Rolling down into Death Valley after about 16,500 miles on the road.

This is the safest way to go down a hill on a Pennyfarthing, as when you have the accident you go feet rather than face first onto the tarmac.
I completed the round the world journey in November 2008 after 2 1/2 years, 22,000 miles on the road, and having visited 25 countries.
www.pennyfarthingworldtour.com
Joff

Yeah, landing on your feet will be much safer, at least before the first 3 flips.

>> ^kymbos:

Context?


From YouTube: Rolling down into Death Valley after about 16,500 miles on the road.

This is the safest way to go down a hill on a Pennyfarthing, as when you have the accident you go feet rather than face first onto the tarmac.
I completed the round the world journey in November 2008 after 2 1/2 years, 22,000 miles on the road, and having visited 25 countries.
www.pennyfarthingworldtour.com
Joff

Drivers mentioned in youtube description: Ari Vatanen Walter Rohrl Stig Blomqvist Hannu Mikkola Colin McRae Marcus Grönholm Gigi Galli Sebastien Loeb Jari-Matti Latvala Petter Solberg Gilles Panizzi Mads Östberg Michèle Mouton Leszek Kuzaj Emil Triner
From what I know none of them drove Porsche for rallies, maybe Walter Rohrl drove on (tarmac) tracks. Other than that, I can't help you here unfortunately. Maybe you figure it out and let me know.>> ^Enzoblue:

Awesome sift. Wish the drivers named where there though. I recognized some, but really want to know who was driving the red porsche through the 8:00 min. That guy had skillz.

There's a special place in hell reserved for people who come up with ideas like this.

Also, I want this dickhead designer to board a flight thinking "Oh, it's only 1.75 hrs." And then sit on the tarmac for another hour or four.

I dont see any problem with this, cheaper flights is great, who gives a shit if your slightly uncomfortable for a few hours to travel distances that would be unimaginable without planes. Its great, fuck these people complaining. Pay more then. take a jog, stop overeating. Run there instead of flying. As for people with disability, well there are options there, like giving them regular seats at the same low prices. Like Louis CK says: "Your'e in a CHAIR, in the SKY!! Everybody on every plane should be constantly going "Oh my GOD, Oh my GOD!!" New York to San Fransisco in five hours and you had to wait 20 whole minutes on the tarmac, well that used to take 30 YEARS getting there, now you watch a movie and take a dump and you're home."

I hear there is a mission where people who dont like this game are strapped on the tarmac and you get to land the helicopter on them repeatedly.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, but why are you making a distinction in ownership between residential and commercial property? Why can't it just be property that's owned and therefore simply private?

That was basically my question to you. I gave an example where the implicit social expectations, and legal expectations were completely different, despite both being privately owned.

What is the basis for your argument that they should be considered the same? Do you think those social and legal conventions should change to reflect that sameness?
>> ^blankfist:
When you buy a good, it becomes your property and you own it. If you purchase groceries, do you believe you have sole ownership of it? Or should that also be considered privately owned public food and therefore not really owned by you? See? It's doublespeak.

I gave an example where the line between public and private is blurry, you gave one where it is less so. I said a couple posts back that I believe there's a spectrum of ownership. Some objects, when owned, are clearly close to the libertarian ideal in terms of the benefits of ownership.

But let's go with specific object ownership for a second. Let's say you buy a cucumber, and I come up and stab it with a needle, should the penalty be the same as if I'd done the same thing to your arm? I mean, in both cases I'm damaging your property, but the cucumber will never heal, whereas your arm will, probably very quickly.

In either case, the monetary value of the damages done are trivial.

Should the police treat assaults on property the same as assault on people's bodies? If so, why? If not, why not?
>> ^blankfist:
That isn't aggression. And it certainly isn't constraining freedom. If the local grocery store doesn't want me as a customer, then I have the choice to go elsewhere.

Then the cartoons are totally valid portrayals of the fucked up things libertarians believe. So Rosa Parks should have made sure to check if it was a private or public bus before getting mad about being asked to move to the back of it?

I mean, that's the argument you're making here. On a Metro bus, discrimination is morally wrong (why?), but on a Greyhound bus, discrimination is the business owner's moral right, and should be enforced by the police if uppity negroes get it into their heads that they're people too.

This is the basic problem -- libertarians don't believe that "Civil Rights" are or should be rights.
>> ^blankfist:
He has limited my options, but so do places I cannot afford to eat at. Or what about private airports? Shit, why can't I walk on the tarmac of the Santa Monica Airport?! That's constraining my freedom, right?! Sigh.

