Author Topic: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...  (Read 54056 times)

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1272
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #500 on: September 19, 2017, 03:00:21 PM »
...
Lol, I agree, and I get annoyed at the use of vagina when really one means vulva or pudenda or mons or clit or bush or other fun fuzzy words. The vagina is the interior, one cannot put one's hands ON it, in it, sure. Just found the German for clitoris and it's my new fave: der Kitzler. What's Japanese for some of these words?

No one knows, the kanji is always blurred out.



LOL, just went through my Japanese slang book and there are 5, two-column layout pages of words for vagina/vulva. Lots of shellfish slang, but I like momo meaning "peach."

Yeah, 'vagina' being used to describe external anatomy is annoying.  However, one of my favorite slang words, panocha, I think can be used for external or internal female genitalia.  It means sweetbread or brown sugar candy. 

Basenji

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Location: Inside the Beltway
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #501 on: September 19, 2017, 08:03:14 PM »
...
Lol, I agree, and I get annoyed at the use of vagina when really one means vulva or pudenda or mons or clit or bush or other fun fuzzy words. The vagina is the interior, one cannot put one's hands ON it, in it, sure. Just found the German for clitoris and it's my new fave: der Kitzler. What's Japanese for some of these words?
No one knows, the kanji is always blurred out.
LOL, just went through my Japanese slang book and there are 5, two-column layout pages of words for vagina/vulva. Lots of shellfish slang, but I like momo meaning "peach."
Yeah, 'vagina' being used to describe external anatomy is annoying.  However, one of my favorite slang words, panocha, I think can be used for external or internal female genitalia.  It means sweetbread or brown sugar candy.
Well THAT just sent me down a rabbit hole of web searches...

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 641
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #502 on: September 20, 2017, 12:16:35 PM »
and what's the deal with all the mattress stores?
If I figure it out, I'll tell you.  About a year ago, I found myself walking out of a store in a strip mall right next to a Mattress Firm.  I then looked across the street... and saw another Mattress Firm.  I don't get it.

money laundering?

Funny, I thought I read this link here, but here ya go:

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/mattress-store-bubble/

That explains why there's a solid matress district on 82nd inSE portland, where there's a sleep country... Sleep Train Matress Firm surrounded by an Aaron's furniture, and so on.


nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6834
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #503 on: September 20, 2017, 12:24:48 PM »
...
Lol, I agree, and I get annoyed at the use of vagina when really one means vulva or pudenda or mons or clit or bush or other fun fuzzy words. The vagina is the interior, one cannot put one's hands ON it, in it, sure. Just found the German for clitoris and it's my new fave: der Kitzler. What's Japanese for some of these words?
No one knows, the kanji is always blurred out.
LOL, just went through my Japanese slang book and there are 5, two-column layout pages of words for vagina/vulva. Lots of shellfish slang, but I like momo meaning "peach."
Yeah, 'vagina' being used to describe external anatomy is annoying.  However, one of my favorite slang words, panocha, I think can be used for external or internal female genitalia.  It means sweetbread or brown sugar candy.
Well THAT just sent me down a rabbit hole of web searches...
...remember to clear your browsing history and consider using a VPN next time
:-P
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 570
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #504 on: September 24, 2017, 12:54:26 PM »
Quote
Active Wear

I think it's weird, and i get the comfort issue but to me it's still like "gross, did you shower before you came here after your workout?" Falls in the same type of category when I see fellow healthcare workers in scrubs anywhere but the places they should be wearing them as in "are you spreading the resistant bacteria now after work in the grocery store, or are you on your way to work?" Just nasty.

I don't get people who litter. Yeah, sometimes garbage is going to get away from you, but I think it's pretty low class to dump garbage out of your moving vehicle. There hasn't yet been a National Park that I haven't picked up garbage on the trail from other humans.

Speaking of litter, I don't get why all of our packaging easily recyclable, compostable or biodegradable etc?

EDIT: To include that I also don't get how eminent domain is used sometimes.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2017, 01:07:09 PM by accolay »

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7390
  • Registered member
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #505 on: September 24, 2017, 05:47:49 PM »
gross, did you shower before you came here after your workout?

Of course not, what a huge waste of fresh water and soap money.

BTDretire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1516
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #506 on: September 24, 2017, 07:30:15 PM »
 At 62yrs old, the Beatles were a big part of my early years.
I didn't care much for the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album.
The Beach Boys were big, but don't have the lasting power of the Beatles.
 Also liked YES, Emerson Lake and Palmer, Ten years After, Tommy James and the Shondells.
 I had a high end turntable and cassette recorder and made some great tapes to
listen to as we cruised the back roads in often alter states of consciousness.

 Ya, we were past the 8 track days! :-)

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 570
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #507 on: September 25, 2017, 02:37:37 PM »
Cake pops. Just give me a whole slice.

Miss Piggy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 949
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #508 on: September 29, 2017, 12:50:30 PM »
Two things related to trash:

1. I don't get why it's socially acceptable to basically litter at any major league ballpark or other large sporting venue. Why does nearly everyone at these places leave their trash where they sat for the event?

2. I don't get why many smokers think the entire world is their ashtray/trashcan.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9449
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #509 on: September 29, 2017, 01:53:02 PM »
2. I don't get why many smokers think the entire world is their ashtray/trashcan.

