10% more money combined with a short commute is a HUGE increase.
Let's for arguments sake say his current commute is 40 minutes each way, and the closer place is 15 minutes away and he drives. That's 50 minutes per day less driving. That's like shortening your work week by just over 4 hours a week alone, just in the saved commute time. This is before even counting the reduced costs of not having to travel so far. If we start to think of the fuel saved - let's for arguments sake the closer job means you burn 1.5 gallons of fuel per day, and the longer commute you burn 4 gallons of fuel per day, that's going to work out at least over $2000 per year reduction in money spent on commuting.
Don't plan to take the plane for your next holidays? Why?
There was a study which was out about 18 months ago which was actually looking at what impact cycling had, and accounting for the total energy costs of cycling to see what its "carbon footprint" really was, in other words, accounting for extra food burned by the cyclist. Cycling of course came out very favourably when compared to all other forms of transport. But one thing surprising in the study was in the comparison. A medium-sized airliner - a Boeing 737 - has lower carbon emissions per passenger mile than:
* Normal sedan * SUV * Pick up truck * Off-peak city bus
There certainly seems no danger of shortage in the US right now - food portions (whether you eat them in someone's private house, or go out to a restaurant) seem to be at least double what is necessary to be satiated. The US would have to reduce portion sizes a great deal before it became a problem.
A while back something mildly Kafkaesque happened to a friend of mine, who owned a light aircraft (a rather old tatty one).
He bought a few items from Aircraft Spruce and Specialty - some paints for fabric-covered light planes, and a few items of hardware, to perform some general maintenance and tidy-up. They duly arrive by courier, and he picked them up from his apartment complex's management office. A couple of days later the FBI turn up at his apartment to check whether he's a terrorist! Apparently, the apartment manager saw a box from Aircraft Spruce & Specialty, saw my friend pick it up (who's skin colour is not perfectly white, somewhere between white and hispanic) and called the FBI who came out and investigated him.
Good luck with logging social network use. Facebook and Twitter at least seem to use https by default for me. Unless ISPs can force people to download trusted certificates for a proxy that decrypts, logs, then re-encrypts their facebook usage, they won't be seeing much.
Incidentally, I run my own mail server. I relay my mail through it using TLS, and it too uses opportunistic encryption when contacting other SMTP servers. My ISP sees nothing but encrypted data going past. Many public SMTP servers now are supporting opportunistic encryption and supports 256 bit encryption (in fact, if you want to pass a PCI-DSS ASV scan, then if your mail server supports encryption it must disable all weak ciphers).
(Disclaimer: I don't live in the UK, but I do live in a British crown territory - whether a similar law is passed here is not guaranteed, for example we don't have anything like the RIP Act)
Pay-for-it Microsoft support is often pretty useless.
A while back in the pre-Vista days, we had to develop a replacement GINA for a retail till system. The GINA is the thing that handles logging in, locking the screen, authentication etc. and is loaded by winlogon.exe. There was a document available from Microsoft on how to write GINA DLLs, but it wasn't very detailed, and we needed to do much more complex things. The Microsoft document only really covered writing a GINA DLL that hooked onto the Microsoft one, not writing a completely new one. Writing a new GINA meant you had to do everything to get the user set up on logging in rather than relying on the MS one to do it for you.
There were still a few odd problems we were having with ours. Anticipating that we may need support on this, we got a MS support contract before embarking on the project to the tune of >$40,000 per year, i.e. the ultimate gold plated support contract. Now we had to use it in anger. We actually got to speak to actual Windows developers directly, on the phone. It did us absolutely no good at all.
It turns out that Microsoft internally had no more documentation than we did. Even though they had source code access, they just weren't much help - I suspect the original developer had probably left, and the source itself probably was more or less completely undocumented. We ended up having to reverse engineer it all ourselves the hard way - we could have saved the $40K.
Incidentally, I suspect the real reason why Microsoft was uncooperative with the EU over the Windows server networking protocol documentation wasn't due to malice. It was probably because they had no documentation and were busy reading the source code and trying to write the docs as quickly as they could.
