That's lovely. What about those among us who are pilots? Right now, if GPS goes down, we can still rely on older ground based navaids like VOR and NDB for flight in instrument conditions. However, the FAA (they're here to help!) is proposing to phase out ground based nav systems beginning in 2010.
If you're looking for made-in-USA sneakers, some of the higher end New Balance ones are domestic. Their chain-store lower end shoes are mostly China/Indonesia though.
Bullshit answer. A 2008 Civic is also a physically larger car than a 1979 Civic, that's why it weights more, not the nefarious "safety devices." The wheelbase went from 86" to 106". You can find that info in the same wikipedia article you conveniently forgot to cite in your comment.
"Internally self-venting" = same newfarkled California crap. There is a solution - go to a motorcycle store or a store which caters to car racing. There, you will find a selection of these nice 5 gallon jugs, with old fashioned manual vents: http://mpnmag.com/site/content/site/images/7A-906-MP.jpg
Funny thing is, I was on a business trip to California, and stopped in at Chaparral Motorsports in San Bernardino. They sell those cans, with manual vents - but there is a poster on the display which states "THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PROHIBITS THE USE OF THESE CONTAINERS TO STORE OR TRANSPORT GASOLINE OR ANY OTHER VOLATILE SOLVENT".
Then again, I also ate dinner at an upscale steak restaurant. They had a sign in the window: "THIS ESTABLISHMENT SERVES CHARRED MEAT, WHICH HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CAUSE CANCER"
I live in a redneck rural area of the United States. Most everyone here voted for Bush, twice, yet all the grocery stores have bins where they accept used bags.
Damn California gas cans. Funny thing is, they have probably increased evaporative gasoline pollution tenfold. See kids, gas cans used to have a nice vent hole in them to allow air into the tank to replace the gasoline that poured out. They had snap-on caps to prevent gasoline loss during storage. No everyone used the caps, the the peoples democratic republic of California insisted that all new gas cans be self-venting through the spout. The side effect is that the pour dog-slow. So, every single landscaper that I've seen drills a new vent hole in their tank to get the same performance that they were used to. Now, NONE of the gas cans have caps on their vents, and evaporative emissions are worse than ever. Good job California!
* CFLs do contain mercury, but it is only a problem if the bulbs are broken or disposed of improperly. The amount of mercury in an average CFL is about 1/100 the amount contained in one of those old mercury thermometers. Also, the largest man-made source of mercury pollution is coal-fired power plants, which CFL usage will reduce. In addition, newer CFLs are being released that contain much less mercury than current ones (source [pdf]).
The solution to pollution is dilution. Given a fixed quantity of mercury, I'd MUCH rather have it dispersed evenly into the atmosphere than concentrated on my kitchen floor.
* It is true that some CFLs don't live up to their rated life. All Energy Star compliant bulbs are required to include at least a two-year manufacturer warranty (source).
Have you ever tried to enforce one of those manufacturer's warranties? The store won't take them back, they say it's the manufacturer's problem. The manufacturer demands that I ship the dead bulb to them, AT MY COST, wait for them to make the determination that the bulb was not "abused" (Did you know that the manufacturer considers using the bulb upside down to be abuse?), and if they determine that they are at-fault (never happens) they send you a coupon for the MSRP off your next lightbulb purchase. So I then have to get in my Suburban and drive to the walmart for my replacement bulb. This entire process presupposes that I have saved a two year old receipt for a friggn lightbulb, by the way. Math question for you: what is the net carbon emitted buy shipping a dead lightbulb to from Kalamazoo to Timbucktoo, followed by a trip in my Suburban to the Walmart in the next county?
* CFLs are available in all sorts of variants, including candle (regular and candelabra base), globe, reflector, three-way, etc.
All at inordinately inflated prices, and often in form factors different from the original bulb, so they wont physically fit in many fixtures. They also have visual differences which make them unacceptable for use in decorative fixtures.
* CFLs are available in a wide range of color temperatures, from 2700K ("warm" incandescent) to 5100K ("daylight"). Many CFLs are indistinguishable from their incandescent equivalents (that is, until you touch them and don't get burned).
I agree with the other poster. I've had CFLs get hot enough to melt their plastic bases. Smelled wonderful, I wonder how many formaldehydes and phenols were released into my home when that happened.
* Dimmable CFLs, which work on standard dimmer switches, exist. While they do not have exactly the same dimming behaviors as incandescents, I've found them to be more than adequate.
A dimmable CFL costs 20 bucks. A dimmable incandescent costs 65 cents. Why should I pay 30 times more for an inferior product? Do you realize that 20 bucks is an hour and a half's labor for the median family in the US, and 3 hours of labor for the 15% of US families who live below the poverty line?
