It seems to me that flying cars have become increasingly unlikely ever
since the 30s. We can build the vehicles, but it's very difficult to
imagine the government deregulating aviation to the extent needed for
them to be operated from anywhere other than an airport. And cities
and suburbs are a lot more crowded, with more power and utility lines
than anyone imagined in the 30s. If the government regs weren't
enough, I suspect that the homeowner's associations of most suburban
neighborhoods would prohibit them, anyway. I seriously doubt either a
space elevator or flying cars will be built within the next half-
century, and I suspect a space elevator is the more likely.

- SnarkByte

--- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, "falconsoaring_2000"
<falconsoaring_2000@...> wrote:
>
> A question I have is how long will it be before flying cars are a
> reality?  They were envisioned in the 1930s, the magazine "Popular
> Mechanics" published an article describing them back then though I
> don't recall the date.
>
> Falcon
>
> --- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, chesschance <no_reply@>
> wrote:
>
> There are people who envision that cars would be done without in less
> than 100 years; the way the space elevator is considered, it could be
> a reality soon (how soon is a question)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

A person can fly, pilot, an aircraft without a pilot's license.  FAA
regulations don't require the use of an airport I don't believe.
Outside of Miami, FL there's a housing subdivision where instead of
garages for parking cars the garages are used to park the planes of
those who live there.  There's at least one landing/takeoff strip
there so someone could get up for work or whatever, walk to the plane
parked in the garage, taxi to the takeoff strip and takeoff.  As for
needing a pilot's license to fly, one isn't needed for ultralight
aircraft nor is an aircraft registration necessary,
http://www.ultralight-aircraft.com/  I've wanted to build and fly my
own plane for a long tyme.  An uncle of mine did, and my dad was a
mechanic on B52s before he retired from the Airforce.  So in a small
way I've got the background, family not technical.

Falcon

--- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, snarkbyte <no_reply@...>
wrote:

It seems to me that flying cars have become increasingly unlikely ever
since the 30s. We can build the vehicles, but it's very difficult to
imagine the government deregulating aviation to the extent needed for
them to be operated from anywhere other than an airport. And cities
and suburbs are a lot more crowded, with more power and utility lines
than anyone imagined in the 30s. If the government regs weren't
enough, I suspect that the homeowner's associations of most suburban
neighborhoods would prohibit them, anyway. I seriously doubt either a
space elevator or flying cars will be built within the next half-
century, and I suspect a space elevator is the more likely.

- SnarkByte

Geez, Yahoo is wonky again -- ate the reply I just wrote. Suffice to
say that FAR Part 63 defines who needs a pilot's certificate, and
there is no simple way to summarize the FARs accurately. (You can
read the FARs online at www.faa.gov). A pilot's certificate is not
required for some aircraft types (light experimental aircraft,
ultralights, and hangliders, as examples), but these types do not
operate over populated areas, and there are other airspace
restrictions.

It is legal to operate from a private airstrip, but not from public
roads, as flying car would supposedly do.

I had a lot more to say about this, but I already wrote it once, and
for all I know Yahoo may eat this message, too, and I'm not going to
spend that much more time on this. Suffice to say that anyone who
wants to fly ***anything*** should study FAR parts 63 and 91 at the
very least -- and probably other parts, depending on what you want
to fly. (In case anyone wonders, I am a licensed pilot).

- SnarkByte

--- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, "falconsoaring_2000"
<falconsoaring_2000@...> wrote:
>
> A person can fly, pilot, an aircraft without a pilot's license.
FAA
> regulations don't require the use of an airport I don't believe.
> Outside of Miami, FL there's a housing subdivision where instead of
> garages for parking cars the garages are used to park the planes of
> those who live there.  There's at least one landing/takeoff strip
> there so someone could get up for work or whatever, walk to the
plane
> parked in the garage, taxi to the takeoff strip and takeoff.  As
for
> needing a pilot's license to fly, one isn't needed for ultralight
> aircraft nor is an aircraft registration necessary,
> http://www.ultralight-aircraft.com/  I've wanted to build and fly
my
> own plane for a long tyme.  An uncle of mine did, and my dad was a
> mechanic on B52s before he retired from the Airforce.  So in a
small
> way I've got the background, family not technical.
>
> Falcon
>
> --- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, snarkbyte <no_reply@>
> wrote:
>
> It seems to me that flying cars have become increasingly unlikely
ever
> since the 30s. We can build the vehicles, but it's very difficult
to
> imagine the government deregulating aviation to the extent needed
for
> them to be operated from anywhere other than an airport. And
cities
> and suburbs are a lot more crowded, with more power and utility
lines
> than anyone imagined in the 30s. If the government regs weren't
> enough, I suspect that the homeowner's associations of most
suburban
> neighborhoods would prohibit them, anyway. I seriously doubt
either a
> space elevator or flying cars will be built within the next half-
> century, and I suspect a space elevator is the more likely.
>
> - SnarkByte
>

--- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, chesschance <no_reply@...>
wrote:
> Sadly, people do complicate things quite a bit.
>
That comment of mine runs the risk of being esoteric. I do have to
expand a bit.
While acknowledging the complexity/cacophony where humans are
involved, I also tried my hand at self-mockery (i.e., not to take my
interest/field too seriously): people, the object of study in
psychology (my interest); things, the object of the study in science.
But this expansion/explanation only highlight, for me at least, the
challenge of attempting double meaning.

Yeah, I hate when things start going wacky, occasionally Yahoo!, but
more often this decrepid old computer I'm using.  I've found that when
something goes crazy what helps me to not have to retype is to open a
text editor and continuosly save.  Once I'm finished then I can just
copy and paste.  It requires more work but am least I don't have to
retype by memory.

I'd like to build an ultralight as well as get my pilot's license for
a private turboprop maybe.  Even if just for an ultralight I'd still
take classes.  Do you fly for personal reasons or for business?

Falcon

--- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, snarkbyte <no_reply@...>
wrote:

Geez, Yahoo is wonky again -- ate the reply I just wrote. Suffice to
say that FAR Part 63 defines who needs a pilot's certificate, and
there is no simple way to summarize the FARs accurately. (You can
read the FARs online at www.faa.gov). A pilot's certificate is not
required for some aircraft types (light experimental aircraft,
ultralights, and hangliders, as examples), but these types do not
operate over populated areas, and there are other airspace
restrictions.

It is legal to operate from a private airstrip, but not from public
roads, as flying car would supposedly do.

I had a lot more to say about this, but I already wrote it once, and
for all I know Yahoo may eat this message, too, and I'm not going to
spend that much more time on this. Suffice to say that anyone who
wants to fly ***anything*** should study FAR parts 63 and 91 at the
very least -- and probably other parts, depending on what you want
to fly. (In case anyone wonders, I am a licensed pilot).

- SnarkByte

Columbus, (Ohio), June 2: Planetary scientists have found evidence of
a meteor impact much larger and earlier than the one that killed the
dinosaurs -- an impact that they believe caused the biggest mass
extinction in Earth's history.

The 300-mile-wide crater lies hidden more than a mile beneath the East
Antarctic Ice Sheet. And the gravity measurements that reveal its
existence suggest that it could date back about 250 million years --
the time of the Permian-Triassic extinction, when almost all animal
life on Earth died out.

Its size and location -- in the Wilkes Land region of East Antarctica,
south of Australia -- also suggest that it could have begun the
breakup of the Gondwana supercontinent by creating the tectonic rift
that pushed Australia northward.

Scientists believe that the Permian-Triassic extinction paved the way
for the dinosaurs to rise to prominence. The Wilkes Land crater is
more than twice the size of the Chicxulub crater in the Yucatan
peninsula, which marks the impact that may have ultimately killed the
dinosaurs 65 million years ago. The Chicxulub meteor is thought to
have been 6 miles wide, while the Wilkes Land meteor could have been
up to 30 miles wide -- four or five times wider.

"This Wilkes Land impact is much bigger than the impact that killed
the dinosaurs, and probably would have caused catastrophic damage at
the time," said Ralph von Frese, a professor of geological sciences at
Ohio State University. He and Laramie Potts, a postdoctoral researcher
in geological sciences, led the team that discovered the crater. They
collaborated with other Ohio State and NASA scientists, as well as
international partners from Russia and Korea. They reported their
preliminary results in a recent poster session at the American
Geophysical Union Joint Assembly meeting in Baltimore.

The scientists used gravity fluctuations measured by NASA's GRACE
satellites to peer beneath Antarctica's icy surface, and found a
200-mile-wide plug of mantle material -- a mass concentration, or
"mascon" in geological parlance -- that had risen up into the Earth's
crust.

Mascons are the planetary equivalent of a bump on the head. They form
where large objects slam into a planet's surface. Upon impact, the
denser mantle layer bounces up into the overlying crust, which holds
it in place beneath the crater.

