Weather can also be an issue. Here in Finland it can be a real pain cycling to work through half molten snow.
We have the opposite problem here... it's pretty much impossible to bike to work and not be drenched in sweat when you get there. Heck, just walking in from the car can cause that during the summer--not from effort, but just heat and humidity.
It might also be the case that, rather than using the time to make money, they have to use that time so they can avoid spending money. For instance
Spending more time shopping for and cooking your own food at home, rather than going out to a restaurant (also applies to bringing in lunch from home).
Doing your own home or car maintenance.
Mowing your own lawn instead of hiring landscapers.
All of these eat into your free time (which I define as leisure time, not time not at work).
Part of the problem with aerobraking at Mars (especially with atmospheric skipping) is not just that the atmosphere is thin, but it changes quite a bit. If you can't reliably and accurately predict how high the atmosphere is, or what the pressure and temperature will be, skip entries are much riskier.
This is even a factor for aeroshell-and-parachute systems; guess wrong, and you'll either burn up the aeroshell or not decelerate enough and end up using lithobraking.
This is the best reason. It is mitigated by the use of an electric or even human-hybrid bicycle. Oh, and being clean (hint: does not involve having antiperspirant residue mixed with dead flesh rotting under your arms.)
"Being clean" is fine, but shower facilities simply aren't available at the vast majority of workplaces. That's essential, because no amount of trying to simply "be clean" will keep you from sweating on a 10+ mile ride in muggy weather down here, and if you have anywhere to go after work besides the gym, forget it. Several months of the year you sweat just walking out the door. Bear in mind I live in the deep south (southeastern US) when reading this. We have three seasons--summer, hell, and mild summer.
It's also illegal to ride your bicycle there, and unless you actually work on the highway there is some other way to get to your work that doesn't involve its use. That's a really lame excuse.
I'm not talking interstates, but rather 4 or 5-lane state/national highways. For example, my workplace is near a major shipping facility and in a large industrial area. Large truck traffic is continuous pretty much around the clock. There is simply no way to get here without spending several miles on such roads. And it's pretty much the same story elsewhere in the area (generally accessible only by large road), or if the place has rideable roads, it requires going through neighborhoods that the police don't go to without backup, if they go at all. I'm licensed to carry, but it's better not to go to such places at all.
I understand that biking to work is healthy and "green" and all, and it's great to do if you can. But it simply isn't practical (or even safe) in many places. It might work if you live in a large city or small town with nice weather, but not in other areas. Sad as it is, most of the US is in the "not" category, either from weather or geography.
And if you can afford to fly the cost of fuel is neglible.
Considering that fuel costs are the largest fraction of the expenses for my dad's airplane, they certainly do make a difference. A lot of the expenses go down when you operate a homebuilt or ultralight because you can do your own maintenance and don't have to pay the certification costs that are rolled into everything on production airplanes.
If you have patience and attention to detail, you can build an airplane for about the cost of a full-size SUV, and it will retain its value much longer. It will require more maintenance than a car, but it's affordable enough.
People always think of flying as a rich guy's hobby. It's not--you just have to make some sacrifices, just like any other expensive hobby. And I don't mean bankrupt the kids' college funds, but rather things like eating out less, driving an older or smaller car, not buying big-screen TVs and super HD cable/satellite packages, etc. Flying seems expensive because people see new factory airplanes with fancy avionics, large piston or turbine twins, and private jets. They don't think about little airplanes, and they don't stop to think about how much they spend on their own hobbies--hunting, fishing, professional sports, shopping, electronics, cars, bars, vacations, etc. It just comes down to priorities.
I'd love to commute by airplane, especially since I work at an airport.
There are many good reasons not to bike to work even if you're that close:
Hot weather--nobody likes body odor.
Traffic--multi-lane highways full of semi-trucks are rather dangerous anyways; it's almost suicide on a bike.
Lighting--I get to work before sunrise every day of the year. Riding a bike to work in the above conditions, in the dark, with bleary still-sleeping drivers says "I wish to die"
Heck, I wish I could ride a motorcycle to work, but I'm not sure I even feel comfortable doing that in those conditions.
The medical standards for pilots are a little more demanding. THings like diabetes or colorblindness require a lot of paperwork to get waivers for at the private pilot level. Airline pilots get a whole battery of tests (EKGs, blood tests, etc) every six months.
