The 8 pack they have on their now is a tad outdated and hardly fuel efficient compared to what's now available on the Boeing 787 or C-17.
I would have to guess that re-certification of an airframe with new engines must be hideously expensive because you almost never see them do it. Maybe the military can get around FAA certification in some cases, but in most they tend to agree to fall under the jurisdiction of the FAA. Certainly civilian aircraft tend to be designed from the ground up with a few variants of engine available. Smaller planes will sometimes come out with new engine options. But larger transport seem to stick with what they have when they were designed, even if the engine wears out. You can still to this day see 737s with the old cigar tube style engines. I would bet they aren't originals, but when it came time to replace the engines, the older 737 models were certified with that engine, and that is the one they went with. Modern 737-800 and -900s have monster engines on them compared to the older models, but you can't just tack a new engine on.
All that being said, it would be awesome to get some more modern engines on the B-52, if only to save our hearing, and some oil. But when you go from 8 60's era engines to 4 modern ones, it's clearly not just the engines that are changing. The whole control system will have to change, the engine monitoring, the linkage, fuel delivery systems, cowlings, plumbing and a plethora of other components.
B-52 and fly-by-wire? I don't think you're using that term correctly.
Also, the B-52 doesn't fly at ll. It's so ugly the ground repels it.
But seriously, it is a strange plane to fly. The tail lifts off first, and it can climb in a pitch down position. It's just not natural!
See, this is where I get confused. If I buy a 747, I have to pay $330 million. If I buy 132 747s, then I may only have to pay $300 million. There is a bulk discount, but R&D is borne by the vendor. But when we talk of a military plane, there is an order of magnitude difference in unit cost between the cost of buying 1 and buying 100. How come when it is a military plane, the buyer has to pay the R&D costs?
It was wanting to keep going but still slowing down and you then thought to put it in park, or it wouldn't slow down at all?
It was kind of like I was having to put a lot of force on the brake to keep it from moving and if I let up at all it would start creeping forward. How it started was I was just slowing down normally and pulling into the spot, and then all of a sudden, with my foot on the brake it started to pull against me, and I kept having to brake harder. And in the heat of the moment, I did end up a good 3 feet further in than I intended to be just from being surprised by the situation.
While I agree with you about inappropriate policing priorities, I have to say I find your actions in abusing privileged access to a database to be more offensive than those of the person who broke into your car.
Oh, you must be my local district attorney who regularly throws people in jail for life for defending themselves from thieves brandishing guns while simultaneously only giving 20-25 years for thieves who murder an unarmed victim.
Atlanta PD starts out officers with a Master's degree at $45,000 a year. It's pretty easy to afford a Lexus on that salary.
I make almost twice that, and I have a 12 year old Lexus which I have several times considered having to sell even though it is paid off because I cannot really afford it.
For the record, his was a rental.
If you keep your foot on the brake, the engine will drop to an idle.
That would be awesome. Some people would never be able to leave the garage. I get so tired of seeing people driving down the road with one foot riding the brake and the other on the gas. That's not how you drive, people!
Sounds Darwinian to me.
It is unclear who the members of his family were, so it is possible that he has already passed on his "can't think in a crisis situation" gene. To really improve the human race, we need to weed these people out before they've had a chance to procreate.
Turning it off required you to hold down the button, a feature that many people probably don't know about.
So most owners of this vehicle just turn it on once and leave it running indefinitely?
congratulations. everyone just answered like car guys. fits in well where everyone normally answers like superior computer geeks. You're expecting the average soccer mom to respond properly to an emergency situation where the car isn't behaving as she expected. Or grandma. or the new 16 year old kid behind the wheel of a minivan.
Or the "trained police officer" who this actually happened to?
On a side note, this happened to me...in a Lexus.. with the accelerator stuck due to the floor mat. I was tromping on the brake, but it was wanting to keep going. It did scare me, but I threw it into park, and got it all squared away within about 3 seconds. I was in a parking lot at the time, not traveling at speed, and the issue resulted in me overshooting the end of the parking spot by about 3 feet. Fortunately, I was parking on asphalt with grass at the end of the spot and no curb. If I had been in my garage, or parking in a congested lot or across from someone, it would have sucked.
Aereo's conduct apparently causes them to 'lose control over the dissemination of their copyrighted programming, disrupts their relationships with licensed distributors and viewers and usurps their right to decide how and on what terms to make available and license content over new internet distribution media.'"
I think they could have just been more concise and said that it negatively affects their advertising pricing model.