As a smoker you've chosen a short term high over long term health problems and an almost certain earlier death.  I suspect that this same lack of foresight and care plays into their littering actions.

megaschnauzer

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 154
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Pensacola, FL
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #510 on: September 29, 2017, 02:41:13 PM »
Two things related to trash:

1. I don't get why it's socially acceptable to basically litter at any major league ballpark or other large sporting venue. Why does nearly everyone at these places leave their trash where they sat for the event?

2. I don't get why many smokers think the entire world is their ashtray/trashcan.

someone should invent an in-car trash compactor.

Ann

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 209
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #511 on: September 29, 2017, 05:40:59 PM »
I don't get people who have real bile for people who drive expensive cars.  I'm not referring to any posts by fellow Mustachians -- I'm talking about people I know who make somewhat acidic comments while we're sitting in traffic (comments that imply it's such a waste to have that car and just to have it sit around in traffic).  I've been on other websites where the blogger says he used to be jealous of nicer cars and now he thinks about how much debt those people are in.

Maybe I don't get it because because I really, really don't care about cars.  I don't notice a Ferrari or a Mercedes Benz until it's point out.  Then, I just can't make those assumptions -- maybe they are just driving back from cruising cross country.  Maybe they are stupid rich and a six-figure car is nothing to them.

TheMCP

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #512 on: October 01, 2017, 11:45:51 AM »
Cruises... there seem to be a lot of threads on them.

I get that they are a relatively inexpensive way to travel / vacation... but a large cruise ship can burn 80,000 gallons of fuel in a single day, easily more than a lifetime of driving for a normal person.  Worse, they (generally) don't use diesel, they burn a less refined goop that is full of all kinds of nasty crap we'd rather not have in the air (it's less expensive).  The cruise industry gets around environmental restrictions by registering the boats in places like Panama, which conveniently allows them to dodge taxes and use what is essentially slave labor for the out-of-customer-sight jobs (which is most of them).  That's a big part of the reason travelling around on a giant luxury boat can seem so relatively inexpensive... it isn't magic.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the race to the bottom judgmental thing that goes on in the forums sometimes.  One can always spend less on things, and one can always be more socially / environmentally conscious.  If cruises are your thing...fine, I just see it as kind of a gross industry.  It's just an interesting dynamic that allows a purchase like an expensive blender or god forbid a car that isn't a used honda fit to turn into a multi page rage festival, yet cruises seem to be exempt from scrutiny.

Raenia

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #513 on: October 01, 2017, 04:44:42 PM »
Cruises... there seem to be a lot of threads on them.

I get that they are a relatively inexpensive way to travel / vacation... but a large cruise ship can burn 80,000 gallons of fuel in a single day, easily more than a lifetime of driving for a normal person.  Worse, they (generally) don't use diesel, they burn a less refined goop that is full of all kinds of nasty crap we'd rather not have in the air (it's less expensive).  The cruise industry gets around environmental restrictions by registering the boats in places like Panama, which conveniently allows them to dodge taxes and use what is essentially slave labor for the out-of-customer-sight jobs (which is most of them).  That's a big part of the reason travelling around on a giant luxury boat can seem so relatively inexpensive... it isn't magic.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the race to the bottom judgmental thing that goes on in the forums sometimes.  One can always spend less on things, and one can always be more socially / environmentally conscious.  If cruises are your thing...fine, I just see it as kind of a gross industry.  It's just an interesting dynamic that allows a purchase like an expensive blender or god forbid a car that isn't a used honda fit to turn into a multi page rage festival, yet cruises seem to be exempt from scrutiny.

Travel in general seems pretty exempt from scrutiny around here.  It's always nagged at me that people here think nothing of flying around the world every year, while boasting about composting veggie clippings and biking to the store to save the environment.  Fortunately for me, I don't care for travelling, but that does seem to be one area of spending/consumption that is enshrined as somehow special.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7390
  • Registered member
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #514 on: October 01, 2017, 05:22:56 PM »
Cruises... there seem to be a lot of threads on them.

I get that they are a relatively inexpensive way to travel / vacation... but a large cruise ship can burn 80,000 gallons of fuel in a single day, easily more than a lifetime of driving for a normal person. 

I'm not trying to change you mind, but consider that cruise ships get around 20 MPG per person.  It's not the most efficient means of transportation, but there's no way a single cruise is gonna use up my lifetime allotment of driving.  Just basic commonsense says that my $150/day cruise isn't going to consume a lifetimes worth of fuel.

If I bike to work and groceries, I can easily "bank" my carbon quota for air and cruise travel.  Again, that's worse than zero personals emissions, but offsetting emissions is still better than nothing.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 570
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #515 on: October 02, 2017, 04:33:21 PM »
Cruises... there seem to be a lot of threads on them.

I'm with you and Melville on that. Better to work while underway.

TheMCP

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #516 on: October 02, 2017, 05:55:14 PM »
Cruises... there seem to be a lot of threads on them.

I get that they are a relatively inexpensive way to travel / vacation... but a large cruise ship can burn 80,000 gallons of fuel in a single day, easily more than a lifetime of driving for a normal person. 

