|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 17, 2020 21:49:28 GMT -8
Actually, I was initially a member of PACE, which was the K-Mart equivalent of Sam's Club. Later they sold out to Sam's, which is how I became a member. Elizabeth and I found Sam's useful in auto emergencies, such as the sudden need for a new tire late on a weekend driving home from a convention. (Needless to say, I wouldn't use such a specific example if it hadn't happened to us.)
Sam's was also useful for other purposes. Some snacks (such as Famous Amos chocolate chip cookies) were most readily found there. Others were available in quantities that made them convenient for Halloween. And occasionally we got other things there, such as my 3-volume Kingston Trio best hits CD collection. (It was added to our MP3 images and is part of my regular music sequence. Unfortunately, it doesn't have "The Merry Minuet".)
Of course, none of this matters anymore with Elizabeth and me both living in (different) nursing homes.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 17, 2020 21:54:55 GMT -8
I've been in a Costco in California and one in Plano and both are similar to Sam's Club. As I recall, Costco in California had a bit better groceries than the Sam's Club I have visited. For the rest, I believe they are pretty much the same, but I somehow have a slightly better opinion of Sam's Club. Maybe I need to have a look again at Costco. It has been 5-10 years since I was in one.
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Jan 17, 2020 22:05:32 GMT -8
You guys make we want to take a look at Sam's Club. But there aren't any nearby. I don't have objections about Sam's Club except it costs you $100 a year for the membership. It is not possible for my wife and I to save enough in groceries and dry goods to make up the difference. However, for a large family or small restaurant the savings are substantial over discounts from regional vendors. Most of the savings is in what it would cost for delivery. If you buy it at Sam's or other similar store you have to get back. A lot of my pantry purchases in the last few years are with Amazon. Careful shopping can save money for two people. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,272
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 18, 2020 9:15:39 GMT -8
I don’t have a Costco membership. But I’ve been in the store a few times. They have a lot of stuff and seem to have a lot of foodstuff as well. A standard Costco membership is $60.00. The place is always crowded so I assume people easily make that membership fee back. My brother has a membership so I have his number and can buy stuff from them online. I think I picked up a good deal on an HDTV a couple years ago. But looking write now at a Mac computer, for instance, I can still get better prices (and free shipping) at MacMall.com. But when buying any relatively high-ticket item, it pays to shop around. But I would imagine for bulk items, one can do pretty well at Costco or Sam's Club. Even so, I have no side-by-side comparison to make. I’m sure Mr. and Mrs. Kung are smart sharpers. I’m not commenting on them. I’ll bet you they find all the deals that make sense. But another part of me thinks that if you simply take “mass quantities” and put them in a warehouse atmosphere, most people will think they are getting a tremendous deal, whether they actually are or not. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,272
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 18, 2020 9:47:24 GMT -8
Rather quickly this book has gotten to Kitty Hawk where Wilbur and Orville are first testing their glider/kite. They would test the flight characteristics of their kite in both capacities…at the end of a string, and while flying it themselves. Careful research (I believe they consulted the National Weather Bureau as well as other sources) pointed to Kitty Hawk as a good place to experiment because of the nearly constant 15-to-20 mph winds. But getting there is another thing. In 1900, it was (interestingly) mostly inhabited by people who had been shipwrecked there. Why they hadn’t moved on, I don’t know. And McCullough doesn’t offer much information on it. The train ride and transfer to the vicinity of Kitty Hawk was extremely easy. But when Wilbur got to the edge of the North Carolina coast (he would set things up and Orville would follow later), no one he encountered knew of any way to get there. It took Wilbur four days to find transport. And what he found was a rickety dinghy and a dubious captain. The dinghy that took him to the boat was in very poor shape. Wilbur had to bail constantly. And the skipper of the boat simply noted that the dinghy was in good shape compared to his boat. The trip out to the gigantic sand bar off the coast of North Carolina, where Kitty Hawk is located, was a 40 mile journey. Because of bad weather and damage to the boat, it took Wilbur two days to get there. The description of the journey paints it as a very perilous one. He was very lucky to make it there alive. Both Wilbur and Orville had rarely ventured far from home so this must have been quite an experience for Wilbur. In fact, their time on this first trip to Kitty Hawk was like a camping trip from hell. When Orville came (there’s no information on the details of his passage to Kitty Hawk), they set up a tent. But the weather, wind, cold, and bugs were fierce. At one point, they were severely short on food and were basically starving because the constant bad whether did not allow resupply. Still, both boys looked back at this trip as the highlight of their lives. Prior to this trip, they had spent a fair amount of time studying what was known of aeronautics…which wasn’t much. They also studied the masters themselves: the birds. In fact, local residents in Kitty Hawk thought they were quite a queer pair, especially the amount of time they not only spent watching the various birds on Kitty Hawk but mimicking them with their hands and arms. What the boys had discovered/intuited earlier (they, after all, did come to Kitty Hawk with a fairly sophisticated glider), was the concept of changing the shape of the wing as a way to control flight. This and ailerons were among their innovations. They noticed that the birds (unlike most experimental glider pilots up till then) did not shift their weight to control, in particular, their pitch. They instead controlled this with the shape of their wings. And they were such careful observers, they also saw that birds did this not with adjustments to the wing to provide more lift but instead adjustments to provide more drag. It’s also worth noting that neither of them were daredevils:  |
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 18, 2020 9:58:30 GMT -8
I think most of us have similar reactions, once we get through a difficult period. Particularly when some time has been put between that period and the present, we can take pride and satisfaction in getting through a dangerous or stressful time. But I suspect most of us don't want to experience again.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 18, 2020 10:08:29 GMT -8
One thing I read or heard somewhere long ago was that one of their key discoveries was that flying required constant adjustment. Previous attempts involved planes that were intended to be stable flyers -- but that never worked, so the planes couldn't really fly. The Wright brothers instead accepted an unstable flyer and were prepared (perhaps from watching the birds) to make adjustments as needed, and thus were able (with a good bit of effort) to fly.