Yesterday I spent almost two hours in the pub with a couple of friends of mine. We had a great time. I didn't drink anything alcoholic since I had to ride my motorcycle home. It is not compulsory to drink alcohol in a pub.
Because it's suicide to use it. If you want to not send a tanker, and be able to defend from the foreign power who you've not sent the tanker to but without committing suicide in the process, you need some credible way of making that defence.
Concorde standard taxi burn: 1600kg An Airbus A320 from London to Dusseldorf will use about 4800kg of fuel from a quick search. London to Paris is about 1/3rd of that, so the minimum fuel burned by an A320 from London to Paris will be 1600kg if we just divide the fuel for the Dusseldorf trip by 3. However, the A320 is more likely to burn around 2000kg on the Paris trip because it'll be spending much less time cruising efficiently, and a larger proportion of the time on that trip in the climb phase where fuel burn is very high. So no, Concorde doesn't use as much fuel as an Airbus going from London to Paris -- but it's not all that far off.
I live somewhere with truly shitty weather all year around (this "summer", it has rained more or less continuously, and the highest temperature we've seen is about 18 celcius - the last 6 years we have only had two seasons, the rainy season and the windy and rainy season, and which half of the year they come is anyone's guess) but the bike is fine. Just wear the appropriate gear for the weather and it's just not a problem. The appropriate gear, by the way, takes about 1 minute to put on.
99.99% of the time I never have to carry anything that won't fit in the panniers.
Don't forget the motorcycle has performance comparable to a new Ferrari.
Additionally, when you're cruising at constant speed, it's not weight that's the big factor but drag, and a motorcycle doing 50 mpg will likely have a much higher average speed than a Berlingo doing 47 mpg.
If you drive a small commuter bike in the same boring manner and speed that a Berlingo is driven you can easily exceed 100 mpg.
I suspect that since you're quoting a UK publication, you're not comparing like for like. An Imperial gallon is 4.5 litres, a US gallon is 3.8 litres. A car that does 54 MPG in the UK is getting 46 MPG on US gallons. So no, the Volvo isn't quite there.
No the pilot in this case is the captain. A captain is not merely "the driver", indeed, if the captain is not the flying pilot for this leg he might not even touch (m)any of the controls (it might be the first officer's leg to fly).
The captain has the final and absolute responsibility for the aircraft, crew and passengers - just like a ship's captain. He is not the driver, he is the law on that aircraft and he is the person with whom the buck stops. It is an *enormous* responsibility to be a ship or aircraft commander. He may have to make tough decisions when the shit hits the fan. Aircraft and ships are not buses you can just pull over to the side of the road, there are very good reasons why the captain has this authority. If you think otherwise, then learn to fly a light aircraft and you'll get a taste of what the words "pilot in command" actually mean in terms of responsibility.
No, the pilot is not obliged to honour it. On an aircraft (or a ship), the captain has the ultimate and final word (criminal law notwithstanding). This of course doesn't stop you from suing the airline afterwards for breach of contract, but if the captain tells you to get off the plane while it's at the gate, you are obliged to get off.
Actually it does have technical superiority. With a steering wheel that turns a couple of revolutions, you have very easy, very fine control over direction and you can do this entirely mechanically. You can even do it with no power assist if needs be. With a joystick with perhaps a few inches of movement maximum the steering will be ludicrously sensitive (in reality, you would need a computer driven steering system that can make the steering less sensitive on straight roads, and detect curves, and detect when you want to do tight manoevres, and will be utterly dependent on electronics or you crash).
Slashdot Mirror
On a sailing ship? The hull speed won't be all that high - no outboard motor is going to allow you to outrun a pirate's RIB.
10% more money combined with a short commute is a HUGE increase.
Let's for arguments sake say his current commute is 40 minutes each way, and the closer place is 15 minutes away and he drives. That's 50 minutes per day less driving. That's like shortening your work week by just over 4 hours a week alone, just in the saved commute time. This is before even counting the reduced costs of not having to travel so far. If we start to think of the fuel saved - let's for arguments sake the closer job means you burn 1.5 gallons of fuel per day, and the longer commute you burn 4 gallons of fuel per day, that's going to work out at least over $2000 per year reduction in money spent on commuting.
