Slashdot Mirror

"Destroy them utterly" was a direct quote from L Ron Hubbard, referring to dealing with enemies of his cult.

Close. The actual quote is "ruin him utterly." Same difference, really; it's all Fair Game in the end.

And now that I've said this...let the Dead Agenting from the other side begin!

[ http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2001/jun0 1/06-04UshersPR.asp ]

" Windows XP offers an easy-to-use, real-time communication experience, enabling people to communicate and connect like never before," said Bill Gates, chairman and chief software architect for Microsoft.

The above is a parody, and isn't necessarialy meant to harm the company in question. Just in case you couldn't notice...

If you don't get the reference, click here.

There is very little new in the Nuclear industry. Most serious development was done in the '50s and '60s. Anything that makes the news these days is just a bit of underfunded progressive development.

------------------------------

Whoops, my bad memory strikes again. Slowpoke is not a water-boiler. Here's some info on Slowpoke.

Canada designed and built small scale reactors many years ago (called the Slowpoke), with the intention of them being used domestically in remote northern communities, and for export to third world countries without the money for more complex infrastructure.

As mentioned elsewhere, the general anti-nuclear political atmosphere has eliminated any chance of them making it to market.

All student run, completly funded by students and industry.

A side note: other engineering socities in Canada get frustrated with us Carleton folk because EngSoc is a computer system at Carleton, not the Student Government. Now that all "engsoc.universityname.ca" domains point to student governments, this leads to confusion. Why is it like this? Did I mention we gave out email, shell, application and network access as early as 1994 before the evening news ever knew what the internet was?

All student run, completly funded by students and industry.

A side note: other engineering socities in Canada get frustrated with us Carleton folk because EngSoc is a computer system at Carleton, not the Student Government. Now that all "engsoc.universityname.ca" domains point to student governments, this leads to confusion. Why is it like this? Did I mention we gave out email, shell, application and network access as early as 1994 before the evening news ever knew what the internet was?

All student run, completly funded by students and industry.

A side note: other engineering socities in Canada get frustrated with us Carleton folk because EngSoc is a computer system at Carleton, not the Student Government. Now that all "engsoc.universityname.ca" domains point to student governments, this leads to confusion. Why is it like this? Did I mention we gave out email, shell, application and network access as early as 1994 before the evening news ever knew what the internet was?

How lively is it, though? Carleton University has a chapter too, but it looks like it's pretty much dead. (Uh, check out the programming contest page..)

I don't know anything about XCC, but maybe I can shed a little light on the issue by telling you what's going on at my own university, up here in Canada.

Currently, at Carleton University, there exists a club with a similar purpose called Nexus. It was intended as a student-run research group, whereby students could gain access to the equipment they needed for certain projects, and have a better way of finding other people to join teams to work on said projects.

It's in danger of dying out this year.

What's killing it? I would suggest that it's the computer science department itself. In the last few years, the faculty of the computer science school at Carleton University has increased the workload of students exponentially. At the current state, we have the following "killer" courses, to weed out people who can't program:

204 - C++, the profs require you to use Visual C++, with the intent of forcing you to recognize all of the little things that are wrong with Microsoft's compiler. (Their words, not mine.) One of the killer assignments includes mixing operator overloading, templates, and exceptions. This is turning into a really frustrating course for a lot of people, because it's supposed to be an intro to C++ course. It's turning into a fight-the-compiler course.

304 - Object Oriented Software Engineering. You are forced to use ObjecTime, which is the most crash-prone, unuseable, finicky, flaky CASE tool I have ever seen. This is also a group work class, which only compounds the problems for a lot of people. Generally, the class is very beneficial, but with the amount of work and spare time it takes, and the required use of ObjecTime it definitely qualifies as killer.

384 - Algorithms. I agree that this should be a "killer" course. But there is a lot that isn't taught in this course that should be, simply because we're TESTED on it afterwards. They use the CLR book, too, which means that a lot of your own questions are never answered by the book, as there is no solution guide available to students. (And the authors don't want this to change.)

484 - Algorithms II. This is the course that's supposed to be THE killer. And from what I've heard, it is. (I'm only in third year right now.)

