I'm on year six (or is it eight?) of a set of three. They were pretty expensive back then. We constantly use those lights and they have experienced a large number of off/on cycles. Needless to say, I'm thrilled! All three are still running strong. In fact, those three lights probably have more use than any other lights in our house; save only the fluorescent lights in our kitchen which stay almost constantly lit in the evening hours. And I have had to replace the kitchen lights once already; making them good for around 5-years.
I certainly feel like I got my money's worth out of those CFLs.
The same thing happened to the Shaw's F-14s in Iran after he was overthrown (1975? 1976?). While Iran owns as many as 79 F-14 Tomcats, it is believed none are flying today because the inability to service and maintain the fleet.
Actually, contrary to the popular assumption here, it is hardly a reach to assume they have standard radio equipment (including navigation)...well, equipment which can communicate with traditional VFH FAA frequencies. This means its very likely they are equiped with normal transponders and radios which can TX/RX on traditional VFH frequencies. Without such equipment, the world's largest airports become unavailable to them. Believe it or not, the military uses publicly acessible airports for everything from training to emergencies, on a regular basis.
As usual you're an idiot. Learn to read. Once you've done that, reread what he posted. After that, place it in context! I know context is difficult for you so I'll walk you through it.
That is from Visa and is ONLY a recommendation. It is NOT a mandate. Read it! It's obvious. Secondly, I never said Visa wants you to check it! Not once! But since we know you can't read and have the IQ of a nat, I'll excuse you once again.
Visa is the clearing house. They sponcer banks to be a card issuer. They say, please don't check ID because we think this improves the customer experience and we have little liability. Notice this is NOT a requirement! A bank is the card issuer, having been sponsored by Visa, etc. They are the ones that have the bulk of the liability. They WANT you to check ID and it is in MOST merchant agreements between the ISO (sales, merchant support groups) and the merchant processors (the network which delivers the transactions from the merchant to Visa and then to the issuer for ACH). Here, I say MOST because if you are large enough you will be able to write part of the merchant agreement and then all bets are off for what is actually contained within. Having said that, ultimately, the discount rate is going to reflect the reality on the ground.
Ultimately, this all means, exactly on queue, like all of your posts, you always waste disk space.
Hmmm. You must live in a really screwed up state or something. I used to work in the credit card industry and still know a VP for one of the larger merchant processing facilities. I can assure you, they absolutely do want you checking ID. In fact, that is always explicitly stated in their merchant agreements. Furthermore, it is also included in the merchant training at time of equipment installation. In fact, some merchant banks actually send people into the field to make sure their merchants are checking ID. If they catch them failing to check ID, they quickly raise their discount rate as they are a much higher risk merchant. Of course, the merchants gets pissed, but once again we validate that merchants are idiots.
When I see their merchants process my card and they don't validate my ID, I know it is because the merchant doesn't care. They are afraid it will scare away customers. Yet at the same time, they get VERY upset when they are forced to eat the cost of items that they helped steal.
Lastly, the majority of credit cards do not have owner pictures on them. And even when they do, the picture should still be checked against a second ID, plus the signature. That picture is another mechanism that allows merchants to mitigate some of their risk. It was never intended to be the sole form of identification.
Sounds like you either need to move to another state or you need to find better processors.
Because most merchants are given a discount rate based on the agreement that identity will be verified at the time of purchase. Most merchants refuse to do this or ask for information they should NOT to ask for (e.g. phone number or address, both unconfirmed). Please, give a fake address and phone number everyone a clerk asks you for this information. In turn, the merchant expects the issuing bank to eat it because the merchant basically helped steal the product to begin with.
As a result, issuing banks are getting tired of idiot merchants. Now they are keeping their discount rates the same (or nearly so) and forcing more of a burden to the idiot merchant. Suddenly, merchants are starting to check for ID and actually attempt to validate ID matches the name on the card and the signature matches that of the ID and card. Having said all that, most merchants still do not match signatures, which means even crappy fake IDs go unnoticed when stolen or fraudulently obtained credit cards are used for purchases.
In a nut shell, merchants are paying because most are absoluete morons and actively encourage ID theft, stolen cards, and fraudulently obtain cards and IDs!
