1. That's pretty damned cool. Gas Turbines are some of the most efficient fuel -> energy converters known to man.
You will also notice that (in general) the smaller the gas turbine, the less efficient.
I have been to multiple talks on these engines, I used to work for one of the industry colaborators on the project as an aerodynamicist. These engines are no exception to that rule. The turbine on these engines hardly extracts enough work to run the compresser when you are running the combuster just below the melting point of the engine.
Also (addressing the summary, not the parent post), these things have been "2-3 years away" for at least 6 years.
If there is no evidence of voter intimidation, why would you issue a press release saying that the Republicans have done stuff in the past and here are the things to look for etc.? Why would you start having leadership comment on it to the press? That's the kind of thing that you do when there IS evidence of voter intimidation, not when there IS NOT any evidence. Basically, if there isn't any evidence that the other side did anything wrong, just try to convince people that they "might have done it". Very Rove of them.
Think of it as a history lesson.
They are making the public aware of history so they are not doomed to repeat it.
So, if I want to know the time, I need to look at the phone. For some reason, I always want to know what time it is when I leave a movie, so I look at the phone--blank screen. Oh yeah, turn phone back on.
such as my friend trying to call me when his brother died because he needed help moving the body
huh? I'm not sure about this, but I think it is probably better that your phone didn't ring...
Going back to the topic at hand... You need to develop a system to remember, and then get into the habit. For instance, you could check what mode your phone is in everytime you get into your car... Make it part of your routine.
I really think that 99% of people that have their phones start ringing in a movie are embarrassed, and not just trying to piss everyone off - they just forgot to turn the phone off.
You do not have the right to be protected from such cooersion at all.
You do have the right to not have the state take part in the cooersion.
Sorry- the athiest point of view does not hold any more protection than I as a Catholic recieved at a public school full of German Apostolic Christians- and they stoned me for being evil and having a TV set.
How did they find out you were a catholic with a TV? Did the teacher have some class event that exposed the fact you were not like them?
Just to clarify my last post: I don't blaim my school for the fact that the other students were cruel to me. But if the actions of my school had brought the cruelty I would...
Kids will be cruel- but they will be less cruel if exposed to other biases than their parents encourage.
I am not so convinced that they will be less cruel. I think that result would require a critical percentage of different students. Did the apostolics in your school treat the next catholic less cruelly?
The real answer is yes- as long as they are tolerant of other religions. Prayer in school, if done proberly, can teach tolerance in the secular realm. Freedom of religion should not be construed to mean freedom FROM the religion of others.
In general I agree, but prayer in school will amount to cooersion. Try telling the one kid who is an athiest (or simply non-christian in certain areas) that he doesn't have to pray while all his peers pray, and see how many bruses he has the next day. I say this having been struck by another student in a public school after I declared that I believe in evolution.
The only way to have freedom of religion is to keep those public institutions which require everyone's attendance free from religion.
Voluntary after/before school prayer meetings/groups are entirely different and should be allowed.
If private catholic schools can teach kids for less than the public schools (and they do) we have to ask ourselves what are we doing wrong?
My personal assesment, and no, I can't back it up with anything, is that private schools seem to wrk better because the results are better. But this ignores the fact that they are not working with the same raw materials as public schools.
The biggest variable in how well a student does is the parent. Parents who are willing to pay for a private school have shown that they care about education. I suspect private school students, on average, spend more time on homework, and have more support from their parents than public school students. And when the campairative results of public schools and private schools is seen, the instant reaction is to throw more money at the problem, causing a tiny improvement in performace at a large increase in cost.
If my assesment of the situation is correct, private schools will always be better/and or more efficient than public schools, until the day that government starts sending people to private schools on the tax payer dime, then the private schools will be just as bad. Because the real problem in our education system is parents who don't care enough about their children's educations.
The average american has no college degree. All teachers have at least one, and many have masters. What is the average salary of college degree holders
Actually about 30% of Americans have a college degree, and the number I gave you was the median not the average (and someone accused me of being bad at math). The average salary according to the census is about 36 thousand, meaning teacher make 20% above the average salary in the US.
That puts teachers (corrected for shorter work year) well below the average college grad.
umm how so, the average teacher maked 44K when corrected for the work year they make fifty five thousand dollars a year.
My mistake, I just did the math (based on the stats from the last two posts), and the average teacher (corrected for work year) makes about the same as the average college grad (about 3K more for a teacher).