Their desire not to be daredevils no doubt explains why they made (as I recall) 4 flights that day. The first was a short flight, no doubt just to establish that they could do it. Later ones were longer. No doubt they were pushing to find out how much they could do in a single flight while keeping themselves safe.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 18, 2020 10:08:29 GMT -8
Most of the times I visit a Sam's Club, I will see a good number of people who are clearly buying for small businesses. This type of buyer is clearly a big part of the business model.
As regards their groceries, perhaps most of what they sell is packed in large quantities so it makes little sense to buy from them unless you can easily store the items for a longer period of time. For perishables, one has to be careful as they often go off before one can eat them.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 18, 2020 10:11:52 GMT -8
I don't think we ever bought perishables from Sam's. They were very good with snacks and other non-perishables (possibly breadstuffs, no doubt canned and boxed goods). Cleansers would also be good purchases. But it's been a LONG time since we used them, so I don't remember too many details.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,272
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 18, 2020 10:19:55 GMT -8
This was a yuge achievement for the boys. Their rational for the entire endeavor was spelled out by Wilbur in a letter to his father: Regarding how they thought about what they were doing:  |
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 18, 2020 10:22:12 GMT -8
Probably true to some degree. But I do see many people buying very large quantities of goods at check out. A lot of these seem to be bulk items.
My wife knows what groceries and day-to-day items cost, whereas I have no idea, mostly. We go to Sam's when we need something specific. If you don't want to cook, they have a fair selection of prepared meals which one can take home and heat up. One which has always intrigued me is their meatloaf dinner for 4 which, I believe costs $12-. My wife does not like meatloaf so I cannot comment on the quality of the meal. But we have bought other items such as stuffed baked potatoes. And their rotisserie chicken is a good deal.
Their gas is generally 10-20 cents a gallon cheaper than other low-price outlets so it pays to re-fuel one's land cruiser there.
In 2018 I took advantage of buying several higher-priced items on which I saved a good bit of cash. But those were things which I don't buy very often; every few years at most. I would say that on average, I probably cover my yearly membership fee, but only just.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 18, 2020 10:26:23 GMT -8
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,272
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 18, 2020 10:32:17 GMT -8
Yes, that’s very consistent with what I’ve read and may have even been explicitly stated by one of the boys. As for the inherent stability or instability of their first glider, I’m going to assume that it was as stable (possibly more so) than any up to that point. But the flight of a completely passive glider is going to be “unstable” in that you have little control over its path. And from what I’ve read, the only control attempted before then was by people shifting their body weight. One can assume that the Wright’s first glider was fairly aerodynamic. The point was they they could control it in the face of shifting winds, as well as the desire, for instance, to go left or right, or up or down. Their methods worked. What was also interesting about their first stint at Kitty Hawk was how the locals took to them. At first they thought they were some strange fellows, but… Hahah. Love it. “Disremember” sounds so Clintonian.
Bill Tate, in particular, was of enormous help: Let’s hear it for the unsung accomplices to manned flight: the helpful residents of Kitty Hawk. |
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 18, 2020 10:40:22 GMT -8
The nearest Sam's was too far to go there for gasoline. but if I were going anyway and needed fuel, I would go ahead and fuel up there.
|
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 18, 2020 10:41:00 GMT -8
This is beginning to sound like a very interesting book.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,272
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 18, 2020 11:05:50 GMT -8
Frankly, it seems to be becoming an interesting book. I don’t think it started that way. But it’s similar to a streaming series on TV. Once you get to know the characters a bit (and that can take a couple of episodes), you then have some invested interest in it all. And I think I’ve reached that point.
McCullough inserts information about the quality and qualities of the characters involved. I haven’t reached the end of the story yet. But I suspect that the Wright Brothers aren’t going to evince some of the larger warts such as belong to, say, Thomas Edison.