I'm not trying to change you mind, but consider that cruise ships get around 20 MPG per person.  It's not the most efficient means of transportation, but there's no way a single cruise is gonna use up my lifetime allotment of driving.  Just basic commonsense says that my $150/day cruise isn't going to consume a lifetimes worth of fuel.

If I bike to work and groceries, I can easily "bank" my carbon quota for air and cruise travel.  Again, that's worse than zero personals emissions, but offsetting emissions is still better than nothing.

Right, obviously there is more than one person on the boat... and again I don't fault anyone for going on them, I'm being honest and just making an observation.  If someone knows the deal and wants to sign up anyway, I don't begrudge them.  80,000 gallons is still 80,000 gallons though.  I'm not even some kind of environmental crusader... I own an F350 (it tows what will be my future home once my current house sells).  I just think it's interesting... that MPG figure isn't that far off my F350s fuel mileage when unloaded (It will get 17, anyway).  I can only imagine what it'd be like if someone started a thread that they were joining a convoy of 8000 or so F350s to drive around the country non stop for a week or two because it was a cheap good time.  Against the backdrop of everything else, it just seems weird to me.

dougules

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 956
  • Location: AL
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #517 on: October 03, 2017, 10:30:15 AM »
Cruises... there seem to be a lot of threads on them.

I get that they are a relatively inexpensive way to travel / vacation... but a large cruise ship can burn 80,000 gallons of fuel in a single day, easily more than a lifetime of driving for a normal person.  Worse, they (generally) don't use diesel, they burn a less refined goop that is full of all kinds of nasty crap we'd rather not have in the air (it's less expensive).  The cruise industry gets around environmental restrictions by registering the boats in places like Panama, which conveniently allows them to dodge taxes and use what is essentially slave labor for the out-of-customer-sight jobs (which is most of them).  That's a big part of the reason travelling around on a giant luxury boat can seem so relatively inexpensive... it isn't magic.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the race to the bottom judgmental thing that goes on in the forums sometimes.  One can always spend less on things, and one can always be more socially / environmentally conscious.  If cruises are your thing...fine, I just see it as kind of a gross industry.  It's just an interesting dynamic that allows a purchase like an expensive blender or god forbid a car that isn't a used honda fit to turn into a multi page rage festival, yet cruises seem to be exempt from scrutiny.

Travel in general seems pretty exempt from scrutiny around here.  It's always nagged at me that people here think nothing of flying around the world every year, while boasting about composting veggie clippings and biking to the store to save the environment.  Fortunately for me, I don't care for travelling, but that does seem to be one area of spending/consumption that is enshrined as somehow special.

You're right that travel doesn't get any scrutiny and it should.  That being said I don't think the philosophy here is to not to ever spend money or fuel, but just make sure it's worth it in terms of your happiness and the people around you.  If a huge truck will make you happy, then do it, but experiences tend to be worth more to happiness than things.

Also it's not a zero sum game.  If you fly around the world, that's all the more reason to save money and fuel when you get home. 
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 10:35:23 AM by dougules »

dougules

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 956
  • Location: AL
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #518 on: October 03, 2017, 10:34:04 AM »
Cruises... there seem to be a lot of threads on them.

I get that they are a relatively inexpensive way to travel / vacation... but a large cruise ship can burn 80,000 gallons of fuel in a single day, easily more than a lifetime of driving for a normal person. 

I'm not trying to change you mind, but consider that cruise ships get around 20 MPG per person.  It's not the most efficient means of transportation, but there's no way a single cruise is gonna use up my lifetime allotment of driving.  Just basic commonsense says that my $150/day cruise isn't going to consume a lifetimes worth of fuel.

If I bike to work and groceries, I can easily "bank" my carbon quota for air and cruise travel.  Again, that's worse than zero personals emissions, but offsetting emissions is still better than nothing.

Why are cruises so inefficient?  Boat travel is usually one of the  most efficient ways to get around.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7002
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #519 on: October 03, 2017, 10:37:04 AM »
Cruises... there seem to be a lot of threads on them.

I get that they are a relatively inexpensive way to travel / vacation... but a large cruise ship can burn 80,000 gallons of fuel in a single day, easily more than a lifetime of driving for a normal person. 

I'm not trying to change you mind, but consider that cruise ships get around 20 MPG per person.  It's not the most efficient means of transportation, but there's no way a single cruise is gonna use up my lifetime allotment of driving.  Just basic commonsense says that my $150/day cruise isn't going to consume a lifetimes worth of fuel.

If I bike to work and groceries, I can easily "bank" my carbon quota for air and cruise travel.  Again, that's worse than zero personals emissions, but offsetting emissions is still better than nothing.

Why are cruises so inefficient?  Boat travel is usually one of the  most efficient ways to get around.
And is the mpg per person the passengers or everyone?  There are lots of crew-members on those boats.  Of course, whether the staff on the floating hotels should be counted is a separate question.
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

MrMoogle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #520 on: October 03, 2017, 11:39:37 AM »
Cruises... there seem to be a lot of threads on them.

I get that they are a relatively inexpensive way to travel / vacation... but a large cruise ship can burn 80,000 gallons of fuel in a single day, easily more than a lifetime of driving for a normal person. 

