Looking at the bigger picture means taking in all the aspects of owning a car + gas. The cost of maintaining a car has not increased 50%. Gas prices have.
For families who were spending once 200-300$ in gas are now paying 300-450 in gas per month 3600 per year now is 5400.
If you don't think that's a lot of money, I'd be more than happy to have you give that to me.
I spend maybe 120ish per month right now in gas with minimal driving excluding going to work. (Which I need a car to get to) It used to be 80. It adds up fast for low-middle class people.
Of course, if you exchange a fart the IRS sees it as an opportunity to get more money.
Greedy ****ers can stay out of my pocket as far as I'm concerned. I understand the profit concept, but exchanging labor / goods, they should back the **** off. I'm satisfied with all my work I do where receive money as payment that goverment gets a portion, companies pay taxes, I do to. But really?
That's like them taxing people who car pool or if you mow your friends lawn.
You realize it's not pure GPS as there is a margin of error right?
The car also has sensor that detect objects around it / in front. GPS isn't reliable enough to purely drive on that. What about other cars? It would hit them if it didn't.
GPS navigation is good for general location. People should still need to know how to drive, and if the car detects an issue with a route, it can slow down, stop and require the users to take over / recheck reset destination.
I'm more than happy to do pc repairs and exchange services with friends, right now one friend helps with mechanical issues with my car and I take care of their computers.
That level of radiation you speak of you receive from the sun. We're constantly hit with natural radiation (vs a man made source) constantly.
I really don't recommend you inhale radon gas. It's possible that the radiation was treating certain affliction as radiation can kill many things, but the side affect is it also kills you.
It's one of those - may make you feel better for the moment but make you feel a lot worse later.
They were just returning it. What, should they have smashed windows in, dropped in smoke grenades, flash banged the cameras, and when all was said and done, the server was back?
Assuming you're not touching anything which would create resistance, and that the direction of the wind doesn't change, causing constant force, and that the air didn't cause any friction ever..
Even today ships can be equipped with Radar, but not all of them are. E.G It's possible to do a lot of things, but it doesn't immediately become a flaw after an accident happens and upon reflection go 'oh, for this specific damage, this may have helped stop it.
If someone said 'Hey, what if it hits an iceberg like this?' I'm sure someone would have said 'Let's make it completely watertight to prevent that from sinking it' Definitely needs an improvement like that knowing what we know though.
Well, from what I understand is that it's manuvering capability was sufficient, the problem was a mirage like affect created by atmospheric distortion on the water, making objects appear above the horizon and far away, making the iceberg literally invisible on the sillouette of the night. Only modern day sensory equipment would really be able to tell.
No ship of any girth is capable of moving out of an object nearly directly in it's path as decent speed within 30 feet or so as far as I know. (Actual distance is a guess)
Row boats have a design flaw. When waves exceed the top of them they fill with water and sink.
Flaw means defect, in my case I was stating the design was sea worthy. barring an ice-berg.
Cause of sinking was iceberg causing extensive damage. That's like saying tank designs are flawed, when hit with armor piercing tank buster shells, the tank breaks. There are improvements to most designs in the world to help mitigate damage and events, but just because you find an upgrade doesn't mean the original is flawed. The boat, was designed and successfully operated as intended. Design operations did not include hitting giant iceberg. Did they try to minimize likely-hood of sinking in the event of an accident? Yes. Is it possible to prevent all accidents? No, or it wouldn't be called an accident.
It's like saying previous boats in medival ages had a design flaw - didn't have radar equipped. Radar didn't exist. Boats still don't all have radar. They are not all flawed.
Knowing what we know now, can we improve the design drastically? Absolutely. Modern twist? Probably making it actually water tight
Does that mean an iceberg WON'T sink a cruise ship of newer design or this one? Iceberg can still sink ships.
It's no secret that Iceberg + any ship = high risk of sinking.
It was only a disaster because of the rescue efforts back in that era and the lack of life boats, as it was assumed it would not sink. If you want to say the design was flawed for it's ability to react to emergency situations such AS sinking after said ship as begun to sink. I'd agree with you.
However there is no flaw that caused it to sink more so than any other vessal.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say it was banned.
I said when.
Mmmm..encryption...yea....you like that isps..you like that encryption..yeah...
What's going to get fun is when they start banning encrypted communication :)
That's looking at the small picture.
Looking at the bigger picture means taking in all the aspects of owning a car + gas.
The cost of maintaining a car has not increased 50%.
Gas prices have.
For families who were spending once 200-300$ in gas are now paying 300-450 in gas per month
3600 per year now is 5400.
If you don't think that's a lot of money, I'd be more than happy to have you give that to me.
I spend maybe 120ish per month right now in gas with minimal driving excluding going to work. (Which I need a car to get to)
It used to be 80. It adds up fast for low-middle class people.
