com/s8fknGg.gif

When you think about it, Septic tanks with local septic leech beds were still fairly common in smaller communities in 1960. Many back yards had that perpetually damp area that was no fun to play in.

And, if you got your water from a well.....gish!!

Yeah there's still a lot of septic tanks around here (Indy). We have them in this neighborhood, but we are also on city water.

Yeah there's still a lot of septic tanks around here (Indy). We have them in this neighborhood, but we are also on city water.

Yeah, you guys are going thru that "deep tunnel" sewer separation thing down there in Indy, too,.... aren't you? Same here in Fort Wayne.

We were on a Septic tank until 1972.. Thats when the city came through and told everyone in the neighborhood to either hook up to their pipe, or face condemnation. It was a surprise, because they just showed up with a backhoe one day, dug a trench across everyone's back yard, put in their trunk line, and then said "you got 90 days to hook up, or else". Such nice folks.

But, the rivers are a lot cleaner as a result.

Yeah, you guys are going thru that "deep tunnel" sewer separation thing down there in Indy, too,.... aren't you? Same here in Fort Wayne.

We were on a Septic tank until 1972.. Thats when the city came through and told everyone in the neighborhood to either hook up to their pipe, or face condemnation. It was a surprise, because they just showed up with a backhoe one day, dug a trench across everyone's back yard, put in their trunk line, and then said "you got 90 days to hook up, or else". Such nice folks.

But, the rivers are a lot cleaner as a result.

Yes they are working hard on those huge, deep tunnels--to address the problem of the combined sewer and storm drains. The combined setup is normally not a problem until there are major rains--in which the combined setup overflows to the river. With the tunnels, the combined overflow diverts there, and when things calm down, it goes on to the treatment plant.

The problem of sewers in this neighborhood is that there are a few large hills, up and down, which would probably make sewers extremely expensive. As a result, so far we have heard of no plans.

I think where Ft Wayne struggles is in the areas that have been annexed in the past 30 years. Back before then, they had most of the houses inside city limits on their sewer.

But, the houses that were outside the limits were still allowed Septic systems. As some of those areas have been annexed, it has been contentious getting folks to hook up.

I believe they get socked into some sort of limbo where their current use is grandfathered, but if they ever go to sell the house, any new occupant won't get a certificate of occupancy without being connected.

Is it April 23,1960? I'd rush to Delaware to see the coming of the glory.

umm, I'm not up to checking what went on on April 23, 1960-....want to say or at least a hint....

I believe that was the day that Eddie Van Halen's former wife started gaining weight.

I think that "product safety" is another item I might miss. Seems like there was an almost lackadaisical attention paid to long term consequences of things in our everyday environment. Things that were eventually found to be toxic and quietly withdrawn from the marketplace before litigation.

Like when bug spray had actual poison in it, instead of just oils that suffocate the little abdomen breathers. Or like when Lysol spray contained actual toxins, instead of relying upon alcohol to create an environment non-conducive to germs..

I suspect that a lot of things we once kept in our broom closets and pantries are verboten goods today, just nobody figured out the harm they were causing in time to sue somebody.

I believe that was the day that Eddie Van Halen's former wife started gaining weight.

Oh Oh Oh, another piece of junk info!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd miss the advances we've made in transportation. in 1960, the interstate system was in it's infancy. It's true that the interstates are sterile and boring, and taking the local routes is far more interesting. But the fact remains if you simply need to "get someplace", the interstates will make the duration of the journey much shorter.

And, while jet airplanes existed in 1960, they were far less prevalent. If you were going to fly out of my town, you'd surely be inside a propeller driven craft...roughly doubling your travel time (compared to a jet between the same two points)

True,there were far more passenger trains available back then. But a simple trip from Chicago to LA will be 3 days, with meals and a surcharge for a sleeper, unless you want to sleep in a chair for the duration.
Compare that to a jet that will get you there in under 4 hours.

The Beatles and The British Invasion and all of the music that followed

The internet

Microwave ovens

classic tv shows from the 70's and 80's

Painless Dentistry

Is it April 23,1960? I'd rush to Delaware to see the coming of the glory.

I am sure that is the day that Opus arrived in this life. Right?

I am sure that is the day that Opus arrived in this life. Right?

It's VB day!

As I see it, our world has gotten so ugly and this ole grandma who NEVER used the F word prior to 3 yrs ago, uses it way way way too much. Would have never heard or said it in my old days. I had an incident last night with a market employee about a mistake and I shouted out to him "oh F"....sure wish I had not.

If it was January 23th I'd see my parents Marriage. lol

My parents were married in '60, later in the year.

At the risk of offending those here who consider microwave food "nuked," I would miss microwave ovens. I also like digital tuning for car radios and radio in the house, and that tech didn't exist then. DVDs and other video recordings would also be absent and missed a lot, along with the ability to catch dozens of TV channels and look up info easily on internet.