The dath of frugality happened *after* people started to have to work two jobs to support a family (for my family it was the mid 70's). I lose close to 15 thousand dollars a year in taxes and that does not include sales, phone, gas, tolls,...
The need for two jobs is the result of a demand for a higher standard of living, having little to do with taxes. If we were all willing to live as we did before the need for two incomes, we could get by just fine on one now, regardless of taxes. But we demand bigger houses, nicer cars and more electronics, it has nothing to do with how much the government takes.
It doesn't take that much money to live. people choose to live a life style that requires more money. Do you agree with the last sentence?
We could have a conversaton about whether or not we could live better life styles with lower taxes... I don't nessisarily think so. We have both stated that we use tax funded institutions to save money, and the less tangible ways that public spending saves us money are harder to grasp. Personally (I ahve already gathered that your oppinion differs from mine) I am not really disapointed with what I get for my tax dollar, of course I would like more for my dollar, but I don't think eliminating what I do get so I could spend money to obtain the same services privatly would work as well as the current system.
The average teachers salary in the us is 44 thousand dollars (us census) THat puts them ahead of the median salary in the use which is 43 thousand.
The average american has no college degree. All teachers have at least one, and many have masters. What is the average salary of college degree holders?
The only stats I could find on short notice indicate that the average college degree holder makes ~75% more than the average high school grad. That puts teachers (corrected for shorter work year) well below the average college grad.
If *anything* has killed the single earner family its taxes, as good as I do before taxes I still have to be tight after them.
I couldn't disagree more. The death of frugality is what has killed the single earner family. Most 2 income families live in a nicer house than they need, and drive nicer cars than they need to, have a bigger tv than they need...
My fiance and I could do just fine on my income if we had to. She is a grad student, and only makes about what I put in in my 403b every year. Ya now how we do it? I drive a used subaru, she drive a honda civic, we use public transportation to get to work, we cook most of our own food, and when we do go out, it isn't to a $15/plate place, we wait until movies come out for rental. In short we live within our means.
I have known many damn fine teachers who left at three and spent the day working in their Garden/Lawn/Car, many teachers lived on my block and none of them were poor.
Where do you live? Ho wmany of the teachers have working spouses?
One thing to consider is that poor areas don't pay teachers as well as wealthy areas... If you live in the suburbs of a major city, or rural North Dakota makes an enourmous difference. Where I grew up, it was easy to have a family of 4 live on an engineers salary, but a single income family with a teacher was unheard of... Where I lived for the last 3 years, a person who taught in a weathly suburb, but lived further out in a less developed area could do alright, but most teachers could not afford to live in these districts.
Civil Engineers are the outliers in engineering salaries, and there is large variation in civil salaries. Most make ~35K, but structural engineers make ~50K, on top of this mechanical, aero, electrical, chemical, and computer engineers all make about 50-60K starting.
I said it at the end of my last post: I am an engineer (mechanical/aero), I know how much engineers work. Mostly 45 hour weeks with ocasional 80 hour weeks has been my experience, and I do believe that this is pretty compairable to what a teacher does for 9 months a year in terms of time worked (the free period and study hall put a dent in the amount of non-class work a teacher has to do, it is by no means sufficient).
That and the fact hour by hour a starting teacher makes more than an Engineer
Either you suck at math, or you have absolutly no idea how much a teacher has to work.
A teacher works about 3/4 of the year, and makes 2/3 of the money. Are you saying that a teacher works less during each day of work than an engineer? Do you realize that they have to do lesson planning and grading?
Nah, aerodynamics of the bike has little to do with performance. But then, maybe you mean of "bike + rider". That really does help a bit. The rider can produce a large amound of areo drag at airspeeds > 14mph or so.
One of the most important factors determining how aerodynamic a bike/rider combo is, is the position of the rider on the bike, which is largly determined by the bike.
When someone talks about a bike being aerodynamic, they mean that the rider is in a very forward leaning position when riding...
For the last year I have been doing some intermediate mountain biking every weekend, usually 5-9 miles offroad. My legs are like iron now, but I still have some flab on the belly.
That is because most people lose weight from their belly last, it doesn't matter what kind of exersize you do, that is just how the fat melts... (did you lose weight from your face? were you working out your face?)
Oh, and most of the effort you exert in biking builds muscles on your calves, not your thighs and ass.
Either you are "ankling" (which will wreck your achilles, you should stop), or your seat is way too low. Cycling should most definatly work your thighs and butt the most.
If you burn more than you eat you will lose weight.