When the scientists overlaid their gravity image with airborne radar
images of the ground beneath the ice, they found the mascon perfectly
centered inside a circular ridge some 300 miles wide -- a crater
easily large enough to hold the state of Ohio.

Taken alone, the ridge structure wouldn't prove anything. But to von
Frese, the addition of the mascon means "impact." Years of studying
similar impacts on the moon have honed his ability to find them.

"If I saw this same mascon signal on the moon, I'd expect to see a
crater around it," he said. "And when we looked at the ice-probing
airborne radar, there it was."

"There are at least 20 impact craters this size or larger on the moon,
so it is not surprising to find one here," he continued. "The active
geology of the Earth likely scrubbed its surface clean of many more."

He and Potts admitted that such signals are open to interpretation.
Even with radar and gravity measurements, scientists are only just
beginning to understand what's happening inside the planet. Still, von
Frese said that the circumstances of the radar and mascon signals
support their interpretation.

"We compared two completely different data sets taken under different
conditions, and they matched up," he said. To estimate when the impact
took place, the scientists took a clue from the fact that the mascon
is still visible.

"On the moon, you can look at craters, and the mascons are still
there," von Frese said. "But on Earth, it's unusual to find mascons,
because the planet is geologically active. The interior eventually
recovers and the mascon goes away."

He cited the very large and much older Vredefort crater in South
Africa that must have once had a mascon, but no evidence of it can be
seen now. "Based on what we know about the geologic history of the
region, this Wilkes

Land mascon formed recently by geologic standards -- probably about
250 million years ago," he said. "In another half a billion years, the
Wilkes Land mascon will probably disappear, too."

Approximately 100 million years ago, Australia split from the ancient
Gondwana supercontinent and began drifting north, pushed away by the
expansion of a rift valley into the eastern Indian Ocean. The rift
cuts directly through the crater, so the impact may have helped the
rift to form, von Frese said.

But the more immediate effects of the impact would have devastated
life on Earth. "All the environmental changes that would have resulted
from the impact would have created a highly caustic environment that
was really hard to endure. So it makes sense that a lot of life went
extinct at that time," he said.

He and Potts would like to go to Antarctica to confirm the finding.
The best evidence would come from the rocks within the crater. Since
the cost of drilling through more than a mile of ice to reach these
rocks directly is prohibitive, they want to hunt for them at the base
of the ice along the coast where the ice streams are pushing scoured
rock into the sea. Airborne gravity and magnetic surveys would also be
very useful for testing their interpretation of the satellite data,
they said.
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/008200606021451.htm
Or
http://tinyurl.com/rqssy

Falcon

>>>falcon wrote:
I'd like to build an ultralight as well as get my pilot's license
for a private turboprop maybe.  Even if just for an ultralight I'd
still take classes.  Do you fly for personal reasons or for business?
<<<

The only reason I've ever flown is for the love of it. But pilot's
certificate never expire (though is does lose currency), so once
you're a pilot, you're always a pilot (unless your license is
revoked). I'm rated for single-engine airplanes, sailplanes, and hot-
air balloons, and I flew hang gliders for many years. Actually, I
haven't flown anything for several years now... all those toys just
got too expensive, so now I'm just into motorcycles.

I haven't looked at an ultralight in a long time, so I hope they
have improved. Back in the day, they were very maintenance intensive
and required very meticulous preflight inspection. The biggest
headache was too much engine vibration for such a lightweight
aluminum frame held together with cables and steel bolts. The bolts
had a way of woggling a larger hole in the frame tubing. The designs
have probably improved over the years improved over the years, In
truth, my opinion was probably also influenced at the time by some
snobbery from the hang gliding crowd, many of whom regarded
ultralights as noisy contraptions owned by those who couldn't afford
an airplane, and were too lazy to learn soaring. (Nothing else
really matches a hang glider for experiencing birdlike flight.)

Anyway, good luck with your plans, and I strongly recommend studying
the FARs, regardless of what you intend to fly. The current FARs are
available on-line, so don't accept any second-hand books
that "summarize" - there is no substitute for the primary source.
Also learn about airspace structure and learn to read an aero chart.
You will definitely need to know this stuff, whether you need a
certificate or not.

- SnarkByte

--- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, snarkbyte <no_reply@...> wrote:
But pilot's
> certificate never expire (though is does lose currency), so once
> you're a pilot, you're always a pilot (unless your license is
> revoked).

Does that seem odd to anyone else.. or just me

I'm rated for single-engine airplanes, sailplanes, and hot-
> air balloons, and I flew hang gliders for many years. Actually, I
> haven't flown anything for several years now... all those toys just
> got too expensive, so now I'm just into motorcycles.

