81–90 of 147 posts
I was thinking about this same idea earlier today: Buses in Philadelphia have a bunch of "No Eating and Drinking" signs and consequently no trash cans. The result is that the back of the bus is covered in trash. If they had just 1 or two trash cans it would be a much more pleasant ride.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fire hazard maybe? Trash cans were removed from commuter trains in Stockholm since they were constantly being set on fire. They're on our buses though. Go to England and you won't see trash cans in train stations at all.
In England we do have bins in stations, but now days they generally consist of a transparent bin bag with no surrounding material (e.g. held open by a loop at the top that's attached to a wall). I believe the logic is that it makes it harder to hide a bomb in them, though whether this is fact or just commonly quoted myth I have no idea.
Remember being on a long haul flight and passenger next to me would disappear to the lavatory clearly sneaking a smoke. He also snuck off to sleep in first class. We have rules in place for the minority of society who lack common sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Drivers are not conductors and I doing one job is hard enough, now you think they should have 3? It's probably cheaper to have a trashcan onboard than an armed driver. Yes, when you threaten people with ejection sometimes they threaten you right back.
Huh? Drivers are gatekeepers that let people onto the bus and validate that the people that enter the bus have tickets. If people don't respect what the driver says, the driver should stop the bus, and call security and then not move until the issue is resolved. There should be no tolerance at all for people that threatens the driver.
And all of this could have been avoided with a trashcan on the bus.
If you've watched anything on youtube you'll see that people escalate a situation for some of the stupidest things. The world is full of crazy people and they drive or take the bus too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How exactly do they save money by not recycling air? You don't have to pay for air during flight - it comes from the outside air and is free, it's not canisters or something.
I've heard it has something to do with the air filters. Less smoking = less clogging of the filters = less air filters replacement = more money to airlines. Just heard that, don't know if it's true.
That's interesting news to me. I did wonder why smoking paraphernalia continued to appear in planes that were covered in anti-smoking insignia. I always assumed that the bathrooms, seat etc were made in large quantities, and that there are a lot of countries in the world where you can still light up in a flight, not to mention privately owned planes. I once flew on a Japan Air Lines flight back in the '90s. At that s…
Yet, people still smoke around pumps at gas stations and even throw the butt to the ground.
Alternative idea: allow the flight attendants to hand out nicotine patches. :-)
Ryanair sell "e-cigarettes" on their flights.
This reminds me of a presentation by Twitter at a conference where they discussed MTBR (Mean Time Before Recovery) instead of MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure). Instead of trying to prevent all possible failures, they focused on acceptable failure and speedy recovery. If a server takes twice as long to response to a request, mark it offline and let the automated recovery process diagnose the problem and if it's just an…
Airliners are designed to withstand failure, not to not have any failures. It's a change in perspective, and is very effective. Both the Fukishima plant and the Deep Water Horizon rig were unable to withstand single failures.
I think the author gives the federal government too much credit. Which is more likely: the government out-witted people by thinking ahead and foreseeing people would break the law, so they write a law to counter it; or, they left the law on the books from when smoking was legal and never amended it? I think the latter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How exactly do they save money by not recycling air? You don't have to pay for air during flight - it comes from the outside air and is free, it's not canisters or something.
You do have to pay for air if you care what pressure it is at. Non-Sherpas will demand a refund of their ticket price if provided air at ambient pressure at 35000 ft.
Yes, you can increase the pressure. But then your flying tube in a low pressure environment may explode
Or it'll suffer a bigger expansion/contraction with every cycle and hence less cycles or metal fatigue and failure at 37000feet (passenger won't ask for a refund as they will be unable to do)
So the "cabin altitude" is really a balance between mechanical resistance and people not passing out (though this may be a good idea with some passengers)