According to this article it made money every time it flew, about 30 millions British Pounds a year, but it never recouped the development costs.
Wow, thirty million pounds (i.e. about $50M), really? Compared to how much BA makes in a year on subsonic traffic? I can't imagine why Concorde didn't get more support.
Concorde would have been a lot more successful if some US states hadn't banned it. Sour grapes because US companies couldn't develop their own supersonic passenger jets first, and weren't even really in the game by the time Concorde started flying.
This thing about "the US banning supersonic overflight" is getting tiresome. How many European countries allow supersonic overflight for commercial traffic? Why didn't Concorde run from Paris to, say, Athens or Riyadh or Dubai? I'll bet a lot of oil sheiks would have been happy to pay for Concorde flights to the Riviera or Amsterdam or wherever. This is not why the Concorde failed; it failed because it was thirsty and noisy and expensive to operate.
I don't think the US has any hypersonic AAM's at this point. The AIM-54 Phoenix was a long range mach 5 missile, but has been retired along with the F-14. The AIM-120 AMRAAM and current AIM-7 Sparrows are mach 4.
Which is plenty fast enough to catch a Concorde, never mind this new plane that can't even reach Mach 2. So quit picking at nits.
Cars with the throttle body carburetor of the late 70s and early 80s get better gas mileage than todays hybrids although they couldn't pass an emissions test.
Those cars, e.g. Rabbit Diesel or Honda Civic CVCC, didn't get good mileage because they had crappy old carburetors (or throttle body injection in the case of diesels). They got good mileage because they were tiny little crapboxes made of tinfoil that weighed nothing, still couldn't get out their own way despite being so light, and were about a tenth as safe as modern cars.
Yeah but it is American, so there's hope for it given that one of they key reasons Concorde failed is American jealousy at the successful design and development of it meant they made life commercially impossible for it to exist.
Oh, really? And just how did "they" (who's "they", BTW) do that?
And does it drop me off at my office? And how long does it take to get there vs. driving? I'm guessing that, outside of NYC and maybe DC and Chicago, the answers to those questions are not favorable.
...which would snarl NYC traffic way worse than it already is. It's one thing to have a nav app work out a no-left-turn route for you, but are we going to expect to just know how to do so on their own?
“In the public sector, 7.91% of pensioners retire between the ages of 26 and 50, 23.64% between 51 and 55, and 43.53% between 56 and 61. In IKA, 4.44% of pensioners retire between the ages of 26 and 50, 12.83% retire between 51 and 55, and 58.61% retire between 56 and 61. Meanwhile, in the so-called healthy funds, 91.6% of people retire before the national retirement age limit,” [labor minister] Vroutsis said.
Greece will stay in Europe and the euro but start the process of fixing the euro so that it works for the piigs too.
And what do you think that would look like? How was one currency ever supposed to work for both the PIIGs and Germany/France at the same time, without the latter constantly having to carry the former along?
Higher education doesn't have to be about making money, but government and taxpayers paying for higher education ought to be. If you want to blow your rich daddy's money on a medieval basketweaving degree, that's fine. But the point of government-funded education ought to be to increase the tax base with higher-paying jobs, to pay back the money spent on the education. Why should you be entitled to a non-productive fluff degree at my tax expense?
In statistics, that is *not* what correlation means. Two phenomena can have a high degree of correlation without either one having a causative effect on the other.
The SAT doesn't exist to gauge one's future success in life. It exists to determine eligibility for college admission. The kind of people who can do well on the SAT are the kind of people who can learn they stuff they'll be taught in college, presumably - which does not, for better or worse, generally include social skills.
Electric cars still use the roads, true, but they pollute less and this should be rewarded. Why not a gas tax and a per-mile tax, balanced to each produce about the same amount of revenue?
But the existing law is total BS as well. Define "insult" in a way that can be objectively enforced, and that isn't a slippery slope toward the town government finding excuses to fine the whole town, every day. What if I claim to find the phrase "good morning" to be offensive? Can I fine you $100?
Which is it? I can see the issue with making threats against people, whether they be public officials or ordinary citizens. But insulting? Why is it not my right to say "Mayor So-and-So is a poopyhead", whether online or right to his face?
...Terrorist attack that highlights issues of freedom vs. tyranny, leads to legislation that highlights issues of freedom vs. tyranny. Cue Alanis Morissette...
What's affordable? IIRC mine costs me like $20 a month, and that includes twice-yearly checkups and cleanings and X-rays, plus any work I need done e.g. fillings etc. (except oral surgery which would go under my medical insurance). Doesn't include orthodontia though.
People plant there because one of the most important ingredients in farming is not water, or nutrients (not that those aren't also very important), but sunlight. And California has lots and lots of it.
One of the great ironies.. the east coast has a good watershead and extremely fertile land, but we moved so large chunks of our agriculture to regions with crappy land.
"Crappy" is defined by more than fertility. What California's land has lots of, that the East Coast doesn't have as much of, is sunshine, which is even more difficult to ship around from place to place than water.