That is a really good point. People use these things for heating all sorts of things. For example, keeping an oil pan warm or heating the dog house during unusually cold winters.
I too was surprised to see anything other than funny moderation. At the same time, I believe I've read several stories posted here which site something like 50%-60% of all internet bandwidth is spam and worms.
I had no idea they were still making station wagons. I'd heard rumors they were talking about bringing them back. Are you driving an older one or a newer one?
And these are the same folks that I wouldn't bat an eye at for driving an SUV. I believe large families, which are by far the minority, were exempt from my statement as I said, "*most* families."
BTW, last I heard, they stopped making station wagons because no one was buying them except for the few large families which required them. These days, fewer people even have large families. That alone tells you that MOST buyers of SUVs are not buying them to cruise their kids around. SUVs are a status symbol, plain and simple.
There is a difference between *NEED* and someone trying to compensate for loose fitting underwear.
As for the first part of your post, fine...I already said you're free to argue other merits. I'm just not willing to do so. My contention was at the assertion that most families require SUVs as no other options exist. Simple fact is, most families do NOT require SUVs and a much more effecient alternative exists. If people want to own one, fine, but can we please stop with the BS that ALL families can't survive without an SUV? Sure, some families do require large vehicles, but saidly, these days, most that can afford the worst offenders don't even qualify as an "atomic family." Which is to say, last I heard, most SUV owners have zero to two kids. Go figure.
Maybe the fact that SUVs are so popular is because it solved a particular consumer problem.
Which problem might that be? How to raise gas prices for all consumers? Or the ever popular, how to be a herd animal? Joking aside, for the bulk of SUV owners, it's a status symbol and NOT a consumer problem which was solved.
I wasn't making the argument that no one needs SUVs. I honestly believe some number of people do need such a vehicle. Having said that, very sure most people do not have such a need.
I wish I still had a link which had some interesting statistics. It's been a couple of years since I last read it but they were roughly (ballpark numbers) something like this.
60%? 70%? of all off road vehicles never see anything other than paved streets.
80% of all SUVs spend 90% of their time with a single person; the driver.
The 20% of SUVs which normally contain more than one person spend most (sorry, don't even remember the ballpark number) of its time with less than 4 people within it. This means most can make use of a more fuel effecient car.
Long story short, sure, there certainly are people that need SUVs and trucks (4x4, etc). These people are by far the minority of SUV and truck owners. Simple fact is, most people see it as a status symbol to try to be part of the "me too" crowd. Remember when people used to buy a car to set themselves apart? Now they buy a vehicle to be part of the herd.
As for your mileage comments, yes I'm aware that some small SUVs get resonable mileage. Most, on the other hand, do not.
Ya, I'm sure this will be beat up since I can't provide the link. So, I invite you to take them in stride. Now, even if my numbers are off by 10%-20%, those numbers still look pretty damning for SUV owners.
Don't make it a bad thing for the family with 4 kids to drive an SUV because they need the space
Simple fact is, most people don't need the space! People like to pretend that families never left home until the SUV came out. BS! Fact is, very, very, very few people actually need an SUV, 4x4 truck, dully truck, or other such gas hog. Fact is, most people can do quite well in a midsize car.
If you want to argue their right to own it...fine...but please stop with the false claims that most families need SUVs as that is complete garbage.
Been flying a Warrior II my self. I trained in a 172. Only just recently got checked out in an Arrow; thusly my complex. Must say I enjoyed that!
I'm hoping to find an IFR equipped M20G/F/J. Really want to have a G-430 in it and nicely equipped for IFR. I recently rode/flew in both an M20A and a M20J. The M20A is a 2-seater with 4-seats (same with B-E models). The M20J on the other hand (same size as a F or G), really is a 4-seater's 4-seater. Best of all, it loves tall people; which I am. The J(160knt on 200hp) just goes faster versus a F (150knt on 200hp), which is faster yet than a G (143knt on 180hp). The G/F/Js actually have a little more room than a 182. Having said that, the 182 is going to have about 180 pounds (I think) more useful load with full tanks. But then again, the straight legged 182 doesn't have the retract weight and pays for it in higher fuel burn and much shorter range.