One item that wasn't so prevelent was soda in coffee type shops. Coffee, Tea, milk, and water were so much more drunk. There was sodas then but it seemed you saw more people specially people over age 25 drank the first few items. Now everyone drinks more sodas. As for train rail service I wouldn't mind a leisurely trip and see some scenery. You didn't hear too many stories of angry grumbly passengers on trains but you sure do on plane travel.

It's VB day!Yes thats a good day,I love VBB Stevie :)

I believe that was the day that Eddie Van Halen's former wife started gaining weight.

Yeah, she was anywhere between 6 to 8 pounds about ! :D:cool:

In 1960 :lembeck: was 11 and 12 years old !! :):cool::D

I'd miss the advances we've made in transportation. in 1960, the interstate system was in it's infancy. It's true that the interstates are sterile and boring, and taking the local routes is far more interesting. But the fact remains if you simply need to "get someplace", the interstates will make the duration of the journey much shorter.

And, while jet airplanes existed in 1960, they were far less prevalent. If you were going to fly out of my town, you'd surely be inside a propeller driven craft...roughly doubling your travel time (compared to a jet between the same two points)

True,there were far more passenger trains available back then. But a simple trip from Chicago to LA will be 3 days, with meals and a surcharge for a sleeper, unless you want to sleep in a chair for the duration.
Compare that to a jet that will get you there in under 4 hours.

I wonder why the U.S. doesn't have high-speed (bullet) trains like they do over in Asia and Europe?

It would be neat if we had those trains that go straight from NY - LA, and other major cities here.

I wonder why the U.S. doesn't have high-speed (bullet) trains like they do over in Asia and Europe?

It would be neat if we had those trains that go straight from NY - LA, and other major cities here.

That's a hugely contested issue in some circles. And one can make the answer as simple, or complex, as one has the will to debate the facts.

But greatly distilled it's a politics vs money issue.

Almost all of the nations that have thrown their hat into the high speed passenger rail arena are countries where the central government actively spends money creating jobs. Call it "workfare". And it's just not as popular to do that sort of thing in the USA.

Second, passenger rail is almost always a money loser, requiring generous subsidies to just survive. Amtrak is notorious for this, and other than Acela in the northeast corridor, most of Amtraks routes are over track owned by freight railroads that are not up to the standard that High Speed Passenger Rail (HSPR) requires. and dedicated track that meets the standard required , is hella expensive to build.

So, there is a high barrier to entry, to get into a business where you're sure to lose money.

Other factors is that LA to New York really is a bit longer than most people have the patience to ride...'even at high speed. The countries that have built HSPR, have destinations more inn the 800-1200 mile range.

The people who are willing to ride from NY to LA on a train with a smile on their faces the whole way, are amusement seekers, and the conventional wisdom is that if they want to ride an amusement ride, then let them pay for it, it's not the taxpayers responsibility to pay their fare on the Ferris wheel. ( which I agree with, thrill seekers do not deserve a subsidy out of my pocket).

NOW, there are hybrid possibilities being explored. There is a company down in Florida called "Brightline" that is pioneering a new business model building a HSPR line between Miami and Orlando. Where their gimmick is that they own all the land around their stations, and are building apartments, office buildings, and shopping centers. And they expect to make their profit off the real estate aspect having easy access to mass transit. The trains are just a draw in other words.

Lots of people are looking at that as a harbinger of great things to come...a new paradigm. But, I have to point out this isn't the first time people have hatched "can't fail" get rich quick schemes on Florida real estate. :crazy:

On an optimistic note, I recall there is a significant surcharge added to plane fare for people flying into Miami...every ticket in fact.

SO, if Brightline fare is cheaper than the Miami surcharge on air travel, it might make sense for Miami bound snowbirds to book a flight to Orlando instread, and take the train the last few miles. ;)

You might be tempted to point out that Amtrak provides coast to coast rail passenger service, under the assumption that the service somehow defeats my logic stated above.

It doesn't. Amtrak was born out of a deal with the devil, it was a ploy to relieve the freight railroads from their obligation to provide passenger service. Passenger rail was costing the railroads so much money they were going broke. The compromise, Amtrak, was a known money loser before the first train left the station. But the goal was to allow the freight railroads to avoid bankruptcy. AND the Federal Government was willing to spend money for that.

It was intended as a stall tactic that was supposed to only last 20 years or so, at first. A way to protect congressmen from their citizens dependent upon rail for their transit.

The original legislation was that if Amtrak was not profitable in so many years, it was to be killed off entirely. And that deadline has repeatedly been pushed back, by people too scared to face the music.

California is currently building a HSPR line between LA and San Francisco.

Do a search for "California High Speed Passenger Rail", and you'll see that almost no one, other than the contractors being paid to build it, are happy.

Every few years the hucksters and con artists come to indiana with their grandiose architectural drawings and illustrations of sleek, modern trains, with the pitch "OH Indiana YOU ARE SO LUCKY, we're going to build a high speed passenger rail line between Chicago and the east coast, and we're gonna come right thru here. All you gotta do is ante up the equivalent of $1,000 per taxpayer, per year, for 30 years, and you can join the 21st century!"

