while I generally agree, there isn't probably a practical solution...
Combining A & B, if you're at altitude high enough to need the Oxygen masks, you've generally got time before you're going to be at jumping altitude anyway.
C. You wouldn't be opening the door until you reach reasonable altitude. the 'overpressure' isn't nearly high enough to do much at less than 10000 ft.
D. Given that you're first training jump can be without any guidance whatsoever its doable (yes I've done it). The only 'guidance' given was having static line jump so my chute automatically opened. Also, military chutes have *very* little control to them. You go where you go.
E. Parachute inspections: once they are packed, if properly secured/sealed they are good for a decent while, no? my point, given the trade off of going down to the ground in a cramped fragile container containing lots of flamable stuff and fuel...I rather like the idea of parachutes. Maybe you don't keep them at the seats like lifejackets. A & B indicate you'll have some time to distribute them.
Finding space for them might be the tougher option.
you're point of 'marketing' though is a good one. Nobody would do it voluntarily...but then automakers didn't do seatbelts at first either. The gov't stepped in and made them do it.
Liability, you mean like the liability you signed away if they crash? it's easy enough to say, "use it if you want" or go down with the plane.
All in all, it's probably an impractical thing, but given some research I bet it could be solved into being a simpler thing.
They *Finally* get some buzz with the forthcoming Palm Pre....and they announce they are killing the OS it uses. How to make early adopters think twice before buying one.
Great move...not
Whether or not the OS kill is a good thing is a different story, but it certainly cramps the buzz of the one thing they've got going for them.
If 49% of a state votes 1 way, and 100% of the states votes are distributed the other way
again I fail to see how 'losing' a vote is disenfranchising people. If your saying, that the electoral college is what is disenfranchising people, then I can see that argument.
But but now you're talking about changing the very fabric of our presidential election system and not something to be taken lightly. There are pitfalls both ways of doing things.
If its a true popular vote, you'd get American Idol candidates doing fairly well. Or perhaps Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert or Oprah or Martha Stewart.
Having the EC as a 'check' to me is a reasonable compromise as it was to the founding fathers.
I still stand by my suggestion of lowering the level at which it is applied; down to the district level rather than at the state level. Gives people more direct input, but still protects against the 'mob rule' concept.
New York is as red as a stop sign
news to me growing up in Rochester for 20 years. The state is pretty liberal on average from what my experience has been. Perhaps the 'state' isnt' as liberal as the 'city' but that doesn't make the 'state' conservative.
Those states [CA, NY] have more electoral votes than nearly all the midwest combined.
They also have more people so they *should* get more say when voting for president.
But winner take all disenfranchises people who aren't the majority, and it doesn't reflect the actual views of the state.
Everything does this. If you take a vote, anybody who voted against the winning party is 'disenfranchised'? that's called life and community living. Nothing pleases everybody, you go with the majority as a general rule since you will by definition please the most people. (obviously enforcing people's 'rights' override majority rule).
Personally going with VT (or NH I can't remember) seems the best option. Each 'district' votes its own way, no winner takes all. But each district gets to choose how it votes. Not full popular vote, but yet not winner take all either.
And remember Bush almost won the popular vote in 2000 while still losing pretty much all of the 'big city liberal' vote. Sad to say I give him props for that, but it was an exercise that proved your theory wrong. You can win by winning all the 'small states'.
Apparently in your house you don't obey the laws of the 'real' world. Potholes and bumps happen. You simply can't avoid them occurring. Even more so, when you consider cold climates.
Would a perfectly smooth road be more 'efficient'? of course. Will it ever be like that for more than a year? not likely. millions of tons of load will cause wear and tear and material failures.
You will always have bumps in the road. Recouping some of the energy lost to that inefficiency makes them less inefficient. Comparing the cost of adding these shocks vs regular shocks to the gains in efficiency will determine whether its a feasible real world solution, but the concept is rock solid on it's principles.
Yes it is still offensive. *nothing* you described deviates from calling someone a 'redneck' either.
Calling them low income, uneducated, drug dealing morons still conveys everything you want to convey..unless you wanted to convey they were *black*, in which case you refute your own argument.
I will say installing a filter for known uses, such as more than one of the phrases "Installing your N*****", "Housing your N*****" etc, seems a reasonable thing to do, since most of these posts are pretty much canned.
But if such a filter were installed just for N***** and it caused me to miss your ever so informative piece of garbage...sign me up now...
512kb/s is plenty for people who aren't movie watchers or gamers or P2Pers
In which case satellite covers their needs pretty well. You won't get the mobility, but since these are localized areas, you don't have too much mobility in the first place.
The idea is great, but as pointed out, the only place these things work is in places where satellite already exists...with better speeds....for similar prices.
my choice of weapon type was obviously just a random one. small arms are better in close quarters as you say.