Well, the Civil Rights Act doesn't forbid you "discriminating" for those reasons. You can still make service conditional on payment (or not), and you can still mark off "Employees only" sections of privately-owned public areas. Signs that say "No shirt, no shoes, no service" are okay. So is kicking someone out for being a jerk to you, or even for taking too long to order, Soup Nazi style.

It's about taking away your "freedom" to put a blanket ban on people on the basis of race, group, or class, and giving people who've been subjected to that kind of discrimination legal means of recourse.

@NetRunner, but why are you making a distinction in ownership between residential and commercial property? Why can't it just be property that's owned and therefore simply private? Before you concoct some exaggerated scenario where McDonalds builds a corporate building in a neighborhood and starts killing puppies in front of the neighborhood children, let's just assume for the sake of argument that zoning laws still apply for commercial and residential. Fair?

When you buy a good, it becomes your property and you own it. If you purchase groceries, do you believe you have sole ownership of it? Or should that also be considered privately owned public food and therefore not really owned by you? See? It's doublespeak.

Whether or not you're selling goods or services from your property or simply living in it, it's still private. I still don't get your idea of privately owned public land unless you're just reiterating what we already know, that Uncle Sam can steal your land any time he chooses. That much I'd agree with.

How about a "No Muslims" sign? How about a "No latinos" sign? How about a "No gays" sign? This might not be 1950's Alabama, but the US of 2010 isn't a paragon of virtue either.

Personally, I think it's totally fair to stop people from doing this. The object of these signs are being "aggressed against", they're having their freedom constrained, not because of something they've done wrong, or even had any choice about, but because of who they are.

That isn't aggression. And it certainly isn't constraining freedom. If the local grocery store doesn't want me as a customer, then I have the choice to go elsewhere. He has limited my options, but so do places I cannot afford to eat at. Or what about private airports? Shit, why can't I walk on the tarmac of the Santa Monica Airport?! That's constraining my freedom, right?! Sigh.

And @dystopianfuturetoday, the concept of liberty isn't subjective. You always say "a cat's liberty is a mouse's tyranny" or whatever. That makes no sense in the context of liberty, because a) cats eat mice where humans don't (typically) eat other humans and b) cats and mice lack reason and intelligence and cannot grasp higher constructs outside of base animal needs like eating, shitting and fucking. Terrible example.

I did something similar in motorcycle school. Wasn't going nearly as fast or cornering nearly as hard, and I thought I'd just give it a little squeeze, then BAM I was tobogganing on the asphalt all by myself for 10 feet. Apparently my (helmeted) head hit the pavement -- I didn't feel it -- I'd only had time to think "oh" as things went slanty and then I was down. Bike did pin my right foot against the tarmac for an instant as it hit and bounced, and I was limping for a few weeks.

Good object lesson though. No front brake while in a banking curve. (Some rear brake should be OK. Otherwise you gotsta stop the bank, straighten up, grab the front one before you exit your lane.)

Ouch, you NEVER want to hit the first wire...that means you are coming in way to shallow. The goal is to hit the third wire. That is a hard angle to make out if he was coming in to high then cut back throttle or if he was always coming in low. My guess is he was coming in to low. You NEVER are cutting throttle at that stage of a landing, in fact, you are applying throttle for just such an event as this. If you go through some assorted landing videos, you will always hear it get louder right as they are about to hit the tarmac, that is because you are supposed to throttle up to full throttle. If you are cutting throttle at that stage of a carrier landing, you should lose your wings.

I submit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecoeU2OugSg for some good first person view and sound of what a landing is.

We finally get rid of Bush and Cheney, and now we have to deal with an even bigger idiot. When will it stop?

My biggest gripe from this speech: She wants to get rid of our constitutional protections for people who are suspected of terrorism. Arg! Too stupid to live! Those protections are in place to protect *us*! Not them! It's easy to sit back and say we shouldn't be nice to terrorists, but who decides what terrorism is? Right there on the tarmac, law enforcement is supposed to know the guy is trained by Al'Qaeda? And because of that they should rough him up for more information? If she or a member of her family ever gets mistaken for a terrorist, you think she'll change her opinion? I bet she never thought of that. We extend those protections to everyone, because "everyone" includes *you*, moron. If they don't apply to everyone, then who decides when they should apply? That government bureaucrat you don't trust with your health care? But you trust them to decide who gets tortured?

Well I rode the first one that came out, and although they had gotten better this one was damn crude and uncomfortable. With that pipe pointing straignt at the tarmac it made an awful sound, not the sweeter Harley tone, but a smack smack smack that you couldn't get away from. The mirrors weren't usable because they jiggled like the ears of a bunny being gangbanged way up there on the fairing. Handling was better than any Harley obviously, but if you're going to make a sport bike, why use that gawdawful shared journal crank and narrow V like a piece scabbed of a radial aeroplane motor? I gotta say, sorta doomed from the start.

