Developing a Process for Visualizing the Insanity
30dayflight.com
30dayflight.com
Pasting here for convenience - (by robg) Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
If your account is less than a year old, please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. (It's a common semi-noob illusion.)
That's what makes Mark Boulton's Drupal work so interesting as well:
"How do we choose who to fund? The people in your group are what matter most to us. We look for brains, motivation, and a sense of design. Experience is helpful but not critical."
Dinner and drinks on me, maybe even a place to crash if we're in the same place at the same time. I imagine other hackers would do the same if they knew.
I think we have overnight stays in Ft Lauderdale, Denver, Chicago, Long Beach, San Francisco, and Burlington, VT (tonight). Most of the flights leave the early the next day at 6:00am though, so they're not much of "stays".
Better to make sure that ozone layer didn't die for nothing :)
Given how lucky we are in the west to have the resources we do it would be nice if we tried to use them responsibly.
Point is, he's not actively destroying the ozone layer and almost everything we do, from daily tasks to journeys like these, comes at some cost.
As a practical example of this trade-off, imagine the cost of creating a documentary film. The environment might be hurt by driving all over, or flying a film crew around. But was it worth it? Depends on the film.
Let them make their "film" before you're a critic. :)
I don't see why a month of constant, needless flying is needed to for this premise. Documenting a bicycle trip using web 2.0 techniques, for example, would be a similar project without the subtext of needless consumption.
Also, the added effect to our planet by having a plane that's going to fly regardless carry 2 additional people (plus the weight of their luggage) is minuscule at worst.
I suggest a reading of "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman for a look at just how durable our planet is. (http://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Us-Alan-Weisman/dp/03124...)
As for "The World Without Us", I'm confident that the world will continue to exist even if it's uninhabitable for humans. The issue is preserving conditions favorable to human survival, i.e. having a functioning ozone layer.
"Less total weight carried, across the system as a whole, would result in less fuel consumption."
While this is correct from very simple standpoint, what are you really saying?
"The system carries n amount of weight." Okay, I can accept that.
"The system carries less weight if one person does not fly." True, but that one person's weight is offset on the specific flight in question by cargo.
For a very large value of n, n-200 = n. An airplane takes a massive amount of fuel to accelerate to rotation speed (it's not just pushing you and cargo, it's also shoving vast quantities of aluminum, steel, plastic and fuel.) The empty weight of a 747-400 (the industry standard) is 400,000 lbs., of which 200 is no factor.
If that empty plane takes off, it will use 100 times the body weight of a human being in fuel during takeoff operations alone and continue to burn as much during each hour of cruise flight. Adding humans decreases range. Adding cargo decreases range. Fuel will be burned.
Your statement assumes a very simple model of "if I don't get on that plane, I'm saving the environment." The actual model is "if at least 200 people don't get on that plane, a seasonally-appropriate ~15 minute delay will happen until cargo can be loaded."
I feel, therefore, that I have contradicted your statement quite soundly. I assure you that I have no interest in representing myself as an environment-hating industry apologist.
>While this is correct from very simple standpoint, what are you really saying?
What I'm saying is quite simple. Carelessly wasting resources, as unnecessarily flying nonstop for a month does, wastes resources and we shouldn't condone it.
>that one person's weight is offset on the specific flight in question by cargo.
If someone doesn't fly and cargo is substituted for them, that amount of cargo doesn't need to be flown on a separate flight. The less flights the less fuel consumed and the less environmental damage, no?