As for your statement that we're being cowed down, I disagree. I believe we *were* cowed down into not fighting back for safety reasons. That is gone, people know (or should know) that their safety in a hijacking is largely in their own hands.
And my concept is the plane is never successfully hijacked because passengers intervene before control is gained.
once the plane is controlled by the hijackers, it's over, they've won the battle and can crash it just as Flight 93 did.
fair enough, but take it a few steps down the road.
You are going to have *multiple* shots fired as concerned citizens try to disarm/disable the hothead. some of these people will inevitably be seated behind the the hothead and shooting forward...a hole in the cockpit window at 300 mph can't exactly make flying easy
We're talking about significantly increasing the number of weapons in the situation. Based on casual perusal of the news, this *will* increase the number of incidents.
Yes I'm playing up the chances, but more weapons is not the answer. Passenger behavior and the hardened cockpit doors have done more than anything else.
I agree 9/11 wouldn't have likely happened if people were allowed to regularly carry weapons on planes.
However, you have to balance that with the inevitable 2-3 crashes per year because of drunk or otherwise hotheaded passengers who just didn't think about pulling triggers etc.
9/11 happened because of intelligence failures, plain and simple. It won't happen again, not because of better intelligence, but because the hijacker-passenger contract was ripped up. People know now that they may not survive if they don't fight back. Previously people knew that if they just went along eventually they were likely to be released unharmed in some random foreign land.
Now people will fight back hard and fast when something happens. That alone is the safest thing we have in our favor preventing another 9/11 attack.
I'm wondering if we're talking about different things because your arguments don't make any sense based on actual real world experience.
I will admit to not being that knowledgeable about the inner workings of motors but here goes...
From Wikipedia:
In a petrol (gasoline) internal combustion engine, the throttle is a valve that directly regulates the amount of air entering the engine, indirectly controlling the fuel burned on each cycle due to the fuel-injector or carburetor maintaining a relatively constant fuel/air ratio.
So the more open the throttle is, more fuel is being used per piston cycle, yes?
How is that *more* efficient than when the throttle is letting in less fuel per piston cycle? Its great for exceleration since you want to change the cars inertia - you impart that extra energy expended into the speed.
When you're going at a constant speed you don't need full power, as such the throttle is definitely not fully open. The energy needed to turn the shaft is lower hence less fuel and better economy.
If it worked as I understand your reasoning cars would get their best fuel economy when the accelerator is floored. That is obviously not the case.
Yes you pay a penalty carrying around the weight of the extra stuff. But the penalty is lower than the gain you get back from it in the electric energy it stores from the braking/transmission.
The base measuring stick here is the fuel economy of the vehicle. By your logic, hybrids would get worse overall fuel economy, and yet they *all* get better economy than their gas only equivalents. Please explain how that can be if its as you say?
You are correct but you're missing the bigger picture. The gains from using the transmission to charge the battery are less than using strictly regenerative breaking, but they are still better than just using the gas engine for acceleration. If your home electric rates are different at different times of the day, when does it make sense to charge your cell phone battery? during the periods of low energy cost.
It really is like the sale scenario I mentioned. It costs less to generate energy during constant cruising rather than heavy acceleration, yes? Your fuel economy is higher during cruising because of this. You will reduce your cruising economy *slightly* in this scenario, that I fully admit. But by using this 'cheaper' energy during periods of 'expensive' energy such as acceleration, you end up with a net saving of energy expended, and thus better overall fuel economy.
Spend 1-2% when you can easily spare it for bigger savings when you need more energy. And do note, this is *only* when the battery needs charging, not all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
while I generally agree, there isn't probably a practical solution...
Combining A & B, if you're at altitude high enough to need the Oxygen masks, you've generally got time before you're going to be at jumping altitude anyway.
C. You wouldn't be opening the door until you reach reasonable altitude. the 'overpressure' isn't nearly high enough to do much at less than 10000 ft.
D. Given that you're first training jump can be without any guidance whatsoever its doable (yes I've done it). The only 'guidance' given was having static line jump so my chute automatically opened. Also, military chutes have *very* little control to them. You go where you go.
E. Parachute inspections: once they are packed, if properly secured/sealed they are good for a decent while, no? my point, given the trade off of going down to the ground in a cramped fragile container containing lots of flamable stuff and fuel...I rather like the idea of parachutes. Maybe you don't keep them at the seats like lifejackets. A & B indicate you'll have some time to distribute them.
Finding space for them might be the tougher option.
you're point of 'marketing' though is a good one. Nobody would do it voluntarily...but then automakers didn't do seatbelts at first either. The gov't stepped in and made them do it.
