Just wondering..

[Cedric Chang-2]

Is this the piclist or Pratchett?
Who is Prachett ?
cc

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu



--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

>
> On Feb 26, 2008, at 4:30 PM, sergio masci wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, James Newton wrote:
>
>> Wouter, I don't understand the difference between naturally  
>> occurring veins
>> of radioactive ore being exposed by some natural or unnatural  
>> upheaval and
>> that same sort of exposure happening to spent fuel rods.
>>
>> Shit happens. At least with Yukka Mt. we will know were it is and  
>> can react
>> if there does happen to be a problem in the future. Mother nature  
>> could
>> belch up a load of yellow cake in Utah or Arizona tomorrow and no  
>> one would
>> even know it was dangerous. (where is your radiation detector?)
>> http://www.mesauranium.com/s/Home.asp
>>
>> We mine the ore out of the ground, refine it, use it, and then stress
>> ourselves to death about putting it back? How exactly are we worse  
>> off than
>> we were before we dug it up and purified it? Why not just dilute  
>> the heck
>> out of it and spray it into the air? Or dump it in the ocean? Or,  
>> here is a
>> radical idea, put it back where we got it from in the first place?
>>
>> My guess is that more people die from air pollution due to coal fired
>> electrical generation plants every year than would die from radiation
>> poisoning if we just chopped the fuel rods up really fine and fed  
>> it to the
>> population along with the Mercury and PCB's in their fish sticks.
>>
>> And yes, I'm being purposely shocking and "over the top" but I'm  
>> hoping it
>> makes the point: Radiation is but one of many hazards that we all  
>> live with.
>> We have cut ourselves off from an alternative source of  
>> electricity that
>> might well be much less hazardous in the long run because of an  
>> unjustified
>> fear of that one type of hazard.
>>
>> We need perspective: Look at how many people have died (or will  
>> die) due to
>> our dependence on fossile fuels then compare that to the actual  
>> number of
>> people who died (or will die) from Chernobyl.
>>
>> I live and work downwind from an active nuke power plant. Odds  
>> are, I will
>> die of a heart attack, cancer, stroke or auto accident.
>> http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds_dying.jpg How much could  
>> another nuke
>> plant reduce my odds of lung cancer?
>>
>
> If you really stop and think about it, the reason people don't want
> nuclear power plants has nothing to do with the danger of radition.  
> It's
> to do with trust. We don't trust the people in charge to do the right
> thing by US.
>
> We don't trust them to put OUR interests before THEIR own prockets, we
> don't trust them to be competent at their own jobs and we certainly  
> don't
> trust them to keep us safe.

You don't have to trust them.  Just look at the aggregate statistics  
which including megalomaniacs and incompetents ( including  
Chernobyl ) and you will know how to roll the dice.
cc

> Regards
> Sergio
> --
>
>
>
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

>
> On Feb 26, 2008, at 2:19 PM, David VanHorn wrote:
>
>> Wow  #1 The U.S. is not peace loving now. #2 You bet your life every
>> day that the area you live in is geologically stable.  You bet the
>> neighbor is not going to go "postal".  If you drive, you bet the
>> driver next to you will not die in their sleep in the next 10
>> seconds.  The only difference with nuke stuff is that glimmering
>> boogie men rise out of abandoned caves, turn your family into ketchup
>> slobbering vampires and make geiger counters vibrate off the table.
>
> And Hot Frogs on the Loose!
>
> http://www.frogsonice.com/froggy/songs/hot-frogs.shtml
>
> A favorite singer of mine.

Yezzzzzzz my precious


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

On Feb 26, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Bob Axtell wrote:

James Newton wrote:

>>
>>
> It is unlikely that the USA will survive the present financial crisis
> unscathed. It _certainly_ will be long gone
> within 100 years.
>
> Here is what I believe will happen shortly (within 25 years):
>
> 1. Mexico will become part of a North American Union, together with  
> the
> USA and (probably)
> Canada and /or Honduras..
>
> 2. Gold will again circulate as the article of exchange, as paper  
> money
> systems will be replaced.

