50MPG on a 'Busa and 75MPG on a Ninja 650? Did you two break your right wrists or something? :P

I regularly get only low to mid 40's on my DL650 (not nearly as quick as either a 'Busa or a Ninja), and I have never seen higher than 60 MPG (and that, only once). Maybe it's the saddle bags, the crashbars, and/or the 80/20 dual-sport tires? Regardless, that's pretty awesome fuel consumption :thumb_up:

From TFS:

...and make cars that perform like crap. My motorcycle gets 44MPG and will smoke every Prius or other zero emissions vehicle available to the general public (maybe not a Tesla, but I'd still take one on). Then there's the dubious "protect the environment" claim. There've been enough posts here on ./ about how the batteries used in electric vehicles are actually worse for the environment than the gas-burners they are replacing, so if the auto industry goes that route to try to reach these mandates, I doubt it will be as good for the environment as our rose-glasses dreamers are suggesting.

Then again, I'm in a bit of a pissy mood today (despite my sig), so I'm probably just looking for the negative (sorry).

I can't answer for anyone else, but from my perspective, I "grew out of" it because it made no practical difference to me. Whether I am real or a figment of someone/something else's imagination is irrelevant from my point of view. So long as I perceive pain, enjoyment, etc. from my experiences, whether real or imagined, I will continue to act in a way that maximizes enjoyment and minimizes pain. If I suddenly discover irrefutable proof that I am not really "real" but that I am merely a figment of some great cosmic being's imagination, I still won't quit my job, leave my wife and daughter, or anything else *because I still perceive the world around me* -- even if it, too, is merely a figment of something else's imagination. Consequently, this line of reasoning is a dead end: it makes no practical difference to how I live my life. Therefore, I concentrate my energy on things that *do* impact my life.

c) all of the above.

Sounds like an ideal solution: you get to stay young for an entire lifetime, yet the world still doesn't end up overpopulated :P

Interesting concept. Can you explain *why* you believe this is so?

I don't even know what this means...is that an attempt to be "deep" by going all metaphysical, or what? It kind of sounds like you are suggesting that all of us are just figments of someone/something's imagination. If so, well, that was an intriguing concept back when I was elementary school, but now...not so much.

<shrug> But so long as life is interesting and enjoyable, what's the problem? Personally, I'm with cayenne8 on this one. If I'm healthy and fit, then I wouldn't mind having a bit more time here on earth. I'm not saying I'd like to be immortal -- as others have noted, there would still be accidental deaths, and it would suck spending millenia without your loved ones -- but if we could find a way to keep the biological machinery functional for a century or two longer, I wouldn't mind having a little more time to be in my prime before succumbing to the inevitable.

Oh, one other thing...if you like Linux, then I'd recommend getting some experience in other *Nix environments, as well. Download and try one of the *BSD's. They are a little different, but you'll pick it up pretty quickly. Try to get your hands on Solaris or OpenSolaris (is that still available?). These are easy ways for a competent Linux guy to broaden his skills without too much effort, and one of those buzzwords just might get you past the HR filters and into an interview.

Funny, but I'm not sure I agree entirely (and I say that as one who *does* work -- professionally -- with Linux on a daily basis and really doesn't like Windows all that much).

If you want to work with Linux professionally, then by all means, polish those skillsets. Maybe an RHCE or LPCE wouldn't hurt, although I don't hold either one. But the big key, IME, is not to snub other skills, either. Yes, I work in a shop that uses mostly Linux servers (even Linux-based routers, made by a company called ImageStream, who I highly recommend), but we also use Cisco routers, Brocade switches and a few Windows servers -- and I work on them all. Let's face it, most places today, IT professionals wear many hats; being a one-trick pony doesn't cut it.

I was shooting for a laugh, but apparently I missed the mark, lol.

I was in Austin a few years ago, and heard the comment, "Austin isn't so much a *PART* of Texas as it is *SURROUNDED* by Texas." I thought it was kind of funny, not least of all because the quote was equally applicable to my own hometown of Anchorage, substituting "Alaska" for "Texas," of course :)

Slightly off-topic: while in Austin, I heard an awesome band called "Flyjack" play at a club called (IIRC) Antone's. Whatever else you have to say about the place, it's got a killer music scene!

I thought the state motto was "Don't Mess With Texas!" Looked like it at least, as often as I saw that printed upon everything in sight, last time I was down there...

From TFS:

I suspect not, actually.

There are certainly cases where this could be a useful technology, especially in rural or remote areas. I happen to live in a state (Alaska) that has far more area NOT covered by cellular or WiFi hot spots than IS covered by them, so I can certainly see niche use-cases for this tech. Yet I'm still skeptical that this is going to be a game-changer for mobile computing.

I rather suspect the author of TFS has never actually *USED* satellite links for any kind of Internet activity. About two years ago, the company I work for used satellite Internet to connect to a number of remote field sites. As a network administrator, I got the dubious pleasure (hah!) of trying to maintain routers, switches and even a couple of servers on the far side of that satellite link. CLI connections, like SSH, were slow...sometimes painfully so. GUI connections, like remote desktop or VNC required large doses of valium to even be tolerable (I kid, but not by much). Just to show that I'm not a high-bandwidth prima donna, I was using -- and reasonably happy with -- a 768k x 320k DSL line for my home Internet connection at the time.

Trust me -- if you have 3G, 4G or WiFi connectivity, I guarantee you will use it rather than satellite Internet. You won't save money by using satellite, and you will be very, very disappointed with your throughput.

Point taken, on both counts.

Oops...you are correct. My apologies.

I own a smartphone, but I only set up my personal e-mail on it. If something is broken after hours, we have a department tasked with monitoring our network after hours who knows how to reach me.