Now with Personal Seat Licenses! For a low one-time fee you can own your seat at the Prime Cinema! Buy or sell your seat tickets using the Prime Cinema Seat Marketplace! Purchases made with the Prime Cinema Credit Card get 5% off. Alternatively you can simply add the PSL to your Amazon Prime Mortgage balance as a one-time courtesy!
The ATC systems required would be prohibitive, rest in peace any birds that fly into\through the beam, maintenance of the towers, and emitter tracking would all be huge problems.
Also, where/how is all that electricity getting generated/transmitted to the emitter, and what complications does that introduce? What about environmental conditions? How does that effect the efficiency? Does a storm front blowing through suddenly make regular ICE planes a better idea again?
Oh, yeah, don't forget the security aspect. Those emitters are more than 'interesting' enough to be weaponized in the wrong hands.
I mean, beamed power sounds cool and all, but you actually have to take into account a heck of a lot of variables first.
A quick google search shows a page from the FAA saying that typically a couple hundred planes crash each year, and a few hundred people die. There's an order of magnitude more GA planes than commercial airliners.
Am I the only one who has always seen renting as a temporary arrangement only? If you don't own something, somewhere, doesn't that mean the same as being homeless? Not trying to offend anyone. Genuinely wondering, are there people who really don't want to own real estate ever in their lives?
It's the same bargain as being dependent on anyone else for anything else. Whether it's a problem depends on how abundant that "something else" is, which depends on the larger societal context.
I'll give an analogy: my dad used to hoard toilet paper, preferring to "own" large stockpiles of it rather than just get it as necessary from the store. Why? Because he grew up in WW2, in an occupied country, and had to shit in the river and wipe his butt with stones. This doesn't even compute for my American-born generation: to us, the supermarket is always there, and if you need toilet paper you go buy it.
Similarly, if you can assume that another rental will always be there when you need it, there's no need to own. And in dense urban areas with lots of landlords, that's a pretty valid assumption. Somebody refuses to rent to you (which has happened), just rent from somebody else. I'd rather own financial assets like stock - which I can take with me anywhere, and which usually have a much greater monopoly position than the landlord - and then use the income thrown off by them to rent accommodation.
Would I be fucked if there were a financial crisis or breakdown in social order? Yes. But if I were to own a typical 1/4 acre suburban detached home, I'd still be fucked - because you're still renting water & sewer access from the city, electricity from the utility, Internet from Comcast, food from the grocery store, etc, not to mention that your ownership only extends to your ability to pay the bank monthly. If you want to actually be secure & independent, you not only need your own land with a sturdily-built home, you also need solar panels, well water, a septic system, and obscurity. And you need to own it free & clear with no debts.
A similar logic applies to people who take Uber instead of owning a car, or who pay monthly for a SaaS instead of buying software outright, or who get food delivered rather than owning cookware and cooking themselves. As long as they can count on the service always being available, it works.
I've been renting for a long time and I have never considered myself to be homeless. When it rains I generally stay dry. I'm not sure how renting implies or is in any way similar to homelessness. I still have the means to provide shelter for myself. I could even rent a hotel room for quite a while, long enough to find a new place for sure.
I don't see how the risk of being evicted (is this something people worry about?) is any greater than the numerous possible disasters that could strike a place you own in ways renters don't have to worry about.
How many kids do you have? I have 6 and moving in the elementary school district is a huge pain. There aren't alot of rentals and big surprise, nobody wants to rent to someone with 6 kids.
Not only is 60 days notice not enough time. The landlords require 60 to 90 days notice and of course every rental wants you to move in immediately. In my experience, it's rare to find someone advertising a rental more then 30 days out from availability.
No. People who rent are not homeless. That's ridiculous.
This kind of semantic babble only serves to cloud people's judgment. For some people, owning makes more sense. For others, renting makes more sense. Not sure what is hard to understand about that.
Renting an apartment is actually the opposite of being homeless. Homeless people have no secure housing and need to sleep on the streets, in cars, or in shelters. If you are renting a place, you have 24/7 access to it and can stay there for shelter.
As someone put it: freedom is just another word for "having nothing left to lose". Homeless people are generaly most free of all, they do not have any obligations, bills to pay, work to show up, but I wouldn't consider that something we should aspire to.
One very reasonable 'end game' for those who do not want to own is to invest enough cash in the stock market so that your rate of return supersedes your rent, thus guaranteeing that, if rent increases are within reason, you are able to finance renting interminably. Stock markets typically have a higher rate of return than real estate, so...
I always prefer the turboprops. There are fewer people in the cabin, and the flight is usually more scenic as the captain will often choose a lower cruising altitude than the jet jockey would. Additionally, there are more quality window seats, because the turboprops are normally high-wing, which means there is no wing between any of the windows and the ground, allowing a larger range of vista viewing.
Not the op, but for me the turboprops I've flown on [0] have a deeper, louder droning noise that really gives me a headache after a while. I think it's personal though, I've spoken about hating them with travelling companions and no one else shares my dislike. I've never actively tried to avoid them though, mainly because I rarely have a choice of time or route when I fly on the airlines I know use them.
Genuine academic curiosity. I wish that I hadn't asked the question because I now realize that I was dumb. I totally misinterpreted what the commentor meant. When they said "the one that was the jet over the turboprop", I somehow thought they meant "the plane with the turboprop engine having the intake on the top, as opposed to bottom, of the propeller". No idea why I thought that.... Now, though, I wonder if those exist...
Why can't they "grow their own" powerful politicians? Find somebody young, put them in all the right places with all the right people, and have them say all the right things. Shouldn't be hard with unlimited resources.
The problem with humans is that Free Will stuff. Eventually the human says or does something unpopular and your investment is written off, along with the politician.
Maybe this young upstart has already tweeted something in their more free-spirited days, just waiting to be scrolled onto.
Much more effective to pump money into the political parties directly. They're going nowhere.