I burned ~6000 Calories this weekend running and biking. You gonna tell me that doing that all the time is not going to make me lose weight?
Also you left something out of your equation, the number of calories/lean pound/day you burn can be increased by doing cardio. Doing both cardio and weight training is the best way to lose weight. I lift for 1.5 hours twice a week, bike 1-2 times a week for 2-6 hours, and run 3-5 times a week for 1-3 hours. I am losing weight on a 5000 calorie a day diet, mostly comprised of complex carbs. You think I could lose wieght eating that much on just lifting 3 hours a week?
Cardio is good for working your heart but it won't make you lose weight.
The stupidity of this statment is obvious to anyone who has ever attended a post race party. Most runners are freakishly skinny, and eat like horses.
I can usually maintain 35km/h effortlessly, but with this beast 45km/h could be the crusing speed if peddling and motoring can go hand in hand.
Wouldn't go any faster on a pedal bike, leave that to the stunt people.
Really?
What kind of bike are you on? You should be plenty stable up to 40mph (~65km/h). I hit that on almost every ride I go on (I live at the bottom of a few rather large hills, every ride I do ends in a steep decent). Hell 3 weeks ago I was on a 70 mile ride, and I went down a long ~10% grade, I hit 54mph (~87km/h) I didn't feel the least bit unstable until about 50mph, and it was still quite managable the whole way. The pro's in europe routinly break 100km/h coming down mountains.
And I ride a rather cheap 2002 Giant OCR2 (~$800), I have been told that high speed handling is one of the places where the expensive bikes actually do much better.
The republicans are for the rights of states to be conservative, and nothing more.
The republicants are the ones who oppose medical merijuana, the republicans opposed assisted suicide laws. Basically anytime a liberal state wants to do something liberal, the conservatives living in that state run to their federal government and cry "save us from these liberals".
They aren't for states rights, they just like to say they are. I suppose you think they are for small government too?
Slashdot Mirror
1. That's pretty damned cool. Gas Turbines are some of the most efficient fuel -> energy converters known to man.
You will also notice that (in general) the smaller the gas turbine, the less efficient.
I have been to multiple talks on these engines, I used to work for one of the industry colaborators on the project as an aerodynamicist. These engines are no exception to that rule. The turbine on these engines hardly extracts enough work to run the compresser when you are running the combuster just below the melting point of the engine.
Also (addressing the summary, not the parent post), these things have been "2-3 years away" for at least 6 years.
If there is no evidence of voter intimidation, why would you issue a press release saying that the Republicans have done stuff in the past and here are the things to look for etc.? Why would you start having leadership comment on it to the press? That's the kind of thing that you do when there IS evidence of voter intimidation, not when there IS NOT any evidence. Basically, if there isn't any evidence that the other side did anything wrong, just try to convince people that they "might have done it". Very Rove of them.
Think of it as a history lesson.
They are making the public aware of history so they are not doomed to repeat it.
That is a very legitimate goal.
1. John Kerry's association with Jane Fonda was extremely limited in scope. So much so as to be inconsequential.
2. Bush is responsible for more wrongful deaths than Fonda.
My solution to that is to not wear a watch.
So, if I want to know the time, I need to look at the phone. For some reason, I always want to know what time it is when I leave a movie, so I look at the phone--blank screen. Oh yeah, turn phone back on.
Good idea; that should work...
such as my friend trying to call me when his brother died because he needed help moving the body
huh? I'm not sure about this, but I think it is probably better that your phone didn't ring...
Going back to the topic at hand... You need to develop a system to remember, and then get into the habit. For instance, you could check what mode your phone is in everytime you get into your car... Make it part of your routine.
I really think that 99% of people that have their phones start ringing in a movie are embarrassed, and not just trying to piss everyone off - they just forgot to turn the phone off.
I agree, but it is still anoying as hell...
You do not have the right to be protected from such cooersion at all.
You do have the right to not have the state take part in the cooersion.
Sorry- the athiest point of view does not hold any more protection than I as a Catholic recieved at a public school full of German Apostolic Christians- and they stoned me for being evil and having a TV set.
How did they find out you were a catholic with a TV? Did the teacher have some class event that exposed the fact you were not like them?
Just to clarify my last post: I don't blaim my school for the fact that the other students were cruel to me. But if the actions of my school had brought the cruelty I would...
Kids will be cruel- but they will be less cruel if exposed to other biases than their parents encourage.
I am not so convinced that they will be less cruel. I think that result would require a critical percentage of different students. Did the apostolics in your school treat the next catholic less cruelly?