I think flying a hot air balloon would be awesome!  (The others too, but the balloon just seem more unique.)

> I haven't looked at an ultralight in a long time, so I hope they
> have improved. Back in the day, they were very maintenance intensive
> and required very meticulous preflight inspection. The biggest
> headache was too much engine vibration for such a lightweight
> aluminum frame held together with cables and steel bolts. The bolts
> had a way of woggling a larger hole in the frame tubing. The designs
> have probably improved over the years improved over the years, In
> truth, my opinion was probably also influenced at the time by some
> snobbery from the hang gliding crowd, many of whom regarded
> ultralights as noisy contraptions owned by those who couldn't afford
> an airplane, and were too lazy to learn soaring. (Nothing else
> really matches a hang glider for experiencing birdlike flight.)
>
> Anyway, good luck with your plans, and I strongly recommend studying
> the FARs, regardless of what you intend to fly. The current FARs are
> available on-line, so don't accept any second-hand books
> that "summarize" - there is no substitute for the primary source.
> Also learn about airspace structure and learn to read an aero chart.
> You will definitely need to know this stuff, whether you need a
> certificate or not.
>
> - SnarkByte
>

>>> tanya wrote:
> Does that [the fact that pilot's certificates do not expire] seem odd to anyone else.. or just me<<<

Bi-annual exams are required in order to exercise the priviledges of the license. Three takeoffs and landings every 90 days are required to remain current (you can't fly passengers, among other things, unless you are current, and can prove it by entries in your flight log).

>>> I think flying a hot air balloon would be awesome! (The others too, but the balloon just seem more unique.)<<<

A very common response. Telling a woman you own a balloon has to rank among the world's most successful pickup lines -- right up there with being a billionaire.  I can only recall two occasions when it did not work on the very first attempt. So many candidates for induction into the Mile High Club, so little room in the basket

- SnarkByte

--- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, "falconsoaring_2000"
<falconsoaring_2000@...> wrote:
>
> Mr Brumm said it was the internal wiring of the brain, rather than
> sheer bulk, that was important.
>
> That they continued to make traditional tools rather than developing
> new technology in no way indicated a stagnant brain, he said.
>
> "It's more to do with social choices than anything else," Mr Brumm said.
>
> "If a simple stone technology works, that's actually smarter than
> going to all the trouble of advancing something new."
>

I find the first 3 points raised above smart, but the last point not
so smart (although it would make sense under certain circumstances).

--- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, snarkbyte <no_reply@...>
wrote:

> so now I'm just into motorcycles

As someone who had ridden a small motorbike as a commuting tool and
who had ridden at the back of a bike around the beautiful coast of
where I came from (so my view was largely obstructed), I'm curious to
learn from riders about the motorcycle fun many people enjoy in this
continent (so that one day I might try myself ;)  I imagine the fun of
riding a horse (made of heavy metal), having a big machine under
control, and perhaps riding into the wide open space. What do you
enjoy the most, Snark? TC? (you have a picture of riders in your profile)

> (Nothing else really matches a hang glider for experiencing birdlike
> flight.)

Hm, bird-like flight... That's an experience (at least for a day) I'd
like to have. I'm checking it out.

>>> chesschance wrote:
What do you enjoy the most [about riding a motorcycle]? <<<

I don't think there is any one thing that I could honestly say I enjoy
the most. At the very least, riding is simply a lot more fun than
driving a car becuase it requires more attention, I feel more alert. And
sitting in a car is like sitting in your living room: a familiar and
personal space completely enclosed (usually) by glass metal. That gives
a sense of privacy and isolation -- it's very easy to ignore most of
what's around you when you're sitting in a car (which is, unfortunately,
why so many motorcycles get hit by automobiles - people in cars just
don't pay attention). Personally, I like the more "connected" or "fully
engaged" feeling of not being so isolated.

On those occasional days when I drive to work, I arrive at work and
still need a cup of coffee to feel fully awake. When I ride to work, I
arrive fully alert and ready to get something done from the moment I get
into the parking lot -- no chemical stimulants required.

I like the physical stimulation. In weather warm enough for shirt
sleeves, the wind gives you a full-body skin massage that leaves the
skin tingling for several minutes. I like the wind in my face, and
feeling the changes in temperature and wind direction from one moment to
the next. And there's the tremendous acceleration and agility of a
motorcycle -- I could never afford an automobile that could approach the
performance of a motorcycle.