* While most CFLs do not tolerate colder temperatures, there are many that do, all the way down below 0 degrees F
And I suppose that you can buy these in the grocery store next to all the other bulbs, right? I don't have mail order them from a specialty company, or drive my Suburban the 60 mile round trip to the nearest home improvement store? And I'm SURE they're price-competitive with a regular incandescent. Remember, a massive amount of people in the US live in rural areas, and if it's not commonly available in an IGA grocery store, then it's a specialty item.
* While older CFLs didn't come on instantly, newer ones, with electric ballasts, do. They do not start at full brightness, but are plenty bright to see when entering a room, and reach full brightness quickly, often in under a minute.
The solution to pollution is dilution. Given a fixed quantity of mercury, I'd MUCH rather have it dispersed into the atmosphere than spilled on my kitchen floor.
You make the assumption that just because a retailer offers a recycling program, people will use it. Most supermarkets accept plastic bags for recycling, yet most people put them in their home trash. Schlepping your garbage back to the point of purchase may be acceptable to people who make a hobby out of recycling and drive a Prius, but the other 99.44% of the population will be tossing their dead CFLs in with the kitchen trash.
It's only a "fact" if you believe the manufacturer's claimed lifespan for CFLs. I replace every bulb in my house with CFLs, and find that they burn out every bit as often as the incandescents I was using previously. Oh, but they're 10 times more expensive, not 4x.
Years ago I worked at a CompUSA (now closed) in Dunwoody, GA. Our highest % markup on anything in the store was an PS/2 Y-adapter for a Thinkpad that let you use an external keyboard and mouse simultaneously. Store cost: $1.86. Consumer Cost: $49.95
Spot on with your first comment... but 550 lb total payload is more than your typical Cessna 150. The one I fly has a useful load of 458 lbs. That's your total for fuel, oil, passengers, and baggage.
Sure. Like I said in a post replying to the parent, boats are polyester/fiber, not epoxy/fiber. Polyester totally sucks when it comes to moisture absorption, and in fact chemically reacts to water and expands,which is what leads to boat pox. In fact, the "cure" for boat pox is to haul out the boat, sand or sandblast off the polyester gelcoat, throw a cover over the boat and let it dry out for 6 months. Then, spray on a new EPOXY barrier coat, such as Interlux 404
Any boat you're likely to see in a private marina is probably made with a polyester / fibrglass composite, not epoxy. It's heavier and not as strong, but it's around 1/5 the price.
It is absolutely a serious concern, and aircraft fire safety is rigorously tested and has been one of the areas most improved upon over the past few generations of aircraft designs. However, the material the hull is made from is third order effect on the quantity of and toxicity of smoke in the cabin. You should be far more concerned about smoke from materials inside the cabin, including carpet, seat foam and uphostery, insulation, sidewall and ceiling linings (hey, those have been composite construction since the 727!) and interior furnishings.
The man was absolutely not one of the top engineers at Boeing. The fact that he has many years of experience at the company does not indicate his status. Consider the following: Boeing has a promotion path for engineers who want to advance their careers from a technical standpoint, rather than a managerial standpoint. It's called the Technical Fellowship, and any person who could be considered a top engineer would be in this career path. One typically applies for membership as an Associate Tech Fellow at around 20 years of experience, and is selected by members of the fellowship based on scholarly and industry journal publication, technical excellence, and mentoring of other engineers. The person may they pursue further recognition withing the fellowship, and may be recognized by their peers by advancement to Tech Fellow, then Senior Tech Fellow. For your reference, out of 160,000 or so employees, there are 1600 ATFs, 500 TFs, and 70 STFs. Those are the people who are the top Boeing engineers, NOT some guy who just managed to cling to his paycheck for 43 years.
As far as "High Level work on NASA projects", the man says that he was a lead engineer for a space shuttle structural component. While "Lead Engineer" may sound impressive to you, in Boeing it is not a very high level position. Typically someone with 10-15 years of experience, supervising around a dozen engineers in a non-management role.
Your further allegations are also spurious. Boeing has conducted FAR more testing and simulation for this aircraft program than any in it's history. Material and component testing for some of the material systems being used began over 10 years ago. Perhaps you are thinking of the accelerated flight testing schedule... while the calendar time is far shorter than it has been in the past, the airframes will have just as many flight hours as past programs. In the past, fewer airframes were used for testing, and the testing ran serially. For the 787, more airframes will be used, and they will fly concurrently.