In addition to these required, core courses, we're also required to take several other courses in third year and above. Our options can be considered killer, too, as some of them (307, which is a Scheme/Prolog course, and requires as one assignment that you reimplement scheme within scheme; 302, a compiler course that I've also heard was a real time consumer) are just plain insane. Especially whenever you consider that each of these students is potentially taking a full course load, involving at least four other courses. (I've heard many a story of a student dropping all of their other courses just so they could get one of the above-mentioned courses enough of their time.)

It really doesn't help that we've got some really really crappy TAs at times. I've had friends in 204, Intro to C++, show me assignments they've gotten back with "WOULD NOT COMPILE" written on it. The reasoning of the TAs was as follows; I put the disk in the drive, I opened the project, and I hit compile. It stopped compiling, so it mustn't work. (In this case, it was because the TAs were compiling it on the disk. Visual C++ requires a good 10 megs swap space to compile anything, after all.) I really pity the people handing in this last assignment, which is the above-mentioned killer assignment for that course. The only TA is flying back to China as soon as he's finished marking them, so students will have absolutely no recourse if it doesn't run. (The new C++ prof absolutely refuses to remark assignments.)

(Part of the problem, I think, is that a lot of the staff is just plain bad at teaching. The currently reigning C++ prof has a fetish for overloading every single operator. Last year's operating systems prof didn't know how to use fork() or IPC. Students have to make up for their profs' bad teaching by learning the material on their own time, which only makes things worse.)

This is what's killing the computer science societies at Carleton. There are no longer people with free time available to volunteer to run the offices of Nexus. There are rumors circulating already about more general services like CCSS shutting down, and the problem's only going to get worse. With CCSS and Nexus, it's becoming the case where the only people who actually have the time to run the services are first-year people. And now we're starting to find that we can't even attract their help. (Recent graduates are not allowed to help, thanks to some rather bizarre restrictions on clubs and societies, so this is what we're stuck with.)

If this keeps up, we really are going to lose all of our societies.

I don't know anything about XCC, but maybe I can shed a little light on the issue by telling you what's going on at my own university, up here in Canada.

Currently, at Carleton University, there exists a club with a similar purpose called Nexus. It was intended as a student-run research group, whereby students could gain access to the equipment they needed for certain projects, and have a better way of finding other people to join teams to work on said projects.

It's in danger of dying out this year.

What's killing it? I would suggest that it's the computer science department itself. In the last few years, the faculty of the computer science school at Carleton University has increased the workload of students exponentially. At the current state, we have the following "killer" courses, to weed out people who can't program:

204 - C++, the profs require you to use Visual C++, with the intent of forcing you to recognize all of the little things that are wrong with Microsoft's compiler. (Their words, not mine.) One of the killer assignments includes mixing operator overloading, templates, and exceptions. This is turning into a really frustrating course for a lot of people, because it's supposed to be an intro to C++ course. It's turning into a fight-the-compiler course.

304 - Object Oriented Software Engineering. You are forced to use ObjecTime, which is the most crash-prone, unuseable, finicky, flaky CASE tool I have ever seen. This is also a group work class, which only compounds the problems for a lot of people. Generally, the class is very beneficial, but with the amount of work and spare time it takes, and the required use of ObjecTime it definitely qualifies as killer.

384 - Algorithms. I agree that this should be a "killer" course. But there is a lot that isn't taught in this course that should be, simply because we're TESTED on it afterwards. They use the CLR book, too, which means that a lot of your own questions are never answered by the book, as there is no solution guide available to students. (And the authors don't want this to change.)

484 - Algorithms II. This is the course that's supposed to be THE killer. And from what I've heard, it is. (I'm only in third year right now.)

In addition to these required, core courses, we're also required to take several other courses in third year and above. Our options can be considered killer, too, as some of them (307, which is a Scheme/Prolog course, and requires as one assignment that you reimplement scheme within scheme; 302, a compiler course that I've also heard was a real time consumer) are just plain insane. Especially whenever you consider that each of these students is potentially taking a full course load, involving at least four other courses. (I've heard many a story of a student dropping all of their other courses just so they could get one of the above-mentioned courses enough of their time.)