I'm not trying to change you mind, but consider that cruise ships get around 20 MPG per person.  It's not the most efficient means of transportation, but there's no way a single cruise is gonna use up my lifetime allotment of driving.  Just basic commonsense says that my $150/day cruise isn't going to consume a lifetimes worth of fuel.

If I bike to work and groceries, I can easily "bank" my carbon quota for air and cruise travel.  Again, that's worse than zero personals emissions, but offsetting emissions is still better than nothing.

Why are cruises so inefficient?  Boat travel is usually one of the  most efficient ways to get around.
And is the mpg per person the passengers or everyone?  There are lots of crew-members on those boats.  Of course, whether the staff on the floating hotels should be counted is a separate question.
I imagine some of it is because of the stabilization, they basically cancel out every wave.  You can hardly tell you're on a ship, I can't imagine a way that is efficient.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9449
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #521 on: October 03, 2017, 11:46:35 AM »
Cruises... there seem to be a lot of threads on them.

I get that they are a relatively inexpensive way to travel / vacation... but a large cruise ship can burn 80,000 gallons of fuel in a single day, easily more than a lifetime of driving for a normal person. 

I'm not trying to change you mind, but consider that cruise ships get around 20 MPG per person.  It's not the most efficient means of transportation, but there's no way a single cruise is gonna use up my lifetime allotment of driving.  Just basic commonsense says that my $150/day cruise isn't going to consume a lifetimes worth of fuel.

If I bike to work and groceries, I can easily "bank" my carbon quota for air and cruise travel.  Again, that's worse than zero personals emissions, but offsetting emissions is still better than nothing.

Why are cruises so inefficient?  Boat travel is usually one of the  most efficient ways to get around.
And is the mpg per person the passengers or everyone?  There are lots of crew-members on those boats.  Of course, whether the staff on the floating hotels should be counted is a separate question.
I imagine some of it is because of the stabilization, they basically cancel out every wave.  You can hardly tell you're on a ship, I can't imagine a way that is efficient.

Isn't most of that stabilization done passively, simply with a big fin at the bottom of the ship?

MrMoogle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #522 on: October 03, 2017, 01:20:33 PM »
Cruises... there seem to be a lot of threads on them.

I get that they are a relatively inexpensive way to travel / vacation... but a large cruise ship can burn 80,000 gallons of fuel in a single day, easily more than a lifetime of driving for a normal person. 

I'm not trying to change you mind, but consider that cruise ships get around 20 MPG per person.  It's not the most efficient means of transportation, but there's no way a single cruise is gonna use up my lifetime allotment of driving.  Just basic commonsense says that my $150/day cruise isn't going to consume a lifetimes worth of fuel.

If I bike to work and groceries, I can easily "bank" my carbon quota for air and cruise travel.  Again, that's worse than zero personals emissions, but offsetting emissions is still better than nothing.

Why are cruises so inefficient?  Boat travel is usually one of the  most efficient ways to get around.
And is the mpg per person the passengers or everyone?  There are lots of crew-members on those boats.  Of course, whether the staff on the floating hotels should be counted is a separate question.
I imagine some of it is because of the stabilization, they basically cancel out every wave.  You can hardly tell you're on a ship, I can't imagine a way that is efficient.

Isn't most of that stabilization done passively, simply with a big fin at the bottom of the ship?
I honestly don't know how they do it.  Even if they do it passively, it can still be really inefficient.  It's just a guess on my part.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6834
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #523 on: October 04, 2017, 04:58:56 AM »
modern Cruise ships mainly get their stability from their massive size. Most (all) have bilge keels - basically fins that stick out from the underside of the ship and, through water resistence, combat roll. They also have massive, massive tanks for storing both fuel and water which help keep the boat from rolling (some are 'active' systems that push water from tank to tank, but those are less common on the very large vessels).  Some have active fins which are large and preform a similar funciton but can be tilted to account for incoming waves.  Regardless of the system, they don't carry a large penalty for efficiency on large ships (i.e. the ship would burn about as much fuel with them installed as not).

The 'efficiency' (or lack thereof) of large cruise ships has to do with the way they are operated overall.  Ships beat all other means of transportation for fuel efficiency ("MPG", or in shipping lingo tons of freight per mile).  However, the passengers + crew are an an impossibly small fraction of the total weight of the ship. On the larger ships 4,000 passengers and 1,200 crew and service people combined make up roughly 450 tons.  THe ship ITSELF can top 100,000 tons (some over 200,000).  So all the people on board make up roughly 0.4% of the total weight.  The diesel used to power the boat from port to port is really just pushing the boat itself; the boat uses almost the same amount of fuel if there are passengers onboard or if its running with just a skeleton crew. For comparison, even fuel-inefficient cars may have a ratio 20x higher of passengers to vehicle.

But then there is the waste from the inefficiency of the lifestyles of those onboard. They are floating hotels + shopping malls + water parks.  All of those things use an enormous amount of energy, which the ship provides with diesel generators. And that's just for power. Large cruise ships have roughly one staff member for every 3 passengers, which isn't a very efficient lifestyle.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Khaetra

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #524 on: October 04, 2017, 07:10:08 AM »

Travel in general seems pretty exempt from scrutiny around here.  It's always nagged at me that people here think nothing of flying around the world every year, while boasting about composting veggie clippings and biking to the store to save the environment.  Fortunately for me, I don't care for travelling, but that does seem to be one area of spending/consumption that is enshrined as somehow special.