Your comments on a potential disaster border on hysteria. You obviously are confusing the 787 with the A380 superjumbo. The 787 is a mid size aircraft, slightly larger than a 767. The worst non-terrorist aviation disaster was the Tenerife tragedy, which killed 583 people. The 787 can't even hold half that many.
Did you know that the Boeing 777 vertical and horizontal stabilizers, as well as rudders, elevators, and wing control surfaces, are all CFRP composite structures? They seem to have had no service difficulty. Perhaps the difficulty that the Airbus A300 series is related more to their human factors philosophy of not providing adequate force feedback to the pilot' controls, rather than their choice of materials.
I assume you believe that the B2 bomber is neither large, nor pressurized, nor has it been in service for more than 20 years? And you are aware that despite being Northrop being the top level contractor, Boeing was the prime subcontractor responsible for the design and manufacturing of the composite fuselage and wing structure?
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080828vor.html
Then, yes, we really WILL be dependent on our GPS "nav-computers"
If you're looking for made-in-USA sneakers, some of the higher end New Balance ones are domestic. Their chain-store lower end shoes are mostly China/Indonesia though.
Bullshit answer. A 2008 Civic is also a physically larger car than a 1979 Civic, that's why it weights more, not the nefarious "safety devices." The wheelbase went from 86" to 106". You can find that info in the same wikipedia article you conveniently forgot to cite in your comment.
CO2 is fine for welding. You can MIG/MAG weld with 100% CO2 all day long. Produces a nice deep penetration.
http://ebaynegs.mozdev.org/
voila
"Internally self-venting" = same newfarkled California crap. There is a solution - go to a motorcycle store or a store which caters to car racing. There, you will find a selection of these nice 5 gallon jugs, with old fashioned manual vents: http://mpnmag.com/site/content/site/images/7A-906-MP.jpg
Funny thing is, I was on a business trip to California, and stopped in at Chaparral Motorsports in San Bernardino. They sell those cans, with manual vents - but there is a poster on the display which states "THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PROHIBITS THE USE OF THESE CONTAINERS TO STORE OR TRANSPORT GASOLINE OR ANY OTHER VOLATILE SOLVENT".
Then again, I also ate dinner at an upscale steak restaurant. They had a sign in the window: "THIS ESTABLISHMENT SERVES CHARRED MEAT, WHICH HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO CAUSE CANCER"
I know that California has already established it's reputation as the land of fruits and nuts, but now they want to put cancer warning labels on prune juice and almonds: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/25/MNGD2CU9RA1.DTL
I live in a redneck rural area of the United States. Most everyone here voted for Bush, twice, yet all the grocery stores have bins where they accept used bags.
Damn California gas cans. Funny thing is, they have probably increased evaporative gasoline pollution tenfold. See kids, gas cans used to have a nice vent hole in them to allow air into the tank to replace the gasoline that poured out. They had snap-on caps to prevent gasoline loss during storage. No everyone used the caps, the the peoples democratic republic of California insisted that all new gas cans be self-venting through the spout. The side effect is that the pour dog-slow. So, every single landscaper that I've seen drills a new vent hole in their tank to get the same performance that they were used to. Now, NONE of the gas cans have caps on their vents, and evaporative emissions are worse than ever. Good job California!
The solution to pollution is dilution. Given a fixed quantity of mercury, I'd MUCH rather have it dispersed evenly into the atmosphere than concentrated on my kitchen floor.
Have you ever tried to enforce one of those manufacturer's warranties? The store won't take them back, they say it's the manufacturer's problem. The manufacturer demands that I ship the dead bulb to them, AT MY COST, wait for them to make the determination that the bulb was not "abused" (Did you know that the manufacturer considers using the bulb upside down to be abuse?), and if they determine that they are at-fault (never happens) they send you a coupon for the MSRP off your next lightbulb purchase. So I then have to get in my Suburban and drive to the walmart for my replacement bulb. This entire process presupposes that I have saved a two year old receipt for a friggn lightbulb, by the way. Math question for you: what is the net carbon emitted buy shipping a dead lightbulb to from Kalamazoo to Timbucktoo, followed by a trip in my Suburban to the Walmart in the next county?
All at inordinately inflated prices, and often in form factors different from the original bulb, so they wont physically fit in many fixtures. They also have visual differences which make them unacceptable for use in decorative fixtures.
I agree with the other poster. I've had CFLs get hot enough to melt their plastic bases. Smelled wonderful, I wonder how many formaldehydes and phenols were released into my home when that happened.
A dimmable CFL costs 20 bucks. A dimmable incandescent costs 65 cents. Why should I pay 30 times more for an inferior product? Do you realize that 20 bucks is an hour and a half's labor for the median family in the US, and 3 hours of labor for the 15% of US families who live below the poverty line?
