Ah, well, I see from your recent posting history that you're just on an anti-Google tear, so there's really no point in me engaging any further with you.
If at some point you become interested in a rational conversation, let me know.
I recommend "Design Patterns" by Gamma, Helm, Johnson, Vlissides
I have trepidation about recommending the GoF book. It's a great book, don't get me wrong, but I think it should be deferred until the reader has a non-trivial amount of real-world experience to dampen any excess of enthusiasm for the patterns. Perhaps what's best is that new software engineers read GoF but are strongly cautioned that they should use it primarily to recognize common patterns, rather than as a recipe book for how they should structure their software, at least until they have more experience.
It should also be coupled with serious study of anti-patterns. In fact, I'd say that for new professionals a study of anti-patterns is actually more useful than a study of patterns.
if you have citations for every line, what did you do that was new and added by you?
The conclusion.
A legal paper is like a mathematical proof, where every step must be justified by drawing on an axiom, a definition or an existing theorem. In proofs, relatively few of the arguments need to explicitly state their justification, particularly those that just manipulate symbols according to the very well-known rules, but that's only because the reader can be expected to see the obvious rationales. Beginners are often required to rigorously justify every single step in order to help them understand how the game works.
Law is also about proving things, but the axioms, definitions and theorems aren't as well-defined, so even advanced practitioners need to justify nearly every step.
I reiterate that everything I post is merely my own opinion, not an official statement.
So the EFF is a bunch of paranoid speculators?
Yes. That's not a bad thing, mind you. We need people like them being paranoid and very skeptical, ready to call attention to any actual problems. The only issue I have with that EFF page is the implication that Google might sell private data to someone with enough cash. The concern that it's available to government is perfectly valid. Avoiding giving information to Google is one solution; another is to get our overreaching government back under control.
If you choose the former you can still use most Google services. Just opt out of the tracking and Google won't keep the data about you and won't be able to give it to the government.
What about scanning e-mails in possible violation of wiretap laws?
That's done with user permission. Don't want it, don't use gmail.
How about the EU, are they a bunch of paranoid people?
Sometimes. Again, like the EFF that's largely a good thing. Your link doesn't have any specifics, so I can't offer my opinion on in what ways their paranoia is good and where it's excessive.
How about Google's latest land grab in Chrome, forcing third party developers to put all their apps into Google's Web Store under the guises of making Chrome more secure?
"Guise"? Nice try at framing the debate with loaded language.
Anyway, I actually don't agree with that decision either but I think the Chrome team (some of whom I know) were absolutely serious about the basis for their decision. They're not evil, just wrong.
Google's business model is making money off of you, you're the commodity so you either go along with it or you just start saying Moo like all the other cattle. I prefer to opt out of Google's practices wherever possible.
Certainly that's your option and it's one that Google specifically tries to enable.
If that means ripping out Google Search, Maps and other apps that's fine because there are alternatives to them that don't come with all the hidden strings.
This is where you're wrong. There aren't any hidden strings. You can choose not to believe that, of course, but I challenge you to demonstrate evidence of said strings. And I'll point out that the CM developers apparently don't believe that having the Google apps on your device is risky.
Regardless, you're certainly free to use what you like. That's why Android is open source, and why Google tries to ensure (to the degree it has control) that all devices are unlockable and flashable, etc.
No I am sure they will succeed. I mean they managed to add hidden markings that are printed in almost all paper printers to track you and with some scanners you can't copy images of money.
I think you're wrong, and that you're comparing apples and oranges. Time will tell.. but I'm right:-)
Another one is a crappy Android, no thanks, but no thanks.
Another option is a non-crappy Android, which is well-made and has a decent lifespan, for significantly less money than an iPad. Integration with your technology at home, of course, is a separate issue. If you have a mostly-Apple environment then an iPad is a better choice.
The problem with all the other non-Apple tablets is that they insist that 16:10 is the perfect aspect ratio because it means that there are no black bars when watching video.
Actually, I think the real reason they're all that aspect ratio is because that's the aspect ratio of TV screens. How is that related? It's related because it means that the display stock is manufactured in large sheets in that aspect ratio. If you use the same ratio when you cut up the large sheets (and are careful about your choice of size), you can use the entire sheet with no wastage.
So it's a way to maximize screen size per dollar. Going with a different aspect ratio means increasing price or losing screen area at the same price.