For me, anyway, it's not really the feelingof controlling a powerful
machine, but more the feeling of blending with the machine -- a
sensation of not riding the bike so much as wearing it. It's almost as
if the bike isn't there at all -- you're not consciously aware of what
you're doing to control the machine, you just want it to happen, and it
happens without any consious effort. The bike responds as if it's part
of your body, and I never get that from any automobile.

And lately I pity the folks who spend a small fortune to fuel their
SUVs.


- SnarkByte

--- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, snarkbyte <no_reply@...> wrote:
> Bi-annual exams are required in order to exercise the priviledges of the
> license. Three takeoffs and landings every 90 days are required to
> remain current (you can't fly passengers, among other things, unless you
> are current, and can prove it by entries in your flight log).

Thats a little better 
 
> A very common response. Telling a woman you own a balloon has to rank
> among the world's most successful pickup lines -- right up there with
> being a billionaire. I can only recall two occasions when it did not
> work on the very first attempt. So many candidates for induction into
> the Mile High Club, so little room in the basket [:D]

I am not into Billionaires.  I have always liked common things and people that work average jobs.   I'm not sure why, but I would hate to have to dress up and put on airs each day.  A billionaire (unless he was a crazy exocentric one that did not act like one) would be at the bottom of my list.  The balloon thing would do it for me though.

>
> - SnarkByte
>

Good. I'll borrow a balloon and see you next weekend! Heh, heh. 

- SnarkByte

--- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, tanya_o0o <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, snarkbyte no_reply@
> wrote:
> > Bi-annual exams are required in order to exercise the priviledges of
> the
> > license. Three takeoffs and landings every 90 days are required to
> > remain current (you can't fly passengers, among other things, unless
> you
> > are current, and can prove it by entries in your flight log).
>
> Thats a little better [:)]
>
> > A very common response. Telling a woman you own a balloon has to rank
> > among the world's most successful pickup lines -- right up there with
> > being a billionaire. I can only recall two occasions when it did not
> > work on the very first attempt. So many candidates for induction into
> > the Mile High Club, so little room in the basket [:D]
>
> I am not into Billionaires. I have always liked common things and
> people that work average jobs. I'm not sure why, but I would hate to
> have to dress up and put on airs each day. A billionaire (unless he was
> a crazy exocentric one that did not act like one) would be at the bottom
> of my list. The balloon thing would do it for me though.
>
>
> >
> > - SnarkByte
> >
>

<<
a sense of privacy and isolation -- it's very easy to ignore most of
what's around you when you're sitting in a car (which is, unfortunately,
why so many motorcycles get hit by automobiles - people in cars just
don't pay attention).
>>

I know what you mean.  A few hours ago I was riding my bike down a
mainstreet when this lady talking on a cellphone came up to the street
and zipped across it right in front of me.  In moments like that I
wished if I carried a fog horn so I could let out a rip.  While I
don't believe using a cellphone should be made illegal people do NEED
to be more careful using one.  Reminds me of when I was in Germany, it
was illegal to have the radio turned on while driving where I was.

Related to motorcycles in Germany, the day I got there someone pointed
out these men, boys really, who all had bikes not much bigger than a
moped and said they needed to be watched because they were part of a
motorcycle gang.  After having known some who were Hell's Angels or
the Pagans I about cracked open in laughter.  I couldn't see any of
them lasting more than a minute with an Angel or Pagan.

<<
For me, anyway, it's not really the feelingof controlling a powerful
machine, but more the feeling of blending with the machine -- a
sensation of not riding the bike so much as wearing it. It's almost as
if the bike isn't there at all -- you're not consciously aware of what
you're doing to control the machine, you just want it to happen, and
it happens without any consious effort. The bike responds as if it's
part of your body, and I never get that from any automobile.
>>

The last tyme I've driven a motorcycle was as a teen more than 30
years ago, dirt bikes, but I've been thinking about getting one for
daily travel.  I'm wondering where I would be able to park it though,
the only parking where I currently live only is on the street.  I'd
also have to find a class to take to get a license for a motorcycle.
I can envision my mom's and sister's expressions in learning I'm
driving a motorcycle.  "Why in the world would you do that?  You
almost died riding a bike."  Hey, if I can't enjoy life then why live?

Falcon

--- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, snarkbyte <no_reply@...>
wrote:

I will be here waiting.

--- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, snarkbyte <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Good. I'll borrow a balloon and see you next weekend! Heh, heh. [>:)]
>
> - SnarkByte

What't the problem with #4?  If it isn't broke don't fix it.

Of course hackers need to look at how things work and improve them.