Are you suggesting that paypal will cease to exist ?
>
> 3. At least 4 major US cities will be destroyed by nuclear explosions,
> killing millions of people.
deliberate or accidental nookies ?
>
> 4. Except for a few electric vehicles, automobiles will be powered by
> coal gas  (carbon monoxide),
> as coal will emerge as the energy source of choice. Oil will  
> completely
> go away as a source of fuel
> (but will be used as lubricants).
how about flour dust injected into an engine and ignited ?  Flour  
power ?
>
> 5. Despite its obvious advantages, nuclear generation of electricity
> will NOT return to common usage
> because the power plants cannot be protected from terrorists.
Well, of course they can't be protected since apparently the  
terrorists are running them now.  As far as I know , the new power  
plant designs can take a direct hit from a 727 ( showing my age ), a  
hacker or a U.S. satellite and not go critical.  Or did you mean  
dispersing the radioactive materials ?   True, true but there are  
easier ways to be a successful and happy terrorist than bothering  
with nook plant.
>
> --Bob Axtell
>
>

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

>
> On Feb 26, 2008, at 12:41 PM, David VanHorn wrote:
>
>> And convinced that magnetic bracelets can cure arthritis, as well as
>> soften water and improve gas mileage.
>
> Right, as long as you don't put the magnets on the "wrong way".
>
> :)
Yah,  magnetic nose cartilidgiditis is a terrible way to die
--

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

>> and think
>> nothing of standing in front of their microwave ovens
>> while it's pumping
>> 1kW of RF into your food.

> But worried about the magnetic field from their electric
> blanket.

I'm far more worried about the field from an electric
blanket. As I don't own one the worry level is not large.
With a microwave oven I know where the fields is, about how
strong it is and how to limit its coupling to my person.
(No. the door doesn't 'leak' RF appreciably.

With the blanket I know two of the above things. Limiting
its coupling can only be done by not having it live when in
bed. An easy option. The coupling when  working is
substantial even at 50 Hz. Whether this matters is unknown.
There are many peer reviewed papers on both sides of the EM
fields argument.

Interesting experiment.

- Have somebody lie in a bed with an electric blanket
operating.
- Stand by the bed.
- Softly run the back of your hand over the back of their
hand.
- Also try light touch of fingertips on skin.

The substantial  capacitive coupling will cause a rough
grating fiel  with rubbing - essentially a small "shock".
Which may or may not have any importance.


        Russell


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Roger, in Bangkok]

Yep, treat me like that and you can rest assured I will be shocked!!!
Sorry, open doors just seem to cry out to me:-))

On 2/27/08, Apptech <apptech@...> wrote:

>
> ...
> Interesting experiment.
>
> - ...
> - Stand by the bed.
> - Softly run the back of your hand over the back of their
> hand.
> - Also try light touch of fingertips on skin.
> ...
>         Russell
>
>
>

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Wouter van Ooijen]

> > If you drive, you bet the driver next to you will not die
> > in their sleep in the next 10 seconds.
>
> I think that scentence needs rewording.

I meant: if they already sleep behind the wheel, dying would not add
much to your problem.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
 

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Wouter van Ooijen]

> Who is Prachett ?
> cc

(if you quote, please remove my signature, this looked as if I was then
one asking!)

A very good UK SF/F author. I am reading "going postal" now. Green jelly
monsters with hughe teeth are turn up regulraly in his novels, often to
be smacked on the head with a frying pan.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu
 
 

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Gerhard Fiedler]

Cedric Chang wrote:

> No emotions, just measurements. Your emotions versus my facts.

Actually, no. Not "just measurements" and very little fact. Most of what
you have are predictions. So far we don't have /any/ experience with long
term storage of anything. Heck, we already /know/ that most things we
create don't last longer than a few years. How many here have seriously
(professionally) designed something to last a century? I don't see any
hands. Nothing to take measurements off. Just predictions, and there's
plenty of precedence that we /won't/ be able to avoid many of the tempting
shortcuts that may make the difference between stuff going haywire after
we're dead and going haywire a few generations later.

I'm not saying that I know whether one or the other is more dangerous. But
you say you do, and that what you say is based on facts. I just don't see
the facts WRT long term.

Gerhard

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

> So far we don't have /any/ experience with long
> term storage of anything.

But, to agree with you, in case it's not evident :-),
examination of things that are very old shows how very very
very hard the battle is.

> Heck, we already /know/ that most things we
> create don't last longer than a few years. How many here
> have seriously
> (professionally) designed something to last a century? I
> don't see any
> hands.

