What kind of car do you drive and where do you drive?
I used to live in New York City. Didn't own a car. Didn't want to own a car. Saw no good reason to own a car.
Then I moved to south Florida and suddenly "needed" a car. I bought the cheapest thing I could find: a three year old Hyundai Excel GL. It was pretty durable and reliable, but absolutely no fun to drive. I really didn't enjoy driving and, other than to-and-from work, didn't drive. Which is kind of a shame because there's interesting things in south Florida that I never got a chance to see.
When I moved to California, I discovered that Hyundais and Hills don't mix. So I traded it in for a brand new Jeep Wrangler. I grew up driving an old Jeep and I loved it. Suddenly, driving was a lot more fun. I enjoyed going places and driving around. Years later, I sent that Jeep to my father and bought an Audi TT Roadster and had a great time driving that around.
It's a similar story with bicycles. I have a Huffy that I use for quick trips to run errands. But I didn't really enjoy riding it. So I bought a nice Specialized Allez Elite for longer rides (I'll usually go for 30-40 mile rides on the weekends) which I enjoy.
So, yeah, get a crappy old bicycle and you probably won't enjoy bicycling. Get a crappy old car and you probably won't enjoy driving, either.
The problem with recumbent cyclists riding in traffic is they're invisible.
Actually, I remember reading somewhere that recumbent bicycles tend to be more noticeable because they're weird and different and they catch your attention.
While I applaud the engineers' achievements, I am not sure that these space shuttles' cost has been worth it. I know experiments have been done in space...but can someone really tell me what an ordinary street walking John Doe has benefited from these shuttles?
Here's an interesting one regarding software developed to determine the size of debris falling off the external tank and how it's also being used by contractors and homeowners to measure things for construction projects.
Falcon 9 can carry 29,000 pounds to LEO. However, there is only so much space inside a Dragon Capsule which is what actually docks with the ISS. So he's 100% correct--the Shuttle can take 28,000 pounds and dock with ISS. The Falcon 9 cannot dock with the ISS, so it doesn't really matter how much it can carry. If it doesn't fit in a Dragon Capsule, it isn't going.
Of course, what he fails to mention is that there is no longer a need to carry 28,000 pounds up to ISS anymore. There's no place to put that much volume of things like oxygen tanks, food, etc on the ISS. So filling up the shuttle with enough food, clothes, oxygen, nitrogen, fuel, etc. to last a year is kind of a waste.
Also, the NASA CRS Contract with Space X is for 12 launches through 2016. So figure we're paying 1.6 Billion for, say, 3 launches a year over four years. Three shuttle launches would be 1.2 Billion per year or 4.8 billion dollars over four years versus 400 million for four years.
So the Shuttle can take more cargo, but we don't need to take that much cargo.
Okay. We'll go back to the original article. If it was really THAT easy, don't you think every "towel head terrorist" alive would be buying a green laser and crashing airliners left and right?
That's what I mean. The start of this thread pointed out that this "epidemic" is affecting 0.013% of flights. The response was that, since it's possible that this could cause an airplane to crash, we shouldn't wait around until it actually happens just to prove that it's a problem. The hypocrisy is that you can find plenty of reports of problems encountered during flights because of cell-phones, but that means nothing because turning off a cell-phone inconveniences me, whereas banning lasers doesn't affect me in the slightest so it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do in the name of "safety."
As an aside, if you're curious, a quick search for the text "PED" at NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System will show you a few cases of electronic devices interfering with flight systems--or, more precisely, problems with flight systems that magically disappeared when passengers were told to turn off electronic devices.
It's actually interesting to look over the problems that occur. Usually it's radio systems--problems communicating with the tower, problems receiving signals from navigation beacons, etc. So the whole "your cellphone will cause the airplane to crash" is a load a bupkus, I agree. No, placing a call on your cellphone won't cause the engines to shut off. What it can possibly do is cause systems to not work and require pilots to have to use other systems, which could possibly cause a mid-air collision or crash.
What, would it take the downing of an aircraft to satisfy you that there's a problem?
...and I assume that you're the same guy who doesn't turn off his cell-phone during take-off and landing because, hey, there's never been an airplane crash.