For me, I'd rather travel and see things than have things.  I don't fly or cruise, but I do like to take road trips across the country and go to places the The Grand Canyon, Smoky Mountains, etc.  Travel was a big reason I wanted to FIRE in my 40's and I am taking full advantage.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7390
  • Registered member
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #525 on: October 12, 2017, 02:16:12 PM »
Cruises... there seem to be a lot of threads on them.

I get that they are a relatively inexpensive way to travel / vacation... but a large cruise ship can burn 80,000 gallons of fuel in a single day, easily more than a lifetime of driving for a normal person. 

I'm not trying to change you mind, but consider that cruise ships get around 20 MPG per person.  It's not the most efficient means of transportation, but there's no way a single cruise is gonna use up my lifetime allotment of driving.  Just basic commonsense says that my $150/day cruise isn't going to consume a lifetimes worth of fuel.

If I bike to work and groceries, I can easily "bank" my carbon quota for air and cruise travel.  Again, that's worse than zero personals emissions, but offsetting emissions is still better than nothing.

Right, obviously there is more than one person on the boat... and again I don't fault anyone for going on them, I'm being honest and just making an observation.  If someone knows the deal and wants to sign up anyway, I don't begrudge them.  80,000 gallons is still 80,000 gallons though.  I'm not even some kind of environmental crusader... I own an F350 (it tows what will be my future home once my current house sells).  I just think it's interesting... that MPG figure isn't that far off my F350s fuel mileage when unloaded (It will get 17, anyway).  I can only imagine what it'd be like if someone started a thread that they were joining a convoy of 8000 or so F350s to drive around the country non stop for a week or two because it was a cheap good time.  Against the backdrop of everything else, it just seems weird to me.

Yeah but a city bus gets only 2.5MPG.  A 747 gets one mile per 5 gallons. You gotta look at fuel per person.

And itís not a daily driver, just a one-way trip.  Like if I rented an RV for a road trip, would you complain about fuel efficiency or cal it a mustahoan way to travel without renting hotel rooms?  I donít care if you include staff in the number or not, my basic point was only that the mpg per person is generally the order of a fuel inefficient car, which is not great, but not catastrophic for a single trip.


nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6834
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #526 on: October 12, 2017, 03:13:27 PM »
...just tossing this out there becuase it's getting confounded with sloppy use of acronyms/abbreviations; a large cruise ship can indeed burn between 100-250 tons of fuel per day while cruising (that's up to 80,000 US Gallons).  But that's not 20MPG/person; that is 20 gallons per person per day (big difference!) - assuming 4,000 passengers and assuming crew doesn't count because they're employees. Is that a lot?  Depends on your view; Two people driving an RV can easily burn 40 gallons of fuel per day.
On a per-mile-traveled basis it is quite a bit, as most daily legs are on the range of 50-150 nautical miles (so at the high end the ship is getting only 7.5 miles per person per gallon) - the primary reason its so low is because the weight of the passengers is negligible.  On a per-ton basis cruise ships are wildly efficient, but do we really *need* to move a water park, shopping mall and movie theatres across international borders? 

Also worth noting that ships burn considerably less when anchored or in port, so that per-person fuel consumption may be just 1-2 gallons on those days of your vacation. It's primarily a power generation station at that point, so pretty similar to what you might consume on land in a hotel room.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7390
  • Registered member
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #527 on: October 12, 2017, 04:01:35 PM »
...just tossing this out there becuase it's getting confounded with sloppy use of acronyms/abbreviations; a large cruise ship can indeed burn between 100-250 tons of fuel per day while cruising (that's up to 80,000 US Gallons).  But that's not 20MPG/person; that is 20 gallons per person per day (big difference!) - assuming 4,000 passengers and assuming crew doesn't count because they're employees. Is that a lot?  Depends on your view; Two people driving an RV can easily burn 40 gallons of fuel per day.
On a per-mile-traveled basis it is quite a bit, as most daily legs are on the range of 50-150 nautical miles (so at the high end the ship is getting only 7.5 miles per person per gallon) - the primary reason its so low is because the weight of the passengers is negligible.  On a per-ton basis cruise ships are wildly efficient, but do we really *need* to move a water park, shopping mall and movie theatres across international borders? 

Also worth noting that ships burn considerably less when anchored or in port, so that per-person fuel consumption may be just 1-2 gallons on those days of your vacation. It's primarily a power generation station at that point, so pretty similar to what you might consume on land in a hotel room.

I was being very specific with my acronyms.  I looked up the mpg per person and thatís what I reported.  I donít consider total fuel burn per day to be a useful metric.  You can quibble about the exact number but the order of magnitude is right.

