He means that you should never drive faster than you can run, since obviously, as a species, we have not evolved to the point that we can react at speeds faster than that.
Or maybe you should not drive with more KE than you have when running, to reduce the size of the damage when you hit something to the same as if you bumped into it while running.
There will always be fatal highway accidents as long as the speed limit is greater than 0. "if it saves one life" is total bunk.
Ok, but if you see somebody in the left lane going "too slow" and they've put their turn signal on, For the love of all that's good, don't immediately change lanes to pass them on the right, they're trying to get out of your damn way and a line of people from behind all slinking by on the right does nothing to make that a safe maneuver.
I live in a "reasonable and prudent" state. Despite our arbitrarily low statewide speed limits, you're expected to travel at "reasonable and prudent" speed, regardless of the actual limit.
So, if the roads are slick and visibility is low, you can be under the limit and still get a ticket, but if conditions are good and you're only going just over the limit, but you're slower than the traffic, you can still get a ticket.
Interestingly, you can still get a ticket for exceeding the limit in the latter case, so you're pretty well screwed either way. Supposedly, you can also use "reasonable and prudent" as a defense for exceeding the limit in those cases, but I've never seen it work.
GPS satellites are between LEO and GEO. Communications satellites are in GEO.
Since you need your GPS constellation to have birds over higher latitudes than "0, all the time" there's no advantage to GEO, and a very important benefit to reception and payload mass in using lower orbits.
Actually, the constitution spells out the circumstance and method by which the government *can* seize your property. We call this authority, "Eminent Domain." Unfortunately, it was vague enough on the circumstance part that all kinds of shady deals make it through.
"... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation..."
The Rehnquist court held that "public use" included the generation of tax income. Once again Justice Thomas was on the correct side, and extremely eloquent. Yet Roberts was appointed directly to Chief justice.
A stadium is marginally less egregious than the Kelo case, since it at least has the thin veneer of justification as "public use" if used for public events between games. Ignoring the fact that public funds also seem to end up being applied to stadium projects.
While true that the rights of individuals are not enumerated in the constitution, the rights those individuals give upare enumerated in the constitution. In fact, it's nothing but documentation of the authority our founding fathers were willing to bestow upon a governmental organization (and by extension the authority they were willing to cede for the benefits a limited government could provide)
The "privacy right" found in the "penumbra" of the constitution, used to justify the Roe v. Wade decision is another matter entirely. The tenth amendment surely suggests that the states either have or don't have the authority to regulate abortion as they will, according to their OWN constitutions.
You're like the one lone gun-control advocate actually proposing to go about things the correct way by supporting an amendment to abridge second amendment, right?
If so, it's rather refreshing. I disagree with your premise, of course, but I welcome the idea of hashing it out in the appropriate forum.
It goes in *new* cars. The number of people currently driving a Chrysler is pretty irrelevant. And what's wrong with Chrysler, anyway? They're good cars, solidly built, and mostly pretty stylish, in a conservative way. Sure, their gas mileage is middle-of-the-pack, but it's nothing near as bad as GM*.
*Why the F does the Wrangler, a compact car get the practically the same crappy mileage as a freakin' hummer?
You are never forced to do *anything*. It's a sandbox game. If you don't do the missions.. there's other stuff you can do.
As for the hookers, you can exchange money for health by letting one in your car. Then you can get out of the car and beat her till you get your money back. Or until she's dead, and you get your money back.
It's not so much that you're forced to do this. It's really more of.. those game mechanics are in there, eventually you're going to try it.
I think we're all hoping that that doesn't teach any kind of lesson or anything.
No, you need to charge based on a function of weight and volume, since both are a premium.
Also, I agree that they should charge the uberfatties an extra seat, but they should...actually give them the extra seat. There is very little I hate more than to be trying to get some rest when Jabba the Company Rep encroaches on my personal space because he's too fat to put his arms down.
Re:The explanation is obvious
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 1
Uh... but what is the efficiency comparison between the Dreamliner and the 400? Or the 380, which was designed roughly the same time and represents the departure of design philosophies.
It should also be pointed out that the only airline to consistently post a profit in the US is Southwest, which flies nearly exclusively 737s, and does not ascribe to the "hub and spokes" model of passenger routing.
Bigger is not necessarily equal to better, especially if you're not fully utilizing the planes, or you have to have travelers go way out of their way to get where they're going. 10% savings on fuel costs per passenger mile doesn't really make sense if the price is increasing the distance passengers must travel to their destinations by 30%.
Re:The explanation is obvious
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 1
because light rail is just as expensive to operate as buses for the same passenger capacity, and it's more expensive to put in, and it's less flexible on routing.
Subways offer a real advantage, IF the cities have the population density.
Get rid of the operators, and the numbers look a little better though.
One thing that every city of medium density should consider: grade-separated bicycle lanes. The speeds and masses of bikes vs. cars mean that they really shouldn't be sharing roads anywhere but a rural setting where traffic is quite low. Similarly, bikes shouldn't share the sidewalk with pedestrians for the same reason.