Unfortunately it completely ignores the fact that doing anything in landscape at that aspect ratio means that whenever the keyboard pops up, you lose almost half of the screen
So install a more compact keyboard. It's not like there aren't plenty of options.
Someone's already doing something. The best choice would just be to fund LibreSSL at this point.
The best choice is to fund LibreSSL and another project or two to do the same thing. Thoroughly vetting and fixing OpenSSL is a good thing. Getting a couple of solid, API-compatible competitors in the same space is even better, to reduce the monoculture problem, and to create competition.
Also, LibreSSL is just about OpenSSL. This initiative is supposed to be a long-term, ongoing effort to improve other widely-used open source software packages as well. Doing it through the Linux Foundation makes sense to me, too, mostly because it's an already-established example of exactly what the initiative wants to do to other open source packages. Linux is collaboratively developed by many companies (plus a few individual contributions) for the mutual benefit of all, and that model can and should be applied to other pieces of important open source infrastructure.
This is a good idea. It may or may not be a better approach to fixing OpenSSL (which, incidentally, has terrified me for years) than LibreSSL, but it's good for OpenSSL and for other projects. These companies can donate what to them is peanuts (and a tax writeoff to boot), and in return the world as a whole will get improvements in fundamental computing infrastructure.
I do have to say I'm surprised (and pleased) to see Microsoft's name in the list. Google is no surprise; Google uses open source software heavily and has a long history of supporting it. Intel has been involved in OSS for years, too, since they're just as happy to sell hardware to run OSS as anything else. Cisco also uses open source software and has a clear interest in the health of the networking ecosystem. But Microsoft has in the past been a serious opponent of OSS, doing various things to try to undermine it, some openly and some rather underhanded. Lately the company has been divided on the question, in some cases supporting and/or benefitting from OSS while the other hand is trying to squash it, but I think Microsoft is gradually coming around, beginning to admit that OSS is not only here to stay, but that it has a valid and valuable place.
Those articles contain nothing but paranoid speculation. Do you have any actual evidence that Google uses your phone to track you without your permission? Android does do location history, which you can turn on or off. Gmail does scan your e-mails to provide targeted ads, which you can choose to use or not. Chrome can track web history, which you can turn on or off. Google Analytics is used by most of the web to track user visits, regardless of the browser you use, but you can opt out of that as well.
If you use an Android phone but opt out of Google's tracking, you won't be tracked. In many cases (e.g. location history and web history) you have to opt in if you want to be tracked.
Google's primary business model is based around using user information to provide targeted advertising, absolutely. However, the company doesn't want to track you if you don't want to be tracked, and doesn't do it surreptitiously. https://www.google.com/goodtok... gives you links to pages that will show you what Google knows about you and let you control it.
(Disclosure: I'm a Google engineer. I don't speak for Google, though, and nothing I post on slashdot -- or anywhere else -- is an official company statement.)
Not really, since many officers can claim to smell marijuana in its complete absence. Make them verify the smell with some chemical test before they can search and you'll probably get a lot less searches since they aren't actually smelling weed.
Good luck getting departments to buy weed-sniffing equipment (assuming it exists) which is clearly inferior to officers' own noses. And it will be inferior unless it can provide false positives on demand.
Or else, you know, travel inside the plane, in the environment designed and regulated for human comfort.
Obviously, parent never flies economy.....
Parent nearly always flies economy (though I fly enough that I do get the occasional upgrade). Remember we're comparing to the outside of the plane. Comfort is relative.
By using Java you were also importing a massive API surface onto production machines.
No different than any other language. And massive libraries are better than creating massive amounts of new code to solve the same problems any day, in terms of both effort and security.
Sure, just what devs need, more users, who never requested a feature in the first place, coming in and demanding that a particular language be used in the implementation because the read an article about how its 'more secure'
Heh. That reminds me of a meeting some 15 years ago. Java was gaining a strong foothold as an enterprise app development language at the time (especially in IBM Global Services, which is who I worked for), and at the same time we were living through a seemingly neverending series of Java sandbox security defects. Running code automatically downloaded from random websites in your browser is a devilishly hard thing to make safe, but that's completely irrelevant to enterprise software.
But the fact that the two contexts are completely different didn't prevent a clueless PM from boldly asserting (to the even more clueless customer!) that using Java is a bad idea because "it's insecure". I was the lead architect on the project and I had a hell of a time convincing the customer that the PM was wrong and that Java was, in fact, a good choice for the application. Especially since it would be impolitic to just come out and say the PM was full of shit, since he was ostensibly on my team.