Surprised they donít have shore power in port.. Iím pretty sure the engines were off at least some of the time
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 04:04:30 PM by dragoncar »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6834
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #528 on: October 12, 2017, 04:09:27 PM »
wasn't refering to you dragoncar - others were quoting 20mpg when it should have been 20 gallons/day.

power in port depends vastly on the infrastructure, but few ports can provide the kind of electricity that ships require to keep people from noticing they are on a ship.  The main (propulsion) engines don't provide the electricity though - that's done by much smaller diesel generators which, unless you are near them you won't really notice.  The propulsion engines are the size of large trucks - the generator engines are more like golf-cart sized.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7390
  • Registered member
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #529 on: October 12, 2017, 04:11:29 PM »
wasn't refering to you dragoncar - others were quoting 20mpg when it should have been 20 gallons/day.

power in port depends vastly on the infrastructure, but few ports can provide the kind of electricity that ships require to keep people from noticing they are on a ship.  The main (propulsion) engines don't provide the electricity though - that's done by much smaller diesel generators which, unless you are near them you won't really notice.  The propulsion engines are the size of large trucks - the generator engines are more like golf-cart sized.

I see, sort of like the APU some planes have

Raenia

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #530 on: October 17, 2017, 06:03:25 AM »
I don't get people who walk in the street when there is a perfectly good sidewalk not three feet away.  It's a good, flat sidewalk, too, not an uneven mess of cracks and tree roots or something.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9449
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #531 on: October 17, 2017, 07:41:23 AM »
I don't get people who walk in the street when there is a perfectly good sidewalk not three feet away.  It's a good, flat sidewalk, too, not an uneven mess of cracks and tree roots or something.

I've noticed this too and it has always confused me.

megaschnauzer

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 154
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Pensacola, FL
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #532 on: October 17, 2017, 08:04:40 AM »
I don't get people who walk in the street when there is a perfectly good sidewalk not three feet away.  It's a good, flat sidewalk, too, not an uneven mess of cracks and tree roots or something.

I've noticed this too and it has always confused me.

we walk the streets instead of sidewalks in the neighborhood. the sidewalks are too narrow for two people to walk side by side and the sidewalks are way up in people's yards. it feels like you're walking through their living room. also the dog constantly finds something to smell and pee on. the road keeps him focused on walking. busy streets we use the sidewalks.

Travis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Location: Tempe, AZ
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #533 on: October 17, 2017, 09:21:14 AM »
I don't get people who walk in the street when there is a perfectly good sidewalk not three feet away.  It's a good, flat sidewalk, too, not an uneven mess of cracks and tree roots or something.

For that matter, pedestrians who walk as if they're the only thing on the road.  I encountered this in a "bike friendly" college town where people would walk across the street diagonally and not look left or right even once. They would just expect the cars and bikes to screech to a halt for them and get upset when they're nearly hit.  Maybe this was "millennial" arrogance and taking "right of way" a bit too literally, but I've always found a healthy dose of self-preservation trumped whatever the rule book states.
My Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/will-i-or-won't-i-a-home-run-or-a-base-hit/

Unlike some other tech companies or skilled-labor industries, we're always hiring.

www.goarmy.com

MrMoogle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #534 on: October 17, 2017, 09:34:16 AM »
I don't get people who walk in the street when there is a perfectly good sidewalk not three feet away.  It's a good, flat sidewalk, too, not an uneven mess of cracks and tree roots or something.

I've noticed this too and it has always confused me.

we walk the streets instead of sidewalks in the neighborhood. the sidewalks are too narrow for two people to walk side by side and the sidewalks are way up in people's yards. it feels like you're walking through their living room. also the dog constantly finds something to smell and pee on. the road keeps him focused on walking. busy streets we use the sidewalks.
My problem is low hanging branches (I'm 6'4, so it might not be low to everyone), or bushes that intrude into, and sometimes over the sidewalk.  I'd have to walk in the grass for large portions of the road, and dog owners don't pick up on that street for whatever reason, it's a minefield!

ETA: But yeah, most of the time I don't get it. 

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #535 on: October 17, 2017, 09:53:18 AM »
I don't get the need for navigation units on cars. Such a waste of money on technology readily available on your smartphone.

I have a GPS in my car - because I don't own a smartphone!  I do understand why people would want a smartphone, it just doesn't appeal to me at all.

We have sat nav in our newer car but honestly it is a poor substitute for the standalone GPS nav I have on my $10 smart phone and tablet.

Glad we bought a used car that had it and didn't pay top dollar for sat nav for $1500 or whatever they charge these days.

I wanted something on my phone that was not dependent on a data plan b/c I use a PAYG phone.
 
What we want (and plan to add to our car) is a simple screen mirroring of a phone/tablet.

That way we can use my wife's fancy phone on the car's display for GPS nav, music player, etc.

Rather than these overpriced in-car stereos this is all anybody really needs - screen mirroring (touch screen would be a bonus).

These days a nice sounding basic 2000s style AM/FM/CD stereo can be had for $75 brand new.

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #536 on: October 17, 2017, 10:10:20 AM »
A general gripe-

SEAL worship.  Light infantry with a demonstrated capability to swim for a long time in cold water.  BFD sez I.