Sorry if I told ya what you already knew. I'm finding that most people know nothing about Mooneys, save only for a bunch of old wive's tales. Needless to say, and I'm sure you can tell, I'm pretty jazzed about Mooneys right now.
Ah! I didn't know that (just PP w/complex). I'm used to the typical > 50nm from departure airport with landing (T&G allowed, IIRC). With any luck I'll start working on my IFR ticket toward the end of this year. Are you just really on top of the FARs (a CFI?) or working on your ATP?
I've just started shopping for a plane. Hopefully I will be an owner sometime in the next couple of months.
Also, don't forget to write your Congresman about user fees!
Ironically, both this flight and the non-stop around the world flight can not be logged as cross country flight because they both arrived at their departure airport with no other stops. To log cross country time, you must have a stop somewhere other than your point of origin.
The FAA does not approve flight plans. Pilots file them with the FAA. Flight plans are optional unless you fly IFR. Even IFR flight plans can be cancelled at any time, at pilot discretion. Ultimately, even if a flight plan is filed, it is not opened (activated) unless the pilot wants to do so. If a flight plan is not opened within two hours after the filed start flight time, it is automatically expired from the system. In some cases, it can be recovered up to three or four afters after, preventing a refiling...but don't hold your breath. Refiling is probably easier in most cases.
The primary intent of a flight plan is simply to allow the FAA to intelligently dispatch resources in case you fail to close your flight plan. Basically, they want to know where they should call before they start searching air ports. If that fails, they need to know where to tell other pilots, CAP, rescue, etc., to start looking at your flight path. So on and so on. That way rescue escalation can proceed in a cost effective manner. Without a flight plan, in the event a mayday can not be sent, chances are the FAA wouldn't even know to start looking for you.
Contrary to popular myth, there are lots of places, even in the US, which do not have radar coverage at all altitudes. As such, a flight plan becomes an important safety net.
I think the logic is, as concurrent programming becomes the norm, systems which do not physically support the model will begin to suffer performance problems.
I personally am not worried at this point because it's very hard to find anyone that can do any type of complex multithreaded programming. Heck, it's hard to find someone that can just explain different types of semaphores. As such, the technology window might be ripe but the talent required to leverage it is rather weak and small. I don't expect that to change over night.
Sure wish I had some mod points. This has got to be one of the better posts on the subject I've seen. Good job!
When my kids were little I used to explain it to them like it was an animal (shark) attack. Just because some animal attacked someone doesn't mean that every animal around is the one that did it. Yet, that is how science is treating global warming.
Oh look, an animal within 10 miles of the victim...that must be the one! It's got big, sharp, pointy teeth and everything! Oh look, a factory on the same planet, that must be the one! It's got CO2 and everything! Proof?! Of course we have proof! Have you seen the teeth (CO2)?!!? You just don't understand because you're not a scientists being paid/funded to research it. When will these silly laymen learn?!
What I read said that the target for THIS engine was 7500 but this was a prototype. They then plan to take the results from this engine to create a newer, more powerful version. I took that to mean, this engine is 7500 while their target engine will have more and that this engine is nothing but a prototype and technology proofing milestone.
You sound like you're more in tune with following these developments so I many very well be out in left field here.
For comparison, the kerosine F-1 engines on the Saturn V produced 1.5 million lbf compared to the 7,500 lbf targetted by this engine
That's misleading. "This engine" is strictly a prototype so they can develop a much larger version. Comparing a production engine with an early, heavy in development prototype simply does not make sense. From the article, "The 7,500 lbf engine is the first of its kind...", and, "Currently, the engine is a workhorse prototype...". I don't see what their target thurst is, but one can assume it's much larger than 7,500lbf.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm on year six (or is it eight?) of a set of three. They were pretty expensive back then. We constantly use those lights and they have experienced a large number of off/on cycles. Needless to say, I'm thrilled! All three are still running strong. In fact, those three lights probably have more use than any other lights in our house; save only the fluorescent lights in our kitchen which stay almost constantly lit in the evening hours. And I have had to replace the kitchen lights once already; making them good for around 5-years.