Re:Republicans backing rail
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 1
Funding AMTRAK has nothing to do with establishing the kind of rail infrastructure needed to actually be a transportation option for most people.
Look at AMTRAK's balance sheet, and you'll find that by the majority of their revenue, they're not a passenger rail company. They have an alternate, much larger and steadier revenue source, which doesn't require actual customer satisfaction.
Re:The explanation is obvious
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 1
We only sort-of have it. Instead of making something people would actually want to ride, they decided to go half-assed (like half the other stuff in the northeast.) and just buy high speed trains. They share most of their track with traditional-speed trains, which understandably significantly limits their minimum travel times.
Re:The explanation is obvious
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 1
How, exactly did those "no security checks" work out for the spanish rail system in 2004?
Re:The explanation is obvious
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 1
Ahh.. I see your problem. You seem to think that paris to london is far. How quaint.
We have high-speed rail in the US to go the equivalent distance (Boston to Philly). It takes longer than three hours, though, because it shares track with the normal speed trains (what kind of dim bulb thought THAT was a good idea?)
Still, I definitely look forward to the day when trains are appropriate for the trip from New York to LA. Probably not in my lifetime, though: we'll probably need to do it as an evacuated tunnel chord-of-the-earth train to be fast enough.
Re:Back in the day...
on
Terminal Chaos
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's quite simple. It's called "junket." They're not just meeting with the other execs. They're getting an international vacay in on the company dime. It's pretty standard practice to screw your shareholders whenever you get the chance.
Uh.. I think you mean a racial epithet. I'm pretty sure you can still have whatever you want on your tombstone. And even if you can't, it's not like they can do anything to you over it.
You don't actually need the 10x redundancy. If the easements rights are offered to all comers (with a few restrictions to to keep your neighbor from starting a fake ISP to justify digging up your lawn), the threat of competition should be enough for the companies to hover around market prices.
The key is to lower barriers-to-entry for new companies to jump in and take advantage of monopolies' tendency toward inefficient pricing. But the idea is to do it with as little government regulation and spending as possible. Since both of those tend ot have massive unintended consequences.
I think I read about it once, and the issue is flight risk. Bail bondsmen use the retainer for the bounty if you run, but they'll take almost anyone as a client. Banks have to be more choosy. But it's unlikely that the parents would flee with the kid, and they can put a lien on the parents' assets until the loan is paid off, so they can afford lower returns.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine the statistics! I'm investing in the warning label industry right now!
He means that you should never drive faster than you can run, since obviously, as a species, we have not evolved to the point that we can react at speeds faster than that.
Or maybe you should not drive with more KE than you have when running, to reduce the size of the damage when you hit something to the same as if you bumped into it while running.
There will always be fatal highway accidents as long as the speed limit is greater than 0. "if it saves one life" is total bunk.
Ok, but if you see somebody in the left lane going "too slow" and they've put their turn signal on, For the love of all that's good, don't immediately change lanes to pass them on the right, they're trying to get out of your damn way and a line of people from behind all slinking by on the right does nothing to make that a safe maneuver.
I live in a "reasonable and prudent" state. Despite our arbitrarily low statewide speed limits, you're expected to travel at "reasonable and prudent" speed, regardless of the actual limit.
So, if the roads are slick and visibility is low, you can be under the limit and still get a ticket, but if conditions are good and you're only going just over the limit, but you're slower than the traffic, you can still get a ticket.
Interestingly, you can still get a ticket for exceeding the limit in the latter case, so you're pretty well screwed either way. Supposedly, you can also use "reasonable and prudent" as a defense for exceeding the limit in those cases, but I've never seen it work.
GPS satellites are between LEO and GEO. Communications satellites are in GEO.
Since you need your GPS constellation to have birds over higher latitudes than "0, all the time" there's no advantage to GEO, and a very important benefit to reception and payload mass in using lower orbits.
Actually, the constitution spells out the circumstance and method by which the government *can* seize your property. We call this authority, "Eminent Domain." Unfortunately, it was vague enough on the circumstance part that all kinds of shady deals make it through.
"... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation..."
The Rehnquist court held that "public use" included the generation of tax income. Once again Justice Thomas was on the correct side, and extremely eloquent. Yet Roberts was appointed directly to Chief justice.
A stadium is marginally less egregious than the Kelo case, since it at least has the thin veneer of justification as "public use" if used for public events between games. Ignoring the fact that public funds also seem to end up being applied to stadium projects.
Sigh.
While true that the rights of individuals are not enumerated in the constitution, the rights those individuals give up are enumerated in the constitution. In fact, it's nothing but documentation of the authority our founding fathers were willing to bestow upon a governmental organization (and by extension the authority they were willing to cede for the benefits a limited government could provide)
The "privacy right" found in the "penumbra" of the constitution, used to justify the Roe v. Wade decision is another matter entirely. The tenth amendment surely suggests that the states either have or don't have the authority to regulate abortion as they will, according to their OWN constitutions.