Meh. If you're going to go with three wheels, I'd rather have this. Not only does it not look like something from the 70s, but it's extremely aerodynamically efficient.
I would assume that if a person in reckless enough to try this in the first place they aren't the kind of people to carefully calculate where their body lands.
No, but they may be the kind of people who choose one sort of destination over another.
Try $65. Also, Sundance is small and has slow lifts (I'm told -- haven't been there myself).
as are some of the ones in Little Cottonwood canyon
You mean Big Cottonwood Canyon. Brighton used to be pretty cheap, but they're $68 now. I used to take my kids there all the time when they allowed kids under 12 to ski free, and an all-day pass was $36 (at the grocery store). Solitude was always more expensive.
The resort in Little Cottonwood Canyon is Alta. It's $79. It used to be somewhat cheaper, more of a "locals" resort, but it was always more expensive than Brighton. And they don't allow snowboarding.
It depends if you purchase at the slopes or the ski shop, tho.
Yes, you can knock $3-4 off the price if you buy at a shop or a grocery store. Doesn't get you to $50, though. If you're traveling you can get better prices by buying multi-day passes, sometimes with even bigger discounts by getting them as part of a package deal with lodging, etc.
Or if you go a lot there are some great season pass deals, especially if you can go on weekdays. I'm building a house 20 minutes from Snow Basin, and I can get a weekdays-only annual pass for $300. I'll be working from home full-time, too, and have a flexible schedule, so I'm planning to buy a weekdays pass and ride from 9-11 AM most weekday mornings. That will be some cheap snowboarding, especially since I'll get enough hours on the slopes to amortize the equipment costs down to nothing.
So if you live in the right place, and do a lot of it, then skiing/snowboarding can be an inexpensive hobby. The same is probably true of golf.
Don't forget you gotta factor in medical bills when you throw your back out:(
Or you can just not do that:-)
I should note that I now live in Colorado (for another month or two, anyway), and I greatly prefer the skiing in Utah. The Colorado resorts are more expensive and much harder to get to.
The problem is the pressure, only 26% at 10km of what you have on ground. Oxygen getting absorbed in your lungs depends on that pressure, less pressure, less oxygen gets to your blood.
No, oxygen getting absorbed into your lungs depends on the partial pressure of oxygen in your breathing gas. Partial pressure is the pressure multiplied by the percentage of the gas in question.
At sea level, the partial pressure of oxygen, ppO2 is 0.21, because the pressure is one atmosphere and the air is 21% oxygen. You can obviously survive just fine on a ppO2 of 0.21. If you're in an environment with 0.26 atm ambient pressure and breathing air, you're getting a ppO2 of 0.26 *0.21 = 0.05 atm. Generally, 0.16 atm is considered the minimum safe ppO2, though that's a pretty conservative number. But 0.05 is not enough to keep you alive. If you're breathing pure O2 at that pressure, though, the ppO2 is 0.26, which is higher than the ppO2 of air at sea level, so you'll be just fine (as long as you avoid freezing to death).
Incidentally, SCUBA divers worry about excessively high ppO2 levels, because oxygen is toxic. Generally, divers try to keep their ppO2 below 1.4 atm, which means that breathing air becomes dangerous at depths greater than 220 feet (of course, at those depths the ppN2 of air is generally already having a huge narcotic effect so diving that deep on air is a bad idea for other reasons). For deeper dives, therefore, divers use gas mixtures with less O2.
Such deep, technical, diving is pretty rare, though. What's very common is diving with air that has been enriched with additional O2, usually to 32% or 36% O2, called nitrox. The purpose of this is to lower ppN2 levels during the dive, to reduce nitrogen absorption by the tissues and therefore increase the amount of bottom time without needing decompression stops to safely offgas the N2. Many divers also think the higher O2 levels make them feel better during and after the dive. However, with 36% O2 (EAN36), ppO2 reaches 1.4 atm at only 128 feet so divers breathing nitrox have to be careful to stay shallower. Smart Nitrox divers test their breathing gas O2 percentage before every dive and calculate a floor below which they must not go.
For example Mount Everest climbers, if they just ran from 0m to top of Everest they would pass out, extra oxygen or no.
