Subj : Miss.RvrDamBreach-Davenpt To : Nancy Backus From : Barry Martin Date : Sun Dec 01 2019 11:36:00 Hi Nancy! NB>>> Hard to say... could have been either, or some of both... The NB>>> airports around DC are similar, at taking some of the load off each NB>>> other... with BWI the major one, and the other two having their own NB>>> particular benefits for certain situations... ;) BM>> I think somewhat the same for Chicago's O'Hare (ORD) and Midway (CHIA BM>> -- hmm: go to Brazil and land at PET ?!) -- close enough to take some BM>> of the traffic off the primary airport. NB>> And similarly for NYC, between Newark, JFK and LaGuardia... :) BM> Probably just more of the 'hindsight is 20/20': if had known air BM> travel would become so popular and the planes becoming so large they BM> (possibily) would have allocated more room for airport expansion: the BM> landing areas, terminals, and structures around in the landing paths. NB> There probably wasn't any way of knowing how much things would NB> actually expand, just like we've discussed about the expressway NB> systems growing like Topsy and needing room that just isn't NB> there... Or the proverbial statement by Bill Gates about what NB> capacities a computer should have... All true. Part of the now-outdated thinking is back then didn't have the capabilities nor the considerations. Move stuff across the country? By rail, of course! IIRC the interstate system was more for quick movements of troops and Joe Public got to travel as a side benefit. As for Bill Gates' alleged statement, seems like all of the high-ranking people of the companies around then and now heavily into computers made some statement about they (computers) will never be used by the average consumer. BM> Anchor a carrier in the Atlantic, run some ferries between the new BM> floating airport and land.... NB> Now that's a creative concept.... ;) Once in a while I come up with comething good! BM>>>> OTOH "judder' -- maybe derived from 'jerking' and 'shudder'? BM>>>> ...My brain hurts! NB>>>> Now that's a word I'd not heard before.... ;) BM>>> Nor I, which probably contributed to why I (and others) didn't know BM>>> how to describe the visual effect in a single word. NB>>> But a useful word to learn, at least in this context... :) BM>> Yes, as you have said in other messages better to learn the right word BM>> to use. Though as the taglines says, what's the use of learning how BM>> to speak proper English if no one will understand. ("Doo-flingy" BM>> is not a sufficiently technical term in just about any conversation.) BM>> OTOH, one does have to find out what the correct word is in order to BM>> be able to use it. NB>> One has the satisfaction of using the proper word... ;) And then NB>> the fun of having to interpret it to everyone else... :) BM> I've had numerous times when I've had to pause and come up with common BM> terms when trying to explain why something isn't working/working BM> properly. Or when asked if something will work: the answer isn't BM> always yes or no. NB> Communication just gets so complicated, doesn't it... It can! :) ¯ ® ¯ Barry_Martin_3@ ® ¯ @Q.COM ® ¯ ® .... HE: Is this seat empty? SHE: Yes, and this one will be if you sit down. --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.47 þ wcECHO 4.2 ÷ ILink: The Safe BBS þ Bettendorf, IA --- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462 * Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1) .