It really doesn't help that we've got some really really crappy TAs at times. I've had friends in 204, Intro to C++, show me assignments they've gotten back with "WOULD NOT COMPILE" written on it. The reasoning of the TAs was as follows; I put the disk in the drive, I opened the project, and I hit compile. It stopped compiling, so it mustn't work. (In this case, it was because the TAs were compiling it on the disk. Visual C++ requires a good 10 megs swap space to compile anything, after all.) I really pity the people handing in this last assignment, which is the above-mentioned killer assignment for that course. The only TA is flying back to China as soon as he's finished marking them, so students will have absolutely no recourse if it doesn't run. (The new C++ prof absolutely refuses to remark assignments.)

(Part of the problem, I think, is that a lot of the staff is just plain bad at teaching. The currently reigning C++ prof has a fetish for overloading every single operator. Last year's operating systems prof didn't know how to use fork() or IPC. Students have to make up for their profs' bad teaching by learning the material on their own time, which only makes things worse.)

This is what's killing the computer science societies at Carleton. There are no longer people with free time available to volunteer to run the offices of Nexus. There are rumors circulating already about more general services like CCSS shutting down, and the problem's only going to get worse. With CCSS and Nexus, it's becoming the case where the only people who actually have the time to run the services are first-year people. And now we're starting to find that we can't even attract their help. (Recent graduates are not allowed to help, thanks to some rather bizarre restrictions on clubs and societies, so this is what we're stuck with.)

If this keeps up, we really are going to lose all of our societies.

I don't know anything about XCC, but maybe I can shed a little light on the issue by telling you what's going on at my own university, up here in Canada.

Currently, at Carleton University, there exists a club with a similar purpose called Nexus. It was intended as a student-run research group, whereby students could gain access to the equipment they needed for certain projects, and have a better way of finding other people to join teams to work on said projects.

It's in danger of dying out this year.

What's killing it? I would suggest that it's the computer science department itself. In the last few years, the faculty of the computer science school at Carleton University has increased the workload of students exponentially. At the current state, we have the following "killer" courses, to weed out people who can't program:

204 - C++, the profs require you to use Visual C++, with the intent of forcing you to recognize all of the little things that are wrong with Microsoft's compiler. (Their words, not mine.) One of the killer assignments includes mixing operator overloading, templates, and exceptions. This is turning into a really frustrating course for a lot of people, because it's supposed to be an intro to C++ course. It's turning into a fight-the-compiler course.

304 - Object Oriented Software Engineering. You are forced to use ObjecTime, which is the most crash-prone, unuseable, finicky, flaky CASE tool I have ever seen. This is also a group work class, which only compounds the problems for a lot of people. Generally, the class is very beneficial, but with the amount of work and spare time it takes, and the required use of ObjecTime it definitely qualifies as killer.

384 - Algorithms. I agree that this should be a "killer" course. But there is a lot that isn't taught in this course that should be, simply because we're TESTED on it afterwards. They use the CLR book, too, which means that a lot of your own questions are never answered by the book, as there is no solution guide available to students. (And the authors don't want this to change.)

484 - Algorithms II. This is the course that's supposed to be THE killer. And from what I've heard, it is. (I'm only in third year right now.)

In addition to these required, core courses, we're also required to take several other courses in third year and above. Our options can be considered killer, too, as some of them (307, which is a Scheme/Prolog course, and requires as one assignment that you reimplement scheme within scheme; 302, a compiler course that I've also heard was a real time consumer) are just plain insane. Especially whenever you consider that each of these students is potentially taking a full course load, involving at least four other courses. (I've heard many a story of a student dropping all of their other courses just so they could get one of the above-mentioned courses enough of their time.)

It really doesn't help that we've got some really really crappy TAs at times. I've had friends in 204, Intro to C++, show me assignments they've gotten back with "WOULD NOT COMPILE" written on it. The reasoning of the TAs was as follows; I put the disk in the drive, I opened the project, and I hit compile. It stopped compiling, so it mustn't work. (In this case, it was because the TAs were compiling it on the disk. Visual C++ requires a good 10 megs swap space to compile anything, after all.) I really pity the people handing in this last assignment, which is the above-mentioned killer assignment for that course. The only TA is flying back to China as soon as he's finished marking them, so students will have absolutely no recourse if it doesn't run. (The new C++ prof absolutely refuses to remark assignments.)