And I suppose that you can buy these in the grocery store next to all the other bulbs, right? I don't have mail order them from a specialty company, or drive my Suburban the 60 mile round trip to the nearest home improvement store? And I'm SURE they're price-competitive with a regular incandescent. Remember, a massive amount of people in the US live in rural areas, and if it's not commonly available in an IGA grocery store, then it's a specialty item.
Unacceptable. My
The solution to pollution is dilution. Given a fixed quantity of mercury, I'd MUCH rather have it dispersed into the atmosphere than spilled on my kitchen floor.
You make the assumption that just because a retailer offers a recycling program, people will use it. Most supermarkets accept plastic bags for recycling, yet most people put them in their home trash. Schlepping your garbage back to the point of purchase may be acceptable to people who make a hobby out of recycling and drive a Prius, but the other 99.44% of the population will be tossing their dead CFLs in with the kitchen trash.
It's only a "fact" if you believe the manufacturer's claimed lifespan for CFLs. I replace every bulb in my house with CFLs, and find that they burn out every bit as often as the incandescents I was using previously. Oh, but they're 10 times more expensive, not 4x.
Bravo Zulu would have been much faster.
Years ago I worked at a CompUSA (now closed) in Dunwoody, GA. Our highest % markup on anything in the store was an PS/2 Y-adapter for a Thinkpad that let you use an external keyboard and mouse simultaneously. Store cost: $1.86. Consumer Cost: $49.95
Spot on with your first comment... but 550 lb total payload is more than your typical Cessna 150. The one I fly has a useful load of 458 lbs. That's your total for fuel, oil, passengers, and baggage.
Anonymous is Legion, and Anonymous does not forgive.
Actually, OSHA investigated and found that he was not protected by whistle-blower laws.... Googly
Sure. Like I said in a post replying to the parent, boats are polyester/fiber, not epoxy/fiber. Polyester totally sucks when it comes to moisture absorption, and in fact chemically reacts to water and expands,which is what leads to boat pox. In fact, the "cure" for boat pox is to haul out the boat, sand or sandblast off the polyester gelcoat, throw a cover over the boat and let it dry out for 6 months. Then, spray on a new EPOXY barrier coat, such as Interlux 404
Any boat you're likely to see in a private marina is probably made with a polyester / fibrglass composite, not epoxy. It's heavier and not as strong, but it's around 1/5 the price.
Right video, wrong source. Boeing released the 777 video to PBS for use in a documentary... you can find it on youtube now, of course.
Typically 350 deg. F or 250 deg. F depending on the material system.
It is absolutely a serious concern, and aircraft fire safety is rigorously tested and has been one of the areas most improved upon over the past few generations of aircraft designs. However, the material the hull is made from is third order effect on the quantity of and toxicity of smoke in the cabin. You should be far more concerned about smoke from materials inside the cabin, including carpet, seat foam and uphostery, insulation, sidewall and ceiling linings (hey, those have been composite construction since the 727!) and interior furnishings.
As far as "High Level work on NASA projects", the man says that he was a lead engineer for a space shuttle structural component. While "Lead Engineer" may sound impressive to you, in Boeing it is not a very high level position. Typically someone with 10-15 years of experience, supervising around a dozen engineers in a non-management role.
Your further allegations are also spurious. Boeing has conducted FAR more testing and simulation for this aircraft program than any in it's history. Material and component testing for some of the material systems being used began over 10 years ago. Perhaps you are thinking of the accelerated flight testing schedule... while the calendar time is far shorter than it has been in the past, the airframes will have just as many flight hours as past programs. In the past, fewer airframes were used for testing, and the testing ran serially. For the 787, more airframes will be used, and they will fly concurrently.
Your comments on a potential disaster border on hysteria. You obviously are confusing the 787 with the A380 superjumbo. The 787 is a mid size aircraft, slightly larger than a 767. The worst non-terrorist aviation disaster was the Tenerife tragedy, which killed 583 people. The 787 can't even hold half that many.
Did you know that the Boeing 777 vertical and horizontal stabilizers, as well as rudders, elevators, and wing control surfaces, are all CFRP composite structures? They seem to have had no service difficulty. Perhaps the difficulty that the Airbus A300 series is related more to their human factors philosophy of not providing adequate force feedback to the pilot' controls, rather than their choice of materials.
I assume you believe that the B2 bomber is neither large, nor pressurized, nor has it been in service for more than 20 years? And you are aware that despite being Northrop being the top level contractor, Boeing was the prime subcontractor responsible for the design and manufacturing of the composite fuselage and wing structure?