Remember folks, no matter what they're talking about, they're talking about money.
For those in the top 5% of income earners, sure.
Everyone else, fuck you your insurance sucks. The insurance company gets to choose what tests & procedures to do - not the dr or patient.
Well that depends on whether you have insurance or you have a health plan. If you have insurance, then you can do whatever tests you feel like, and you pay out of pocket, but you pay at the discounted contract rate from the insurance company. If you have something really horrible happen, then the insurance covers it completely after you meet the deductible.
If you have a health plan, however, than yes, they control what you have done unless you just want to pay out of pocket at 100%. Having a health plan just sucks all around. The Health Plan controls the procedures, which doctors you can see, and it costs more money every month than insurance.
Most of us don't advocate going back to a horse and cart, we just want something less bad than an SUV.
I think you would find if we all drove horse and carts, that an SUV is environmentally friendlier.
At 30,000 feet you have a bit more time to recover and glide than you do at 1500.
Or alternatively, at 30,000 feet you have a lot more time to build up vertical momentum before you hit the ground.
Re:If your customers aren't always right...
on
IT Calls of Shame
·
· Score: 1
I treat customers right, which usually results in new transactions from the same customers. Whuch, in turn, recommend my business to their friends/family/co-workers.
But hey, it's much easier to blame tough times on stupid customers and Obama (obviously).
Well, if a customer wants a Mercedes , but thinks they should only have to pay $1 for it, I guess they are right. And yes, i would imagine that they WOULD keep coming back.
Therefore impose a SHIPPING TAX on all the companies which MUST operate inside the state to deliver those items!
That would be regulating interstate commerce, which is unconstitutional.
No, the state just needs to do a better job of collecting the Use tax. If somebody owes you money, it is your own responsibility to get it yourself.
Amazon only has an "unfair market advantage" if the state is not doing its job properly of making sure its citizens are paying their Use Tax. They are still entitled to that money, and they have every right to collect it, but they have no right to force someone outside their jurisdiction to do their job for them. They only have the right to force companies INSIDE their jurisdiction to do their job for them.
The states are perfectly entitled to enter into a business relationship with Amazon where they pay Amazon to collect the state's Use Tax for them. Wait, no, I don't think that would work, because of interstate commerce laws. Nevermind.
But giving Amazon a pass on tax while brick-and-mortar stores must charge tax is a significant contributor to the demise of retailers such as Best Buy.
They are not giving Amazon a pass. The tax is still due, but Amazon doesn't have to collect it. You have to pay it. They can't make Amazon collect it because Amazon is not under their jurisdiction.
Further, I think that the state should not be allowed to force retailers to collect the tax either. The retailers don't get to keep that money. They have to forward it to the state. There are record-keeping costs, storage costs of transaction information, and other administrative costs to this process, all borne by the retailer, who then has to charge you more for their product, or just shut down if they can't charge more. If the state wants the money, they need to collect it themselves. Now if some business wants to make a deal with the state and say "I will collect your sales tax for you , if you pay me $100,000 a year to do it", then that would be fine with me. Unfortunately, the reality is that state's force retailers to collect the sales tax, and if they won't, then they don't get a business license. In my state, the state makes retailers pay a fee for the privilege of collecting the state's sales tax for them, bearing all the costs of collection and record keeping, and forwarding every penny on to the state.
Maybe someone can answer this.. historically has there been sales tax on mail-order purchases? I'm thinking specifically about the old Sears catalog and the like.
Yes, but it was not collected by Sears. You had to put down the purchases in the "Use Tax" area on your stat tax return. And the same is still true and holds for internet purchases as well.
You knew the feds were not going to be cut out forever, and that online sales would have to be taxed someday...
The states will of course get a cut of the tax, better than nothing.
Well, I don't see how that will work. Some states have no sales tax. So now, do you have to file for a refund of these taxes that you don't owe and now have to wait around up to 18 months from the time of purchase to get your money back?
If the states want to get a cut of the action, they need to drastically reduce and streamline their sales tax code.
The states already are entitled to a cut of the action. What they are trying to do is get somebody else to do their collecting for them. Somebody who the state has no authority over. The states just need to get their act together and collect the tax themselves. In fact, they shouldn't be allowed to force in-state retailers to collect the sales tax for them. In my state, no only do retailers have to collect this money and give it to the state, they have to PAY the state for the privilege of doing the state's job for them.
Slashdot Mirror
The 8 pack they have on their now is a tad outdated and hardly fuel efficient compared to what's now available on the Boeing 787 or C-17.
