Why do you need bags in the cabin? Because there is a significant probability that the airline will lose your checked bag, leaving you in a strange place with nothing. Or destroy your checked bag. Or steal things from it.
I've been in that situation and nothing in my carry-on helped. Everything required to deal with the situation was in my pockets.
Banning cabin bags might make loading and unloading the plane faster, but it would make the total travel time slower because of the wait for your bag after arrival. Frequent travelers would likely be more in favor of adding more space for carry-ons and eliminating checked bags.
I'd argue that total travel time would be about the same. The extra minutes added waiting to collect your bag would be saved in the minutes that you don't have to wait in screening queues at departure (these would still exist, but be much faster). So you get to the airport a few minutes later, and leave a few minutes later. Same duration, but less hassles dealing with retards and their carry-on bags.
""You do know that a government budget is in a human readable format right?""
Which is why everyone knows what is in the budget and understands how much is being spent on what?...
Bitch please.
"Actually you have no idea what you spend on healthcare because its buried in your budgets"
Just because you don't know, doesn't mean I don't.
As to increasing supply, this is something we do all the time for lots of different things....We could do a lot of things to increase the numbers.
Yes using things like subsidies and incentives and all the sorts of things you refuse to believe in.
As to socialist militaries... I'm not even going to get into the many layers of idiot that it took concoct that argument... beyond of course for the first one where I point out that the state doing something does not mean it is socialist.
No, but tell that to half of your country that actually think that it does (see Obamacare for millions of examples of this line of thought)...
Why do you need a bag in the cabin? Anything more than a tablet, headphones or paperback is a waste of space. I'd be happy if they banned cabin bags, it would make loading and unloading a lot faster, and wouldn't have to put up with dicks fidgeting around with pointless shit while you're trying to relax.
Even a 1st year comp. sci. persons knows that it is fastest to load the plane with LIFO.
So it encourages everyone to turn up late?
I estimate you could cut loading time down by 50%.. 75%, but no, the airlines are to stupid to figure this out
Either that or they know things you don't
All in all this means we can reach your destination about ~10 minutes sooner."
You don't get anywhere sooner because your departure time, travel time, arrival time, customs processing, and bag pickup are still all constant. All you've done is introduce complexity that will fail as soon as the first person shows up late.
I would actually pay extra for this service. I had a business class flight once where I wasn't feeling well, I ate a big meal and a couple of beers, with the fully flat bed I went straight to sleep and woke up 8 hours later on approach. It was the best flight I've ever had.
A lot of the economy carriers allow you to pay for an exit row, which is effectively premium economy for less than $50.
Some carriers allow you to bid on the empty business class seats, a friend got an upgrade to business on a 10 hour flight for an extra $200.
I often thought this about music and books. We now have enough processing and storage power to generate every variation of 12 semitones or 26 letters to cover at least a few minutes of music or a few pages of text. Enough to invalidate every copyright claim from now on.
I think it's about the FAA implements a maximum capacity rating on all commercial airframes. Then maybe airlines can focus back on service rather than human density.
Actually you have no idea what you spend on healthcare because its buried in your budgets.
You do know that a government budget is in a human readable format right?
The preferred method of dealing with this from a capitalistic stand point is to increase supply... that is the number of doctors
You wave your magic wand and more doctors appear? Please explain how this mechanism works that allows you to increase more doctors on demand?
It can't be through any sort of subsidy because as you say, that is the work of the devil.
So prices go down or you go out of business and your competitors eat you alive.
So all those doctors you grew on the vine are now out of work? And this your version of a better society?
You're a socialist so you don't understand this... never mind that you trust and rely on these systems for nearly everything else. You rely on it to keep food prices low. You rely on it to keep clothing prices low. You rely on it to keep car or gasoline prices low.
But suddenly when it comes to healthcare you think something that works everywhere else doesn't work for healthcare? Your position is nonsense.
You rely on a socialist military that allows you to sleep at night. Do you understand that?
But if you want to live that way, then so be it. Unlike the Europeans that can't stop telling people how great their stupid systems are... even as Greece eats itself....
I'm not European, but even though my country has a lower GDP than the US, we enjoy cheaper healthcare, higher life expectancy, lower unemployment, lower crime and higher standards of living. We also seem to have a greater understanding of geographic diversity, and also understand that capitalistic and socialistic principles are not mutually exclusive. Any robust economy will embrace the best both and apply each where necessary for the greater good.