Now, if you happen to live reasonably near one of the proposed stations, and you frequently travel to one of the online destinations....that whole deal likely sounds just swell.

But, what if you live 100+ miles from the line, and/or only seldom travel the way they are going? Is it such a bargain now? "Lucky" indeed..... yet they need your money too if the 21st century is gonna happen.

And here's the rub.. HSPR is only an advantage IF the trains are moving at High Speed. Meaning the stations need to be spread fairly far apart to allow the train to attain high speed, and make the most of it. So, adding extra stations in between so that more people are comfortable paying into the up front cost, is self defeating.

Proponents of High Speed Passenger Rail are mostly flim flam artists that should be shot on sight, IMO.
They've just discovered that people are suckers for pretty pictures and tall promises. So they pay some illustrator $10,000 to produce some nice pictures, and take their little circus act to the people.

I would miss being able to wear Gucci "Guilty" for men, and seeing the women I pass in the stores cop a double take while trying to appear nonchalant. :dreidel:

GJ, thank you for your replies.

I also didn't consider whatever obstacles the railway would have to go through in getting local ordinances to comply with it going through their towns.

You are most welcome!!

Texas, btw, is also "threatening" to do a HSPR, but can never seem to get everyone on the same page. So what they do is launch a new "masterplan" every few years, and then spend the time in between arguing about details.

SO, here's the rub: America is probably never going to have a cohesive High Speed Passenger Rail network with trains routinely exceeding 200 mph. The high upfront cost just to enter an enterprise where you are sure to lose money, scares people away.

What we will see, IMO, is those "hucksters" I mentioned earlier will come back with their pretty drawings, but they will be pitching HighER Speed Passenger Rail where the trains will operate in the 120-150 mph range, over upgraded track that still belongs to the freight railroads, but has been "tuned-up" to make it accommodating.

You just can't run 300 mph trains on the same tracks as freights, for reasons that are both obvious and not so obvious.

Boston to Washington DC makes sense for HSPR
San Diego to San Francisco will probably get done, regardless if it makes sense or not
LA to Las Vegas is a pretty sure bet
Houston to Dallas..maybe some day

But I suspect most of the other possibilities are gonna have to settle for the lower cost option.

Life would kinda suck without Crocs.

I'm surprised not ONE person said something like,"I'd miss my Parents!" My Parents weren't born yet 1960, and I would miss them. I'd miss my smartphone.

GJ, thank you for your replies.And thank YOU Jimmy for your entries buddy :)

I'm pretty fond of the keyless entry on my car, Also being able to get in and push a button and have all my custom settings (seats, backrest, mirrors, etc) restored is great.
I'd also miss my 21 speed mountain bike
My alarm clock with the built-in CD player so I can wake up to Pink Floyd's "Time".
Having all my photos and graphic arts designs on a thumb drive in my pocket
Wireless headphones
L.E.D. Flashlights
Cordless power tools

Those are all things that I'd miss

I'm surprised not ONE person said something like,"I'd miss my Parents!" My Parents weren't born yet 1960, and I would miss them. I'd miss my smartphone.
My parents were in their late-20's in 1960.

I just can't imagine wanting to live in any world that did not include Sanford Sharpie permanent markers.

My parents were in their late-20's in 1960.



My parents were in their 30's in 1960.

I'm surprised not ONE person said something like,"I'd miss my Parents!" .

My dad died at age 43, in 1965....so if we went back to 1960 I'd have BOTH my parents back.

But, in 1960 I would have turned 3 years old.. I remember it, but was sheltered. Had no concept of the wolf at the door, or the other harsh realities of life I now understand.

And, that IMO, is where a lot of the notions of "the good old days" comes from. We remember them fondly because of our innocence, and ignorance of the bigger picture.

My dad died at age 43, in 1965....so if we went back to 1960 I'd have BOTH my parents back.

But, in 1960 I would have turned 3 years old.. I remember it, but was sheltered. Had no concept of the wolf at the door, or the other harsh realities of life I now understand.

And, that IMO, is where a lot of the notions of "the good old days" comes from. We remember them fondly because of our innocence, and ignorance of the bigger picture.

Your Dad died when you were only 8? Holy crap! :eek::(

I guess if you went back to 1960 you could prevent your Dad's death in 1965 saying something like,"Dad, I had a dream you died on November 15th, 1965. Please be careful that entire day. "

I guess if you went back to 1960 you could prevent your Dad's death "

Pretty unlikely, he had a heart attack, and it "runs in the family" so to speak.

I'm actually the freak in both sides of the family, being male, 65, and alive. I never expected it.

Regarding Dad dying while I was a child, it kinda freaked me out years later, watching the movie "Boys From Brazil" :batman:

Im so sorry buddy :(