MangoCon 2017
-
@art_of_shred said in MangoCon 2017:
@DustinB3403 said in MangoCon 2017:
@art_of_shred said in MangoCon 2017:
@DustinB3403 said in MangoCon 2017:
@JaredBusch said in MangoCon 2017:
@DustinB3403 said in MangoCon 2017:
@JaredBusch said in MangoCon 2017:
Just realized July 28th is covered by this.. that is my 10th anniversary. hrmf... decisions..
10 years total or wedding anniversary?
Wedding.
Congrats.
Umm, that's next July, dude.
Pessimist I see..
No, I'm being optimistic. I hope he does indeed have a 10th anniversary next July. If he spends it at MC2017, I'm not so optimistic about the 11th...
Actually the odds are that she will be in Japan with the kids. So, most likely, I will either be flying back, and attending MC jet lagged, or leaving for Japan directly after MC.
-
@Dashrender said in MangoCon 2017:
@mlnews said in MangoCon 2017:
@JaredBusch said in MangoCon 2017:
Just realized July 28th is covered by this.. that is my 10th anniversary. hrmf... decisions..
Bring her along to romantic Rochester NY!
I tried to get my wife to come, she said no.
My Wife is coming with me, as we are planning to include our vacation after the conference. Need to find some fun activities for her while am attending MC2017. If not, I'm sure she will figure out something!
-
@Ambarishrh said in MangoCon 2017:
@Dashrender said in MangoCon 2017:
@mlnews said in MangoCon 2017:
@JaredBusch said in MangoCon 2017:
Just realized July 28th is covered by this.. that is my 10th anniversary. hrmf... decisions..
Bring her along to romantic Rochester NY!
I tried to get my wife to come, she said no.
My Wife is coming with me, as we are planning to include our vacation after the conference. Need to find some fun activities for her while am attending MC2017. If not, I'm sure she will figure out something!
That's awesome!
-
Hi all
I am back!
Looking at the ticket rates now. The cheapest I could find is from DXB to JFK and thinking about driving as mentioned by @scottalanmiller from JFK to ROC (5 hours). DXB to JFK is $1209.91
https://i.imgur.com/nqO09ZE.pngCheaper than DXB direct to ROC ( Chepest- Egypt Air $1990.74 and $2020.15 for Air France) I guess with DXB to JFK and then a rent a car would still be cheaper. Suggestions please. But then i need to come back to JFK to end the trip (Unless there is a rent a car system where i can drop the car on a different location!)
-
For a bit more ($1632.45) i can get Qatar airways and reach at day time which is easier i guess!
https://i.imgur.com/S6dneRm.png -
Some, not Enterprise, will allow for drop off at different airports. Just have to ask before booking cars.
-
Alamo is pretty good about that here in the Rochester area.
-
Turkish can be great for flying. Also, Amtrak (train) from JFK is possible. It is a little work and can take quite a long time but it is very comfortable and easy.
-
Trains are for those with nothing else to do...
-
@Dashrender said in MangoCon 2017:
Trains are for those with nothing else to do...
The train takes only slightly longer than driving it, if the train is running on time that is (that line is usually pretty good in the summer months).
-
@Dashrender said in MangoCon 2017:
Trains are for those with nothing else to do...
Actually, quite the opposite. On the train you have Internet, power and plenty of space. You can be very productive on trains and they let you rest or sleep, which is a big deal, especially if you've just been flying a long way and might have jet lag or no chance to sleep. Driving completely takes your attention and requires that you be able to control your sleep schedule before and after.
-
@scottalanmiller said in MangoCon 2017:
@Dashrender said in MangoCon 2017:
Trains are for those with nothing else to do...
Actually, quite the opposite. On the train you have Internet, power and plenty of space. You can be very productive on trains and they let you rest or sleep, which is a big deal, especially if you've just been flying a long way and might have jet lag or no chance to sleep. Driving completely takes your attention and requires that you be able to control your sleep schedule before and after.
While true, your perspective is skewed by access. He lives in the center of the country where there is zero infrastructure.
-
@JaredBusch said in MangoCon 2017:
@scottalanmiller said in MangoCon 2017:
@Dashrender said in MangoCon 2017:
Trains are for those with nothing else to do...
Actually, quite the opposite. On the train you have Internet, power and plenty of space. You can be very productive on trains and they let you rest or sleep, which is a big deal, especially if you've just been flying a long way and might have jet lag or no chance to sleep. Driving completely takes your attention and requires that you be able to control your sleep schedule before and after.
While true, your perspective is skewed by access. He lives in the center of the country where there is zero infrastructure.
His reference was specifically about the NYC to Rochester run. Which is a long, boring five or six hour drive. The train, when good, does it in the same time. When bad is a few hours longer, but with time to rest and work if needed.
-
@scottalanmiller said in MangoCon 2017:
@JaredBusch said in MangoCon 2017:
@scottalanmiller said in MangoCon 2017:
@Dashrender said in MangoCon 2017:
Trains are for those with nothing else to do...