Also my car is really light on gas usage.
"Hey, if you had tons of money, you can buy X and not have to worry about gas prices!"
If you could afford a volt you probably aren't worried about gas prices in the first place.
No, they can't afford cars because the gas prices keep going up so much.
Of course, if you exchange a fart the IRS sees it as an opportunity to get more money.
Greedy ****ers can stay out of my pocket as far as I'm concerned. I understand the profit concept, but exchanging labor / goods, they should back the **** off.
I'm satisfied with all my work I do where receive money as payment that goverment gets a portion, companies pay taxes, I do to. But really?
That's like them taxing people who car pool or if you mow your friends lawn.
You realize it's not pure GPS as there is a margin of error right?
The car also has sensor that detect objects around it / in front. GPS isn't reliable enough to purely drive on that.
What about other cars? It would hit them if it didn't.
GPS navigation is good for general location. People should still need to know how to drive, and if the car detects an issue with a route, it can slow down, stop and require the users to take over / recheck reset destination.
I'm more than happy to do pc repairs and exchange services with friends, right now one friend helps with mechanical issues with my car and I take care of their computers.
It's a great idea.
That level of radiation you speak of you receive from the sun.
We're constantly hit with natural radiation (vs a man made source) constantly.
I really don't recommend you inhale radon gas. It's possible that the radiation was treating certain affliction as radiation
can kill many things, but the side affect is it also kills you.
It's one of those - may make you feel better for the moment but make you feel a lot worse later.
I'd love to see your fact finding project for that statement.
The new iphone 4S. 4x the magic smoke when let out.
What's funny is you think they didn't know.
They were just returning it. What, should they have smashed windows in, dropped in smoke grenades, flash banged the cameras, and when all was said and done, the server was back?
I don't hate apple.
There's lots of things apples are good for.
Like eating.
Thank you token apple fanboy fanatic for proving my point.
I never claimed anything was silly, just simply stated if it was, you'd eat it up.
The power went out! The electric fences containing the cavemen are down!
I consider apple a religion.
It's all about control, doing it apples way or the highway, and no matter how completely silly a rule is, people swear by it without reason.
"AmErIcAaaaaa Fuck Yeah!"
Assuming you're not touching anything which would create resistance, and that the direction of the wind doesn't change, causing constant force, and that the air didn't cause any friction ever..
Can't argue with that. Definitely a poor decision.
Pretty sure that wouldn't be an issue if an iceberg didn't tear it a new one...
No, pretty sure it's not flawed.
Even today ships can be equipped with Radar, but not all of them are.
E.G It's possible to do a lot of things, but it doesn't immediately become a flaw after an accident happens and upon reflection go 'oh, for this specific damage, this may have helped stop it.
If someone said 'Hey, what if it hits an iceberg like this?' I'm sure someone would have said 'Let's make it completely watertight to prevent that from sinking it'
Definitely needs an improvement like that knowing what we know though.
Well, from what I understand is that it's manuvering capability was sufficient, the problem was a mirage like affect created by atmospheric distortion on the water, making objects appear above the horizon and far away, making the iceberg literally invisible on the sillouette of the night.
Only modern day sensory equipment would really be able to tell.
No ship of any girth is capable of moving out of an object nearly directly in it's path as decent speed within 30 feet or so as far as I know. (Actual distance is a guess)
Row boats have a design flaw. When waves exceed the top of them they fill with water and sink.
Flaw means defect, in my case I was stating the design was sea worthy. barring an ice-berg.
Cause of sinking was iceberg causing extensive damage.
That's like saying tank designs are flawed, when hit with armor piercing tank buster shells, the tank breaks.
There are improvements to most designs in the world to help mitigate damage and events, but just because you find an upgrade doesn't mean the original is flawed.
The boat, was designed and successfully operated as intended. Design operations did not include hitting giant iceberg.
Did they try to minimize likely-hood of sinking in the event of an accident? Yes.
Is it possible to prevent all accidents? No, or it wouldn't be called an accident.
It's like saying previous boats in medival ages had a design flaw - didn't have radar equipped.
Radar didn't exist. Boats still don't all have radar. They are not all flawed.
Knowing what we know now, can we improve the design drastically? Absolutely.
Modern twist? Probably making it actually water tight
Does that mean an iceberg WON'T sink a cruise ship of newer design or this one?
Iceberg can still sink ships.
The flaw was ramming a giant iceberg.
It's no secret that Iceberg + any ship = high risk of sinking.
It was only a disaster because of the rescue efforts back in that era and the lack of life boats, as it was assumed it would not sink.
If you want to say the design was flawed for it's ability to react to emergency situations such AS sinking after said ship as begun to sink. I'd agree with you.
However there is no flaw that caused it to sink more so than any other vessal.
I never said anyone who designed or built it said it...
I said 'the thought'.
Not where the thought originated from.