Nor I.
BUT I have looked at what it takes, and also looked at aged
things with the specific aim of seeing what we are up
against.
Gravestones make interesting indicators of what weather can
do.
Many newer ones are 'gone" in under 50 years or even much
under.
At 100 years the best are getting tired.
At 200 years the best are marginal.
At 300-400 years you are stuggling to find anything
readable.
On 700+ year old buildings inscriptions may not be totally
gone but are largely so.
On some 2000 year old buildings you can see the inscriptions
passingly well. That usually tells you something about the
people in between - not the original designers.

Lest you think that we with our so vastly better technology
can do oh so vastly better, work out how much larger
oh-so-vast needs to be to do things well enough.


> ... plenty of precedence that we /won't/ be able to avoid
> many of the tempting
> shortcuts that may make the difference between stuff going
> haywire after
> we're dead and going haywire a few generations later.

You set the goalposts far too high.
When people fake welding inspection certificates for valves
in nuclear power plant cooling systems. And when the systems
in place, or not in place make it possible to do so, then
the odds of the barrels all even getting to the repository
intact are only so so.

> I'm not saying that I know whether one or the other is
> more dangerous. But
> you say you do, and that what you say is based on facts. I
> just don't see
> the facts WRT long term.

Long ago people vitirifed nuclear waste in "barrels".
Routine measurements subsequently showed that radiation
levels at the surface were far higher than they were
expected to be.
Investigation showed that there were 'bugs' (microbes
whatever) living in the waste and happily mining it and
bringing whatever to the surface. And they probably had
really interesting children to boot!

Murphy spits on your best precautions.
What can go wrong will go wrong.
What can't go wrong will go wrong anyway.

Certainty that we have done enough or can do enough is
always fatal, for almost all values of always, given enough
time. And time is something we have more than an average
amount of in this case.

This is not to say that we may as well all give up trying
and huddle in the corner inspecting the pattern onm the
wallpaper. But it should always be kept open as an
attractive fallback option :-).

An engineer needs to KNOW that for large and complex
projects it is almost impossible to design the overall
project and not have it go through a vast number of
revisions throughout its construction and operating life.
The trouble here is that for most of the operating life "we"
won't be around to provide corrective feedback. "But what"
you may ask "can go wrong with a passive store in a
geologically sound location far below the ground?". The
answer is "I don't know and you don't know BUT the answer is
'we don't know' and not 'nothing'".
Sound alarmist and excessively cautious?
Why not?
It is.

But it also may be right.
And may not in any given case.
Which case is this one :-) ?



        Russell

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Peter Todd]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 08:56:36PM -0700, Cedric Chang wrote:
> What is your favourite way to travel and how safe do you think it is ?
>
> I can't think of a better metric than deaths per enjoyment mile .  
> The lower the D/EM , the better.
> enjoyment mile is one mile times an enjoyment factor.

That's easy, cave exploration. The destinations are wonderful, and
there's no better way to be extremely proud (and exhausted) after
moving... 10 ft.

That said, it's deaths per enjoyment mile are likely to be rather high
given the low total mileage, but still, quite a bit fewer than say, base
jumping. Besides, on a comparison basis, it has the lowest deaths per
enjoyment mile for means to get to some destinations. (also the highest
deaths per enjoyment mile as well, unless you know some mining engineers
to help you in your travels)


Actually, on the same basis, perhaps I should include sitting, with it's
29.8km/s speed. Unfortunately, most interesting destinations are also
travelling at 29.8km/s. (or 220km/s using another possible reference
point)

- --
http://petertodd.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHxWjl3bMhDbI9xWQRAi9uAJ0VyYag/8tnU/338wl0qiNBQRrJRgCfawEy
MwmnSRMeHfMSSYbXUI1xTmc=
=l8OO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Bob Axtell]

Apptech wrote:

