not everywhere. In some place they are,or have been, banned. Religious nutters strike again!
Given that I grew up in the Bible Belt, I don't the religious nutter comment applies.
Of course, they could have just been telling us they were banned to get us interested, but i specifically remember reading The Grapes of Wrath, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Beloved, and I remember other classmates of mine reading the Great Gatsby, of Mice and Men, and the Catcher in the Rye.
Looking at the banned book list, I have read about half of them. Not because they are on the list, just incidentally. I like Tolkien. I like Vonnegut. Those guys are both featured artists on the list.
Right. So when any of the normal annual changes take place (the way they handle certain experimental drugs or therapies, the way they handle certain hospital scenarios, etc), the insurer can no longer provide the plan - the ACA shuts it down because it doesn't provide post-menopausal women maternity care, etc.
So I am a bit confused about why that is a problem. The cost to the insurer of offering maternity care to post-menopausal women should be about zero. Why not tack that onto an otherwise good plan if that's what the law requires? Wouldn't that make more sense than scrapping the plan for such a flimsy reason?
Lately, I know I have been spending way too much time behind a desk and not enough time doing any kind of exercise. Heck, I haven't even had time to mow the lawn in 6 weeks. Unfortunately, when I get done working for the day, like right now, it is dark. The banks are closed, the post office is closed, the stores are all closed. And of course, I will be up again and working in about 5 hours, and there won't be time in between to mow the lawn because it won't be light out, and the stores will not yet be open, nor the bank, nor the post office. Sigh.
All this lack of activity from working behind a desk has made me get tired way too quickly when I do exercise, and if I eat even a medium (for me) amount of food, I feel like I have eaten too much. I sometimes don't feel like eating at all, because I feel like the food won't set right. I haven't lost a battle with my stomach yet, but it feels that way sometimes. I'm not horribly overweight. I'm 6'2 and about 220. That is obese by medical standards, but I am probably at about the 30th percentile for people my age from my observation.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I didn't design the train control system.
That's good that it's conservative like that, but does it actually bring it to a complete stop short of the mark? There have been times when I've been driving a full train that it slowed a bit more aggressively than I would have expected, but it was easy to just modulate the brakes to hit the mark without stopping short. Then again, our trains were substantially lighter (about 50 tons empty, 80 tons crush load), so I'm sure it was easier for us to deal with the varying inertia.
Our trains had a pair of tachometers that measured speed, along with fixed transponders every thousand feet or so along the beamway. Between the tachs and the transponders, the train could figure out where it was and how fast it was going to quite a good degree of accuracy. When the tachs disagreed with one another or if a transponder was missed we'd get an indication, even though the train still knew exactly where it was. I'm sure integrating the tach inputs over time to get an acceleration value would be relatively trivial.
I have a perspective on this that most probably don't, as I was a monorail driver at Disney World for a number of years. Contrary to what some might imagine, the current Bombardier Mark VI trains there are not attractions but are in fact full-up transit vehicles, and Bombardier continues to sell them as such (although with different bodies and newer electronics). If D.C.'s trains handle anything like ours did, I can understand why some of the drivers short-stop or otherwise have problems.
Our Mark VI trains were originally designed to accommodate automation as well, but I don't think this in itself really is a factor. More importantly, each train had its own "personality" and handled differently, and all of them would take between one and two seconds to respond after an input was commanded except for E-stops, which instantly opened the relay contactors and applied air to the friction brakes. One train might be ultra-responsive (relatively) to the throttle and have really tight brakes, which made it easy to drive and predict stopping distances with great accuracy. Others would act like your control inputs were more of a suggestion than a command, necessitating that you be looking a little ahead of where you actually wanted to be in order to stop where you were supposed to. We had some drivers that had difficulty dealing with that, and would often blow their stops by a couple of feet or so on a train with loose brakes, or would stop short if they were in a tighter train that didn't require so much anticipation of its behavior. I don't think I ever had a short stop, but did have trains "slide" on me a few times and missed the stop by just enough to have to back up a couple of inches to get lined up with the gates.
I would imagine transit trains everywhere exhibit similar unique peculiarities, and the only consistent way to deal with it is for the driver to be ultra-conservative, which can lead to the occasional short stop. It's not so much a problem for an automation system that can directly respond in milliseconds and isn't being moved between trains with wildly varying performance characteristics.