The real answer is yes- as long as they are tolerant of other religions. Prayer in school, if done proberly, can teach tolerance in the secular realm. Freedom of religion should not be construed to mean freedom FROM the religion of others.
In general I agree, but prayer in school will amount to cooersion. Try telling the one kid who is an athiest (or simply non-christian in certain areas) that he doesn't have to pray while all his peers pray, and see how many bruses he has the next day. I say this having been struck by another student in a public school after I declared that I believe in evolution.
The only way to have freedom of religion is to keep those public institutions which require everyone's attendance free from religion.
Voluntary after/before school prayer meetings/groups are entirely different and should be allowed.
If private catholic schools can teach kids for less than the public schools (and they do) we have to ask ourselves what are we doing wrong?
My personal assesment, and no, I can't back it up with anything, is that private schools seem to wrk better because the results are better. But this ignores the fact that they are not working with the same raw materials as public schools.
The biggest variable in how well a student does is the parent. Parents who are willing to pay for a private school have shown that they care about education. I suspect private school students, on average, spend more time on homework, and have more support from their parents than public school students. And when the campairative results of public schools and private schools is seen, the instant reaction is to throw more money at the problem, causing a tiny improvement in performace at a large increase in cost.
If my assesment of the situation is correct, private schools will always be better/and or more efficient than public schools, until the day that government starts sending people to private schools on the tax payer dime, then the private schools will be just as bad. Because the real problem in our education system is parents who don't care enough about their children's educations.
For nearly 9K per student in the public schools I am very dissapointed for what I am getting per dollar.
And you blame teachers salaries? Even if teachers took a 20% pay cut we would still be spending more than $8500 per student.
My mistake, I just did the math (based on the stats from the last two posts), and the average teacher (corrected for work year) makes about the same as the average college grad (about 3K more for a teacher).
The dath of frugality happened *after* people started to have to work two jobs to support a family (for my family it was the mid 70's). I lose close to 15 thousand dollars a year in taxes and that does not include sales, phone, gas, tolls,
The need for two jobs is the result of a demand for a higher standard of living, having little to do with taxes. If we were all willing to live as we did before the need for two incomes, we could get by just fine on one now, regardless of taxes. But we demand bigger houses, nicer cars and more electronics, it has nothing to do with how much the government takes.
It doesn't take that much money to live. people choose to live a life style that requires more money. Do you agree with the last sentence?
We could have a conversaton about whether or not we could live better life styles with lower taxes... I don't nessisarily think so. We have both stated that we use tax funded institutions to save money, and the less tangible ways that public spending saves us money are harder to grasp. Personally (I ahve already gathered that your oppinion differs from mine) I am not really disapointed with what I get for my tax dollar, of course I would like more for my dollar, but I don't think eliminating what I do get so I could spend money to obtain the same services privatly would work as well as the current system.
The average teachers salary in the us is 44 thousand dollars (us census) THat puts them ahead of the median salary in the use which is 43 thousand.
The average american has no college degree. All teachers have at least one, and many have masters. What is the average salary of college degree holders?
The only stats I could find on short notice indicate that the average college degree holder makes ~75% more than the average high school grad. That puts teachers (corrected for shorter work year) well below the average college grad.
If *anything* has killed the single earner family its taxes, as good as I do before taxes I still have to be tight after them.
I couldn't disagree more. The death of frugality is what has killed the single earner family. Most 2 income families live in a nicer house than they need, and drive nicer cars than they need to, have a bigger tv than they need...
My fiance and I could do just fine on my income if we had to. She is a grad student, and only makes about what I put in in my 403b every year. Ya now how we do it? I drive a used subaru, she drive a honda civic, we use public transportation to get to work, we cook most of our own food, and when we do go out, it isn't to a $15/plate place, we wait until movies come out for rental. In short we live within our means.
I have known many damn fine teachers who left at three and spent the day working in their Garden/Lawn/Car, many teachers lived on my block and none of them were poor.
Where do you live? Ho wmany of the teachers have working spouses?
One thing to consider is that poor areas don't pay teachers as well as wealthy areas... If you live in the suburbs of a major city, or rural North Dakota makes an enourmous difference. Where I grew up, it was easy to have a family of 4 live on an engineers salary, but a single income family with a teacher was unheard of... Where I lived for the last 3 years, a person who taught in a weathly suburb, but lived further out in a less developed area could do alright, but most teachers could not afford to live in these districts.