Slashdot Mirror
According to this article it made money every time it flew, about 30 millions British Pounds a year, but it never recouped the development costs.
Wow, thirty million pounds (i.e. about $50M), really? Compared to how much BA makes in a year on subsonic traffic? I can't imagine why Concorde didn't get more support.
Concorde would have been a lot more successful if some US states hadn't banned it. Sour grapes because US companies couldn't develop their own supersonic passenger jets first, and weren't even really in the game by the time Concorde started flying.
This thing about "the US banning supersonic overflight" is getting tiresome. How many European countries allow supersonic overflight for commercial traffic? Why didn't Concorde run from Paris to, say, Athens or Riyadh or Dubai? I'll bet a lot of oil sheiks would have been happy to pay for Concorde flights to the Riviera or Amsterdam or wherever. This is not why the Concorde failed; it failed because it was thirsty and noisy and expensive to operate.
I don't think the US has any hypersonic AAM's at this point. The AIM-54 Phoenix was a long range mach 5 missile, but has been retired along with the F-14. The AIM-120 AMRAAM and current AIM-7 Sparrows are mach 4.
Which is plenty fast enough to catch a Concorde, never mind this new plane that can't even reach Mach 2. So quit picking at nits.
Cars with the throttle body carburetor of the late 70s and early 80s get better gas mileage than todays hybrids although they couldn't pass an emissions test.
Those cars, e.g. Rabbit Diesel or Honda Civic CVCC, didn't get good mileage because they had crappy old carburetors (or throttle body injection in the case of diesels). They got good mileage because they were tiny little crapboxes made of tinfoil that weighed nothing, still couldn't get out their own way despite being so light, and were about a tenth as safe as modern cars.
In your spandex jacket?
Yeah but it is American, so there's hope for it given that one of they key reasons Concorde failed is American jealousy at the successful design and development of it meant they made life commercially impossible for it to exist.
Oh, really? And just how did "they" (who's "they", BTW) do that?
And does it drop me off at my office? And how long does it take to get there vs. driving? I'm guessing that, outside of NYC and maybe DC and Chicago, the answers to those questions are not favorable.
they could just put up "no left turn" signs
...which would snarl NYC traffic way worse than it already is. It's one thing to have a nav app work out a no-left-turn route for you, but are we going to expect to just know how to do so on their own?
Maybe the taxes would be more reasonable if people didn't expect to retire at 30 or whatever the hell it is, on the government teat.
Uh, what do you mean, "accept"? What makes you think they'll have a choice?
And what do you think that would look like? How was one currency ever supposed to work for both the PIIGs and Germany/France at the same time, without the latter constantly having to carry the former along?
Higher education doesn't have to be about making money, but government and taxpayers paying for higher education ought to be. If you want to blow your rich daddy's money on a medieval basketweaving degree, that's fine. But the point of government-funded education ought to be to increase the tax base with higher-paying jobs, to pay back the money spent on the education. Why should you be entitled to a non-productive fluff degree at my tax expense?
Success at university is meaningless and worthless? I think there a few engineers, doctors, lawyers, educators, etc. who would disagree with you.
In statistics, that is *not* what correlation means. Two phenomena can have a high degree of correlation without either one having a causative effect on the other.
The SAT doesn't exist to gauge one's future success in life. It exists to determine eligibility for college admission. The kind of people who can do well on the SAT are the kind of people who can learn they stuff they'll be taught in college, presumably - which does not, for better or worse, generally include social skills.
Electric cars still use the roads, true, but they pollute less and this should be rewarded. Why not a gas tax and a per-mile tax, balanced to each produce about the same amount of revenue?
You mean the kids aren't using AOL accounts ironically these days?
But the existing law is total BS as well. Define "insult" in a way that can be objectively enforced, and that isn't a slippery slope toward the town government finding excuses to fine the whole town, every day. What if I claim to find the phrase "good morning" to be offensive? Can I fine you $100?
Which is it? I can see the issue with making threats against people, whether they be public officials or ordinary citizens. But insulting? Why is it not my right to say "Mayor So-and-So is a poopyhead", whether online or right to his face?
...Terrorist attack that highlights issues of freedom vs. tyranny, leads to legislation that highlights issues of freedom vs. tyranny. Cue Alanis Morissette...
What's affordable? IIRC mine costs me like $20 a month, and that includes twice-yearly checkups and cleanings and X-rays, plus any work I need done e.g. fillings etc. (except oral surgery which would go under my medical insurance). Doesn't include orthodontia though.
People plant there because one of the most important ingredients in farming is not water, or nutrients (not that those aren't also very important), but sunlight. And California has lots and lots of it.
One of the great ironies.. the east coast has a good watershead and extremely fertile land, but we moved so large chunks of our agriculture to regions with crappy land.
"Crappy" is defined by more than fertility. What California's land has lots of, that the East Coast doesn't have as much of, is sunshine, which is even more difficult to ship around from place to place than water.
Haven't you been alive long enough to realize that ANY scientific "thing" will be used to destroy, maim and enslave?
Haven't you? So what are you suggesting, a halt to all science?