Pilots are wary of doctors for a reason. One doctor saying "hmm, that looks funny" and denying your certificate can take months to resolve, if ever. Even documented proof of a false positive, or a "I was taking this blood pressure medication, but now I stopped and that documented side effect went away" might not be enough. And even if you do get it cleared up, the denial is on your permanent record and the FAA is watching.
I've known guys unable to work for months after such problems. I know it's important to have healthy people up front, but mistakes on the doctor's part should be cleared up rapidly and without further prejudice to the pilots.
There's also the benefit of being able to park and work on the aircraft in your garage, instead of renting a hangar at the local field for hundreds of dollars a month.
I think 'minutes' is a bit exaggerated... after all, takeoff speeds will likely be in the highway range (65-70 mph); if it took you minutes to get to those speeds you'd be flying from runways several miles long. Acceleration would be comparable to a loaded compact car, maybe.
But in any case, no, the prop isn't the power source on teh ground.
I turn it (my Toshiba satellite) off when I travel with it, cause the latch for the lid is broken and there's no way to turn off the "wake up when lid is opened" behavior, so if I don't turn it off, it tends to wake up on its own if the lid opens a bit. I'd much rather bring it out of hibernation or sleep by hitting a button.
I also restart occasionally (every couple weeks) when it starts slowing down too much. Or if the cats unplug it. And yes, I run regular antivirus and adware sweeps.
The trick is making it work for the average or new person, while not screwing it up for the experienced. For this example, if you want the link to open in a new window with a normal click, make sure that middle-clicking on the link doesn't break it.
Well, there's also the problem that stupid little things (like pissing against a building, or taking naked photos of [i]yourself[/i] under 18) can earn you the "sex offender" label for life. I agree, the dangerous ones should be in prison, but the label is carried too far to the extreme in many cases.
I just want justices who read the Constitution literally, and who favor the rights of the individual whenever something isn't explicitly spelled out in the Consititution. There shouldn't need to be "interpretation" or "incorporation" as has been practiced.
If you want to change what the Constitution says, there are things called Amendments. Get Congress to propose one, and get the states to ratify it, and you have your change. But "even though it clearly says this, it really doesn't mean that any more because we don't like it" shouldn't fly.
I don't like either of the major party candidates... I am pro-gun and anti-taxes and the Democrats historically as a party don't agree with my positions.
On the other hand, I've never cared for McCain (even in 2000). I don't like the statement he made during the primary campaign about leaving troops in Iraq for 100 years. He would be more likely to support my gun and tax positions but I think it would pretty much end there. He's not a true fiscal conservative nor does he seem to be a defender of individual liberties and I believe we'd get another 4 years of intrusive huge government.
I pretty much agree with this. I consider myself a moderately-leaning libertarian, and neither candidate has enough of an advantage towards that to make a clear distinction.
But the worst part about either candidate is that the election is likely to be close--and that means whichever candidate gets in is going to think that they have a "mandate from the American people" to implement all of their policy ideas to the most extreme. Of course, this so-called mandate would be coming from a bare majority of the fraction of the eligible voters that bothered to go to the polls.
And I'm sick of the "either you believe all these things, or all of the opposite". I really don't see why believing strongly in gun rights means I want to impose "traditional family values" on everyone, or why supporting gay marriage means I want to punish the "rich" and implement massive social programs.
Basically either candidate will fuck us over during the next four years--we're simply being given a choice of which orifice will receive it.
I really don't like the use of "piracy" when referring to copyright violation.
Piracy is taking over a vessel for its cargo and/or to rob those on board. Piracy is bloody, brutal, and dangerous. People die in real piracy, and it's still happening in many parts of the world. Downloading a song, while wrong, is hardly piracy, and nobody dies from it. It's more like shoplifting.
I guess we're going to start calling crude spraypaint graffiti and lite-brite cartoon figures terrorism. Oh, wait...
Because Nader is a socialist, and McKinney... I think she's genuinely certifiable. I take it you haven't lived in Atlanta while she's been around? She's kind of the laughing stock of Atlanta politics.
I would normally vote libertarian, since they come closer to my views than any other party, but I'm not too big a fan of Mr. Barr. I just want government to leave us the hell alone and stay out of peoples' bedrooms, wallets, and gun safes.
