|
Agreed, domestic business and first are a joke.
All my flights are (long) international ones and I pretty much always fly BA World Traveller Plus (premium economy) which gives you more legroom and slightly wider seats in an otherwise cattle class cabin. I've had the good fortune to be upgraded to Club World (business) on several occasions, but am too poor to pay for a real business class ticket myself.
I get my kicks watching first class long haul videos posted by passengers on various airlines on YouTube. 
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Ravi Bhavnani wrote: too poor to pay for a real business class ticket myself.
I'm too cheap to pay for it too but I've gotten a few free upgrades and my company has ponied up a couple times.
BA and Lufthansa both offer excellent 1st class service.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
Brilliant! 
I have to say the airlines do make it easy to hate them, so I don't have a lot of sympathy for them in this case 
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
*raises hand*
Why the hell would anyone want airline food for free or any other price?
|
|
|
|
|
Ah. You don;t travel Business or First class then. The food in the lounges is not Airline Food - it's always been pretty damn good when I've eaten it, and generally with free drinks as well...
Mind you, Business and First Class food is much, much better than Cattle class on every airline I've flown on as well. Not good enough to make the price worthwhile, but good.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
/me nods. Fair enough. No. I certainly haven't.
|
|
|
|
|
It has it's advantages, if you can get someone else to pay for it (or a free upgrade!)
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: change fees
Which don't usually exist on a full fare ticket.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Shows you how often I've paid for a full fare ticket (never). Thanks
Not that I'm planning on trying this way of playing it.
--------------
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't call it the fallibility of science, but the hubris of thinking that understanding a tiny part one thing means you understand the whole thing. It also skirts the issue of funding; namely that to get it, you need to do research in and publish about the latest fad, regardless of what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
i like how writing about the uncertainties in science doesn't require any data. no surveys, no polls, no studies. just whining and mindreading and conspiracy theories.
|
|
|
|
|
Whereas writing about AGW requires data from a computer model and no more...
Lack of warming for 17 years is data enough for anyone to think about uncertainty.
|
|
|
|
|
beats mindreading and whining and inane conspiracy theories.
of course, since there's a market for this denial crap, there's no surprise that it thrives.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I agree, its the facts that are important. This is science after all.
|
|
|
|
|
Your monomania is showing again.
Also the fact that thinking it's all about models shows how little you've looked into it.
--------------
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it is all about models, there are no real world facts that back the models up.
But thats not a problem. Back then, it was a good theory, we all bought it, but time moved on, facts changed, and we need to adjust the science. ITs as simple process, its the process of science itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: Well, it is all about models, there are no real world facts that back the models up.
Nonsense
|
|
|
|
|
One pole warming isnt much you know, especially since it was as warm in the 40s.
|
|
|
|
|
Erudite_Eric wrote: One pole warming isnt much you know, especially since it was as warm in the 40s.
I suggest that you look up the term "cherry picking"
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, let me cherry pick 3500 bc then.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: facts changed
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to disappoint you: global warming never implied growing your own bananas and lemons in Norway.
What it does mean is putting more energy into the atmosphere - storms bigger and more often, stormy seasons extending, and weather patterns changing. It could even potentially account for the rather brutish cold much of the US is going through of late. Consider what a couple or so degrees of warmed ocean would do during the hurricane season.
Or not. The thing about weather is that any short range of time doesn't give one really any result at all as weather is what is known as a strange attractor (q.v.).
But forgetting all the political nonsense, I put to you the following information which IS indisputable:
- The earth is in a dynamic steady state with respect to energy: radiational heating in on the day side, out on the night side. These reach a balance, with the environment acting as a buffer.
- Sources: We are putting ancient CO2 into the atmosphere. Not only by burning fossil fuels but by releasing it from minerals in order to trap SO2 to avoid acid rain (another conspiracy?)
- Sinks: We are removing the components of the earth, such as rain forests and forest in general which trap carbon from the atmosphere.
- Thus, the system must reach a new equilibrium. Period. You make up anything you wish as to what the new state will be - but it will most definitely be.
At this point, a mitigating circumstance, such as a huge volcanic eruption, could cause extreme cooling, counteracting some of this temporarily, but unless we return to nuclear power, we'll burn even more fossil fuel and emerge in an even more unstable system.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
The thing is that even though we are producing CO2 it is not sure it is actually contributing to warming. It should be, but there isnt a signal that can be distinctly attributed to CO2.
Proof of this is obvious. POst War cooling to 1975, while CO2 increased. POst 1998 no warming, while CO2 ioncreased, pre 1940 warming periods, 3 of them, extending back 2 centuries, while CO2 didnt increase.
Thers in no distinct trace in the record that can be attributed to CO2. So all AGW is just a theory, and not an observable fact.
What IS the case is that warming has not progressed as was expected. One pole refuses to warm, the troposphere refuses to warm, WV refuses to increase, source is NASA WV project, the other I wont quote, they should be obvious enough and well known.
These are all unexpected, and hence also shed doubt on the theory of AGW.
Anyway, science moves on, we shoulud all keep up with it and nnot become fixated on old ideas lest they become ideology.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