I'm with you, and would even expand that to include worship of the American military in general. Sure, some of them have made sacrifices to "serve" the country, and some have even paid the ultimate price with their lives. But let's not go overboard for f's sake. I mean, they're not ALL HEROES. People seem to forget that military people are, well, humans like the rest of us, which means a substantial number are decidedly not heroic. Among those "heroes" are thousands of murderers, rapists, thieves, treasonous spies, drug dealers, and a whole bunch of regular folks who were just looking to get a job where they could, or liked the benefits the military offered. Yet I guess I'm supposed to walk up to every one of them and say, "Thank you for your service." Yeah, I'll pass unless I know specifically what that person has done to deserve it, if anything.

Old message but I'm drawn to add: worship of Generals and Admirals. Were these guys really the big heros or was it the regular guy drawn into the way - perhaps against his will - and sent to fight and kill at the battlefront. Meanwhile the big wigs have all the comforts and advantages of living far from combat. Best food, best living quarters, best drink and a myriad of assistants to do their menial tasks.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6834
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #537 on: October 17, 2017, 01:03:06 PM »
I don't get people who walk in the street when there is a perfectly good sidewalk not three feet away.  It's a good, flat sidewalk, too, not an uneven mess of cracks and tree roots or something.

I've noticed this too and it has always confused me.

Around here there are bike paths that run parallel to perfectly nice sidewalks.  Yet as I'm riding my bike I often encounter pedestrians walking 2-by on the bike path. 
wtf?! majorly annoying...
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #538 on: October 17, 2017, 07:40:38 PM »
Wearing hats with super flat bills, or with the shiny sticker still on it...  Drives me crazy.

Seriously! WTF is with that?!

If you're actually curious it was about status and wealth. By now, though, it may just be fashion. A flat bill and a sticker are qualities that the hat has when it is new. In order to show that the individual in question had enough money to purchase said hat new, the hat is kept this way. If you're poor and must acquire a hat second hand, it is unlikely to have either a flat bill or the sticker on it.

So just like Minnie Pearl!

surfhb

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 359
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #539 on: October 17, 2017, 08:19:29 PM »
Over lengthen shorts.    Look so bad on men who are overweight.....which basically means 80% of the population.

I'm bringing back 80s short shorts!

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071D8PY1W/ref=twister_B01FJPVVIK

markbike528CBX

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
  • Location: the Everbrown part of the Evergreen State (WA)
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #540 on: October 18, 2017, 02:31:57 AM »
Over lengthen shorts.    Look so bad on men who are overweight.....which basically means 80% of the population.

I'm bringing back 80s short shorts!

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071D8PY1W/ref=twister_B01FJPVVIK

+10.  IMHO If  pants are below the knee, they are not shorts.    They are just extreme "high water" pants.

Dave1442397

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 595
  • Location: NJ
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #541 on: October 18, 2017, 06:22:37 AM »
Over lengthen shorts.    Look so bad on men who are overweight.....which basically means 80% of the population.

I'm bringing back 80s short shorts!

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071D8PY1W/ref=twister_B01FJPVVIK

+10.  IMHO If  pants are below the knee, they are not shorts.    They are just extreme "high water" pants.

I often wonder about that. For years, I found it very hard to get shorts that fell just above my knee when standing up. My pet theory is that shorts turned into baggy not-shorts because people in general have gotten fatter, and old-style shorts just expose more fat.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6834
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #542 on: October 18, 2017, 12:08:22 PM »
Over lengthen shorts.    Look so bad on men who are overweight.....which basically means 80% of the population.

I'm bringing back 80s short shorts!

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071D8PY1W/ref=twister_B01FJPVVIK

+10.  IMHO If  pants are below the knee, they are not shorts.    They are just extreme "high water" pants.

I often wonder about that. For years, I found it very hard to get shorts that fell just above my knee when standing up. My pet theory is that shorts turned into baggy not-shorts because people in general have gotten fatter, and old-style shorts just expose more fat.

I dislike the trend of super-long shorts too (baggy capri pants?) but if I had to peg a driver it would be the NBA.  check out the shorts worn during the Larry Bird era vs Steph Curry
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Rural

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4283
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #543 on: October 18, 2017, 05:48:00 PM »
I don't get the need for navigation units on cars. Such a waste of money on technology readily available on your smartphone.

I have a GPS in my car - because I don't own a smartphone!  I do understand why people would want a smartphone, it just doesn't appeal to me at all.

We have sat nav in our newer car but honestly it is a poor substitute for the standalone GPS nav I have on my $10 smart phone and tablet.



OK, so what do you have? I need want one sometimes.

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #544 on: October 18, 2017, 08:21:25 PM »
Check out Navigon GPS on a stand-alone Android device. Works well on my underpowered phone (most of the time) and great on my tablet. It is a one time purchase - no annual costs.

I did not shop around so there may be better software packages out there. I had a Navigon branded stand alone unit at one point and I liked it alot.

Dicey

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6488
  • Age: 59
  • Location: NorCal
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #545 on: October 19, 2017, 12:51:55 AM »
Great photo, nereo! 'Nuf said.
I did it! I have a journal!
A Lot Like This
And hell yes, I am still moving confidently in the direction of my dreams...

Rural

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4283
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #546 on: October 19, 2017, 04:47:57 AM »
Check out Navigon GPS on a stand-alone Android device. Works well on my underpowered phone (most of the time) and great on my tablet. It is a one time purchase - no annual costs.

I did not shop around so there may be better software packages out there. I had a Navigon branded stand alone unit at one point and I liked it alot.


Thanks. You had me at "underpowered phone." :)

KittenJoe

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 37
  • Age: 25
  • Location: Colorado
  • Start small and don't feel bad about it
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #547 on: October 24, 2017, 08:52:41 PM »
I don't understand the traditionalist, authoritarian, territorial mindset *cough*conservatives/deeply religious people*cough* The amount of fear and hatred you have to hang on to in order to buy into that kind of thing is staggering and it does much much more harm than good. You're literally required to hate anyone who isn't just like you, and it makes NO sense to me what-so-ever. Yet half the first world votes that way.   
« Last Edit: October 24, 2017, 08:54:30 PM by KittenJoe »
✩★Kitten Joe★✩

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 505
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #548 on: October 25, 2017, 09:37:46 AM »
A general gripe-

SEAL worship.  Light infantry with a demonstrated capability to swim for a long time in cold water.  BFD sez I.

I'm with you, and would even expand that to include worship of the American military in general. Sure, some of them have made sacrifices to "serve" the country, and some have even paid the ultimate price with their lives. But let's not go overboard for f's sake. I mean, they're not ALL HEROES. People seem to forget that military people are, well, humans like the rest of us, which means a substantial number are decidedly not heroic. Among those "heroes" are thousands of murderers, rapists, thieves, treasonous spies, drug dealers, and a whole bunch of regular folks who were just looking to get a job where they could, or liked the benefits the military offered. Yet I guess I'm supposed to walk up to every one of them and say, "Thank you for your service." Yeah, I'll pass unless I know specifically what that person has done to deserve it, if anything.

Old message but I'm drawn to add: worship of Generals and Admirals. Were these guys really the big heros or was it the regular guy drawn into the way - perhaps against his will - and sent to fight and kill at the battlefront. Meanwhile the big wigs have all the comforts and advantages of living far from combat. Best food, best living quarters, best drink and a myriad of assistants to do their menial tasks.

Those generals and admirals really were big heroes. They have a vision and execution that other people cannot match. Whoever is in charge matters, which is why Ulysses S Grant was able to beat the Confederacy and George McClellan was not.

Poor execution and poor planning means all those drafted guys get killed. Good execution and good planning means the other side's drafted guys get killed.

There are a few guys that stand out, head and shoulders above their peers. Rommel, Zhukov, Napoleon, Horatio Nelson, the Duke of Wellington are all good examples. An ancient example would be Hannibal (though he was fighting an ultimately unwinnable war).

Travis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Location: Tempe, AZ
Re: The MMM I Don't Get It thread...
« Reply #549 on: October 25, 2017, 10:11:47 AM »
A general gripe-

SEAL worship.  Light infantry with a demonstrated capability to swim for a long time in cold water.  BFD sez I.

I'm with you, and would even expand that to include worship of the American military in general. Sure, some of them have made sacrifices to "serve" the country, and some have even paid the ultimate price with their lives. But let's not go overboard for f's sake. I mean, they're not ALL HEROES. People seem to forget that military people are, well, humans like the rest of us, which means a substantial number are decidedly not heroic. Among those "heroes" are thousands of murderers, rapists, thieves, treasonous spies, drug dealers, and a whole bunch of regular folks who were just looking to get a job where they could, or liked the benefits the military offered. Yet I guess I'm supposed to walk up to every one of them and say, "Thank you for your service." Yeah, I'll pass unless I know specifically what that person has done to deserve it, if anything.

Old message but I'm drawn to add: worship of Generals and Admirals. Were these guys really the big heros or was it the regular guy drawn into the way - perhaps against his will - and sent to fight and kill at the battlefront. Meanwhile the big wigs have all the comforts and advantages of living far from combat. Best food, best living quarters, best drink and a myriad of assistants to do their menial tasks.

Those generals and admirals really were big heroes. They have a vision and execution that other people cannot match. Whoever is in charge matters, which is why Ulysses S Grant was able to beat the Confederacy and George McClellan was not.

Poor execution and poor planning means all those drafted guys get killed. Good execution and good planning means the other side's drafted guys get killed.

There are a few guys that stand out, head and shoulders above their peers. Rommel, Zhukov, Napoleon, Horatio Nelson, the Duke of Wellington are all good examples. An ancient example would be Hannibal (though he was fighting an ultimately unwinnable war).

The basic idea behind a General or Admiral having a personal retinue is so that they can focus their time on making those big decisions.  If an General Officer with a field command is doing his job he's close enough to the front to know what's going on and can see for himself if he needs to, but not so close that he's easily killed.  An 18 year old rifleman or even a staff officer like me are much easier to replace than someone with a lifetime of experience who are responsible for the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands.  Do senior officers abuse their perks? Sometimes. It's bound to happen amongst any group of individuals. Unfortunately it's difficult to tell if that officer is going to be the WWI "chateau officer" of WWI myth and legend who commanded from another city or officers like Moore, Hackworth, Mattis, or Patton who endured some of their troops' hardships and were close enough to see the enemy themselves until they're placed in those situations.
My Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/will-i-or-won't-i-a-home-run-or-a-base-hit/

Unlike some other tech companies or skilled-labor industries, we're always hiring.

www.goarmy.com