Actually, quite the opposite. On the train you have Internet, power and plenty of space. You can be very productive on trains and they let you rest or sleep, which is a big deal, especially if you've just been flying a long way and might have jet lag or no chance to sleep. Driving completely takes your attention and requires that you be able to control your sleep schedule before and after.
While true, your perspective is skewed by access. He lives in the center of the country where there is zero infrastructure.
His reference was specifically about the NYC to Rochester run. Which is a long, boring five or six hour drive. The train, when good, does it in the same time. When bad is a few hours longer, but with time to rest and work if needed.
The discussion was around that run, but his statement was blanket. Not about that run.
-
@JaredBusch said in MangoCon 2017:
@scottalanmiller said in MangoCon 2017:
@JaredBusch said in MangoCon 2017:
@scottalanmiller said in MangoCon 2017:
@Dashrender said in MangoCon 2017:
Trains are for those with nothing else to do...
Actually, quite the opposite. On the train you have Internet, power and plenty of space. You can be very productive on trains and they let you rest or sleep, which is a big deal, especially if you've just been flying a long way and might have jet lag or no chance to sleep. Driving completely takes your attention and requires that you be able to control your sleep schedule before and after.
While true, your perspective is skewed by access. He lives in the center of the country where there is zero infrastructure.
His reference was specifically about the NYC to Rochester run. Which is a long, boring five or six hour drive. The train, when good, does it in the same time. When bad is a few hours longer, but with time to rest and work if needed.
The discussion was around that run, but his statement was blanket. Not about that run.
Well generally the statement can't be true either. As a blanket statement it's wrong. It can be true if you live somewhere not serviced by a train or want to go somewhere not serviced by the same run, of course. But when you are going places that the train goes, it's untrue. So in this specific case, it's patently backwards. As a blanket statement, it is always untrue in that it is only sometimes true. In the same way, you could say airplanes are for people with spare time if you don't live by an airport. Or cars are if you don't own one and have to rent one every time.
-
@JaredBusch said in MangoCon 2017:
@scottalanmiller said in MangoCon 2017:
@Dashrender said in MangoCon 2017:
Trains are for those with nothing else to do...
Actually, quite the opposite. On the train you have Internet, power and plenty of space. You can be very productive on trains and they let you rest or sleep, which is a big deal, especially if you've just been flying a long way and might have jet lag or no chance to sleep. Driving completely takes your attention and requires that you be able to control your sleep schedule before and after.
While true, your perspective is skewed by access. He lives in the center of the country where there is zero infrastructure.
Well, I also look at the trip that JB took last fall. JB spent many hours on the train, I think it was several more hours than it would have been if he drove.
But all of the things you mention, Scott, are definitely true.
Trains definitely seem like a great idea in highly dense population areas, I'm thinking the east coast of the US and large city to large city in Europe, but high speed is also a pretty big requirement for normal use.
I was looking at taking a train from Germany to Italy, it would have taken 36 hours+. Compared to flying that was 6 hours. They can both suffer from delays, so that's a wash.
This is where I say if you have time to give away to travel, fine, great, take the train, but if you don't and a faster option exists, take it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in MangoCon 2017:
@JaredBusch said in MangoCon 2017:
@scottalanmiller said in MangoCon 2017:
@Dashrender said in MangoCon 2017:
Trains are for those with nothing else to do...
Actually, quite the opposite. On the train you have Internet, power and plenty of space. You can be very productive on trains and they let you rest or sleep, which is a big deal, especially if you've just been flying a long way and might have jet lag or no chance to sleep. Driving completely takes your attention and requires that you be able to control your sleep schedule before and after.
While true, your perspective is skewed by access. He lives in the center of the country where there is zero infrastructure.
His reference was specifically about the NYC to Rochester run. Which is a long, boring five or six hour drive. The train, when good, does it in the same time. When bad is a few hours longer, but with time to rest and work if needed.
My reference was two things, the trip JB made last year and my considered trip from Germany to Italy.
In JB's case, If I recall correctly, he was on overnight trains, so it was less of an issue, he might have gotten some sleep on the train.
And the 36 hour train ride while on vacation for me definitely would have included sleeping, but would have keep me from an extra day of exploring Rome. After making that trip 3-4 times I could see giving up a day to the train for a change of pace, and the fact that I've probably explored most of Rome by now, so I'm spending myself doing something else.
In general I don't vacation for chill time, and that's what I see a train as - chill time.
-
@scottalanmiller said in MangoCon 2017:
@JaredBusch said in MangoCon 2017:
@scottalanmiller said in MangoCon 2017:
@JaredBusch said in MangoCon 2017:
@scottalanmiller said in MangoCon 2017:
@Dashrender said in MangoCon 2017:
Trains are for those with nothing else to do...
Actually, quite the opposite. On the train you have Internet, power and plenty of space. You can be very productive on trains and they let you rest or sleep, which is a big deal, especially if you've just been flying a long way and might have jet lag or no chance to sleep. Driving completely takes your attention and requires that you be able to control your sleep schedule before and after.