I certainly feel like I got my money's worth out of those CFLs.
The same thing happened to the Shaw's F-14s in Iran after he was overthrown (1975? 1976?). While Iran owns as many as 79 F-14 Tomcats, it is believed none are flying today because the inability to service and maintain the fleet.
Actually, contrary to the popular assumption here, it is hardly a reach to assume they have standard radio equipment (including navigation)...well, equipment which can communicate with traditional VFH FAA frequencies. This means its very likely they are equiped with normal transponders and radios which can TX/RX on traditional VFH frequencies. Without such equipment, the world's largest airports become unavailable to them. Believe it or not, the military uses publicly acessible airports for everything from training to emergencies, on a regular basis.
As usual you're an idiot. Learn to read. Once you've done that, reread what he posted. After that, place it in context! I know context is difficult for you so I'll walk you through it.
That is from Visa and is ONLY a recommendation. It is NOT a mandate. Read it! It's obvious. Secondly, I never said Visa wants you to check it! Not once! But since we know you can't read and have the IQ of a nat, I'll excuse you once again.
Visa is the clearing house. They sponcer banks to be a card issuer. They say, please don't check ID because we think this improves the customer experience and we have little liability. Notice this is NOT a requirement!
A bank is the card issuer, having been sponsored by Visa, etc. They are the ones that have the bulk of the liability. They WANT you to check ID and it is in MOST merchant agreements between the ISO (sales, merchant support groups) and the merchant processors (the network which delivers the transactions from the merchant to Visa and then to the issuer for ACH). Here, I say MOST because if you are large enough you will be able to write part of the merchant agreement and then all bets are off for what is actually contained within. Having said that, ultimately, the discount rate is going to reflect the reality on the ground.
Ultimately, this all means, exactly on queue, like all of your posts, you always waste disk space.
Find something legally binding. Until then, you're wasting disk space. ;)
Hmmm. You must live in a really screwed up state or something. I used to work in the credit card industry and still know a VP for one of the larger merchant processing facilities. I can assure you, they absolutely do want you checking ID. In fact, that is always explicitly stated in their merchant agreements. Furthermore, it is also included in the merchant training at time of equipment installation. In fact, some merchant banks actually send people into the field to make sure their merchants are checking ID. If they catch them failing to check ID, they quickly raise their discount rate as they are a much higher risk merchant. Of course, the merchants gets pissed, but once again we validate that merchants are idiots.
When I see their merchants process my card and they don't validate my ID, I know it is because the merchant doesn't care. They are afraid it will scare away customers. Yet at the same time, they get VERY upset when they are forced to eat the cost of items that they helped steal.
Lastly, the majority of credit cards do not have owner pictures on them. And even when they do, the picture should still be checked against a second ID, plus the signature. That picture is another mechanism that allows merchants to mitigate some of their risk. It was never intended to be the sole form of identification.
Sounds like you either need to move to another state or you need to find better processors.
Because most merchants are given a discount rate based on the agreement that identity will be verified at the time of purchase. Most merchants refuse to do this or ask for information they should NOT to ask for (e.g. phone number or address, both unconfirmed). Please, give a fake address and phone number everyone a clerk asks you for this information. In turn, the merchant expects the issuing bank to eat it because the merchant basically helped steal the product to begin with.
As a result, issuing banks are getting tired of idiot merchants. Now they are keeping their discount rates the same (or nearly so) and forcing more of a burden to the idiot merchant. Suddenly, merchants are starting to check for ID and actually attempt to validate ID matches the name on the card and the signature matches that of the ID and card. Having said all that, most merchants still do not match signatures, which means even crappy fake IDs go unnoticed when stolen or fraudulently obtained credit cards are used for purchases.
In a nut shell, merchants are paying because most are absoluete morons and actively encourage ID theft, stolen cards, and fraudulently obtain cards and IDs!
You reap what you sow.
That is a really good point. People use these things for heating all sorts of things. For example, keeping an oil pan warm or heating the dog house during unusually cold winters.