Falcon

--- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, chesschance <no_reply@...>
wrote:


I find the first 3 points raised above smart, but the last point notso
smart (although it would make sense under certain circumstances).

I read this with smiles. I bet you can pick up women with just your
words, or rather how you express yourself, Snark.

--- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, snarkbyte <no_reply@...>
wrote:
>
> I don't think there is any one thing that I could honestly say I enjoy
> the most. At the very least, riding is simply a lot more fun than
> driving a car becuase it requires more attention, I feel more alert. And
> sitting in a car is like sitting in your living room: a familiar and
> personal space completely enclosed (usually) by glass metal. That gives
> a sense of privacy and isolation -- it's very easy to ignore most of
> what's around you when you're sitting in a car (which is, unfortunately,
> why so many motorcycles get hit by automobiles - people in cars just
> don't pay attention). Personally, I like the more "connected" or "fully
> engaged" feeling of not being so isolated.
>
> On those occasional days when I drive to work, I arrive at work and
> still need a cup of coffee to feel fully awake. When I ride to work, I
> arrive fully alert and ready to get something done from the moment I get
> into the parking lot -- no chemical stimulants required.
>
> I like the physical stimulation. In weather warm enough for shirt
> sleeves, the wind gives you a full-body skin massage that leaves the
> skin tingling for several minutes. I like the wind in my face, and
> feeling the changes in temperature and wind direction from one moment to
> the next. And there's the tremendous acceleration and agility of a
> motorcycle -- I could never afford an automobile that could approach the
> performance of a motorcycle.
>
> For me, anyway, it's not really the feelingof controlling a powerful
> machine, but more the feeling of blending with the machine -- a
> sensation of not riding the bike so much as wearing it. It's almost as
> if the bike isn't there at all -- you're not consciously aware of what
> you're doing to control the machine, you just want it to happen, and it
> happens without any consious effort. The bike responds as if it's part
> of your body, and I never get that from any automobile.
>
> And lately I pity the folks who spend a small fortune to fuel their
> SUVs.
>
>
> - SnarkByte
>

--- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, "falconsoaring_2000"
<falconsoaring_2000@...> wrote:
>
> What't the problem with #4?  If it isn't broke don't fix it.
>
> Of course hackers need to look at how things work and improve them.
>
> Falcon
>

> "If a simple stone technology works, that's actually smarter than
> going to all the trouble of advancing something new." I think
"easier" might be a choice more apt than "smarter" but I may be too
picky. Personally I find what's implied in the phrases in "if it isn't
broken" or "if it works" does not regard the inner workings. Something
may be wrong, shaky, or faulty inside, but works on the surface for
the moment. Of course what one chooses to do depends on whether one
knows or suspects something is not quite right inside and whether one
wants it for the long term.

It's a lot more work, and the same success rate is much, much lower. I think I can recall two occasions where it actually worked on the very first attempt.  It was a real adjustment after I sold the balloon and was suddenly stuck with telling the same lies as a million other guys -- and those other guys were accustomed to the effort. Ballooning had made me very lazy in some ways.

- SnarkByte

 
--- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, chesschance <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I read this with smiles. I bet you can pick up women with just your
> words, or rather how you express yourself, Snark.
>
> --- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, snarkbyte no_reply@
> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think there is any one thing that I could honestly say I enjoy
> > the most. At the very least, riding is simply a lot more fun than
> > driving a car becuase it requires more attention, I feel more alert. And
> > sitting in a car is like sitting in your living room: a familiar and
> > personal space completely enclosed (usually) by glass metal. That gives
> > a sense of privacy and isolation -- it's very easy to ignore most of
> > what's around you when you're sitting in a car (which is, unfortunately,
> > why so many motorcycles get hit by automobiles - people in cars just
> > don't pay attention). Personally, I like the more "connected" or "fully
> > engaged" feeling of not being so isolated.
> >
> > On those occasional days when I drive to work, I arrive at work and
> > still need a cup of coffee to feel fully awake. When I ride to work, I
> > arrive fully alert and ready to get something done from the moment I get
> > into the parking lot -- no chemical stimulants required.
> >
> > I like the physical stimulation. In weather warm enough for shirt
> > sleeves, the wind gives you a full-body skin massage that leaves the
> > skin tingling for several minutes. I like the wind in my face, and
> > feeling the changes in temperature and wind direction from one moment to
> > the next. And there's the tremendous acceleration and agility of a
> > motorcycle -- I could never afford an automobile that could approach the
> > performance of a motorcycle.
> >
> > For me, anyway, it's not really the feelingof controlling a powerful
> > machine, but more the feeling of blending with the machine -- a
> > sensation of not riding the bike so much as wearing it. It's almost as
> > if the bike isn't there at all -- you're not consciously aware of what
> > you're doing to control the machine, you just want it to happen, and it
> > happens without any consious effort. The bike responds as if it's part
> > of your body, and I never get that from any automobile.
> >
> > And lately I pity the folks who spend a small fortune to fuel their
> > SUVs.
> >
> >
> > - SnarkByte
> >
>

If flying cars are a disappointment, cheer up. You can still have a hovering motorcycle . Falcon, since you're interested in flying and riding, this could be your ticket!

