nathaniel

There's a chapter 7 of this book that I think you would like very much. Go used, $52 is too much for this book. I got a copy at a bookfair for $6. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

If you'd been clearer on what you meant at the outset... I suspect you meant GLIDE RATIO, or GLIDE PATH, not just GLIDE. Glide is a very general word. Speed does change your glide, "faster glide". But added speed may not change your glide path if the net added vector is in the same direction as the glide. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Weight: Yes, greater force due to gravity, and implied aerodynamic effects based on volume / density constraints on the human body. Basically if your weight goes up your shape changes. Typically apple shaped for men, pear shaped for women, and depends on your individual anatomy. At the extremes it also affects your ability to fly, if you are morbidly obese or starved you may not have the strength to fly. Height: Yes, greater forces due to increased surface area, interactions with air, implied shape changes. We have an extremely complex system based on these factors as well as more direct measures of body shape, body position, strength, rigidity, planform, cross section, speed, air density, humidity, carried objects such as streamers, etc. In typical configurations some contribute more than others to the characteristics of your glide. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Archimedes' death ray My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Some stopped clocks might not be right twice a day. What if it stuck at 2:01AM? Then it would be right three times on a daylight savings fall-back day, and only once on a daylight savings spring-forward day. Or if it stuck during a leap second (23:59:60), it might not be right again for months or years. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

cuz it's like a scooter, only the wheels are on the sides instead of in the front and the back, and it doesn't go very fast, has terrible range. And you can't sit on it. Although you still get to look like a douche, in that way it's the same as a scooter. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

I wasn't sure what they meant by 'smoking gun', thanks! My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

That's intense! Was that the world's first indoor base wingsuit flight? The G's must have been nuts pulling the turn, while trying to avoid a flat spin. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

There are some people who think the US Govt set that site up. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

I have hardwood floors, mine does very well. The floor is shiny after it's done. The downsides are * loud and slow * only does a room or two before it needs a recharge * gets stuck on my sisal welcome mats Considering that it vacuums for me and all I have to do is lift up the welcome mats, it's great. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

In this way Obama has a distinct advantage. With less of a track record and what seems to be an relatively understated style, there's fewer things for Hillary to grab hold of. Hillary's record isn't exactly stellar, so it might put her on a defensive footing. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

The price-elasticity of demand is missing from your analysis. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

I bet you don't miss the deflation required to get you back there. Deflation is bad, mmkay? My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

This is like an ethical occluded front. Expect strong winds. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

And why didn't he convince Bush during those years? My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Yes, just look how well that worked in Serbia. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

It is affiliated with the federal government. Just not directly controlled; and that's a very good thing because it would be bad for the country if presidents or congresses or judges could manipulate the federal reserve in time for election cycles. Wikipedia FTW. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Yeah it did well. About all that's left is non-profits, and as a group they seem a lot less aggressive with random calling. There's a few I've heard of that will harangue you if you ever give them money. For advice if you have any cellular coverage in your area consider ditching your land line. I gather most telemarketers tend not to call cellphones as a matter of principle, due to the way the billing works. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