Liability, you mean like the liability you signed away if they crash? it's easy enough to say, "use it if you want" or go down with the plane.
All in all, it's probably an impractical thing, but given some research I bet it could be solved into being a simpler thing.
indeed it should. However speed should also come down when you encounter TRAFFIC or the aforemented 'non straight' roads.
In the US, generally that doesn't happen...
and yet if you applied that same logic to programmers speaking ability and writing abilities...
They'd pretty much be MUTE!
And yes I am a edjumacated pogarmer myself...
so having dealt successfully with Ursa Minor.....here comes Ursa Major....and she's pissed!
You forgot:
Tell people we're turning them off: $0
Raise taxes to pay for the cost of operating them in secret: $0 (it ain't *their* money!)
Still using cameras to spy on law abiding americans: priceless
They *Finally* get some buzz with the forthcoming Palm Pre....and they announce they are killing the OS it uses. How to make early adopters think twice before buying one.
Great move...not
Whether or not the OS kill is a good thing is a different story, but it certainly cramps the buzz of the one thing they've got going for them.
If 49% of a state votes 1 way, and 100% of the states votes are distributed the other way
again I fail to see how 'losing' a vote is disenfranchising people. If your saying, that the electoral college is what is disenfranchising people, then I can see that argument.
But but now you're talking about changing the very fabric of our presidential election system and not something to be taken lightly. There are pitfalls both ways of doing things.
If its a true popular vote, you'd get American Idol candidates doing fairly well. Or perhaps Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert or Oprah or Martha Stewart.
Having the EC as a 'check' to me is a reasonable compromise as it was to the founding fathers.
I still stand by my suggestion of lowering the level at which it is applied; down to the district level rather than at the state level. Gives people more direct input, but still protects against the 'mob rule' concept.
New York is as red as a stop sign
news to me growing up in Rochester for 20 years. The state is pretty liberal on average from what my experience has been. Perhaps the 'state' isnt' as liberal as the 'city' but that doesn't make the 'state' conservative.
Those states [CA, NY] have more electoral votes than nearly all the midwest combined.
They also have more people so they *should* get more say when voting for president.
But winner take all disenfranchises people who aren't the majority, and it doesn't reflect the actual views of the state.
Everything does this. If you take a vote, anybody who voted against the winning party is 'disenfranchised'? that's called life and community living. Nothing pleases everybody, you go with the majority as a general rule since you will by definition please the most people. (obviously enforcing people's 'rights' override majority rule).
Personally going with VT (or NH I can't remember) seems the best option. Each 'district' votes its own way, no winner takes all. But each district gets to choose how it votes. Not full popular vote, but yet not winner take all either.
And remember Bush almost won the popular vote in 2000 while still losing pretty much all of the 'big city liberal' vote. Sad to say I give him props for that, but it was an exercise that proved your theory wrong. You can win by winning all the 'small states'.
In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics
Apparently in your house you don't obey the laws of the 'real' world. Potholes and bumps happen. You simply can't avoid them occurring. Even more so, when you consider cold climates.
Would a perfectly smooth road be more 'efficient'? of course. Will it ever be like that for more than a year? not likely. millions of tons of load will cause wear and tear and material failures.
You will always have bumps in the road. Recouping some of the energy lost to that inefficiency makes them less inefficient. Comparing the cost of adding these shocks vs regular shocks to the gains in efficiency will determine whether its a feasible real world solution, but the concept is rock solid on it's principles.
Ok, no serious harm is done, but they won't operate as you say.
Its still much less likely to fail when throwing many smaller pieces into it rather than one big piece.
The bird strikes happened at a few *thousand* feet in the air, not on the runway.
Now if you've got those flying type dogs...lets talk.
actually it would be better. small pieces are *much* less likely to harm the engine than a single 40 lb piece of meat hitting multiple fan blades.
Throwing confetti into it might stall it, but you might be able to restart it.
In reality you'd just end up with bird plus the grating in the engine with the same results.
Yes it is still offensive. *nothing* you described deviates from calling someone a 'redneck' either.
Calling them low income, uneducated, drug dealing morons still conveys everything you want to convey..unless you wanted to convey they were *black*, in which case you refute your own argument.
I will say installing a filter for known uses, such as more than one of the phrases "Installing your N*****", "Housing your N*****" etc, seems a reasonable thing to do, since most of these posts are pretty much canned.
But if such a filter were installed just for N***** and it caused me to miss your ever so informative piece of garbage...sign me up now...
Did I say it was a *good* solution? nope.
But compared to what they are describing it does pretty much the same thing and is available anywhere with sky site lines.
512kb/s is plenty for people who aren't movie watchers or gamers or P2Pers
In which case satellite covers their needs pretty well. You won't get the mobility, but since these are localized areas, you don't have too much mobility in the first place.