No, the thing that matters is to execute those actions which keep the machine of government moving along
Sometimes you work against your immediate interests in order to promote your long-term interests
And most people should be familiar with this process. When I get paid, do I spend all my money now and party, or sacrifice a little to save away for a rainy day.
What's most surprising is that a lot of people don't seem to understand this concept.
I've been waiting decades for this fascination with aerial kung fu to die a natural death. It's just stupid and ruins the flow of any movie trying to be serious. Well-worn fight scenes and chase scenes are the worst part of modern movie making, someone needs to inject some originality into this space.
Those categories are completely irrelevant to a FICTIONAL universe populated with FICTIONAL aliens who have ZERO in common with any race or gender from Earth. Period. Anything else is not sci-fi, it's just leftist politics.
Except that those fictional characters created by a real human, to be used as entertainment by other real humans
Of course it's just fiction, so kiddy porn should be fine too, as long as it's fictional....
Helpless? In this day and age of everyone being glued to a screen, I think it's actually a good thing to have an enforced break from technology once in a while. I wish something like this would happen here, it might make people reflect a bit more and question which types of technology are useful and which aren't.
A satellite has limited and expensive bandwidth and high latency. It's cheaper and faster to use fiber. The public also thinks their phone calls go over coper wire, when almost the entire telephone system was converted to packet switched internet years ago.
The last mile is usually copper and that's where all the issues are, hence why people think that way.
I don't know too many cities that have their CBD on top of a hill with the outskirts physically below them - Can you list some examples?
Rome, which is built on hills.
Yes, yes I already pointed that out, but since the modern suburb is a creation of the 19th and 20th centuries, do you have any other more recent examples?
Back the day there was urban or rural, with the advent of transport and the car, the space between the two was now a new type of middle ground and hence the term 'suburban'. Note: Yes I'm aware of the ancient Rome link to the word suburb, but that is not the same context as the modern suburb.
Modern suburbs are urban areas, as strange as that may seem.
Not the same type as a CBD, which is why there is two different terms.
When the term suburb was popularised back in the 50's, it referred to the vast new farming areas on the outskirts of the city that was used predominately for housing. It differed from traditional urban areas that were densely populated and filled business, industry and services. The Suburb was urban, but not quite urban, because it was mostly just houses and roads. Prior to the widespread use of the car, this type of area was not possible, hence the new term which actually does mean "not quite urban".
Despite the name, suburbs are still urban. The prefix 'sub' doesn't mean 'not quite urban,' here......it comes from the old Latin for 'below.' As in, the places where most people lived were literally below the central city, which was on top of a hill.
Sub in suburban does actually mean "not quite" in this case. I don't know too many cities that have their CBD on top of a hill with the outskirts physically below them - Can you list some examples?
Back the day there was urban or rural, with the advent of transport and the car, the space between the two was now a new type of middle ground and hence the term 'suburban'. Note: Yes I'm aware of the ancient Rome link to the word suburb, but that is not the same context as the modern suburb.
You misunderstand the urban-planning term of art (which may have been chosen to sell you on that idea.)
"Walkable neighborhoods" are NOT "pedestrian friendly". They are "car hostile". They involve high-density housing with no practical automobile access. You are expected to do all your shopping by walking to the stores and carrying the groceries or other goods back home.
And this is bad how? I have lived in such a place, and it was an improvement.
The stores, of course, have a small, captive, clientele. So they don't have the economy of scale of, say, a supermarket, and are priced like a convenience store. (Imagine only being able to get groceries from your local 7-11 and having to carry them home.)
We don't have to imagine, we have real world examples such as Hong Kong and Singapore, the two highest density places on earth, both of which have high density, low car ownership, and both of which have far more choice than any car-oriented town you care to name.
If your home is in a "transit-oriented development" - and it actually HAS some transit - you can try carrying your groceries back on a bus or (if you're VERY lucky, aren't working, and can time your shopping trip for rush hour) a commuter train.
(Of course such high-density developments are primarily constructed in low-income neighborhoods.
Examples? We must be talking about two different things here. Some of the best places around the world are "walkable neighbourhoods". In fact every neighbourhood in human history was walkable up until 70 years ago. I can only guess that you're talking about some failed experiment in the US somewhere. This is more a flaw in your planning processes than the "walkable neighbourhood" as a concept.