SnarkByte

It's kind of like an airboat with a copper's front end for steering,
and without the prop in back.  Ah, I miss airboats. ;-(

Falcon

--- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, snarkbyte <no_reply@...>
wrote:

If flying cars are a disappointment, cheer up. You can still have a
hovering motorcycle <http://tinyurl.com/mdpnr>  . Falcon, since you're
interested in flying and riding, this could be your ticket!  [:o)]

SnarkByte

By Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter
SIXTY-FIVE million years ago a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs. Now new
evidence suggests an even bigger chunk of rock hurtled from space into
the Earth to give birth to them.

Scientists have located a massive crater under the Antarctic ice that
they believe gave rise to the evolution of dinosaurs.

The 300-mile (480km) wide crater is thought to have been created by a
meteor almost as big as London. It dates back 250 million years to the
time of the biggest mass extinction in Earth's history and the event
that led to the first dinosaurs evolving.

Such was the catastrophic nature of the extinction that up to 96 per
cent of all marine creatures were killed and 70 per cent of land
animals. The strike may also have been powerful enough to have begun
the break-up of the Gondwana supercontinent, which resulted in
Australia sheering off and drifting northwards.

Researchers in the United States located the crater more than a mile
beneath the East Antarctic ice sheet at Wilkes Land, using gravity
measurements from satellites and radar images from aircraft. They
calculated that it would take a meteor 30 miles wide to have caused
such a crater. By comparison, the meteor held to have ended the
dinosaur era and created the Chicxulub crater, in Mexico, would have
been six miles across.

"This Wilkes Land impact is much bigger than the impact that killed
the dinosaurs, and probably would have caused catastrophic damage at
the time," Ralph von Frese, a professor of geological sciences at Ohio
State University, said.

"All the environmental changes that would have resulted from the
impact would have created a highly caustic environment that was really
hard to endure. So it makes sense that a lot of life went extinct at
that time."

While killing off about nine in every ten species of animal, including
trilobites, the mass extinction paved the way for new types of animals
to evolve.Among the main beneficiaries were archosaurs, the immediate
ancestors of dinosaurs, which came quickly to dominate the empty
lands. Their descendants still survive in the form of crocodiles and
alligators. Within 20 million years of the mass extinction, the first
primitive dinosaurs had evolved, including lagosuchus.

For 30 million years they continued to develop and spread and, when
another mass extinction took place about 200 million years ago, they
were perfectly poised to take over the Earth. For the next 135 million
years almost every land animal bigger than a metre long was a dinosaur
and it took another meteor, 65 million years ago, to remove them.

Professor von Frese, who reported the findings of the study to the
American Geophysical Union Joint Assembly, suggested the Wilkes Land
meteor also gave birth to Australia.

The point where the meteor slammed into the Earth is in a rift valley
that extends into the Indian Ocean and the power of the collision, he
said, could have contributed to the continental split.

Professor von Frese said that the crater or "mascon" beneath the ice
is the "planetary equivalent of a bump on the head", indicating a
collision by a meteor.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2208566,00.html
Or
http://tinyurl.com/sxquq

Falcon

--- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, snarkbyte <no_reply@...>
wrote:
>
>
> It's a lot more work, and the same success rate is much, much lower. I
> think I can recall two occasions where it actually worked on the very
> first attempt.  [:-?]  It was a real adjustment after I sold the balloon
> and was suddenly stuck with telling the same lies as a million other
> guys -- and those other guys were accustomed to the effort. Ballooning
> had made me very lazy in some ways.  [:-s]
>
> - SnarkByte
>
Being lazy with telling lies sounds like a virtue to me; I remember
you're more into vice ;)

"Research suggests that the critical ingredient for a chuckle is
incongruity. But if you can also point to some unspoken truth, you'll
hit humor gold."

http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun06/formula.html

What do you enjoy the most, Snark? TC? (you have a picture of riders in your profile)

