No, there is something worse. Try having 40+ guys sharing 2 stalls--or worse, 350 people sharing 7. Just take whatever the building code says for restroom requirements and triple it. Make sure you have a shower or two on site, as well as good ventilation for the bathrooms.

Next, install a couple of restaurant-level coffeemakers (they can handle a high duty cycle with abuse) and supply coffee, filters, and generic creamer/sugar.

A cafeteria is a little too much for a small company like the OP works at.

It's not a game-changer because it is a luxury car. I understand the whole early-adopter thing, but for it to really be a game-changer, it needs to be much more affordable.

Ford has come closer with the new C-max plug-in, but it's still priced a little high (and only offering it in the premium trim package doesn't help matters). I seriously considered buying one, but the cost difference was too great (too long of a payback time) and there's too much cargo room sacrificed. I'm probably going with the regular hybrid, if I can ever find one to test drive...

Much as I don't like GM, this has bugged me. Breakeven, NRE vs. RE, etc. need to be taught in high-school economics (which really ought to be a full-year class).

What I have found is showing around 15 military missions, not nearly the 2/3 figure you're suggesting.

Now, if we're talking design features of the shuttle, those were heavily influenced by military requirements. The only way NASA could get enough funding to build the shuttle was to ask the military, which imposed significant performance requirements that drove up the weight and complexity of the shuttle. And, while useful, the additional capability was never fully used, nor was it ever used for its intended purpose.

Why is this modded informative? 35lb of weight savings is a big deal even on large aircraft. Aircraft manufacturers will spend thousands of dollars (even in recurring costs) to save a single pound of weight, let alone 35. And it doesn't matter what other factors are present, that 35lb saved is still 35lb less weight the aircraft carries around, reducing fuel burn--and that amount is quantified in the performance equations, and is measureable over time. Or, it's another 35lb of revenue-generating payload that can be carried.

But then, I'm just an engineer at an aircraft manufacturer, and a pilot. What do I know?

The graphing calculators have additional functions (not just the ability to create graphs) and are programmable--a built-in BASIC-like language allows for simple programs and scripts to be written, and assembly programming gives more complex options.

However, that's not what really drives the cost. The TI-8X series ones, and some of the HP calculators, are a known standard, and many tests (SAT, AP tests, etc. if I'm remembering correctly) will not allow other brands to be used, only these specified models. TI and HP have essentially a duopoly on the market; they convinced standardized test makers and school boards to only allow use of their calculators and thereby made a captive market. They've kept the performance and construction the same over those years, and really charge far more for those products than it takes to make them at this point.

My TI-86 seemed really cool in 9th grade. I didn't realize how truly limited it was until I got a smartphone.

No you don't. So long as you stay within the federal law (i.e., make them for personal use only, and not make too many of them), and you don't build anything that isn't otherwise prohibited in that state or federally (e.g., Class 3 weapons without the appropriate paperwork, etc.), you're pretty much ok. In other words, if you can legally buy it and own it, you can make it.

The only states I could see that might have restrictions on manufacturing would be California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

That can happen in Atlanta, too. Summer is either very hot and humid with no wind, or hot and humid with a thunderstorm, and it's a toss-up which one you'll get on any given day. Savannah is like that too--heck, the whole southeast is. And not everyone works in large cities or places where the roads are friendly to cyclists.

His office may be in a place dangerous to cyclists, or his work hours may not support it.

That's like my situation; to cycle to work, I'd either have to ride on an interstate (yeah, right) or a major artery for truck (semitrailer) traffic, in the dark. Cycling home means the same, except in very hot weather and dodging thunderstorms. I'd love to be able to ride to work, but between these other factors and not wanting to show up soaked through in sweat... I'll pass. I just throw the bike on the car before I leave, and stop at a more cyclist-friendly loop on the way home to do my riding.

The limitations on where you can fly have been eliminated, at least once you are out of the flight-test phase (7 hours for E-LSA, 25 for E-AB with certified engines, 40 for E-AB with non-certified engines). The prohibition on flying for commercial purposes is still in place.

That isn't certification, though. A certified aircraft (anything factory-built, basically) has to meet very particular standards for performance, function, reliability, etc. That takes a lot of paperwork and testing (I know this because I am an engineer at an aircraft manufacturer). It also requires very tight control of the manufacturing process, and requires that any modifications or deviations be approved.