Civil Engineers are the outliers in engineering salaries, and there is large variation in civil salaries. Most make ~35K, but structural engineers make ~50K, on top of this mechanical, aero, electrical, chemical, and computer engineers all make about 50-60K starting.
I said it at the end of my last post: I am an engineer (mechanical/aero), I know how much engineers work. Mostly 45 hour weeks with ocasional 80 hour weeks has been my experience, and I do believe that this is pretty compairable to what a teacher does for 9 months a year in terms of time worked (the free period and study hall put a dent in the amount of non-class work a teacher has to do, it is by no means sufficient).
That and the fact hour by hour a starting teacher makes more than an Engineer
Either you suck at math, or you have absolutly no idea how much a teacher has to work.
A teacher works about 3/4 of the year, and makes 2/3 of the money. Are you saying that a teacher works less during each day of work than an engineer? Do you realize that they have to do lesson planning and grading?
For the record. I am an engineer.
I got into something like this with him recently
check this out...
He actually claims that nuclear warheads were found in Iraq. I suggest you read the whole tread, it's good for a laugh...
He is either a troll, or incapable of reasoning...
for a road bike it is...
Entry leval is around $500 and a really nice but not extravagant road bike is about $2000-4000
Nah, aerodynamics of the bike has little to do with performance. But then, maybe you mean of "bike + rider". That really does help a bit. The rider can produce a large amound of areo drag at airspeeds > 14mph or so.
One of the most important factors determining how aerodynamic a bike/rider combo is, is the position of the rider on the bike, which is largly determined by the bike.
When someone talks about a bike being aerodynamic, they mean that the rider is in a very forward leaning position when riding...
For the last year I have been doing some intermediate mountain biking every weekend, usually 5-9 miles offroad. My legs are like iron now, but I still have some flab on the belly.
That is because most people lose weight from their belly last, it doesn't matter what kind of exersize you do, that is just how the fat melts... (did you lose weight from your face? were you working out your face?)
Oh, and most of the effort you exert in biking builds muscles on your calves, not your thighs and ass.
Either you are "ankling" (which will wreck your achilles, you should stop), or your seat is way too low. Cycling should most definatly work your thighs and butt the most.
If you burn more than you eat you will lose weight.
I burned ~6000 Calories this weekend running and biking. You gonna tell me that doing that all the time is not going to make me lose weight?
Also you left something out of your equation, the number of calories/lean pound/day you burn can be increased by doing cardio. Doing both cardio and weight training is the best way to lose weight. I lift for 1.5 hours twice a week, bike 1-2 times a week for 2-6 hours, and run 3-5 times a week for 1-3 hours. I am losing weight on a 5000 calorie a day diet, mostly comprised of complex carbs. You think I could lose wieght eating that much on just lifting 3 hours a week?
Cardio is good for working your heart but it won't make you lose weight.
The stupidity of this statment is obvious to anyone who has ever attended a post race party. Most runners are freakishly skinny, and eat like horses.
I can usually maintain 35km/h effortlessly, but with this beast 45km/h could be the crusing speed if peddling and motoring can go hand in hand.
Wouldn't go any faster on a pedal bike, leave that to the stunt people.
Really?
What kind of bike are you on? You should be plenty stable up to 40mph (~65km/h). I hit that on almost every ride I go on (I live at the bottom of a few rather large hills, every ride I do ends in a steep decent). Hell 3 weeks ago I was on a 70 mile ride, and I went down a long ~10% grade, I hit 54mph (~87km/h) I didn't feel the least bit unstable until about 50mph, and it was still quite managable the whole way. The pro's in europe routinly break 100km/h coming down mountains.
And I ride a rather cheap 2002 Giant OCR2 (~$800), I have been told that high speed handling is one of the places where the expensive bikes actually do much better.
My little brother was Richwoods '99, but I am pretty sure he didn't know anyone from Farmington...
/.
Anywho, it's nice to see someone else from central Illinois around
Going further OT...
I noticed in your LJ that you are a member of the Peoria group and go to Western...
Are you from P-town? I grew up there (Richwoods '96).
Was this guy a friend, or just a roommate of opportunity?
The republicans are for the rights of states to be conservative, and nothing more.
The republicants are the ones who oppose medical merijuana, the republicans opposed assisted suicide laws. Basically anytime a liberal state wants to do something liberal, the conservatives living in that state run to their federal government and cry "save us from these liberals".
They aren't for states rights, they just like to say they are. I suppose you think they are for small government too?