Do you? I learnt something about Hypercard and Lotus123, the most I got out of Uni was a piece of paper that set me above some others while applying for the same jobs as me.
Actually the best thing from uni was being exposed to really smart people. In real life a lot of people are dumb, so to be in a graduate level calculus class, way out of your depth gives you some perspective. A lot of non-uni people simply aren't aware of how smart some other people are.
A good manager won't rely on HR to filter technical skills. I use HR to screen hygiene and language skills and do all the paper work, but for team fit and technical I do that all myself. And in my experience, the more certs, the worst the candidate. IT is so fast moving that anyone with real skills is too busy doing to go off and do courses and exams.
Essentially, you are at a 1st level helpdesk. Human body or computer, there's no quick track that skips proper troubleshooting, and proper troubleshooting sometimes takes time. Trouble is that there is no tier 2 helpdesk that isn't dedicated to a specific field, which they will send you to once they determine what it is.
From my limited, anecdotal evidence, I wonder how many others consume precious doctor resources with non-serious issues that could be addressed by a real level 1 service such as a nurse.
Push the doctor to Level 2, the Specialist to level 3, and introduce a less qualified person into level 1. All those people with colds and flu, cuts and bruises, even minor breaks can be diagnosed by most nurses.
I don't know the real numbers but based on my experience in waiting rooms this would cut doctor visits by at least half.
Yes - but you may have noticed that modern networks benefit from fault tolerant designs, where they route around failure. If all of your computation in-theater is tied to a satellite uplink, then all the enemy has to do to paralyze you is neutralize that one uplink. With computation and a distributed footprint in-theater, they have to disable each and every modular datacenter to accomplish the same task. Lot harder to blow up 500 datacenter containers than it is to disrupt communications with a single satellite, champ.
So distribute your up-links then.
Combined with some land and air based repeaters, Predators would be perfect, you mesh your network back to your one data centre in the nearest green zone or carrier group.
This is the thing, back in the day cops ruled their local area and if they were bad eggs you were screwed. But these days you report to central facility, most likely a call centre, there is oversight and accountability. It's just too hard to get away with being a bad cop these days. Sure they still exist, but unlike the old days where they could make a life of it, these days they get found out pretty quickly (which is why we have so many bad cop stories these days).
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you need bags in the cabin? Because there is a significant probability that the airline will lose your checked bag, leaving you in a strange place with nothing. Or destroy your checked bag. Or steal things from it.
I've been in that situation and nothing in my carry-on helped. Everything required to deal with the situation was in my pockets.
Banning cabin bags might make loading and unloading the plane faster, but it would make the total travel time slower because of the wait for your bag after arrival. Frequent travelers would likely be more in favor of adding more space for carry-ons and eliminating checked bags.
I'd argue that total travel time would be about the same. The extra minutes added waiting to collect your bag would be saved in the minutes that you don't have to wait in screening queues at departure (these would still exist, but be much faster). So you get to the airport a few minutes later, and leave a few minutes later. Same duration, but less hassles dealing with retards and their carry-on bags.
""You do know that a government budget is in a human readable format right?""
Which is why everyone knows what is in the budget and understands how much is being spent on what?...
Bitch please.
"Actually you have no idea what you spend on healthcare because its buried in your budgets" Just because you don't know, doesn't mean I don't.
As to increasing supply, this is something we do all the time for lots of different things. ...We could do a lot of things to increase the numbers.
Yes using things like subsidies and incentives and all the sorts of things you refuse to believe in.
As to socialist militaries... I'm not even going to get into the many layers of idiot that it took concoct that argument... beyond of course for the first one where I point out that the state doing something does not mean it is socialist.
No, but tell that to half of your country that actually think that it does (see Obamacare for millions of examples of this line of thought)...
So malice then....
Why do you need a bag in the cabin? Anything more than a tablet, headphones or paperback is a waste of space. I'd be happy if they banned cabin bags, it would make loading and unloading a lot faster, and wouldn't have to put up with dicks fidgeting around with pointless shit while you're trying to relax.
And Bodybuilders...
Even a 1st year comp. sci. persons knows that it is fastest to load the plane with LIFO.
So it encourages everyone to turn up late?