I dunno, I think the gods of cheesecake and creme brulee have brought a great deal of pleasure to anyone who's non-diabetic...
Don't plan to take the plane for your next holidays? Why?
There was a study which was out about 18 months ago which was actually looking at what impact cycling had, and accounting for the total energy costs of cycling to see what its "carbon footprint" really was, in other words, accounting for extra food burned by the cyclist. Cycling of course came out very favourably when compared to all other forms of transport. But one thing surprising in the study was in the comparison. A medium-sized airliner - a Boeing 737 - has lower carbon emissions per passenger mile than:
* Normal sedan
* SUV
* Pick up truck
* Off-peak city bus
A Boeing 737 per passenger mile is beaten by:
* Trains
* On-peak city bus
See http://www.seeds4green.net/sites/default/files/Pietzo_LCAwhitepaper.pdf
There certainly seems no danger of shortage in the US right now - food portions (whether you eat them in someone's private house, or go out to a restaurant) seem to be at least double what is necessary to be satiated. The US would have to reduce portion sizes a great deal before it became a problem.
Putin is a douchebag who is afraid of a few teenage girls.
A while back something mildly Kafkaesque happened to a friend of mine, who owned a light aircraft (a rather old tatty one).
He bought a few items from Aircraft Spruce and Specialty - some paints for fabric-covered light planes, and a few items of hardware, to perform some general maintenance and tidy-up. They duly arrive by courier, and he picked them up from his apartment complex's management office. A couple of days later the FBI turn up at his apartment to check whether he's a terrorist! Apparently, the apartment manager saw a box from Aircraft Spruce & Specialty, saw my friend pick it up (who's skin colour is not perfectly white, somewhere between white and hispanic) and called the FBI who came out and investigated him.
Good luck with logging social network use. Facebook and Twitter at least seem to use https by default for me. Unless ISPs can force people to download trusted certificates for a proxy that decrypts, logs, then re-encrypts their facebook usage, they won't be seeing much.
Incidentally, I run my own mail server. I relay my mail through it using TLS, and it too uses opportunistic encryption when contacting other SMTP servers. My ISP sees nothing but encrypted data going past. Many public SMTP servers now are supporting opportunistic encryption and supports 256 bit encryption (in fact, if you want to pass a PCI-DSS ASV scan, then if your mail server supports encryption it must disable all weak ciphers).
(Disclaimer: I don't live in the UK, but I do live in a British crown territory - whether a similar law is passed here is not guaranteed, for example we don't have anything like the RIP Act)
You don't know anything about Redifon simulators? If so, there is a broken classic Trident 3 simulator of that era in need of repair...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/neil_lomax/sets/72157624752599289/
The website's a bit buggered up, but the owner can be contacted via: http://hs121trident.co.uk/G-AWZQ.php
Pay-for-it Microsoft support is often pretty useless.
A while back in the pre-Vista days, we had to develop a replacement GINA for a retail till system. The GINA is the thing that handles logging in, locking the screen, authentication etc. and is loaded by winlogon.exe. There was a document available from Microsoft on how to write GINA DLLs, but it wasn't very detailed, and we needed to do much more complex things. The Microsoft document only really covered writing a GINA DLL that hooked onto the Microsoft one, not writing a completely new one. Writing a new GINA meant you had to do everything to get the user set up on logging in rather than relying on the MS one to do it for you.
There were still a few odd problems we were having with ours. Anticipating that we may need support on this, we got a MS support contract before embarking on the project to the tune of >$40,000 per year, i.e. the ultimate gold plated support contract. Now we had to use it in anger. We actually got to speak to actual Windows developers directly, on the phone. It did us absolutely no good at all.
It turns out that Microsoft internally had no more documentation than we did. Even though they had source code access, they just weren't much help - I suspect the original developer had probably left, and the source itself probably was more or less completely undocumented. We ended up having to reverse engineer it all ourselves the hard way - we could have saved the $40K.
Incidentally, I suspect the real reason why Microsoft was uncooperative with the EU over the Windows server networking protocol documentation wasn't due to malice. It was probably because they had no documentation and were busy reading the source code and trying to write the docs as quickly as they could.