I would have to guess that re-certification of an airframe with new engines must be hideously expensive because you almost never see them do it. Maybe the military can get around FAA certification in some cases, but in most they tend to agree to fall under the jurisdiction of the FAA. Certainly civilian aircraft tend to be designed from the ground up with a few variants of engine available. Smaller planes will sometimes come out with new engine options. But larger transport seem to stick with what they have when they were designed, even if the engine wears out. You can still to this day see 737s with the old cigar tube style engines. I would bet they aren't originals, but when it came time to replace the engines, the older 737 models were certified with that engine, and that is the one they went with. Modern 737-800 and -900s have monster engines on them compared to the older models, but you can't just tack a new engine on.
All that being said, it would be awesome to get some more modern engines on the B-52, if only to save our hearing, and some oil. But when you go from 8 60's era engines to 4 modern ones, it's clearly not just the engines that are changing. The whole control system will have to change, the engine monitoring, the linkage, fuel delivery systems, cowlings, plumbing and a plethora of other components.
B-52 and fly-by-wire? I don't think you're using that term correctly.
Also, the B-52 doesn't fly at ll. It's so ugly the ground repels it.
But seriously, it is a strange plane to fly. The tail lifts off first, and it can climb in a pitch down position. It's just not natural!
See, this is where I get confused. If I buy a 747, I have to pay $330 million. If I buy 132 747s, then I may only have to pay $300 million. There is a bulk discount, but R&D is borne by the vendor. But when we talk of a military plane, there is an order of magnitude difference in unit cost between the cost of buying 1 and buying 100. How come when it is a military plane, the buyer has to pay the R&D costs?
It was wanting to keep going but still slowing down and you then thought to put it in park, or it wouldn't slow down at all?
It was kind of like I was having to put a lot of force on the brake to keep it from moving and if I let up at all it would start creeping forward. How it started was I was just slowing down normally and pulling into the spot, and then all of a sudden, with my foot on the brake it started to pull against me, and I kept having to brake harder. And in the heat of the moment, I did end up a good 3 feet further in than I intended to be just from being surprised by the situation.
While I agree with you about inappropriate policing priorities, I have to say I find your actions in abusing privileged access to a database to be more offensive than those of the person who broke into your car.
Oh, you must be my local district attorney who regularly throws people in jail for life for defending themselves from thieves brandishing guns while simultaneously only giving 20-25 years for thieves who murder an unarmed victim.
Atlanta PD starts out officers with a Master's degree at $45,000 a year. It's pretty easy to afford a Lexus on that salary.
I make almost twice that, and I have a 12 year old Lexus which I have several times considered having to sell even though it is paid off because I cannot really afford it.
For the record, his was a rental.
If you keep your foot on the brake, the engine will drop to an idle.
That would be awesome. Some people would never be able to leave the garage. I get so tired of seeing people driving down the road with one foot riding the brake and the other on the gas. That's not how you drive, people!
Sounds Darwinian to me.
It is unclear who the members of his family were, so it is possible that he has already passed on his "can't think in a crisis situation" gene. To really improve the human race, we need to weed these people out before they've had a chance to procreate.
Turning it off required you to hold down the button, a feature that many people probably don't know about.
So most owners of this vehicle just turn it on once and leave it running indefinitely?
congratulations. everyone just answered like car guys. fits in well where everyone normally answers like superior computer geeks. You're expecting the average soccer mom to respond properly to an emergency situation where the car isn't behaving as she expected. Or grandma. or the new 16 year old kid behind the wheel of a minivan.
Or the "trained police officer" who this actually happened to?
On a side note, this happened to me...in a Lexus.. with the accelerator stuck due to the floor mat. I was tromping on the brake, but it was wanting to keep going. It did scare me, but I threw it into park, and got it all squared away within about 3 seconds. I was in a parking lot at the time, not traveling at speed, and the issue resulted in me overshooting the end of the parking spot by about 3 feet. Fortunately, I was parking on asphalt with grass at the end of the spot and no curb. If I had been in my garage, or parking in a congested lot or across from someone, it would have sucked.
Do you also have trouble operating a microwave?
Are you saying that opening the door will stop the car from running?
Aereo's conduct apparently causes them to 'lose control over the dissemination of their copyrighted programming, disrupts their relationships with licensed distributors and viewers and usurps their right to decide how and on what terms to make available and license content over new internet distribution media.'"
I think they could have just been more concise and said that it negatively affects their advertising pricing model.