I too was surprised to see anything other than funny moderation. At the same time, I believe I've read several stories posted here which site something like 50%-60% of all internet bandwidth is spam and worms.
That's easy! Just kill all spammers and we instantly all have 50%-60% more bandwidth. Problem solved! Anyone want this shovel?
I couldn't agree more with you about forcing these things to meet CAFE standards. Good point. Good post. Are you sure we're still on /.?
I had no idea they were still making station wagons. I'd heard rumors they were talking about bringing them back. Are you driving an older one or a newer one?
Yes I understand you're a troll...but I'll bite.
Actually, you do need the space, because of various laws passed for "protecting the safety of children."
According to you, parents can not legally drive their child/children around in a Ford Escort?
Now that's funny.
I'm ignoring the rest of your inane blathering.
Go back to your bridge, troll. LOL.
And these are the same folks that I wouldn't bat an eye at for driving an SUV. I believe large families, which are by far the minority, were exempt from my statement as I said, "*most* families."
BTW, last I heard, they stopped making station wagons because no one was buying them except for the few large families which required them. These days, fewer people even have large families. That alone tells you that MOST buyers of SUVs are not buying them to cruise their kids around. SUVs are a status symbol, plain and simple.
There is a difference between *NEED* and someone trying to compensate for loose fitting underwear.
As for the first part of your post, fine...I already said you're free to argue other merits. I'm just not willing to do so. My contention was at the assertion that most families require SUVs as no other options exist. Simple fact is, most families do NOT require SUVs and a much more effecient alternative exists. If people want to own one, fine, but can we please stop with the BS that ALL families can't survive without an SUV? Sure, some families do require large vehicles, but saidly, these days, most that can afford the worst offenders don't even qualify as an "atomic family." Which is to say, last I heard, most SUV owners have zero to two kids. Go figure.
Maybe the fact that SUVs are so popular is because it solved a particular consumer problem.
Which problem might that be? How to raise gas prices for all consumers? Or the ever popular, how to be a herd animal? Joking aside, for the bulk of SUV owners, it's a status symbol and NOT a consumer problem which was solved.
I wasn't making the argument that no one needs SUVs. I honestly believe some number of people do need such a vehicle. Having said that, very sure most people do not have such a need.
I wish I still had a link which had some interesting statistics. It's been a couple of years since I last read it but they were roughly (ballpark numbers) something like this.
60%? 70%? of all off road vehicles never see anything other than paved streets.
80% of all SUVs spend 90% of their time with a single person; the driver.
The 20% of SUVs which normally contain more than one person spend most (sorry, don't even remember the ballpark number) of its time with less than 4 people within it. This means most can make use of a more fuel effecient car.
Long story short, sure, there certainly are people that need SUVs and trucks (4x4, etc). These people are by far the minority of SUV and truck owners. Simple fact is, most people see it as a status symbol to try to be part of the "me too" crowd. Remember when people used to buy a car to set themselves apart? Now they buy a vehicle to be part of the herd.
As for your mileage comments, yes I'm aware that some small SUVs get resonable mileage. Most, on the other hand, do not.
Ya, I'm sure this will be beat up since I can't provide the link. So, I invite you to take them in stride. Now, even if my numbers are off by 10%-20%, those numbers still look pretty damning for SUV owners.
Don't make it a bad thing for the family with 4 kids to drive an SUV because they need the space
Simple fact is, most people don't need the space! People like to pretend that families never left home until the SUV came out. BS! Fact is, very, very, very few people actually need an SUV, 4x4 truck, dully truck, or other such gas hog. Fact is, most people can do quite well in a midsize car.
If you want to argue their right to own it...fine...but please stop with the false claims that most families need SUVs as that is complete garbage.
Been flying a Warrior II my self. I trained in a 172. Only just recently got checked out in an Arrow; thusly my complex. Must say I enjoyed that!
