Text 1029, 98 rader
Skriven 2004-10-22 11:37:54 av Adam Flinton (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 1019 av jeff (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Article on WIPO & the public good
=============================================
From: Adam Flinton <adam_NO_@_SPAM_softfab.com>

jeff wrote:

> Adam Flinton wrote:
>
>> VC-10, Trident, TU-154 & a number of other 60'es designs were "just"
>> subsonic i.e. they were capable of flight right on the edge of the
>> sound barrier.
>>
>> Today's 777, airbus etc are 600 mile per hour machines flat out.
>
>
> And how much less fuel do they use and less noise do they generate in
> doing so? How much longer do the engines last? How many more people do
> they carry?
>

I could have added the 747 to my list. It is now (I think) the fastest airliner
in use & it was designed as a freighter where speed was not important.

Is the 747 unfeasably loud? Does it use massively more fuel per passenger mile?
How long do 747 engines last compared to an Airbus or 777? Which airliners in
use today carry more passengers than the 747?


> Different priorities, different results.
>

Nah it's the "people are used to 10 hour flights so let's give em 10 hour
flights while making us more money".

>>
>>> While I'm disappointed that we don't have people on  the moon and the
>>> planets we went to the moon in a dramatically expensive  way just
>>> like your beloved SSTs.  We are in no way in a "sputnik" era.  In
>>> the sputnik era we were not sending spacecraft to the outer planets.
>>>
>>
>> A metal ball is sent to another planet. What is the difference between
>> that & sputnik?
>>
> Sputnik went around the world, briefly, going "beep, beep, beep." The
> Mars rovers have exceeded their design life - and sent back color photos
> no less - by what, 6x? They honestly don't know when they are going to
> run out of steam now.
>

&? What's changed?

Carried up by a chemical rocket. Uses radio waves & electronic for control &
comms. Stays in orbit in space round a planet.

Oh the advance.


>>
>>> We enjoy and unprecedented standard of living.  Look at our life
>>> expectancy.
>>>
>>
>> Mostly because the major risks have been reduced e.g. war, famine &
>> disease.
>>
>> Not applicable to large parts of the world (e.g. most of Africa) where
>> for instance AIDS (which wasn't around till fairly recently) is
>> chopping that figure down dramatically.
>>
> Better nutrition is responsible for a lot of that life expectancy too.
>

Simple greater availability of food, not so much "better food".


> And as far as AIDS goes, it may be an epidemic, but it's one where a
> vast majority of it's victims got it voluntarily - either through
> consensual sex and/or IV drug use.
>

Bollox. That is a crappy thing to say. On the assumption that you are the
product of consensual sex then would it be fair to say that your parents were
trying to get STD'es when you were conceived?

So when you have kids, will you be trying to get AIDS?


> As for the kids that are born with it... one of them is a cousin of
> mine, adopted, who is about 14 or 15 now. She tests free of the virus -
> and probably owes her life to AZT and such (although saying she owes it
> to God would probably be more accurate).

Yeah but if they then want kids....then apparantly they volunteering for a
nasty death.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)