The top of Mount Everest is about 0.33 atm, which means a 100% O2 mixture would provide them with more oxygen than they get at sea level. The reason they have to acclimate first is that carrying enough O2 to breathe 100% O2 is impractical. It would require carrying thousands of cubic feet of compressed gas. By acclimating themselves they increase their bodies' ability to utilize lower ppO2 levels. Depending on their fitness levels and degree of acclimatization, they may be able to get to a point where they don't require supplemental oxygen. Most, though, will need some.
Your points 1. and 2. are wrong. Have you read the article ? Hypothermia and hypoxia preserve the body during the flight.
More precisely, although hypothermia and hypoxia will generally kill you, once in a while you'll get lucky and they'll counter each others' fatal effects just enough that you manage not to die.
If it was me, I'd rather ensure that I'm equipped to avoid the effects of both. Or else, you know, travel inside the plane, in the environment designed and regulated for human comfort. There are no little packets of peanuts in the wheel well, for example.
There's a hidden assumption there: that stowaways choose destinations without regard to over-water or over-land approaches, and without some other criterion which is correlated with land vs water approaches. I have no idea if that assumption is valid.
Its roughly the same out west. Some slopes are $50, some are $80.
In Utah and Colorado the only resorts with $50 lift tickets are the low-end ones, with short runs, slow lifts, or both.
Its the gear + travel that gets you, though.
Gear isn't so bad. Decent rental equipment for a day can generally be had for less than $30, often less than $20. Buying your own gear is cheaper if you use it enough, and if you don't use it enough for it to be cheaper you should stick with renting (financially, at least; some people like having their own and are willing to pay for the privilege).
Travel depends on where you live. I live within easy driving distance of many resorts so it's not an issue. What makes it a really expensive sport for me is my kids. $100 for a day (lift ticket + gear) isn't too bad, but when you multiply it by four or five it gets to be spendy.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, well, I see from your recent posting history that you're just on an anti-Google tear, so there's really no point in me engaging any further with you.
If at some point you become interested in a rational conversation, let me know.
The former.
I recommend "Design Patterns" by Gamma, Helm, Johnson, Vlissides
I have trepidation about recommending the GoF book. It's a great book, don't get me wrong, but I think it should be deferred until the reader has a non-trivial amount of real-world experience to dampen any excess of enthusiasm for the patterns. Perhaps what's best is that new software engineers read GoF but are strongly cautioned that they should use it primarily to recognize common patterns, rather than as a recipe book for how they should structure their software, at least until they have more experience.
It should also be coupled with serious study of anti-patterns. In fact, I'd say that for new professionals a study of anti-patterns is actually more useful than a study of patterns.
if you have citations for every line, what did you do that was new and added by you?
The conclusion.
A legal paper is like a mathematical proof, where every step must be justified by drawing on an axiom, a definition or an existing theorem. In proofs, relatively few of the arguments need to explicitly state their justification, particularly those that just manipulate symbols according to the very well-known rules, but that's only because the reader can be expected to see the obvious rationales. Beginners are often required to rigorously justify every single step in order to help them understand how the game works.
Law is also about proving things, but the axioms, definitions and theorems aren't as well-defined, so even advanced practitioners need to justify nearly every step.
I reiterate that everything I post is merely my own opinion, not an official statement.
So the EFF is a bunch of paranoid speculators?
Yes. That's not a bad thing, mind you. We need people like them being paranoid and very skeptical, ready to call attention to any actual problems. The only issue I have with that EFF page is the implication that Google might sell private data to someone with enough cash. The concern that it's available to government is perfectly valid. Avoiding giving information to Google is one solution; another is to get our overreaching government back under control.
If you choose the former you can still use most Google services. Just opt out of the tracking and Google won't keep the data about you and won't be able to give it to the government.
What about scanning e-mails in possible violation of wiretap laws?
That's done with user permission. Don't want it, don't use gmail.
How about the EU, are they a bunch of paranoid people?
Sometimes. Again, like the EFF that's largely a good thing. Your link doesn't have any specifics, so I can't offer my opinion on in what ways their paranoia is good and where it's excessive.
How about Google's latest land grab in Chrome, forcing third party developers to put all their apps into Google's Web Store under the guises of making Chrome more secure?
"Guise"? Nice try at framing the debate with loaded language.
Anyway, I actually don't agree with that decision either but I think the Chrome team (some of whom I know) were absolutely serious about the basis for their decision. They're not evil, just wrong.