I'm hoping to find an IFR equipped M20G/F/J. Really want to have a G-430 in it and nicely equipped for IFR. I recently rode/flew in both an M20A and a M20J. The M20A is a 2-seater with 4-seats (same with B-E models). The M20J on the other hand (same size as a F or G), really is a 4-seater's 4-seater. Best of all, it loves tall people; which I am. The J(160knt on 200hp) just goes faster versus a F (150knt on 200hp), which is faster yet than a G (143knt on 180hp). The G/F/Js actually have a little more room than a 182. Having said that, the 182 is going to have about 180 pounds (I think) more useful load with full tanks. But then again, the straight legged 182 doesn't have the retract weight and pays for it in higher fuel burn and much shorter range.
Sorry if I told ya what you already knew. I'm finding that most people know nothing about Mooneys, save only for a bunch of old wive's tales. Needless to say, and I'm sure you can tell, I'm pretty jazzed about Mooneys right now.
Ah! I didn't know that (just PP w/complex). I'm used to the typical > 50nm from departure airport with landing (T&G allowed, IIRC). With any luck I'll start working on my IFR ticket toward the end of this year. Are you just really on top of the FARs (a CFI?) or working on your ATP?
I've just started shopping for a plane. Hopefully I will be an owner sometime in the next couple of months.
Also, don't forget to write your Congresman about user fees!
Ironically, both this flight and the non-stop around the world flight can not be logged as cross country flight because they both arrived at their departure airport with no other stops. To log cross country time, you must have a stop somewhere other than your point of origin.
The FAA does not approve flight plans. Pilots file them with the FAA. Flight plans are optional unless you fly IFR. Even IFR flight plans can be cancelled at any time, at pilot discretion. Ultimately, even if a flight plan is filed, it is not opened (activated) unless the pilot wants to do so. If a flight plan is not opened within two hours after the filed start flight time, it is automatically expired from the system. In some cases, it can be recovered up to three or four afters after, preventing a refiling...but don't hold your breath. Refiling is probably easier in most cases.
The primary intent of a flight plan is simply to allow the FAA to intelligently dispatch resources in case you fail to close your flight plan. Basically, they want to know where they should call before they start searching air ports. If that fails, they need to know where to tell other pilots, CAP, rescue, etc., to start looking at your flight path. So on and so on. That way rescue escalation can proceed in a cost effective manner. Without a flight plan, in the event a mayday can not be sent, chances are the FAA wouldn't even know to start looking for you.
Contrary to popular myth, there are lots of places, even in the US, which do not have radar coverage at all altitudes. As such, a flight plan becomes an important safety net.
I think the logic is, as concurrent programming becomes the norm, systems which do not physically support the model will begin to suffer performance problems.
I personally am not worried at this point because it's very hard to find anyone that can do any type of complex multithreaded programming. Heck, it's hard to find someone that can just explain different types of semaphores. As such, the technology window might be ripe but the talent required to leverage it is rather weak and small. I don't expect that to change over night.
Sure wish I had some mod points. This has got to be one of the better posts on the subject I've seen. Good job!
When my kids were little I used to explain it to them like it was an animal (shark) attack. Just because some animal attacked someone doesn't mean that every animal around is the one that did it. Yet, that is how science is treating global warming.
Oh look, an animal within 10 miles of the victim...that must be the one! It's got big, sharp, pointy teeth and everything! Oh look, a factory on the same planet, that must be the one! It's got CO2 and everything! Proof?! Of course we have proof! Have you seen the teeth (CO2)?!!? You just don't understand because you're not a scientists being paid/funded to research it. When will these silly laymen learn?!
What I read said that the target for THIS engine was 7500 but this was a prototype. They then plan to take the results from this engine to create a newer, more powerful version. I took that to mean, this engine is 7500 while their target engine will have more and that this engine is nothing but a prototype and technology proofing milestone.
You sound like you're more in tune with following these developments so I many very well be out in left field here.
For comparison, the kerosine F-1 engines on the Saturn V produced 1.5 million lbf compared to the 7,500 lbf targetted by this engine
That's misleading. "This engine" is strictly a prototype so they can develop a much larger version. Comparing a production engine with an early, heavy in development prototype simply does not make sense. From the article, "The 7,500 lbf engine is the first of its kind...", and, "Currently, the engine is a workhorse prototype...". I don't see what their target thurst is, but one can assume it's much larger than 7,500lbf.