Other universes. It's that whole 'obesity' thing, which is why the kid should be outside running around and getting exercise rather than sitting inside and asking questions.
Most of those Microsoft Windows based PCs are actually doing boring tasks like cash registers, data entry, surveillance, systems control, etc. They aren't being used by people for more creative tasks.
Y'know, I gotta admit, I wonder about this.
Apple sold a bunch of iPads to United Airlines to replace a bunch of flight logs, maps, etc. My local sustainable seafood place uses an iPad for a cash register. A local hip tea place has iPads mounted on the wall so you you can sit and drink your tea while surfing the web. I've heard of them being used by wait-people at restaurants, though haven't encountered any.
So how many iPads are actually being used by consumers and how many of them are being used as one-tricky-pony gadgets in a business. And if it's bad that Windows-based PCs are doing boring tasks like being cash registers, why is it not bad that iPads get used the same way?
I could also remark on the companies that have iMacs for the receptionist because they look cool...
Well said. However, this is not a 7-inch tablet. This is a 7.85-inch tablet. You see, Steve was correct that 7 inches is too small. However, 7.85 inches is the perfect size. It just took Apple several years of research to find out exactly the perfect size.
Slashdot Mirror
What kind of car do you drive and where do you drive?
I used to live in New York City. Didn't own a car. Didn't want to own a car. Saw no good reason to own a car.
Then I moved to south Florida and suddenly "needed" a car. I bought the cheapest thing I could find: a three year old Hyundai Excel GL. It was pretty durable and reliable, but absolutely no fun to drive. I really didn't enjoy driving and, other than to-and-from work, didn't drive. Which is kind of a shame because there's interesting things in south Florida that I never got a chance to see.
When I moved to California, I discovered that Hyundais and Hills don't mix. So I traded it in for a brand new Jeep Wrangler. I grew up driving an old Jeep and I loved it. Suddenly, driving was a lot more fun. I enjoyed going places and driving around. Years later, I sent that Jeep to my father and bought an Audi TT Roadster and had a great time driving that around.
It's a similar story with bicycles. I have a Huffy that I use for quick trips to run errands. But I didn't really enjoy riding it. So I bought a nice Specialized Allez Elite for longer rides (I'll usually go for 30-40 mile rides on the weekends) which I enjoy.
So, yeah, get a crappy old bicycle and you probably won't enjoy bicycling. Get a crappy old car and you probably won't enjoy driving, either.
The problem with recumbent cyclists riding in traffic is they're invisible.
Actually, I remember reading somewhere that recumbent bicycles tend to be more noticeable because they're weird and different and they catch your attention.
They even drove 10 miles through the snow! Uphill! Both ways!
Because so many people plug in cables with their eyes closed.
There's a solution looking for a problem.
The question is: Can you trust the source?
The current estimate of the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is between 3.2 and 4 trillion dollars [...]
Yeah, but at least we found Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons!
Oh, yeah...
That's okay. They gave their lives for a good cause. And they shall be avenged thrice over.
While I applaud the engineers' achievements, I am not sure that these space shuttles' cost has been worth it. I know experiments have been done in space...but can someone really tell me what an ordinary street walking John Doe has benefited from these shuttles?
Here's an interesting one regarding software developed to determine the size of debris falling off the external tank and how it's also being used by contractors and homeowners to measure things for construction projects.
If you're looking for more, check out NASA's Spinoffs page.
But it well known that Dorothy Bishop is a tool of big screens.
4. USS Enterprise, researching this time period.
I'm not sure what the advantage of such a craft would be, though, besides VTOL capability being standard.
Let's see...
2000-3000 MPH? 100,000 foot ceiling? and VTOL?
Hell, we can't do that now!
Send in disaster recovery crews with healers, security, carts to haul away the dead...
That sound expensive. Maybe they could get money from FEMA. At least for servers in the United States.
Does the EU have any sort of FEMA equivalent?
I do, too. But why should they? NASA's designed plenty of rockets to get into LEO.
Personally, I'd rather they design rockets to go more interesting places.
There's a bit of a difference.