What is proven about drunk driving is that laws have tightened and drunk driving has reduced. That does not prove deterrence tho. AAA's own data shows Canada has had .08 since the 70's, but in the 80s experienced a similar decline as set in when the US states established .08 controls. Furthermore, AAA's own data establishes that the deterrent effect is a weakness of current DUI law: In a 2002 report they write: I think they are spot on with the third point -- a substantial minority of drivers correctly believes that it is unlikely they would be stopped, arrested, or convicted. Less than 2% qualifies as unlikely in my book. Furthermore it is unlikely that any harm would come from the average instance of DUI at all. 80 million incidents vs some 2000-5000 est deaths actually caused by DUI vs other factors (explained amply already in this thread why not to use 17000) puts the incidence of death caused by DUI at between .00003 and .00006 (or between .003% and .006%) per drunk drive as established by the .08 BAC standard. To what everyday risks can we compare the risk of causing death with an instance of drunk driving? Too bad they didn't try to identify whom among the 58% of people who thought they would get caught, would otherwise have driven drunk. As a result, these numbers can only be used to establish the ineffectiveness of DUI laws--how many people demonstrate preference for DUI in spite of the law. They don't tell us how many people would have preferred DUI if it were not for the law. AAA themselves say that 21% of people had driven after drinking in the study year, but 42% of people did not believe they would get caught if they were to DUI. Since the number of actual DUI-drivers must be under 21%, there's considerable room for increases of DUI before the threshold of deterrence is reached--I wouldn't be surprised if the degree of overlap between DUI drivers and deterred drivers was low. It's not right to conclude that deterrence is the reason behind the fall in DUI in the 80s and 90s, or particularly related to the current levels of DUI. I think that sustained marketing campaigns have a lot more to do with it than law. Unfortunately AAA goes on to propose further stiffening penalties for all DUI and subtracting more money from the economy to address the "problem" of DUI. To aggravate it further it I suppose, rather than to properly resolve it. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Maybe the USPA could serve as a venue for interested parties and DZs to voluntarily get together and advise each other on how and whether this could be done an a DZ by DZ basis. A planning committee for DZs looking to improve their landing patterns. Both from a safety perspective, and from other perspectives such as optimizing the performance value for spectators. Would anyone be interested in offering genuine advice to DZs, and would any DZs wish to receive it? My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Because of the principal agent problem--the principal doesn't share the pilot's enjoyment of alcohol, except insofar as it would potentially cost less to employ pilots where alcohol were not forbidden. The airline industry is fairly competitive and airlines constantly have a huge amount of capital at stake. The price for a jetliner is huge and then there's the cost of the marketing impact of national coverage on an airline's safety after an accident. I think it's safe to say that the principal faces on his assets a level of risk at least commensurate with the total value of the lives on board and well above the risk faced by each passenger. The dual facts that cars cost less than planes relative to their cargo, and that cars are more often conducted by their owners is reason enough for me to believe it's much more likely that we'd have drunk drivers than drunk airline pilots in the absence of any regulatory guidance on the subject. Sure. CRJ's are pretty expensive and C152's are not, we'd probably see a greater increase of accidents with C152s than CRJs if drunken piloting were allowed. But given the high base rate of sober accidents with such planes and the level of safety consciousness in the culture of small craft aviation, I think it's also likely that most pilots wouldn't be interested. Correct me if I'm wrong. Individual pilots would be faced with addressing their own safety. These are citizens and privileged residents we're talking about, educated ones when we talk about pilots. They're quite capable of deciding their preferred risk levels, even if they are prone towards making mistakes. Insurance costs would probably offer an incentive to fly sober, in the absence of regulation on the subject, insurance co.s would probably offer cheaper policies for people willing to commit to flying sober. Insurance, btw, would be excellent criteria to establish the benefit depending on whether it would be popular or prohibitively expensive to fly drunk (and especially if anybody were willing to pay for it up front). The previous paragraph applies to driving as well as piloting, although it'd be challenging to implement in the context of mandatory coverage for automobiles--a person driving drunk in spite of his policy would effectively be driving without coverage, no? Don't you think it's counterproductive, in the case of a drunken driving accident, that we depress the perp's prospects for employment with incarceration? It reduces the perp's ability to compensate the victim and his family for vengeance alone, it seems, in spite of the victim's own interest. This paper I found online deals with the subject. It points to a ~35% decrease in annual income and marked reduction in long term wage growth among people who were incarcerated. Some of what the perp can't pay comes out of the insurance co, I suppose, the rest is lost. Would you not suppose this also drives up the cost of insurance? I think it's surely overstated. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

In descriptive economics, we do not tell people where the value is. People tell us by their decisions. It is purely descriptive and incontrovertible to say that people derive value from driving drunk, because they do so in large numbers in spite of the costs inherent to the activity and again in spite of the penalties of getting caught. Alcohol and cars are not free. Freedom has intrinsic value that is taken away with imprisonment and felony conviction. Your normative judgement of the value of driving drunk reflects on you, and despite your protestations it demonstrates your hatred of alcohol. I do not care for the feeling of drunkenness, yet I do not deny the value it objectively provides to others on my subjective basis. Neither would I ban balut, even though it is much more repugnant to me than driving drunk. The pictures of balut on wikipedia make me nauseous, at least as nauseous as .08 BAC worth of alcohol. It is ironic that you would attribute drunk driving to innumeracy among drunk drivers, when innumeracy is demonstrated by the law itself. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

A free market is not fomented by telling people what to buy. That's entirely backwards. Shunting transactions from one place to another with law is the sine qua non of economic inefficiency. Yes we do it all the time, and yes some of the time it connotes benefits by correcting market inefficiencies. In the case of drunk driving, the law a) doesn't cause most to substitute taxi cabs for driving, empirically, although it undoubtedly does a small number b) heightens the inherent inefficiencies of drunk driving rather than alleviating them. I suspect due to hatred of alcohol, because I can't think of any other way to justify the law. The inefficiency of the law is precisely due to the imprecision of the methods of enforcement, and the perversity of the penalty structure. Distorting the economy, and damaging it. To speak of drunk driving as a cultural sin is to concede the uselessness of drunk driving criminal law, because drunk driving practiced by millions of people annually. Its practitioners have included mainstream celebrities, politicians and people of all sorts, such as our esteemed Vice President. I'm sure you would find balut to be disgusting. Nonetheless we permit food vendors to sell it despite the inherent health risks because of the value it provides to some. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Drunk driving is a byproduct of our healthy society and economy, which comprises acts as well as products. Of all the means used to dissuade drunk driving, and which have failed to eradicate it, it is pointless and wasteful to pretend that we can eradicate it. It is costly and demonstrably counterproductive to reduce it needlessly. Murder causes death 100% of the time, and is of negligible benefit to anyone (discounting abortion and euthanasia, if you lump those in with murder due to your morals). Relative to its incidence, drunk driving rarely causes death, and drunk driving is of sizeable benefit to our economy well in excess of its inherent cost. The costs can be recouped by tort proceedings, or perhaps a functional equivalent. You may think that causing inefficiency in our economy is funny, people who lose their jobs and their livelihood as a result do not. My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

That something might be permissible under the law, does not make it desirable or commonplace. I think the marketplace alone would be sufficient to deter drunken mass market airline pilots, between the risk to the owners of damaging the plane and the public perception issue, no airline would tolerate drunkenness among its pilots. I think you mischaracterize the effect of the law. In the example you gave, it's window dressing. why won't someone think of the children! My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?