By all accounts (so far), these are two extremely decent kids from a very good Ohioan family. They are poster kids for the kind of achievement-oriented white males who built this country and need to be eternally thanked, not scolded.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,272
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 18, 2020 19:13:25 GMT -8
Wow. That sound really good. I could buy that and freeze the individual portions. Stuffed bake potatoes? That’s the kind of thing that nice to buy prepared because it’s a lot of bother to try to make just one of them for yourself.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,272
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 19, 2020 8:42:47 GMT -8
The unsuccessful government, institutional, and Big Money participants in the quest to be the first in flight — the Langley Aerodrome — was a fantastic failure. Basically every time it was tested, it went straight into the water.  But it is a pretty looking bird. It looks like something Leonardo Da Vinci would have designed. It looks very “scientific.”  [ Original] They spent $70,000 on this experiment that seemingly had no intrinsic value. Whereas: What is interesting is that it seems the pursuit of flight was approached like patent medicine. Pseudo-science was the standard practice. The other practitioners might well have been involved in phrenology. The Wright Brothers were generally a polite bunch and were in contact with some of the leading experimenters of the time and took some of their advice, if only out of politeness. But they finally figured out that all the “data” and theories that everyone else had were complete junk. They would have to figure this out themselves. To that effect, they built a wind tunnel in their shop. It wasn’t the first such wind tunnel but it was by far the best and in expert hands. They were methodical. And they had more than their share of failures. They got discouraged like anyone. What made them a bit different is that by the next day, they’d be ready to go again no matter what. The phenomenon of the Wright Brothers early work seems to be that the closer you were to their operation (and there were a few who were close, at home and some helpers in Kitty Hawk), the more you knew it was just a matter of time until they achieved their goal. But at arm’s length, they were easy to dismiss as fools and cranks. And many did. It was on their third stay at Kitty Hawk that they produced their first sustained powered flight on December 14, 1903. Later the Wright Flyer got caught by the wind and was tumbled into a heap of wreckage. They left it at Kitty Hawk and returned home for the next stage. To save money and to meet the practical challenges of flight (it couldn’t all be more or less in a straight line, for instance), they set up of their test field at Huffman Prairie in or near Dayton which was only a nickel train ride from their home: Without the prevailing winds of Kitty Hawk, the Wrights built a simple catapult system via a weight and a small tower.  [ Original] The Wrights were not glamourous. They were hard workers. They weren’t getting grants from the government. They were funding their efforts via their bicycle business. It was historical happenings dressed up in the commonplace: |
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 19, 2020 10:03:18 GMT -8
The Smithsonian was a strong backer of Langley's efforts, and convinced itself that he made a successful flight. So for a long time they showed his plane as the first to fly. Naturally, the Wrights refused for a long time to let the Smithsonian have a Wright flyer. Eventually they came to some sort of agreement.
The Smithsonian did have Lindbergh's "Spirit of St. Louis". That's about all I remember about when we visited it 50 years ago. Clearly I already knew about Lindbergh's flight and even the name of his plane. (I read a lot of general reference books and magazines that had all sorts of short pieces on various subjects, and no doubt one of them mentioned it.)
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,272
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 20, 2020 8:50:49 GMT -8
Here’s an epilogue to that story: Apparently they went back and modified the Langley plane, did another test that was deemed successful, then de-modified the plane and put it on display on the Smithsonian. The Wright brothers called them on this. I’m not sure what the result was… Except for the fact that 99.9% of people, today and then, credit the Wright brothers with the invention of the airplane. Their defense of their achievement was both needed and effective. But not without cost. McCullough’s book is readable but a bit spotty. It notes that Wilbur, in particular, was run ragged defending their patents and the false claims of others. One day he came down with typhoid, knew he was near the end, made out a will, and on Thursday, May 30, 1912, at the age of forty-five. Did one relate to the other? No opinion was given. Orville lived to see bombers dumping their loads over Germany and the first jet-powered airplanes. After the ample predictions by many that man would never fly, once he did, the consensus quickly developed that aeronautical innovation would proceed at a breathtaking pace. It did. Another aspect of this book that leaves me unsatisfied is that aspect. Even while Wilbur and Orville are still doing demonstration of their planes, a guy in his own plane crosses the English Channel. There is this sense that once it was shown that powered flight was possible, everyone already had an aircraft in their garage just waiting to get up on the air. That probably wasn’t the case. But there is almost zero detail regarding how others so quickly mastered flight. Did they copy the Wright’s design? The Wright brothers did all they could to prevent people from taking pictures. Given that there was no such thing as a camera phone in that age (the cameras would have been huge, boxy things), they apparently were successfully at enforcing their early requests that no photos be taken. It makes me want to read more about early aviation technology, for other than the Wright’s plane, you don’t get much of that in the McCullough book. In 1909, Louis Charles Joseph Blériot was the first to cross the English Channel in an airplane. And it was an airplane of his own design. Wiki states:  [ Original] In 1909, Orville was still doing demonstrations for mass audiences near Washington at Fort Myer. Part of this was publicity. But the main part was to fulfill the requirements of a government contract There were no more experienced pilots than Orville and Wilbur. But it’s astonishing how quickly the French advanced aviation while the Wright brothers were still in rather crude, if useable, aircraft. And there’s no mention in this book about this parallel development or how it came about. But in some way the bottle was uncorked in France and aviation literally took off. |
|