No, I'm just saying "lifeboats won't stop the ship from hitting icebergs." I didn't say that the alerts were useless or a bad idea, just that they can't prevent anything from starting in the first place. Sure, they can help reduce casualties, or help catch the guy before he can come back and make a second attack... but until he pulls out his gun/bomb/whatever, those messages can't do anything.
I just think people read too much into "we have a warning system in place" and assume it's more effective than it actually is. And this warning system doesn't really stop "everyday" attacks (muggings, assault, etc) either.
That route makes sense to me, but I can guess why the ACU people went the PDA route. People take their PDAs everywhere, so ACU can get information out to the entire student body quickly. That makes for a convenient fact to cite when parents want to know what the school is doing to prevent another Virginia Tech.
Except that it doesn't prevent another attack, or stop one that might be in progress. It's like trying to prevent fatal car accidents by putting up lighted signs warning about accidents ahead. You might catch a few people before they go in harm's way, so to speak, but it doesn't prevent the original accident or give those involved any way to help themselves.
If you really want people getting out of your way, go find an all-black Crown Vic (preferably one of the secondhand police interceptor models). Get metal police-style rims, tint your windows, and throw a guard on the front. You might get a little bit of a hard time if you get pulled over, but pretty much nobody will tailgate you or do stupid stuff while you're around.
If you're coming down a very long, steep hill and you're not engine braking, your brakes will be much less effective by the time you reach the bottom.
This reminds me of an idiot friend of mine... a group of us went on a trip to a cabin up in the mountains one time. On the way down, he would accelerate towards curves, right up to the point he had to slam the brakes on to turn. By the time he got to the bottom, his brakes were literally smoking and I think they were glowing a bit, too.
The next time down, I drove the car and left it in low gear (automatic). Never touched the brakes the whole way down, except for stop signs. Guy was absolutely amazed...
Slashdot Mirror
$150 billion sounds awful low, especially considering it's just a paper study. Maybe for materials and manufacturing labor, but not a total cost.
Weather can also be an issue. Here in Finland it can be a real pain cycling to work through half molten snow.
We have the opposite problem here... it's pretty much impossible to bike to work and not be drenched in sweat when you get there. Heck, just walking in from the car can cause that during the summer--not from effort, but just heat and humidity.
It might also be the case that, rather than using the time to make money, they have to use that time so they can avoid spending money. For instance
Spending more time shopping for and cooking your own food at home, rather than going out to a restaurant (also applies to bringing in lunch from home).
Doing your own home or car maintenance.
Mowing your own lawn instead of hiring landscapers.
All of these eat into your free time (which I define as leisure time, not time not at work).
Part of the problem with aerobraking at Mars (especially with atmospheric skipping) is not just that the atmosphere is thin, but it changes quite a bit. If you can't reliably and accurately predict how high the atmosphere is, or what the pressure and temperature will be, skip entries are much riskier.
This is even a factor for aeroshell-and-parachute systems; guess wrong, and you'll either burn up the aeroshell or not decelerate enough and end up using lithobraking.
This is the best reason. It is mitigated by the use of an electric or even human-hybrid bicycle. Oh, and being clean (hint: does not involve having antiperspirant residue mixed with dead flesh rotting under your arms.)
"Being clean" is fine, but shower facilities simply aren't available at the vast majority of workplaces. That's essential, because no amount of trying to simply "be clean" will keep you from sweating on a 10+ mile ride in muggy weather down here, and if you have anywhere to go after work besides the gym, forget it. Several months of the year you sweat just walking out the door. Bear in mind I live in the deep south (southeastern US) when reading this. We have three seasons--summer, hell, and mild summer.
It's also illegal to ride your bicycle there, and unless you actually work on the highway there is some other way to get to your work that doesn't involve its use. That's a really lame excuse.
I'm not talking interstates, but rather 4 or 5-lane state/national highways. For example, my workplace is near a major shipping facility and in a large industrial area. Large truck traffic is continuous pretty much around the clock. There is simply no way to get here without spending several miles on such roads. And it's pretty much the same story elsewhere in the area (generally accessible only by large road), or if the place has rideable roads, it requires going through neighborhoods that the police don't go to without backup, if they go at all. I'm licensed to carry, but it's better not to go to such places at all.