I estimate you could cut loading time down by 50% .. 75%, but no, the airlines are to stupid to figure this out
Either that or they know things you don't
All in all this means we can reach your destination about ~10 minutes sooner."
You don't get anywhere sooner because your departure time, travel time, arrival time, customs processing, and bag pickup are still all constant. All you've done is introduce complexity that will fail as soon as the first person shows up late.
I would actually pay extra for this service. I had a business class flight once where I wasn't feeling well, I ate a big meal and a couple of beers, with the fully flat bed I went straight to sleep and woke up 8 hours later on approach. It was the best flight I've ever had.
A lot of the economy carriers allow you to pay for an exit row, which is effectively premium economy for less than $50.
Some carriers allow you to bid on the empty business class seats, a friend got an upgrade to business on a 10 hour flight for an extra $200.
I often thought this about music and books. We now have enough processing and storage power to generate every variation of 12 semitones or 26 letters to cover at least a few minutes of music or a few pages of text. Enough to invalidate every copyright claim from now on.
I think it's about the FAA implements a maximum capacity rating on all commercial airframes. Then maybe airlines can focus back on service rather than human density.
Actually you have no idea what you spend on healthcare because its buried in your budgets.
You do know that a government budget is in a human readable format right?
The preferred method of dealing with this from a capitalistic stand point is to increase supply... that is the number of doctors
You wave your magic wand and more doctors appear? Please explain how this mechanism works that allows you to increase more doctors on demand? It can't be through any sort of subsidy because as you say, that is the work of the devil.
So prices go down or you go out of business and your competitors eat you alive.
So all those doctors you grew on the vine are now out of work? And this your version of a better society?
You're a socialist so you don't understand this... never mind that you trust and rely on these systems for nearly everything else. You rely on it to keep food prices low. You rely on it to keep clothing prices low. You rely on it to keep car or gasoline prices low.
But suddenly when it comes to healthcare you think something that works everywhere else doesn't work for healthcare? Your position is nonsense.
You rely on a socialist military that allows you to sleep at night. Do you understand that?
But if you want to live that way, then so be it. Unlike the Europeans that can't stop telling people how great their stupid systems are... even as Greece eats itself....
I'm not European, but even though my country has a lower GDP than the US, we enjoy cheaper healthcare, higher life expectancy, lower unemployment, lower crime and higher standards of living. We also seem to have a greater understanding of geographic diversity, and also understand that capitalistic and socialistic principles are not mutually exclusive. Any robust economy will embrace the best both and apply each where necessary for the greater good.
No, the thing that matters is to execute those actions which keep the machine of government moving along
Sometimes you work against your immediate interests in order to promote your long-term interests
And most people should be familiar with this process. When I get paid, do I spend all my money now and party, or sacrifice a little to save away for a rainy day.
What's most surprising is that a lot of people don't seem to understand this concept.
I've been waiting decades for this fascination with aerial kung fu to die a natural death. It's just stupid and ruins the flow of any movie trying to be serious. Well-worn fight scenes and chase scenes are the worst part of modern movie making, someone needs to inject some originality into this space.
Those categories are completely irrelevant to a FICTIONAL universe populated with FICTIONAL aliens who have ZERO in common with any race or gender from Earth. Period. Anything else is not sci-fi, it's just leftist politics.
Except that those fictional characters created by a real human, to be used as entertainment by other real humans
Of course it's just fiction, so kiddy porn should be fine too, as long as it's fictional....
Or it may be a prime example how helpless...
Helpless? In this day and age of everyone being glued to a screen, I think it's actually a good thing to have an enforced break from technology once in a while. I wish something like this would happen here, it might make people reflect a bit more and question which types of technology are useful and which aren't.
A satellite has limited and expensive bandwidth and high latency. It's cheaper and faster to use fiber. The public also thinks their phone calls go over coper wire, when almost the entire telephone system was converted to packet switched internet years ago.
The last mile is usually copper and that's where all the issues are, hence why people think that way.
I don't know too many cities that have their CBD on top of a hill with the outskirts physically below them - Can you list some examples?
Rome, which is built on hills.
Yes, yes I already pointed that out, but since the modern suburb is a creation of the 19th and 20th centuries, do you have any other more recent examples?