>> So far we don't have /any/ experience with long
>> term storage of anything.
>>    
>
> But, to agree with you, in case it's not evident :-),
> examination of things that are very old shows how very very
> very hard the battle is.
>
>  
>> Heck, we already /know/ that most things we
>> create don't last longer than a few years. How many here
>> have seriously
>> (professionally) designed something to last a century? I
>> don't see any
>> hands.
>>    
>
> Nor I.
> BUT I have looked at what it takes, and also looked at aged
> things with the specific aim of seeing what we are up
> against.
> Gravestones make interesting indicators of what weather can
> do.
> Many newer ones are 'gone" in under 50 years or even much
> under.
> At 100 years the best are getting tired.
> At 200 years the best are marginal.
> At 300-400 years you are stuggling to find anything
> readable.
> On 700+ year old buildings inscriptions may not be totally
> gone but are largely so.
> On some 2000 year old buildings you can see the inscriptions
> passingly well. That usually tells you something about the
> people in between - not the original designers.
>
> Lest you think that we with our so vastly better technology
> can do oh so vastly better, work out how much larger
> oh-so-vast needs to be to do things well enough.
>
>
>  
>> ... plenty of precedence that we /won't/ be able to avoid
>> many of the tempting
>> shortcuts that may make the difference between stuff going
>> haywire after
>> we're dead and going haywire a few generations later.
>>    
>
> You set the goalposts far too high.
> When people fake welding inspection certificates for valves
> in nuclear power plant cooling systems. And when the systems
> in place, or not in place make it possible to do so, then
> the odds of the barrels all even getting to the repository
> intact are only so so.
>
>  
>> I'm not saying that I know whether one or the other is
>> more dangerous. But
>> you say you do, and that what you say is based on facts. I
>> just don't see
>> the facts WRT long term.
>>    
>
> Long ago people vitirifed nuclear waste in "barrels".
> Routine measurements subsequently showed that radiation
> levels at the surface were far higher than they were
> expected to be.
> Investigation showed that there were 'bugs' (microbes
> whatever) living in the waste and happily mining it and
> bringing whatever to the surface. And they probably had
> really interesting children to boot!
>
> Murphy spits on your best precautions.
> What can go wrong will go wrong.
> What can't go wrong will go wrong anyway.
>
> Certainty that we have done enough or can do enough is
> always fatal, for almost all values of always, given enough
> time. And time is something we have more than an average
> amount of in this case.
>
> This is not to say that we may as well all give up trying
> and huddle in the corner inspecting the pattern onm the
> wallpaper. But it should always be kept open as an
> attractive fallback option :-).
>
> An engineer needs to KNOW that for large and complex
> projects it is almost impossible to design the overall
> project and not have it go through a vast number of
> revisions throughout its construction and operating life.
> The trouble here is that for most of the operating life "we"
> won't be around to provide corrective feedback. "But what"
> you may ask "can go wrong with a passive store in a
> geologically sound location far below the ground?". The
> answer is "I don't know and you don't know BUT the answer is
> 'we don't know' and not 'nothing'".
> Sound alarmist and excessively cautious?
> Why not?
> It is.
>
> But it also may be right.
> And may not in any given case.
> Which case is this one :-) ?
>
>
>
>         Russell
>
>  

We so rarely see eye to eye, Russell... but this is one of the clearest
explanations
I've ever seen in print.   er... ever consider running for President?


--Bob A
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[David VanHorn-2]

> Actually, on the same basis, perhaps I should include sitting, with it's
> 29.8km/s speed. Unfortunately, most interesting destinations are also
> travelling at 29.8km/s. (or 220km/s using another possible reference
> point)

Ah, the alternative geosync belt.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

Yezzzzz, i am good at sitting.  Especially in a Hot Tub.
Hot Tubs are dangerous ............ I know
cc

>
> On Feb 27, 2008, at 6:43 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 08:56:36PM -0700, Cedric Chang wrote:
>> What is your favourite way to travel and how safe do you think it  
>> is ?
>>
>> I can't think of a better metric than deaths per enjoyment mile .
>> The lower the D/EM , the better.
>> enjoyment mile is one mile times an enjoyment factor.
>
> That's easy, cave exploration. The destinations are wonderful, and
> there's no better way to be extremely proud (and exhausted) after
> moving... 10 ft.
>
> That said, it's deaths per enjoyment mile are likely to be rather high
> given the low total mileage, but still, quite a bit fewer than say,  
> base
> jumping. Besides, on a comparison basis, it has the lowest deaths per
> enjoyment mile for means to get to some destinations. (also the  
> highest
> deaths per enjoyment mile as well, unless you know some mining  
> engineers
> to help you in your travels)
>
>
> Actually, on the same basis, perhaps I should include sitting, with  
> it's
> 29.8km/s speed. Unfortunately, most interesting destinations are also
> travelling at 29.8km/s. (or 220km/s using another possible reference
> point)
>
>