Homebuilt aircraft are given airworthiness certificates, but that is expressly not a certification. There's a little formality to it, but it's basically a quick check to make sure you didn't do something horribly obviously wrong (like forget to hook up your controls, or leave a wing off, or forget your basic instruments). You're also required to perform some level of test-flying. And even after that's done, you can't carry passengers or cargo for hire, or use the airplane for any commercial purpose (like banner towing or aerial photography).

With a certified light airplane, you get a guarantee that the aircraft meets certain performance and safety standards, a proven flight envelope, greater flexibility with use, and a wider resale market. However, you have to pay a licensed mechanic for all your maintenance (including annual inspections) past things like changing your oil, you have to follow the manufacturer's maintenance program, and making changes or modifications (or even buying replacement parts) can be very expensive.

A homebuilt airplane will generally give you better performance for your money in terms of range, speed, payload, maneuverability, etc., and there are many more options to choose from than on the certified market. It is also much more customizable (you can fit any equipment to it that you want), and the maintenance is much cheaper because you can do it all yourself, even if the airplane is secondhand (except for the annual inspection--you can only do that yourself if you were the primary builder). Homebuilts also tend to have newer, fancier "stuff" than certified airplanes, because you don't have to go through lengthy certification processes to add those things.

On the negative side, homebuilts do not come with that guarantee of performance or safety standards. That doesn't mean that they don't meet them (many do), just that they aren't proven to have done so. They are also subject to varying degrees of build quality--some builders produce amazing stuff, others I wouldn't trust to build a Lego kit properly. Designs with many flying examples (or those from established kit makers) are generally less risky than one-offs; airplanes built closely to plans generally have less risk than those with drastic modifications or unusual engine installations. You also lose flexibility with use; you can't use the airplane for commercial purposes, and your resale market is much smaller--fewer people are willing to buy used homebuilts. And finally (obviously), you have to invest the build time--something that's enjoyable to some, and a nightmare to others.

My dad and I (along with a little help from the rest of the family) built an airplane while I was in high school. I'm now looking to build one myself (albeit a smaller, more affordable one) as soon as I finish saving up the money for the kit.

Maybe if manufacturers didn't only offer diesels on the highest trim package, people would buy them. But unless you already wanted all of the bells and whistles, it's not worth paying the extra for them just to get the efficient option.

There's what's legal on the books, and then what's possible in practice. Outside of a few places that get all of their revenue from giving tickets to out-of-town drivers, I can't think of anywhere that police will stop you for less than 10 over on the interstate.

Most of the longer trips I've taken (on I-95, I-10, I-75...) traffic seems to flow around 75-80mph.

And in places like Atlanta, if you aren't doing at least 10 over, you're putting yourself in danger.

I'm very definitely right-handed, but I tend to hold the book in my right and flip pages with the left.

I use a "normal" right-handed mouse setup, but I also have a 3D spacemouse for my left hand--a vital tool for doing CAD work.

What's interesting is piloting--single-seat (or tandem-seat) fixed-wing aircraft, all helicopters, and some miltary side-by-side aircraft are set up so that the pilot holds the stick/yoke in the right hand, and the throttles in the left. But as a general rule, in civilian and most transport aircraft, the primary pilot (captain, PIC, etc.) flies from the left side, and holds the stick in his left hand because there's only one set of throttles in the middle. Given a couple hours and landings to adjust, I've never had trouble making the switch from flying one way to flying the other (e.g., flying from the other seat), and neither have any other pilots I've talked to. (Really, the biggest challenge is the different sight picture from the other seat, not the manipulation of the controls)

Lighter turnout gear is always a good thing, but given that the greater threat is heated gases (ambient temperature in a fire room can be a few hundred degrees, and you'll operate there for minutes at a time) and some physical protection against contact with hot and/or sharp objects, and seeing that some level of thickness and insulation will be necessary for that, I doubt this will make much of a difference.

Now, if you could somehow significantly increase the breathable air our packs contain, while making the pack itself lighter and less bulky (and yet easy to refill/swap bottles)... that is something we'd be all for.

I was never taught that, and none of us would ever consider doing that in a fire, because

Not to mention possibly burning our lungs, inhaling smoke and toxic gases, dropping the helmet, etc.

We aren't going to remove helmet and facepiece; we're just going to grab the kid and get him out of there, and worry about calming him down outside, where it's cooler and has breathable air.