Back the day there was urban or rural, with the advent of transport and the car, the space between the two was now a new type of middle ground and hence the term 'suburban'. Note: Yes I'm aware of the ancient Rome link to the word suburb, but that is not the same context as the modern suburb.
Modern suburbs are urban areas, as strange as that may seem.
Not the same type as a CBD, which is why there is two different terms. When the term suburb was popularised back in the 50's, it referred to the vast new farming areas on the outskirts of the city that was used predominately for housing. It differed from traditional urban areas that were densely populated and filled business, industry and services. The Suburb was urban, but not quite urban, because it was mostly just houses and roads. Prior to the widespread use of the car, this type of area was not possible, hence the new term which actually does mean "not quite urban".
Despite the name, suburbs are still urban. The prefix 'sub' doesn't mean 'not quite urban,' here......it comes from the old Latin for 'below.' As in, the places where most people lived were literally below the central city, which was on top of a hill.
Sub in suburban does actually mean "not quite" in this case. I don't know too many cities that have their CBD on top of a hill with the outskirts physically below them - Can you list some examples?
Back the day there was urban or rural, with the advent of transport and the car, the space between the two was now a new type of middle ground and hence the term 'suburban'. Note: Yes I'm aware of the ancient Rome link to the word suburb, but that is not the same context as the modern suburb.
You misunderstand the urban-planning term of art (which may have been chosen to sell you on that idea.)
"Walkable neighborhoods" are NOT "pedestrian friendly". They are "car hostile". They involve high-density housing with no practical automobile access. You are expected to do all your shopping by walking to the stores and carrying the groceries or other goods back home.
And this is bad how? I have lived in such a place, and it was an improvement.
The stores, of course, have a small, captive, clientele. So they don't have the economy of scale of, say, a supermarket, and are priced like a convenience store. (Imagine only being able to get groceries from your local 7-11 and having to carry them home.)
We don't have to imagine, we have real world examples such as Hong Kong and Singapore, the two highest density places on earth, both of which have high density, low car ownership, and both of which have far more choice than any car-oriented town you care to name.
If your home is in a "transit-oriented development" - and it actually HAS some transit - you can try carrying your groceries back on a bus or (if you're VERY lucky, aren't working, and can time your shopping trip for rush hour) a commuter train.
(Of course such high-density developments are primarily constructed in low-income neighborhoods.
Examples? We must be talking about two different things here. Some of the best places around the world are "walkable neighbourhoods". In fact every neighbourhood in human history was walkable up until 70 years ago. I can only guess that you're talking about some failed experiment in the US somewhere. This is more a flaw in your planning processes than the "walkable neighbourhood" as a concept.
Do you? I learnt something about Hypercard and Lotus123, the most I got out of Uni was a piece of paper that set me above some others while applying for the same jobs as me.
Actually the best thing from uni was being exposed to really smart people. In real life a lot of people are dumb, so to be in a graduate level calculus class, way out of your depth gives you some perspective. A lot of non-uni people simply aren't aware of how smart some other people are.
A good manager won't rely on HR to filter technical skills. I use HR to screen hygiene and language skills and do all the paper work, but for team fit and technical I do that all myself. And in my experience, the more certs, the worst the candidate. IT is so fast moving that anyone with real skills is too busy doing to go off and do courses and exams.
Essentially, you are at a 1st level helpdesk. Human body or computer, there's no quick track that skips proper troubleshooting, and proper troubleshooting sometimes takes time. Trouble is that there is no tier 2 helpdesk that isn't dedicated to a specific field, which they will send you to once they determine what it is.
From my limited, anecdotal evidence, I wonder how many others consume precious doctor resources with non-serious issues that could be addressed by a real level 1 service such as a nurse.
Push the doctor to Level 2, the Specialist to level 3, and introduce a less qualified person into level 1. All those people with colds and flu, cuts and bruises, even minor breaks can be diagnosed by most nurses.
I don't know the real numbers but based on my experience in waiting rooms this would cut doctor visits by at least half.
You walk into the local PD.
Walk. How 20th Century.
This is the thing, back in the day cops ruled their local area and if they were bad eggs you were screwed. But these days you report to central facility, most likely a call centre, there is oversight and accountability. It's just too hard to get away with being a bad cop these days. Sure they still exist, but unlike the old days where they could make a life of it, these days they get found out pretty quickly (which is why we have so many bad cop stories these days).
Where are you living, Sicily?