Google's business model is making money off of you, you're the commodity so you either go along with it or you just start saying Moo like all the other cattle. I prefer to opt out of Google's practices wherever possible.
Certainly that's your option and it's one that Google specifically tries to enable.
If that means ripping out Google Search, Maps and other apps that's fine because there are alternatives to them that don't come with all the hidden strings.
This is where you're wrong. There aren't any hidden strings. You can choose not to believe that, of course, but I challenge you to demonstrate evidence of said strings. And I'll point out that the CM developers apparently don't believe that having the Google apps on your device is risky.
Regardless, you're certainly free to use what you like. That's why Android is open source, and why Google tries to ensure (to the degree it has control) that all devices are unlockable and flashable, etc.
No I am sure they will succeed. I mean they managed to add hidden markings that are printed in almost all paper printers to track you and with some scanners you can't copy images of money.
I think you're wrong, and that you're comparing apples and oranges. Time will tell.. but I'm right :-)
Another one is a crappy Android, no thanks, but no thanks.
Another option is a non-crappy Android, which is well-made and has a decent lifespan, for significantly less money than an iPad. Integration with your technology at home, of course, is a separate issue. If you have a mostly-Apple environment then an iPad is a better choice.
But I'm sure scumbag companies will ruin this otherwise good idea by somehow requiring the printers to have DRM or random restrictions.
I'm sure they'll try. I doubt they'll succeed.
The problem with all the other non-Apple tablets is that they insist that 16:10 is the perfect aspect ratio because it means that there are no black bars when watching video.
Actually, I think the real reason they're all that aspect ratio is because that's the aspect ratio of TV screens. How is that related? It's related because it means that the display stock is manufactured in large sheets in that aspect ratio. If you use the same ratio when you cut up the large sheets (and are careful about your choice of size), you can use the entire sheet with no wastage.
So it's a way to maximize screen size per dollar. Going with a different aspect ratio means increasing price or losing screen area at the same price.
Unfortunately it completely ignores the fact that doing anything in landscape at that aspect ratio means that whenever the keyboard pops up, you lose almost half of the screen
So install a more compact keyboard. It's not like there aren't plenty of options.
Someone's already doing something. The best choice would just be to fund LibreSSL at this point.
The best choice is to fund LibreSSL and another project or two to do the same thing. Thoroughly vetting and fixing OpenSSL is a good thing. Getting a couple of solid, API-compatible competitors in the same space is even better, to reduce the monoculture problem, and to create competition.
Also, LibreSSL is just about OpenSSL. This initiative is supposed to be a long-term, ongoing effort to improve other widely-used open source software packages as well. Doing it through the Linux Foundation makes sense to me, too, mostly because it's an already-established example of exactly what the initiative wants to do to other open source packages. Linux is collaboratively developed by many companies (plus a few individual contributions) for the mutual benefit of all, and that model can and should be applied to other pieces of important open source infrastructure.
This is a good idea. It may or may not be a better approach to fixing OpenSSL (which, incidentally, has terrified me for years) than LibreSSL, but it's good for OpenSSL and for other projects. These companies can donate what to them is peanuts (and a tax writeoff to boot), and in return the world as a whole will get improvements in fundamental computing infrastructure.
I do have to say I'm surprised (and pleased) to see Microsoft's name in the list. Google is no surprise; Google uses open source software heavily and has a long history of supporting it. Intel has been involved in OSS for years, too, since they're just as happy to sell hardware to run OSS as anything else. Cisco also uses open source software and has a clear interest in the health of the networking ecosystem. But Microsoft has in the past been a serious opponent of OSS, doing various things to try to undermine it, some openly and some rather underhanded. Lately the company has been divided on the question, in some cases supporting and/or benefitting from OSS while the other hand is trying to squash it, but I think Microsoft is gradually coming around, beginning to admit that OSS is not only here to stay, but that it has a valid and valuable place.
Those articles contain nothing but paranoid speculation. Do you have any actual evidence that Google uses your phone to track you without your permission? Android does do location history, which you can turn on or off. Gmail does scan your e-mails to provide targeted ads, which you can choose to use or not. Chrome can track web history, which you can turn on or off. Google Analytics is used by most of the web to track user visits, regardless of the browser you use, but you can opt out of that as well.