I understand that biking to work is healthy and "green" and all, and it's great to do if you can. But it simply isn't practical (or even safe) in many places. It might work if you live in a large city or small town with nice weather, but not in other areas. Sad as it is, most of the US is in the "not" category, either from weather or geography.
And if you can afford to fly the cost of fuel is neglible.
Considering that fuel costs are the largest fraction of the expenses for my dad's airplane, they certainly do make a difference. A lot of the expenses go down when you operate a homebuilt or ultralight because you can do your own maintenance and don't have to pay the certification costs that are rolled into everything on production airplanes.
If you have patience and attention to detail, you can build an airplane for about the cost of a full-size SUV, and it will retain its value much longer. It will require more maintenance than a car, but it's affordable enough.
People always think of flying as a rich guy's hobby. It's not--you just have to make some sacrifices, just like any other expensive hobby. And I don't mean bankrupt the kids' college funds, but rather things like eating out less, driving an older or smaller car, not buying big-screen TVs and super HD cable/satellite packages, etc. Flying seems expensive because people see new factory airplanes with fancy avionics, large piston or turbine twins, and private jets. They don't think about little airplanes, and they don't stop to think about how much they spend on their own hobbies--hunting, fishing, professional sports, shopping, electronics, cars, bars, vacations, etc. It just comes down to priorities.
I'd love to commute by airplane, especially since I work at an airport.
There are many good reasons not to bike to work even if you're that close:
Hot weather--nobody likes body odor.
Traffic--multi-lane highways full of semi-trucks are rather dangerous anyways; it's almost suicide on a bike.
Lighting--I get to work before sunrise every day of the year. Riding a bike to work in the above conditions, in the dark, with bleary still-sleeping drivers says "I wish to die"
Heck, I wish I could ride a motorcycle to work, but I'm not sure I even feel comfortable doing that in those conditions.
Cause if you're denied your first-class for that false positive, you can't get your third-class and fly private planes until it gets cleared up.
The medical standards for pilots are a little more demanding. THings like diabetes or colorblindness require a lot of paperwork to get waivers for at the private pilot level. Airline pilots get a whole battery of tests (EKGs, blood tests, etc) every six months.
Pilots are wary of doctors for a reason. One doctor saying "hmm, that looks funny" and denying your certificate can take months to resolve, if ever. Even documented proof of a false positive, or a "I was taking this blood pressure medication, but now I stopped and that documented side effect went away" might not be enough. And even if you do get it cleared up, the denial is on your permanent record and the FAA is watching.
I've known guys unable to work for months after such problems. I know it's important to have healthy people up front, but mistakes on the doctor's part should be cleared up rapidly and without further prejudice to the pilots.
There's also the benefit of being able to park and work on the aircraft in your garage, instead of renting a hangar at the local field for hundreds of dollars a month.
I think 'minutes' is a bit exaggerated... after all, takeoff speeds will likely be in the highway range (65-70 mph); if it took you minutes to get to those speeds you'd be flying from runways several miles long. Acceleration would be comparable to a loaded compact car, maybe.
But in any case, no, the prop isn't the power source on teh ground.
That's exactly the incident I was referring to.
I turn it (my Toshiba satellite) off when I travel with it, cause the latch for the lid is broken and there's no way to turn off the "wake up when lid is opened" behavior, so if I don't turn it off, it tends to wake up on its own if the lid opens a bit. I'd much rather bring it out of hibernation or sleep by hitting a button.
I also restart occasionally (every couple weeks) when it starts slowing down too much. Or if the cats unplug it. And yes, I run regular antivirus and adware sweeps.
The trick is making it work for the average or new person, while not screwing it up for the experienced. For this example, if you want the link to open in a new window with a normal click, make sure that middle-clicking on the link doesn't break it.
Well, there's also the problem that stupid little things (like pissing against a building, or taking naked photos of [i]yourself[/i] under 18) can earn you the "sex offender" label for life. I agree, the dangerous ones should be in prison, but the label is carried too far to the extreme in many cases.
I just want justices who read the Constitution literally, and who favor the rights of the individual whenever something isn't explicitly spelled out in the Consititution. There shouldn't need to be "interpretation" or "incorporation" as has been practiced.
If you want to change what the Constitution says, there are things called Amendments. Get Congress to propose one, and get the states to ratify it, and you have your change. But "even though it clearly says this, it really doesn't mean that any more because we don't like it" shouldn't fly.