Remember folks, no matter what they're talking about, they're talking about money.
I'm familiar with newsgroups, can someone give me an analogy to explain what is a coffee shop?
For those in the top 5% of income earners, sure. Everyone else, fuck you your insurance sucks. The insurance company gets to choose what tests & procedures to do - not the dr or patient.
Well that depends on whether you have insurance or you have a health plan. If you have insurance, then you can do whatever tests you feel like, and you pay out of pocket, but you pay at the discounted contract rate from the insurance company. If you have something really horrible happen, then the insurance covers it completely after you meet the deductible.
If you have a health plan, however, than yes, they control what you have done unless you just want to pay out of pocket at 100%. Having a health plan just sucks all around. The Health Plan controls the procedures, which doctors you can see, and it costs more money every month than insurance.
Most of us don't advocate going back to a horse and cart, we just want something less bad than an SUV.
I think you would find if we all drove horse and carts, that an SUV is environmentally friendlier.
At 30,000 feet you have a bit more time to recover and glide than you do at 1500.
Or alternatively, at 30,000 feet you have a lot more time to build up vertical momentum before you hit the ground.
I treat customers right, which usually results in new transactions from the same customers. Whuch, in turn, recommend my business to their friends/family/co-workers.
But hey, it's much easier to blame tough times on stupid customers and Obama (obviously).
Well, if a customer wants a Mercedes , but thinks they should only have to pay $1 for it, I guess they are right. And yes, i would imagine that they WOULD keep coming back.
...but then my boyfriend took an arrow to the knee,"
So there IS such a thing as too much Skyrim.
Therefore impose a SHIPPING TAX on all the companies which MUST operate inside the state to deliver those items!
That would be regulating interstate commerce, which is unconstitutional.
No, the state just needs to do a better job of collecting the Use tax. If somebody owes you money, it is your own responsibility to get it yourself.
Amazon only has an "unfair market advantage" if the state is not doing its job properly of making sure its citizens are paying their Use Tax. They are still entitled to that money, and they have every right to collect it, but they have no right to force someone outside their jurisdiction to do their job for them. They only have the right to force companies INSIDE their jurisdiction to do their job for them.
The states are perfectly entitled to enter into a business relationship with Amazon where they pay Amazon to collect the state's Use Tax for them. Wait, no, I don't think that would work, because of interstate commerce laws. Nevermind.
But giving Amazon a pass on tax while brick-and-mortar stores must charge tax is a significant contributor to the demise of retailers such as Best Buy.
They are not giving Amazon a pass. The tax is still due, but Amazon doesn't have to collect it. You have to pay it. They can't make Amazon collect it because Amazon is not under their jurisdiction.
Further, I think that the state should not be allowed to force retailers to collect the tax either. The retailers don't get to keep that money. They have to forward it to the state. There are record-keeping costs, storage costs of transaction information, and other administrative costs to this process, all borne by the retailer, who then has to charge you more for their product, or just shut down if they can't charge more. If the state wants the money, they need to collect it themselves. Now if some business wants to make a deal with the state and say "I will collect your sales tax for you , if you pay me $100,000 a year to do it", then that would be fine with me. Unfortunately, the reality is that state's force retailers to collect the sales tax, and if they won't, then they don't get a business license. In my state, the state makes retailers pay a fee for the privilege of collecting the state's sales tax for them, bearing all the costs of collection and record keeping, and forwarding every penny on to the state.
Maybe someone can answer this.. historically has there been sales tax on mail-order purchases? I'm thinking specifically about the old Sears catalog and the like.
Yes, but it was not collected by Sears. You had to put down the purchases in the "Use Tax" area on your stat tax return. And the same is still true and holds for internet purchases as well.
You knew the feds were not going to be cut out forever, and that online sales would have to be taxed someday...
The states will of course get a cut of the tax, better than nothing.
Well, I don't see how that will work. Some states have no sales tax. So now, do you have to file for a refund of these taxes that you don't owe and now have to wait around up to 18 months from the time of purchase to get your money back?
If the states want to get a cut of the action, they need to drastically reduce and streamline their sales tax code.
The states already are entitled to a cut of the action. What they are trying to do is get somebody else to do their collecting for them. Somebody who the state has no authority over. The states just need to get their act together and collect the tax themselves. In fact, they shouldn't be allowed to force in-state retailers to collect the sales tax for them. In my state, no only do retailers have to collect this money and give it to the state, they have to PAY the state for the privilege of doing the state's job for them.