While true, your perspective is skewed by access. He lives in the center of the country where there is zero infrastructure.
His reference was specifically about the NYC to Rochester run. Which is a long, boring five or six hour drive. The train, when good, does it in the same time. When bad is a few hours longer, but with time to rest and work if needed.
The discussion was around that run, but his statement was blanket. Not about that run.
Well generally the statement can't be true either. As a blanket statement it's wrong. It can be true if you live somewhere not serviced by a train or want to go somewhere not serviced by the same run, of course. But when you are going places that the train goes, it's untrue. So in this specific case, it's patently backwards. As a blanket statement, it is always untrue in that it is only sometimes true. In the same way, you could say airplanes are for people with spare time if you don't live by an airport. Or cars are if you don't own one and have to rent one every time.
There are train lines that run through Omaha. I can get a train from Omaha to Chicago, at a travel time of something like 10 hours or more. Driving takes 7 hours, and flying is under 2 hours, even if you toss in the one hour early arrival (all needed in Omaha) now you're at 3 hours instead of 7 or 10.
I have no idea how prevalent high speed trains are on the east coast? If they are there, then I would probably seriously look at train travel instead of air. That's simply not an option from central USA. Heck I don't think there is one from LA to SF.
In stark contrast, the train between London and Paris. It's about 2 hours, and first class tix where very close in price to flying coach. Though it didn't include internet access when we took it, but did allow much more comfort. Oh, and that 2 hours, is actually less time than you would spend in the UK airport and flight considering security checkthrough, etc. So yeah, the train is definitely the way to go!
-
@Dashrender said in MangoCon 2017:
@JaredBusch said in MangoCon 2017:
@scottalanmiller said in MangoCon 2017:
@Dashrender said in MangoCon 2017:
Trains are for those with nothing else to do...
Actually, quite the opposite. On the train you have Internet, power and plenty of space. You can be very productive on trains and they let you rest or sleep, which is a big deal, especially if you've just been flying a long way and might have jet lag or no chance to sleep. Driving completely takes your attention and requires that you be able to control your sleep schedule before and after.
While true, your perspective is skewed by access. He lives in the center of the country where there is zero infrastructure.
Well, I also look at the trip that JB took last fall. JB spent many hours on the train, I think it was several more hours than it would have been if he drove.
But all of the things you mention, Scott, are definitely true.
Trains definitely seem like a great idea in highly dense population areas, I'm thinking the east coast of the US and large city to large city in Europe, but high speed is also a pretty big requirement for normal use.
I was looking at taking a train from Germany to Italy, it would have taken 36 hours+. Compared to flying that was 6 hours. They can both suffer from delays, so that's a wash.
This is where I say if you have time to give away to travel, fine, great, take the train, but if you don't and a faster option exists, take it.
Yes, but I too have taken that train and you can get a hotel room on it (Germany to Italy). So in many ways, it saves time. All depends on if you see time "on the ground" as the only value or if you see productive time as valuable. Flights and cars use up tons of your free time in logistics. Trains might be slower to very far away destinations (not what we were discussing here) but even decently far can be more practical if your time is valuable.
Look at my latest trip from Rome to Siracusa by train. Eleven hours. A total waste of time, right? Well, except going to the airport is $100 and takes almost an hour in Rome. Going to the train station is $14 and takes five minutes. Airport, we need to be there two hours early to make our flight and are often delayed a few hours. Train, arrive minutes before, delays are rarely more than a few minutes. Airport, we arrive hours from our destination. Train drops us off walking distance away. The train took a real eleven hours (and a few minutes.) The plane sounds fast, but is two hours at the airport, a huge ordeal of security, lots of risks of cancellations (weather in winter), an hour or two in the air, then an hour or more (up to four for us) to get our luggage at the other end, then finding some other form of transportation to get us to the final destination. Even an eleven hour train ride might have been faster than a plane. Probably not, but it's close.
You are using "ridiculous edge cases" to say that trains aren't practical when we are discussing a case where they are. If you did the same thing with airplanes and tried to take an airplane between next door cities, airplanes would seem insane as it would take all day to go walking distance.
Each is appropriate for the right use case at the right place. When trains work, few things compete. BUt you have to be going where they go and coming from where they come from. But that's the case we are discussing. So saying that trains are for the lazy or those that don't value their time is totally untrue. It's one of a number of tools for those that value their time the most.
-
@Dashrender said in MangoCon 2017:
I have no idea how prevalent high speed trains are on the east coast? If they are there, then I would probably seriously look at train travel instead of air. That's simply not an option from central USA. Heck I don't think there is one from LA to SF.
You can't realistically beat the train by much from JFK to Rochester. Taking a car has a long rental time, flying has a long logistical time. It's too close for trains to not work. Even the slow 112mph normal trains in NY are fast enough to make other things not look that good. Is it the fastest? No, if you try hard you can beat it with other methods - but only by sacrificing your time in transit and only to beat it by a small amount.