The container must have been sitting out in the taxiway when it got ingested. There's no way that this wouldn't get noticed during pushback, because besides the rampers, most international flights on pushback have a mechanic watching or on the headset, and specifically the Japanese flights always have a group of airline employees on the tarmac to bow or wave to the flight after it leaves the gate.

You just made me a MotoGP fan.

In reply to this comment by antonye:
>> ^rottenseed:
Thanks I was wondering what he meant by a blue flag. So there's a flag to let you know you're better off packing your bags?


Yes, the blue flag is shown to warn riders that the race leaders are about to lap them. You're supposed to be nice and get off the racing line so the leaders can pass unhindered and you then rejoin.

This is why it's otherwise known as the "there's a race going on and you ain't in it" flag

As for comments about why they're not hurting themselves, the type of crash (a "low-side" where the bike falls due to loss of grip) means that the energy is spent by the rider sliding along the tarmac. The idea is that the run-off (usually grass and then "kitty litter" gravel) will dissipate this energy so you are taken away from the track and slowed down without hitting a barrier. That's not to say that injuries don't happen; should you be rolling or catch something and start to tumble, you're likely to break bones as your arms/legs go flailing. This whiplash will dislocate limbs if you're lucky and break them if you're not. Wayne Rainey was paralysed from the chest down in one such incident while racing in 1993.

Modern riding kit helps a lot; leather is still very difficult to beat (some use Kangaroo leather, others use Stingray skin!) and with reinforced areas and protectors (usually for knees, elbows, shoulders, back and chest) it means you can walk away from a 200mph slide.

For sheer bone-breaking madness, you really don't want to "high-side" a bike. This is where the rear of the bike will lose traction and start to slide. This has the dual effect of tilting the bike and moving it off axis of the direction of travel, like a handbrake turn in a car. This also compresses the rear suspension, usually a single shock absorber. The problem comes when, due to the rear wheel slowing down through sideways motion, the rear wheel grips again. At this point the bike will now try to rotate around the horizontal axis (from one side to the other) due to the sudden grip stopping the slide. This gives the rear suspension a chance to uncompress, and has the effect of firing the rider out of the seat. Give it enough speed, slide and compression and you've just invented the Motorcycle Ejector Seat.

For some great crashes in MotoGP, the bike equivalent of Formula 1, have a look here (fast forward to 5m10s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLZEKQHyxMI
And yes, if you watched the #1 crash, Jorge Lorenzo really did break *both* his ankles in qualifying, but went on to race and came 4th!

>> ^rottenseed:
Thanks I was wondering what he meant by a blue flag. So there's a flag to let you know you're better off packing your bags?


Yes, the blue flag is shown to warn riders that the race leaders are about to lap them. You're supposed to be nice and get off the racing line so the leaders can pass unhindered and you then rejoin.

This is why it's otherwise known as the "there's a race going on and you ain't in it" flag

As for comments about why they're not hurting themselves, the type of crash (a "low-side" where the bike falls due to loss of grip) means that the energy is spent by the rider sliding along the tarmac. The idea is that the run-off (usually grass and then "kitty litter" gravel) will dissipate this energy so you are taken away from the track and slowed down without hitting a barrier. That's not to say that injuries don't happen; should you be rolling or catch something and start to tumble, you're likely to break bones as your arms/legs go flailing. This whiplash will dislocate limbs if you're lucky and break them if you're not. Wayne Rainey was paralysed from the chest down in one such incident while racing in 1993.

Modern riding kit helps a lot; leather is still very difficult to beat (some use Kangaroo leather, others use Stingray skin!) and with reinforced areas and protectors (usually for knees, elbows, shoulders, back and chest) it means you can walk away from a 200mph slide.

For sheer bone-breaking madness, you really don't want to "high-side" a bike. This is where the rear of the bike will lose traction and start to slide. This has the dual effect of tilting the bike and moving it off axis of the direction of travel, like a handbrake turn in a car. This also compresses the rear suspension, usually a single shock absorber. The problem comes when, due to the rear wheel slowing down through sideways motion, the rear wheel grips again. At this point the bike will now try to rotate around the horizontal axis (from one side to the other) due to the sudden grip stopping the slide. This gives the rear suspension a chance to uncompress, and has the effect of firing the rider out of the seat. Give it enough speed, slide and compression and you've just invented the Motorcycle Ejector Seat.

For some great crashes in MotoGP, the bike equivalent of Formula 1, have a look here (fast forward to 5m10s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLZEKQHyxMI
And yes, if you watched the #1 crash, Jorge Lorenzo really did break *both* his ankles in qualifying, but went on to race and came 4th!