If you use an Android phone but opt out of Google's tracking, you won't be tracked. In many cases (e.g. location history and web history) you have to opt in if you want to be tracked.
Google's primary business model is based around using user information to provide targeted advertising, absolutely. However, the company doesn't want to track you if you don't want to be tracked, and doesn't do it surreptitiously. https://www.google.com/goodtok... gives you links to pages that will show you what Google knows about you and let you control it.
(Disclosure: I'm a Google engineer. I don't speak for Google, though, and nothing I post on slashdot -- or anywhere else -- is an official company statement.)
I'd submit all the horseshit Google tracks on you and your activities is much worse than any DRM related content distribution.
What is it that Google tracks?
I'm curious, are you just a confused child, or a troll?
Troll, clearly. An unsubtle, but successful, troll.
Not really, since many officers can claim to smell marijuana in its complete absence. Make them verify the smell with some chemical test before they can search and you'll probably get a lot less searches since they aren't actually smelling weed.
Good luck getting departments to buy weed-sniffing equipment (assuming it exists) which is clearly inferior to officers' own noses. And it will be inferior unless it can provide false positives on demand.
Or else, you know, travel inside the plane, in the environment designed and regulated for human comfort.
Obviously, parent never flies economy.....
Parent nearly always flies economy (though I fly enough that I do get the occasional upgrade). Remember we're comparing to the outside of the plane. Comfort is relative.
Except that he was right (by accident)?
By using Java you were also importing a massive API surface onto production machines.
No different than any other language. And massive libraries are better than creating massive amounts of new code to solve the same problems any day, in terms of both effort and security.
There are no little packets of peanuts in the wheel well, for example.
It's been a while since I was on a plane, but I thought they were little packet of peanut (singular) by now.
It seems to vary randomly, in my recent experience.
Sure, just what devs need, more users, who never requested a feature in the first place, coming in and demanding that a particular language be used in the implementation because the read an article about how its 'more secure'
Heh. That reminds me of a meeting some 15 years ago. Java was gaining a strong foothold as an enterprise app development language at the time (especially in IBM Global Services, which is who I worked for), and at the same time we were living through a seemingly neverending series of Java sandbox security defects. Running code automatically downloaded from random websites in your browser is a devilishly hard thing to make safe, but that's completely irrelevant to enterprise software.
But the fact that the two contexts are completely different didn't prevent a clueless PM from boldly asserting (to the even more clueless customer!) that using Java is a bad idea because "it's insecure". I was the lead architect on the project and I had a hell of a time convincing the customer that the PM was wrong and that Java was, in fact, a good choice for the application. Especially since it would be impolitic to just come out and say the PM was full of shit, since he was ostensibly on my team.
Meh. If you're going to go with three wheels, I'd rather have this. Not only does it not look like something from the 70s, but it's extremely aerodynamically efficient.
I would assume that if a person in reckless enough to try this in the first place they aren't the kind of people to carefully calculate where their body lands.
No, but they may be the kind of people who choose one sort of destination over another.
Sundance is $50, I believe
Try $65. Also, Sundance is small and has slow lifts (I'm told -- haven't been there myself).
as are some of the ones in Little Cottonwood canyon
You mean Big Cottonwood Canyon. Brighton used to be pretty cheap, but they're $68 now. I used to take my kids there all the time when they allowed kids under 12 to ski free, and an all-day pass was $36 (at the grocery store). Solitude was always more expensive.
The resort in Little Cottonwood Canyon is Alta. It's $79. It used to be somewhat cheaper, more of a "locals" resort, but it was always more expensive than Brighton. And they don't allow snowboarding.
It depends if you purchase at the slopes or the ski shop, tho.
Yes, you can knock $3-4 off the price if you buy at a shop or a grocery store. Doesn't get you to $50, though. If you're traveling you can get better prices by buying multi-day passes, sometimes with even bigger discounts by getting them as part of a package deal with lodging, etc.
Or if you go a lot there are some great season pass deals, especially if you can go on weekdays. I'm building a house 20 minutes from Snow Basin, and I can get a weekdays-only annual pass for $300. I'll be working from home full-time, too, and have a flexible schedule, so I'm planning to buy a weekdays pass and ride from 9-11 AM most weekday mornings. That will be some cheap snowboarding, especially since I'll get enough hours on the slopes to amortize the equipment costs down to nothing.