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[David VanHorn-2]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Cedric Chang <cc@...> wrote:
> Yezzzzz, i am good at sitting.  Especially in a Hot Tub.
> Hot Tubs are dangerous ............ I know

Dangerous?   The place I'm staying now has one that's big enough to
see on google earth, but the shot was at a bad angle.    That is one
of my favorite ways to cruise the galaxy.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[William "Chops" Westfield]

On Feb 27, 2008, at 4:23 AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

> Heck, we already /know/ that most things we
> create don't last longer than a few years.

We've been storing nuclear waste of one sort or another for close
to 60 years now.  That should be something of a case study.  As
far as I know, the (known) ecological consequences have been less
than those from conventional mining of various sorts, or even
farmland construction via rain forest destruction.  (and perhaps
less than the results of burning 60y worth of fossil fuels.)

(I suppose with all the excitement about bombs and/or bomb grade
material leaking out of politically destabilized areas, there has
been some scrutiny to check for raiding of waste facilities for
"dirty bomb" manufacture in those same regions?)

BillW


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[David VanHorn-2]

> We've been storing nuclear waste of one sort or another for close
> to 60 years now.  That should be something of a case study.  As
> far as I know, the (known) ecological consequences have been less
> than those from conventional mining of various sorts, or even
> farmland construction via rain forest destruction.  (and perhaps
> less than the results of burning 60y worth of fossil fuels.)

Well there are those hot frogs on the loose..  :)

But I'm inclined to agree, and again the radioactives released by
natural gas and coal might be even more than the nuke plants in total,
and they are ignored.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[M. Adam Davis-2]

You should be more specific - the last train journey I took (Ohio to
new york) was a miserable, miserable experience.

I understand the coastal trains in CA and on the east coast are much
nicer in many ways than the internal amtrak routes.

-Adam

On 2/26/08, James Newton <jamesnewton@...> wrote:

> I like trains.
>
> --
> James.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On Behalf Of
> Cedric Chang
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 19:57
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: [OT]: the EM Enjoyment mile
>
> What is your favourite way to travel and how safe do you think it is ?
>
> I can't think of a better metric than deaths per enjoyment mile .
> The lower the D/EM , the better.
> enjoyment mile is one mile times an enjoyment factor.
>
> I like to travel by skis, snowmobile, scooter, inflatable raft ( in
> river ) , bicycle.  Driving is fun in rural areas or city streets,
> boring and alarming in commuter traffic.   I hate commercial flying
> ( boring ).
>
> CC
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Moving in southeast Michigan? Buy my house: http://ubasics.com/house/

Interested in electronics? Check out the projects at http://ubasics.com

Building your own house? Check out http://ubasics.com/home/
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

>
> On Feb 27, 2008, at 12:14 PM, M. Adam Davis wrote:
>
> You should be more specific - the last train journey I took (Ohio to
> new york) was a miserable, miserable experience.

Because ?

>
> I understand the coastal trains in CA and on the east coast are much
> nicer in many ways than the internal amtrak routes.
>
> -Adam
>
> On 2/26/08, James Newton <jamesnewton@...> wrote:
>> I like trains.
>>
>> --
>> James.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On  
>> Behalf Of
>> Cedric Chang
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 19:57
>> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>> Subject: [OT]: the EM Enjoyment mile
>>
>> What is your favourite way to travel and how safe do you think it  
>> is ?
>>
>> I can't think of a better metric than deaths per enjoyment mile .
>> The lower the D/EM , the better.
>> enjoyment mile is one mile times an enjoyment factor.
>>
>> I like to travel by skis, snowmobile, scooter, inflatable raft ( in
>> river ) , bicycle.  Driving is fun in rural areas or city streets,
>> boring and alarming in commuter traffic.   I hate commercial flying
>> ( boring ).
>>
>> CC
>> --
>> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>> View/change your membership options at
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>>
>> --
>> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>> View/change your membership options at
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>>
>
>
> --
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Moving in southeast Michigan? Buy my house: http://ubasics.com/house/
>
> Interested in electronics? Check out the projects at http://
> ubasics.com
>
> Building your own house? Check out http://ubasics.com/home/
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
>

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist