and it takes me all of two seconds to remember where the exits are
Actually, this is the one important bit of the safety briefing. It's been shown multiple times that in an emergency situation we're surprisingly shit at figuring out where we should be going. Not only that, but one person trying to fight the flow and go to the wrong exit can fuck over many many other people. Just prompting people to look around and register in their brain "it's 3 rows behind me" is useful.
Bracing does nothing to improve your chances of survival, in some cases it makes less likely you'll survive.
Not true, as multiple actual scientific studies, and, more popularly myth busters have shown. Assuming the brace position significantly reduces the acceleration your head undergoes, and hence significantly reduces the chances of traumatic brain injury.
I'll take my chances that even if I did brace for impact it wouldn't make a significant difference in my survival or chance of injury.
Actually, the brace position does have a huge effect on your survival of a crash landing. It stops your head accelerating rapidly forward, and then backward relative to your body. That illiminates a whole huge class of possible brain injuries.
Don't argue the "ignore the flight safety briefing" point - that's a red herring.
They're not saying "it's unsafe" therefor we shouldn't have it. They're arguing "we don't like it very much, so we're going to tell you about safety so that you think we have a point".
Yes, damn those white people for SIMPLY WANTING TO LIVE AROUND THEIR OWN KIND.
Yes, damn them for that. Yes, damn them for being so self centred, biggotted and idiotic for believing that somehow people who were born in another country are not worthy of being around them.
Apparently, YOU believe that white people are so 'superior' to non-whites, that to prevent non-whites from living around is to deprive them of something,
I'm sorry, but what the hell? You literally just claimed that depriving them of something (in this case the ability to live around you) is not depriving them of something.
Context - what's actually on the rise in Scandinavia at the moment is Nazism. So far, the fight against it has been a rather ham-fisted attempt to suppress it in the news, rather than engaging it and letting people see for themselves what it is. OP apparently sympathises with the rise of the far right in his country.
That would be because a modern F1 car is subject to significantly tighter rules than a 2-3 year old F1 car. The RedBull RB6 was measured to peak at 5.8g lateral acceleration.
G-suits are designed to push blood out of the legs, and to the brain. F1 cars almost never (and never when they're working right) accelerate in a direction where that's useful. G-suits do almost nothing useful against lateral and longitudinal acceleration. Only vertical.
At much higher temeratures than -30C, your physical analog gauges will have frozen up, or started sticking and giving inaccurate readings. Inaccurate readings are worse than no readings.
To be fair, F1 cars accelerate at 3g, brake at 5g and corner at 6g. The g-forces are enough that the drivers can't breath for half the lap. They're getting really close to the point where g forces are a problem.
However... you forgot taxation, which makes the net income of that 51k family 28k (assuming 45% combined state and federal tax). So now you're talking about 57% of your entire income spent on a fancy pants car. Hint - the normal division that's suggested is 1/3 rent; 1/3 eating, drinking, being merry; 1/3 saving for the future.
$10,000 isn't close to enough to be saving for later life. You only (typically) get about 35 years of working life, and most of us will get around 30-35 years as a pensioner. That means that you're currently setting yourself up to be living on $10,000 a year (assuming investment keeps up with inflation).
Actually, the reverse is happening. As we move to smaller, turbo'd engines, manufacturers are designing turbo charged engines that can operate at lower compression ratios. Take a look at for example VW's new 1.8 turbo engine - that expects 87-91 (R+M)/2.
I can only assume that the tanker driver accidentally dumped the "good stuff" super unleaded into the ordinary unleaded tank, because last weekend I purposely bought the more expensive super unleaded (again I'm not saying which brand) and achieved exactly the same mpg on the way home. If this is consistent, it's actually worth buying the more expensive grade of fuel to get the extra mpg.
No, super unleaded (higher octane fuel) will not get you higher milage. The difference is only how much you can compress the fuel before it explodes. This is important in high compression ratio engines (e.g. ones with turbo chargers), but completely irrelevant in normal car engines. In fact, most normal car engines will get slightly less far on higher octane fuel, due to it containing slightly less energy.
This article is talking about the UK. A 3 litre engine there is virtually unheard of. A 5 litre engine would be reserved for a tractor or heavy goods vehicle. Heck, even our top racing series (Formula 1) uses 1.6 litre turbos.
To be fair, Britain has orders of magnitude fewer stop signs than the US (we use give ways at almost every junction, stops are reserved only for blind, or otherwise dangerous ones). We also have significantly safer roads than the US. So yes, it does appear that in large part, stop signs are there to annoy skilful drivers like him.
The reason it's considered inferior is because it's inverted from what you really care about - what you care about is "how much fuel will it take me to get n miles". That's easy to gauge from gallons/mile, it's not at all easy to gauge from miles/gallon.
Example: A car that gets 2mpg will get twice as far on a tank as a car that gets 1mpg. A car that gets 48mpg will only barely get further than a car that gets 47mpg.
So what you're saying is that "something you know" is the only valid authentication factor for you - something you have and something you are are both invalid? No two factor auth for you I guess.
Actually, this is not a new UK law - it's a European Union directive, so it applies to the whole of the European Union.
No, what's UK law is the various sets of laws in the UK that implement the EU directive. Note –the EU has no power at all to enforce laws in the UK, they just make treaties asking various member states to implement laws matching up to directives.
The new law is the one saying that you're not violating copyright if you're backing something up. That one takes precedence over the one implementing the EU directive.