On this topic, anyway, I'm a fan of "whatever works" -- notions of virtue and vice are irrelevant. Women always say that honesty is virtue, but they don't really mean it. It's to a woman's advantage to select men who tell lies; that way, she can blame any problem on the lies she never believed in the first place and the man is always at fault. By the age of 17, guys have pretty much figured out that women don't want honest men (unless they're wealthy, but wealthy men are hardly ever honest, anyway...). Women don't even want men who tell convincing lies. They want men who tell entertaining lies. So, in the competition for women, with everything else being equal, the most entertaining liar wins. The lying part is easy -- women demand that much as a minimum, so there's no sense in feeling guilty, but making the lies entertaining is hard work.

- SnarkByte

--- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, chesschance <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, snarkbyte no_reply@
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's a lot more work, and the same success rate is much, much lower. I
> > think I can recall two occasions where it actually worked on the very
> > first attempt. [:-?] It was a real adjustment after I sold the balloon
> > and was suddenly stuck with telling the same lies as a million other
> > guys -- and those other guys were accustomed to the effort. Ballooning
> > had made me very lazy in some ways. [:-s]
> >
> > - SnarkByte
> >
> Being lazy with telling lies sounds like a virtue to me; I remember
> you're more into vice ;)
>

I have to say that your opinion of women and lies/honesty sounds quite cynical to me. And guys figure out that women don't want honest men based on their experience with girls?! I mean, girls do grow up (and presumably change), but boys' (and men's) opinions of the opposite sex stay the same?! But I'd let these go, because I'm quite intrigued by the concept of entertaining lies. It never occurs to me that lies can be entertaining (call me old-fashioned). Hmm, maybe women do like entertaining lies. I, for one, would welcome being entertained and laugh, secretly, at the lies (that is, if I'm smart enough to detect the lies). But maybe women have been deceived precisely because "women want entertaining lies" (because vanity is a human thing to do/be, for women, and, ahem, men). In that case, I would have to take back my remark of your remark being cynical. What do you think of women wanting entertaining lies, Tanya?

--- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, T C <icy_noone@...> wrote:
>
> chesschance <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>   What do you enjoy the most, Snark? TC? (you have a picture of
riders in your profile)
>   Since Snarkbyte did such an excellent job in relating his feelings
regarding riding motorcycles (which I so completely agree with), the
only way I can contribute anything else to the subject is to post this
story I found years ago while living in Saudi Arabia.  It is from The
Mint by T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia). It is called The Road, about his
love-affair with Boanerges ('Boa' for short), his Brough Superior
motorcycle.  It was written sometime during the 1920's, when Lawrence
was serving in the Air Force, in England (and AFTER his stint in Saudi
Arabia).  I loved this story so much that I had it published in two
installments in our monthly Harley-Davisdson newsletter in Saudi.  It
sums up very well the feelings one experiences when you are one with
your machine...
>
>
> The Road by T. E. Lawrence
>

Cute.
Some parts are quite... Well, you know, an opinion similar to that of
the wives and sweethearts of bikers.

--- In CaNdY-for-the-BrAiN@yahoogroups.com, snarkbyte <no_reply@...>
wrote:
>
>
> On this topic, anyway, I'm a fan of "whatever works" -- notions of
> virtue and vice are irrelevant. Women always say that honesty is virtue,
> but they don't really mean it. It's to a woman's advantage to select men
> who tell lies; that way, she can blame any problem on the lies she never
> believed in the first place and the man is always at fault. By the age
> of 17, guys have pretty much figured out that women don't want honest
> men (unless they're wealthy, but wealthy men are hardly ever honest,
> anyway...). Women don't even want men who tell convincing lies. They
> want men who tell entertaining lies. So, in the competition for women,
> with everything else being equal, the most entertaining liar wins. The
> lying part is easy -- women demand that much as a minimum, so there's no
> sense in feeling guilty, but making the lies entertaining is hard work.
>
> - SnarkByte

I'm reminded of a great bit by Cris Rock:

"Men are liars; women are the biggest liars. Men lie all the time ...
its almost become a language. Men lie like "I was at Kevin's house.";
"I was at Al's place." Women lie like "Thats your baby!". Yeah, women
are the biggest liars. - Masters of the lie, the visual lie. You wear
heels; you ain't that tall! You wear makeup; your face doesn't look
like that! You got on a weave; your hair ain't that long! You got a
wonder-bra on; your titties ain't that big! And you expect us men to
tell the truth? Everything about you women is a lie!"