The idea is great, but as pointed out, the only place these things work is in places where satellite already exists...with better speeds....for similar prices.
What's the incentive for this again?
Prior to 9/11, if you waited things out eventually they hijackers let you go more often then not.
So everybody plays along and gets out ok in the end. That's how cowing down makes you safer.
After 9/11 that rule doesn't work anymore.
my choice of weapon type was obviously just a random one. small arms are better in close quarters as you say.
As for your statement that we're being cowed down, I disagree. I believe we *were* cowed down into not fighting back for safety reasons. That is gone, people know (or should know) that their safety in a hijacking is largely in their own hands.
And my concept is the plane is never successfully hijacked because passengers intervene before control is gained.
once the plane is controlled by the hijackers, it's over, they've won the battle and can crash it just as Flight 93 did.
to paraphrase you would be happy if the 9/11 guys had ak-47s and the passengers had guns as well?
more weapons isn't the answer
fair enough, but take it a few steps down the road.
You are going to have *multiple* shots fired as concerned citizens try to disarm/disable the hothead. some of these people will inevitably be seated behind the the hothead and shooting forward...a hole in the cockpit window at 300 mph can't exactly make flying easy
We're talking about significantly increasing the number of weapons in the situation. Based on casual perusal of the news, this *will* increase the number of incidents.
Yes I'm playing up the chances, but more weapons is not the answer. Passenger behavior and the hardened cockpit doors have done more than anything else.
I agree 9/11 wouldn't have likely happened if people were allowed to regularly carry weapons on planes.
However, you have to balance that with the inevitable 2-3 crashes per year because of drunk or otherwise hotheaded passengers who just didn't think about pulling triggers etc.
9/11 happened because of intelligence failures, plain and simple. It won't happen again, not because of better intelligence, but because the hijacker-passenger contract was ripped up. People know now that they may not survive if they don't fight back. Previously people knew that if they just went along eventually they were likely to be released unharmed in some random foreign land.
Now people will fight back hard and fast when something happens. That alone is the safest thing we have in our favor preventing another 9/11 attack.
it reminds me of a description of drug crimes:
most meth labs are discovered due to their blowing up....
One wonders how many civilizations end up announcing themselves with their own destruction? (We are only a few errant commands away from doing so)
ahh thanks, for some reason Firefox is blocking any display of the picture gallery on the article page, hence why i didn't see it :)
IE brings it right up though.
probably adblock/flashblock/noscript or another one of my addons causing it...sigh
are there any actually pictures of the sub? The Subhuman website while slick, lacks this basic concept of a picture ;-)
I'm wondering if we're talking about different things because your arguments don't make any sense based on actual real world experience.
I will admit to not being that knowledgeable about the inner workings of motors but here goes...
From Wikipedia:
In a petrol (gasoline) internal combustion engine, the throttle is a valve that directly regulates the amount of air entering the engine, indirectly controlling the fuel burned on each cycle due to the fuel-injector or carburetor maintaining a relatively constant fuel/air ratio.
So the more open the throttle is, more fuel is being used per piston cycle, yes?
How is that *more* efficient than when the throttle is letting in less fuel per piston cycle? Its great for exceleration since you want to change the cars inertia - you impart that extra energy expended into the speed.
When you're going at a constant speed you don't need full power, as such the throttle is definitely not fully open. The energy needed to turn the shaft is lower hence less fuel and better economy.
If it worked as I understand your reasoning cars would get their best fuel economy when the accelerator is floored. That is obviously not the case.
Yes you pay a penalty carrying around the weight of the extra stuff. But the penalty is lower than the gain you get back from it in the electric energy it stores from the braking/transmission.
The base measuring stick here is the fuel economy of the vehicle. By your logic, hybrids would get worse overall fuel economy, and yet they *all* get better economy than their gas only equivalents. Please explain how that can be if its as you say?
You are correct but you're missing the bigger picture. The gains from using the transmission to charge the battery are less than using strictly regenerative breaking, but they are still better than just using the gas engine for acceleration. If your home electric rates are different at different times of the day, when does it make sense to charge your cell phone battery? during the periods of low energy cost.
It really is like the sale scenario I mentioned. It costs less to generate energy during constant cruising rather than heavy acceleration, yes? Your fuel economy is higher during cruising because of this. You will reduce your cruising economy *slightly* in this scenario, that I fully admit. But by using this 'cheaper' energy during periods of 'expensive' energy such as acceleration, you end up with a net saving of energy expended, and thus better overall fuel economy.
Spend 1-2% when you can easily spare it for bigger savings when you need more energy. And do note, this is *only* when the battery needs charging, not all the time.