It's as much the fault of congress as anyone else. For example:
"Hey, let's spend $700 billion we don't have to bail out the economy!"
"No, that's wasteful and puts us futher into debt."
"Well, let's add another $200 billion we don't have to pay for useless projects."
"Okay!"
I don't like either of the major party candidates... I am pro-gun and anti-taxes and the Democrats historically as a party don't agree with my positions.
On the other hand, I've never cared for McCain (even in 2000). I don't like the statement he made during the primary campaign about leaving troops in Iraq for 100 years. He would be more likely to support my gun and tax positions but I think it would pretty much end there. He's not a true fiscal conservative nor does he seem to be a defender of individual liberties and I believe we'd get another 4 years of intrusive huge government.
I pretty much agree with this. I consider myself a moderately-leaning libertarian, and neither candidate has enough of an advantage towards that to make a clear distinction.
But the worst part about either candidate is that the election is likely to be close--and that means whichever candidate gets in is going to think that they have a "mandate from the American people" to implement all of their policy ideas to the most extreme. Of course, this so-called mandate would be coming from a bare majority of the fraction of the eligible voters that bothered to go to the polls.
And I'm sick of the "either you believe all these things, or all of the opposite". I really don't see why believing strongly in gun rights means I want to impose "traditional family values" on everyone, or why supporting gay marriage means I want to punish the "rich" and implement massive social programs.
Basically either candidate will fuck us over during the next four years--we're simply being given a choice of which orifice will receive it.
I really don't like the use of "piracy" when referring to copyright violation.
Piracy is taking over a vessel for its cargo and/or to rob those on board. Piracy is bloody, brutal, and dangerous. People die in real piracy, and it's still happening in many parts of the world. Downloading a song, while wrong, is hardly piracy, and nobody dies from it. It's more like shoplifting.
I guess we're going to start calling crude spraypaint graffiti and lite-brite cartoon figures terrorism. Oh, wait...
Because Nader is a socialist, and McKinney... I think she's genuinely certifiable. I take it you haven't lived in Atlanta while she's been around? She's kind of the laughing stock of Atlanta politics.
I would normally vote libertarian, since they come closer to my views than any other party, but I'm not too big a fan of Mr. Barr. I just want government to leave us the hell alone and stay out of peoples' bedrooms, wallets, and gun safes.
No, I'm just saying "lifeboats won't stop the ship from hitting icebergs." I didn't say that the alerts were useless or a bad idea, just that they can't prevent anything from starting in the first place. Sure, they can help reduce casualties, or help catch the guy before he can come back and make a second attack... but until he pulls out his gun/bomb/whatever, those messages can't do anything.
I just think people read too much into "we have a warning system in place" and assume it's more effective than it actually is. And this warning system doesn't really stop "everyday" attacks (muggings, assault, etc) either.
I think the school in question is a private religious institution, ergo no tax money being spent...
That route makes sense to me, but I can guess why the ACU people went the PDA route. People take their PDAs everywhere, so ACU can get information out to the entire student body quickly. That makes for a convenient fact to cite when parents want to know what the school is doing to prevent another Virginia Tech.
Except that it doesn't prevent another attack, or stop one that might be in progress. It's like trying to prevent fatal car accidents by putting up lighted signs warning about accidents ahead. You might catch a few people before they go in harm's way, so to speak, but it doesn't prevent the original accident or give those involved any way to help themselves.
If you really want people getting out of your way, go find an all-black Crown Vic (preferably one of the secondhand police interceptor models). Get metal police-style rims, tint your windows, and throw a guard on the front. You might get a little bit of a hard time if you get pulled over, but pretty much nobody will tailgate you or do stupid stuff while you're around.
If you're coming down a very long, steep hill and you're not engine braking, your brakes will be much less effective by the time you reach the bottom.
This reminds me of an idiot friend of mine... a group of us went on a trip to a cabin up in the mountains one time. On the way down, he would accelerate towards curves, right up to the point he had to slam the brakes on to turn. By the time he got to the bottom, his brakes were literally smoking and I think they were glowing a bit, too.
The next time down, I drove the car and left it in low gear (automatic). Never touched the brakes the whole way down, except for stop signs. Guy was absolutely amazed...