Slashdot Mirror
That seems pretty reasonable if you're talking about a car with a decent range. It may even be overkill.
and it takes me all of two seconds to remember where the exits are
Actually, this is the one important bit of the safety briefing. It's been shown multiple times that in an emergency situation we're surprisingly shit at figuring out where we should be going. Not only that, but one person trying to fight the flow and go to the wrong exit can fuck over many many other people. Just prompting people to look around and register in their brain "it's 3 rows behind me" is useful.
Bracing does nothing to improve your chances of survival, in some cases it makes less likely you'll survive.
Not true, as multiple actual scientific studies, and, more popularly myth busters have shown. Assuming the brace position significantly reduces the acceleration your head undergoes, and hence significantly reduces the chances of traumatic brain injury.
I'll take my chances that even if I did brace for impact it wouldn't make a significant difference in my survival or chance of injury.
Actually, the brace position does have a huge effect on your survival of a crash landing. It stops your head accelerating rapidly forward, and then backward relative to your body. That illiminates a whole huge class of possible brain injuries.
Don't argue the "ignore the flight safety briefing" point - that's a red herring.
They're not saying "it's unsafe" therefor we shouldn't have it. They're arguing "we don't like it very much, so we're going to tell you about safety so that you think we have a point".
So... removes it.
Yes, damn those white people for SIMPLY WANTING TO LIVE AROUND THEIR OWN KIND.
Yes, damn them for that. Yes, damn them for being so self centred, biggotted and idiotic for believing that somehow people who were born in another country are not worthy of being around them.
Apparently, YOU believe that white people are so 'superior' to non-whites, that to prevent non-whites from living around is to deprive them of something,
I'm sorry, but what the hell? You literally just claimed that depriving them of something (in this case the ability to live around you) is not depriving them of something.
I didn't say he didn't have the right to speak. I was just framing his comments with a bit more context.
Having the right to speak is not the same as having the right to not be called an idiot.
Context - what's actually on the rise in Scandinavia at the moment is Nazism. So far, the fight against it has been a rather ham-fisted attempt to suppress it in the news, rather than engaging it and letting people see for themselves what it is. OP apparently sympathises with the rise of the far right in his country.
That would be because a modern F1 car is subject to significantly tighter rules than a 2-3 year old F1 car. The RedBull RB6 was measured to peak at 5.8g lateral acceleration.
G-suits are designed to push blood out of the legs, and to the brain. F1 cars almost never (and never when they're working right) accelerate in a direction where that's useful. G-suits do almost nothing useful against lateral and longitudinal acceleration. Only vertical.
At much higher temeratures than -30C, your physical analog gauges will have frozen up, or started sticking and giving inaccurate readings. Inaccurate readings are worse than no readings.
Actually, GPUs do maths very inaccurately. They trade non-standard floating point implementations for speed.
To be fair, F1 cars accelerate at 3g, brake at 5g and corner at 6g. The g-forces are enough that the drivers can't breath for half the lap. They're getting really close to the point where g forces are a problem.
However... you forgot taxation, which makes the net income of that 51k family 28k (assuming 45% combined state and federal tax). So now you're talking about 57% of your entire income spent on a fancy pants car. Hint - the normal division that's suggested is 1/3 rent; 1/3 eating, drinking, being merry; 1/3 saving for the future.
$10,000 isn't close to enough to be saving for later life. You only (typically) get about 35 years of working life, and most of us will get around 30-35 years as a pensioner. That means that you're currently setting yourself up to be living on $10,000 a year (assuming investment keeps up with inflation).
Why did I read "KSC" as "Kerbal Space Centre"?
Not if you design your space plane right...
Actually, the reverse is happening. As we move to smaller, turbo'd engines, manufacturers are designing turbo charged engines that can operate at lower compression ratios. Take a look at for example VW's new 1.8 turbo engine - that expects 87-91 (R+M)/2.
I can only assume that the tanker driver accidentally dumped the "good stuff" super unleaded into the ordinary unleaded tank, because last weekend I purposely bought the more expensive super unleaded (again I'm not saying which brand) and achieved exactly the same mpg on the way home. If this is consistent, it's actually worth buying the more expensive grade of fuel to get the extra mpg.
No, super unleaded (higher octane fuel) will not get you higher milage. The difference is only how much you can compress the fuel before it explodes. This is important in high compression ratio engines (e.g. ones with turbo chargers), but completely irrelevant in normal car engines. In fact, most normal car engines will get slightly less far on higher octane fuel, due to it containing slightly less energy.
This article is talking about the UK. A 3 litre engine there is virtually unheard of. A 5 litre engine would be reserved for a tractor or heavy goods vehicle. Heck, even our top racing series (Formula 1) uses 1.6 litre turbos.
To be fair, Britain has orders of magnitude fewer stop signs than the US (we use give ways at almost every junction, stops are reserved only for blind, or otherwise dangerous ones). We also have significantly safer roads than the US. So yes, it does appear that in large part, stop signs are there to annoy skilful drivers like him.
The reason it's considered inferior is because it's inverted from what you really care about - what you care about is "how much fuel will it take me to get n miles". That's easy to gauge from gallons/mile, it's not at all easy to gauge from miles/gallon.
Example:
A car that gets 2mpg will get twice as far on a tank as a car that gets 1mpg. A car that gets 48mpg will only barely get further than a car that gets 47mpg.
So what you're saying is that "something you know" is the only valid authentication factor for you - something you have and something you are are both invalid? No two factor auth for you I guess.
Actually, this is not a new UK law - it's a European Union directive, so it applies to the whole of the European Union.
No, what's UK law is the various sets of laws in the UK that implement the EU directive. Note –the EU has no power at all to enforce laws in the UK, they just make treaties asking various member states to implement laws matching up to directives.
The new law is the one saying that you're not violating copyright if you're backing something up. That one takes precedence over the one implementing the EU directive.