h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Maybe we should just stick at:
The US probably has enough cool stuff in it to fill a lifetime of inquisitiveness, depending on how much detail you want to do your tourism in.

Although personally I think its a lot of fun to go somewhere really alien to your experience.

"but which other country has places more climatically different that Alaska and Florida?"

Japan for one!!!

<>

I think that neither Alaska nor Hawaii count when talking about climatic differences within the US. For obvious reasons.


az

I'm not so sure Az, as the point I was making was that Americans can experience a wealth of variety without stepping abroad.

....pity I was too slow posting, I was aiming for a Python moment earlier

Well, except that going to either Alaska or Hawaii would be a similar distance to going anywhere 'abroad'.


az

We-ell, yes, but they won't need a passport. They won't need to deal with foreign currency, driving on the wrong side of the road, foreign laws & customs et al.

I'm maybe being a trifle obtuse, but my point was that a lot of ordinary people gain their knowledge of world geography by travelling abroad on holiday, possibly the only time they will look at a map of another country. Most Americans don't need to leave the US to encounter different climates & experiences.

The majority of posters on HooToo are better-educated than the norm, more inquisitive and ,arguably, better informed than the average Joe. A condescending attitude to the perceived ignorance of others not present is not conducive to clarity.

Anyway, beyond raising smiles at anecdotes, what difference does it make knowing exactly where a country is? We mainly travel by air now - entering one antiseptic airport concourse and exiting at an almost identical one some hours later. It's not as if we have to get a map and compass out to navigate

It affects us on HooToo because we can be drawn into discussions on foreign affairs where an understanding of culture, geography and socio-political models is important.

Can you get to Alaska without a passport? Wouldn't you have to fly through Canadian airspace? What if you leapt out with a parachute and infiltrated Quebec?

Honestly Bouncy . . .

Alaska - WAY OVER THERE ON THE WEST UPPER COAST.

Quebec - WAY OVER THERE ON THE EAST LOWER COAST.

On that very wide continent. With about 3,000 miles separating each coast.

So yeah, anyone going to Alaska would end up flying over Quebec?


az

And I was so sure Quebec was on that side.

*hangs head in shame*

<>

We're also often limited by the amount of vacation time available, since most companies start new employees with one week per year (eligibility only after one full year of working for the company), building to two weeks after a few years with the company. In rare instances, the long time employee (10 or 20 years or more) may be eligible for one or two additional weeks of vacation. That's not much time, when you also consider that many of us live so far away from family that all of our vacation time is used up just trying to visit with aging parents who don't travel anymore. (or in the case of Lord Scott's and my parents, who never did care for travel.)

There are also 10 Federal Holidays in the US. Most of those holidays fall on Mondays, in order to give a long weekend, although not all employees even have those days off work. I'm sure that a 3 day weekend would give a Brit plenty of time to head across the channel and spend 2 days exploring a nearby European country, but a 3 day weekend just isn't enough time for a US-ian to visit another country unless they happen to own their own private jet, or live very near the Mexican or Canadian border.



<>

It may be loads of fun, but it also costs loads of money, which can be in very short supply for the "average" US-ian.

The well-to-do US-ian doesn't have the money constraints, and those are the ones who travel abroad, often at least once a year, especially once they reach retirement age and have more time for travel.

I'm obviously not among the well-to-do. I count myself as among the average, or maybe even below average, at least money-wise. In my entire life, I seriously doubt that we've spent as much all together on all of our family "vacations" as it would cost to go on a single vacation to another country. And that really only includes the 31 years that I've been married, since we never went on vacations at all when I was growing up.

Hmmm... *Looks at the globe sitting here on the coffee table*

Any pilot flying from Florida to Alaska and going over Quebec would certainly be taking the, how shall I put it... scenic route I reckon you need to amend you invasion plans Bouncy - Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC are more likely to be under your flight path Brief the troops and synchronise watches

Going back to the original post, I don't understand why we have to get into discussions about who can afford to travel where ever.The point is how interested are we in finding out about the world around us. If you see a documentary on, say China, you'll learn something about the customs,history or way of life.
The idea that the US is so diverse from north to south rules out a desire to discover the immense spectrum of world culture?
Tut tut!

<< In this case, the social group who know what a LART is would typically be Geeks. The unaware group would be "Clueless computer users".

However, simply because you do not know what the term LART refers to I cannot classify you as clueless.>>

And a good thing too! As an out-and-proud geek I would be forced to flail ineffectually at you (because everyone knows that us geeks can’t actually fight ).

<< It stands for Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool, which is basically anything you have to hand that you can get a good swing with.>>

Back when I worked in IT we used the NT Server Manual.

<< American tourist, referring to statue of William Wallace, " Don't you think it's just wunnerfull that they put up a statue to Mel Gibson for doing the film Braveheart?">>

The terrifying thing is that the statue in Stirling *is* of Mel Gibson... Wallace was a Lowlander and therefore would have been pretty much indistinguishable (in terms of clothing and hairstyle) from the English of the time. Braveheart: ace film but so historically inaccurate it makes me weep.

>Braveheart: ace film but so historically inaccurate it makes me weep<

What, even more so than U-571 or Pearl harbor? Ben Affleck single-handedly wins the Battle of Britain! Hooray!

Trust me, Braveheart is so inaccurate Wallace is spinning in his grave.

Just like Macbeth then

Braveheart: Aaarrggh! But in it's defense, Mel's commentary track on the DVD contains such startling admissions as "Yeah...we made this bit up". So fair play to him.

New York Suddenly Part of America: One of the habits I see more and more these days is people allowing the media of a foreign nation to decide how we see the people of that nation. To whit: Stupid Americans. If you spend some time dealing with Americans, you come to realise that the majority of US citizens are the same as the majority of people anywhere else. They're as smart, as funny, as concerned, as empathic. However, their news and entertainment media firmly believes that the average American is still living in a shack in the middle of a Kansas wheatfield in the 19th century. They therefore broadcast accordingly.
The American news media in particular is horribly guilty of underestimating its viewers' intelligence, and being very smug about it's position of being 'right'.

Aarghhhhh! Hot potato, off his drawers, pluck to make amends

To its defence, Braveheart will be a good one for English lit and Media studies students for a long time. 'To what extent are there parallells in the portrayal of William Wallace and Luke Skywalker'.