I just want to be clear,
You're like the one lone gun-control advocate actually proposing to go about things the correct way by supporting an amendment to abridge second amendment, right?
If so, it's rather refreshing. I disagree with your premise, of course, but I welcome the idea of hashing it out in the appropriate forum.
It goes in *new* cars. The number of people currently driving a Chrysler is pretty irrelevant. And what's wrong with Chrysler, anyway? They're good cars, solidly built, and mostly pretty stylish, in a conservative way. Sure, their gas mileage is middle-of-the-pack, but it's nothing near as bad as GM*.
*Why the F does the Wrangler, a compact car get the practically the same crappy mileage as a freakin' hummer?
This doesn't seem to have reduced the number of "reboot required"s in patches to the latest Ubuntu release...
YOU!*
*If you live in the US and pay taxes. AMTRAK is a welfare queen.
You are never forced to do *anything*. It's a sandbox game. If you don't do the missions.. there's other stuff you can do.
As for the hookers, you can exchange money for health by letting one in your car. Then you can get out of the car and beat her till you get your money back. Or until she's dead, and you get your money back.
It's not so much that you're forced to do this. It's really more of.. those game mechanics are in there, eventually you're going to try it.
I think we're all hoping that that doesn't teach any kind of lesson or anything.
No, you need to charge based on a function of weight and volume, since both are a premium.
Also, I agree that they should charge the uberfatties an extra seat, but they should...actually give them the extra seat. There is very little I hate more than to be trying to get some rest when Jabba the Company Rep encroaches on my personal space because he's too fat to put his arms down.
Uh... but what is the efficiency comparison between the Dreamliner and the 400? Or the 380, which was designed roughly the same time and represents the departure of design philosophies.
It should also be pointed out that the only airline to consistently post a profit in the US is Southwest, which flies nearly exclusively 737s, and does not ascribe to the "hub and spokes" model of passenger routing.
Bigger is not necessarily equal to better, especially if you're not fully utilizing the planes, or you have to have travelers go way out of their way to get where they're going. 10% savings on fuel costs per passenger mile doesn't really make sense if the price is increasing the distance passengers must travel to their destinations by 30%.
because light rail is just as expensive to operate as buses for the same passenger capacity, and it's more expensive to put in, and it's less flexible on routing.
Subways offer a real advantage, IF the cities have the population density.
Get rid of the operators, and the numbers look a little better though.
One thing that every city of medium density should consider: grade-separated bicycle lanes. The speeds and masses of bikes vs. cars mean that they really shouldn't be sharing roads anywhere but a rural setting where traffic is quite low. Similarly, bikes shouldn't share the sidewalk with pedestrians for the same reason.
Funding AMTRAK has nothing to do with establishing the kind of rail infrastructure needed to actually be a transportation option for most people.
Look at AMTRAK's balance sheet, and you'll find that by the majority of their revenue, they're not a passenger rail company. They have an alternate, much larger and steadier revenue source, which doesn't require actual customer satisfaction.
We only sort-of have it. Instead of making something people would actually want to ride, they decided to go half-assed (like half the other stuff in the northeast.) and just buy high speed trains. They share most of their track with traditional-speed trains, which understandably significantly limits their minimum travel times.
How, exactly did those "no security checks" work out for the spanish rail system in 2004?
Ahh.. I see your problem. You seem to think that paris to london is far. How quaint.
We have high-speed rail in the US to go the equivalent distance (Boston to Philly). It takes longer than three hours, though, because it shares track with the normal speed trains (what kind of dim bulb thought THAT was a good idea?)
Still, I definitely look forward to the day when trains are appropriate for the trip from New York to LA. Probably not in my lifetime, though: we'll probably need to do it as an evacuated tunnel chord-of-the-earth train to be fast enough.
It's quite simple. It's called "junket." They're not just meeting with the other execs. They're getting an international vacay in on the company dime. It's pretty standard practice to screw your shareholders whenever you get the chance.
Uh.. I think you mean a racial epithet. I'm pretty sure you can still have whatever you want on your tombstone. And even if you can't, it's not like they can do anything to you over it.
And you didn't call OSHA, because??
If they had quests like that, I'd start playing again. Blizzard would make a quest for a delicious Big'N'Tasty pretty hillarious.
They're like Stargate. Their strongest when they don't try to take themselves too seriously.
You don't actually need the 10x redundancy. If the easements rights are offered to all comers (with a few restrictions to to keep your neighbor from starting a fake ISP to justify digging up your lawn), the threat of competition should be enough for the companies to hover around market prices.
The key is to lower barriers-to-entry for new companies to jump in and take advantage of monopolies' tendency toward inefficient pricing. But the idea is to do it with as little government regulation and spending as possible. Since both of those tend ot have massive unintended consequences.
I think I read about it once, and the issue is flight risk. Bail bondsmen use the retainer for the bounty if you run, but they'll take almost anyone as a client. Banks have to be more choosy. But it's unlikely that the parents would flee with the kid, and they can put a lien on the parents' assets until the loan is paid off, so they can afford lower returns.