So if you live in the right place, and do a lot of it, then skiing/snowboarding can be an inexpensive hobby. The same is probably true of golf.
Don't forget you gotta factor in medical bills when you throw your back out :(
Or you can just not do that :-)
I should note that I now live in Colorado (for another month or two, anyway), and I greatly prefer the skiing in Utah. The Colorado resorts are more expensive and much harder to get to.
The problem is the pressure, only 26% at 10km of what you have on ground. Oxygen getting absorbed in your lungs depends on that pressure, less pressure, less oxygen gets to your blood.
No, oxygen getting absorbed into your lungs depends on the partial pressure of oxygen in your breathing gas. Partial pressure is the pressure multiplied by the percentage of the gas in question.
At sea level, the partial pressure of oxygen, ppO2 is 0.21, because the pressure is one atmosphere and the air is 21% oxygen. You can obviously survive just fine on a ppO2 of 0.21. If you're in an environment with 0.26 atm ambient pressure and breathing air, you're getting a ppO2 of 0.26 *0.21 = 0.05 atm. Generally, 0.16 atm is considered the minimum safe ppO2, though that's a pretty conservative number. But 0.05 is not enough to keep you alive. If you're breathing pure O2 at that pressure, though, the ppO2 is 0.26, which is higher than the ppO2 of air at sea level, so you'll be just fine (as long as you avoid freezing to death).
Incidentally, SCUBA divers worry about excessively high ppO2 levels, because oxygen is toxic. Generally, divers try to keep their ppO2 below 1.4 atm, which means that breathing air becomes dangerous at depths greater than 220 feet (of course, at those depths the ppN2 of air is generally already having a huge narcotic effect so diving that deep on air is a bad idea for other reasons). For deeper dives, therefore, divers use gas mixtures with less O2.
Such deep, technical, diving is pretty rare, though. What's very common is diving with air that has been enriched with additional O2, usually to 32% or 36% O2, called nitrox. The purpose of this is to lower ppN2 levels during the dive, to reduce nitrogen absorption by the tissues and therefore increase the amount of bottom time without needing decompression stops to safely offgas the N2. Many divers also think the higher O2 levels make them feel better during and after the dive. However, with 36% O2 (EAN36), ppO2 reaches 1.4 atm at only 128 feet so divers breathing nitrox have to be careful to stay shallower. Smart Nitrox divers test their breathing gas O2 percentage before every dive and calculate a floor below which they must not go.
For example Mount Everest climbers, if they just ran from 0m to top of Everest they would pass out, extra oxygen or no.
The top of Mount Everest is about 0.33 atm, which means a 100% O2 mixture would provide them with more oxygen than they get at sea level. The reason they have to acclimate first is that carrying enough O2 to breathe 100% O2 is impractical. It would require carrying thousands of cubic feet of compressed gas. By acclimating themselves they increase their bodies' ability to utilize lower ppO2 levels. Depending on their fitness levels and degree of acclimatization, they may be able to get to a point where they don't require supplemental oxygen. Most, though, will need some.
Your points 1. and 2. are wrong. Have you read the article ? Hypothermia and hypoxia preserve the body during the flight.
More precisely, although hypothermia and hypoxia will generally kill you, once in a while you'll get lucky and they'll counter each others' fatal effects just enough that you manage not to die.
If it was me, I'd rather ensure that I'm equipped to avoid the effects of both. Or else, you know, travel inside the plane, in the environment designed and regulated for human comfort. There are no little packets of peanuts in the wheel well, for example.
There's a hidden assumption there: that stowaways choose destinations without regard to over-water or over-land approaches, and without some other criterion which is correlated with land vs water approaches. I have no idea if that assumption is valid.
Its roughly the same out west. Some slopes are $50, some are $80.
In Utah and Colorado the only resorts with $50 lift tickets are the low-end ones, with short runs, slow lifts, or both.
Its the gear + travel that gets you, though.
Gear isn't so bad. Decent rental equipment for a day can generally be had for less than $30, often less than $20. Buying your own gear is cheaper if you use it enough, and if you don't use it enough for it to be cheaper you should stick with renting (financially, at least; some people like having their own and are willing to pay for the privilege).
Travel depends on where you live. I live within easy driving distance of many resorts so it's not an issue. What makes it a really expensive sport for me is my kids. $100 for a day (lift ticket + gear) isn't too bad, but when you multiply it by four or five it gets to be spendy.