Falcon 9 can carry 29,000 pounds to LEO. However, there is only so much space inside a Dragon Capsule which is what actually docks with the ISS. So he's 100% correct--the Shuttle can take 28,000 pounds and dock with ISS. The Falcon 9 cannot dock with the ISS, so it doesn't really matter how much it can carry. If it doesn't fit in a Dragon Capsule, it isn't going.
Of course, what he fails to mention is that there is no longer a need to carry 28,000 pounds up to ISS anymore. There's no place to put that much volume of things like oxygen tanks, food, etc on the ISS. So filling up the shuttle with enough food, clothes, oxygen, nitrogen, fuel, etc. to last a year is kind of a waste.
Also, the NASA CRS Contract with Space X is for 12 launches through 2016. So figure we're paying 1.6 Billion for, say, 3 launches a year over four years. Three shuttle launches would be 1.2 Billion per year or 4.8 billion dollars over four years versus 400 million for four years.
So the Shuttle can take more cargo, but we don't need to take that much cargo.
Okay. We'll go back to the original article. If it was really THAT easy, don't you think every "towel head terrorist" alive would be buying a green laser and crashing airliners left and right?
That's what I mean. The start of this thread pointed out that this "epidemic" is affecting 0.013% of flights. The response was that, since it's possible that this could cause an airplane to crash, we shouldn't wait around until it actually happens just to prove that it's a problem. The hypocrisy is that you can find plenty of reports of problems encountered during flights because of cell-phones, but that means nothing because turning off a cell-phone inconveniences me, whereas banning lasers doesn't affect me in the slightest so it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do in the name of "safety."
As an aside, if you're curious, a quick search for the text "PED" at NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System will show you a few cases of electronic devices interfering with flight systems--or, more precisely, problems with flight systems that magically disappeared when passengers were told to turn off electronic devices.
It's actually interesting to look over the problems that occur. Usually it's radio systems--problems communicating with the tower, problems receiving signals from navigation beacons, etc. So the whole "your cellphone will cause the airplane to crash" is a load a bupkus, I agree. No, placing a call on your cellphone won't cause the engines to shut off. What it can possibly do is cause systems to not work and require pilots to have to use other systems, which could possibly cause a mid-air collision or crash.
If Slashdot is to be believed, it was an either/or proposition.
What, would it take the downing of an aircraft to satisfy you that there's a problem?
...and I assume that you're the same guy who doesn't turn off his cell-phone during take-off and landing because, hey, there's never been an airplane crash.
If you're curious, an ASUS, MSI, Toshiba, Sony, and Samsung are all now more reliable than a macbook, and at most 1/2 the price.
Citation?
IOW, they love the communist model.
Uh, I'm not sure that's what you mean. In a communist model, the government owns the factories. That wouldn't be right.
Fascism, maybe?
Hm...throwing fake blood on hipster iPhone 5 users...
...or they like free queso.
Other universes. It's that whole 'obesity' thing, which is why the kid should be outside running around and getting exercise rather than sitting inside and asking questions.
Most of those Microsoft Windows based PCs are actually doing boring tasks like cash registers, data entry, surveillance, systems control, etc. They aren't being used by people for more creative tasks.
Y'know, I gotta admit, I wonder about this.
Apple sold a bunch of iPads to United Airlines to replace a bunch of flight logs, maps, etc. My local sustainable seafood place uses an iPad for a cash register. A local hip tea place has iPads mounted on the wall so you you can sit and drink your tea while surfing the web. I've heard of them being used by wait-people at restaurants, though haven't encountered any.
So how many iPads are actually being used by consumers and how many of them are being used as one-tricky-pony gadgets in a business. And if it's bad that Windows-based PCs are doing boring tasks like being cash registers, why is it not bad that iPads get used the same way?
I could also remark on the companies that have iMacs for the receptionist because they look cool...
Nah. "iPad EXTREME!"
Well said. However, this is not a 7-inch tablet. This is a 7.85-inch tablet. You see, Steve was correct that 7 inches is too small. However, 7.85 inches is the perfect size. It just took Apple several years of research to find out exactly the perfect size.