Yesterday I spent almost two hours in the pub with a couple of friends of mine. We had a great time. I didn't drink anything alcoholic since I had to ride my motorcycle home. It is not compulsory to drink alcohol in a pub.
Because it's suicide to use it. If you want to not send a tanker, and be able to defend from the foreign power who you've not sent the tanker to but without committing suicide in the process, you need some credible way of making that defence.
Concorde standard taxi burn: 1600kg
An Airbus A320 from London to Dusseldorf will use about 4800kg of fuel from a quick search. London to Paris is about 1/3rd of that, so the minimum fuel burned by an A320 from London to Paris will be 1600kg if we just divide the fuel for the Dusseldorf trip by 3. However, the A320 is more likely to burn around 2000kg on the Paris trip because it'll be spending much less time cruising efficiently, and a larger proportion of the time on that trip in the climb phase where fuel burn is very high. So no, Concorde doesn't use as much fuel as an Airbus going from London to Paris -- but it's not all that far off.
You don't need speakers, you could play the sound on the motors powering the rover's wheels :-)
I live somewhere with truly shitty weather all year around (this "summer", it has rained more or less continuously, and the highest temperature we've seen is about 18 celcius - the last 6 years we have only had two seasons, the rainy season and the windy and rainy season, and which half of the year they come is anyone's guess) but the bike is fine. Just wear the appropriate gear for the weather and it's just not a problem. The appropriate gear, by the way, takes about 1 minute to put on.
99.99% of the time I never have to carry anything that won't fit in the panniers.
As I said, you can't consider the weight alone, you have to also consider the drag.
Don't forget the motorcycle has performance comparable to a new Ferrari.
Additionally, when you're cruising at constant speed, it's not weight that's the big factor but drag, and a motorcycle doing 50 mpg will likely have a much higher average speed than a Berlingo doing 47 mpg.
If you drive a small commuter bike in the same boring manner and speed that a Berlingo is driven you can easily exceed 100 mpg.
A bike that does 50 US MPG (such as the BMW F800ST, for example) - unlike your minivan - has performance similar to a Ferrari or Lamborghini.
Imperial or US gallons?
If you're in the UK, realise that your 54 mpg is actually 46 mpg in the USA (the US gallon is 3.8 litres, the UK gallon is 4.5 litres)
I suspect that since you're quoting a UK publication, you're not comparing like for like. An Imperial gallon is 4.5 litres, a US gallon is 3.8 litres. A car that does 54 MPG in the UK is getting 46 MPG on US gallons. So no, the Volvo isn't quite there.
Actually, talking of multiple cores, he's probably thinking of Amdahl's Law
And you deserved to be banned. You were hardly being constructive in that thread.
No the pilot in this case is the captain. A captain is not merely "the driver", indeed, if the captain is not the flying pilot for this leg he might not even touch (m)any of the controls (it might be the first officer's leg to fly).
The captain has the final and absolute responsibility for the aircraft, crew and passengers - just like a ship's captain. He is not the driver, he is the law on that aircraft and he is the person with whom the buck stops. It is an *enormous* responsibility to be a ship or aircraft commander. He may have to make tough decisions when the shit hits the fan. Aircraft and ships are not buses you can just pull over to the side of the road, there are very good reasons why the captain has this authority. If you think otherwise, then learn to fly a light aircraft and you'll get a taste of what the words "pilot in command" actually mean in terms of responsibility.
No, the pilot is not obliged to honour it. On an aircraft (or a ship), the captain has the ultimate and final word (criminal law notwithstanding). This of course doesn't stop you from suing the airline afterwards for breach of contract, but if the captain tells you to get off the plane while it's at the gate, you are obliged to get off.
Actually it does have technical superiority. With a steering wheel that turns a couple of revolutions, you have very easy, very fine control over direction and you can do this entirely mechanically. You can even do it with no power assist if needs be. With a joystick with perhaps a few inches of movement maximum the steering will be ludicrously sensitive (in reality, you would need a computer driven steering system that can make the steering less sensitive on straight roads, and detect curves, and detect when you want to do tight manoevres, and will be utterly dependent on electronics or you crash).