(Part of the problem, I think, is that a lot of the staff is just plain bad at teaching. The currently reigning C++ prof has a fetish for overloading every single operator. Last year's operating systems prof didn't know how to use fork() or IPC. Students have to make up for their profs' bad teaching by learning the material on their own time, which only makes things worse.)

This is what's killing the computer science societies at Carleton. There are no longer people with free time available to volunteer to run the offices of Nexus. There are rumors circulating already about more general services like CCSS shutting down, and the problem's only going to get worse. With CCSS and Nexus, it's becoming the case where the only people who actually have the time to run the services are first-year people. And now we're starting to find that we can't even attract their help. (Recent graduates are not allowed to help, thanks to some rather bizarre restrictions on clubs and societies, so this is what we're stuck with.)

If this keeps up, we really are going to lose all of our societies.

I don't know anything about XCC, but maybe I can shed a little light on the issue by telling you what's going on at my own university, up here in Canada.

Currently, at Carleton University, there exists a club with a similar purpose called Nexus. It was intended as a student-run research group, whereby students could gain access to the equipment they needed for certain projects, and have a better way of finding other people to join teams to work on said projects.

It's in danger of dying out this year.

What's killing it? I would suggest that it's the computer science department itself. In the last few years, the faculty of the computer science school at Carleton University has increased the workload of students exponentially. At the current state, we have the following "killer" courses, to weed out people who can't program:

204 - C++, the profs require you to use Visual C++, with the intent of forcing you to recognize all of the little things that are wrong with Microsoft's compiler. (Their words, not mine.) One of the killer assignments includes mixing operator overloading, templates, and exceptions. This is turning into a really frustrating course for a lot of people, because it's supposed to be an intro to C++ course. It's turning into a fight-the-compiler course.

304 - Object Oriented Software Engineering. You are forced to use ObjecTime, which is the most crash-prone, unuseable, finicky, flaky CASE tool I have ever seen. This is also a group work class, which only compounds the problems for a lot of people. Generally, the class is very beneficial, but with the amount of work and spare time it takes, and the required use of ObjecTime it definitely qualifies as killer.

384 - Algorithms. I agree that this should be a "killer" course. But there is a lot that isn't taught in this course that should be, simply because we're TESTED on it afterwards. They use the CLR book, too, which means that a lot of your own questions are never answered by the book, as there is no solution guide available to students. (And the authors don't want this to change.)

484 - Algorithms II. This is the course that's supposed to be THE killer. And from what I've heard, it is. (I'm only in third year right now.)

In addition to these required, core courses, we're also required to take several other courses in third year and above. Our options can be considered killer, too, as some of them (307, which is a Scheme/Prolog course, and requires as one assignment that you reimplement scheme within scheme; 302, a compiler course that I've also heard was a real time consumer) are just plain insane. Especially whenever you consider that each of these students is potentially taking a full course load, involving at least four other courses. (I've heard many a story of a student dropping all of their other courses just so they could get one of the above-mentioned courses enough of their time.)

It really doesn't help that we've got some really really crappy TAs at times. I've had friends in 204, Intro to C++, show me assignments they've gotten back with "WOULD NOT COMPILE" written on it. The reasoning of the TAs was as follows; I put the disk in the drive, I opened the project, and I hit compile. It stopped compiling, so it mustn't work. (In this case, it was because the TAs were compiling it on the disk. Visual C++ requires a good 10 megs swap space to compile anything, after all.) I really pity the people handing in this last assignment, which is the above-mentioned killer assignment for that course. The only TA is flying back to China as soon as he's finished marking them, so students will have absolutely no recourse if it doesn't run. (The new C++ prof absolutely refuses to remark assignments.)

(Part of the problem, I think, is that a lot of the staff is just plain bad at teaching. The currently reigning C++ prof has a fetish for overloading every single operator. Last year's operating systems prof didn't know how to use fork() or IPC. Students have to make up for their profs' bad teaching by learning the material on their own time, which only makes things worse.)

This is what's killing the computer science societies at Carleton. There are no longer people with free time available to volunteer to run the offices of Nexus. There are rumors circulating already about more general services like CCSS shutting down, and the problem's only going to get worse. With CCSS and Nexus, it's becoming the case where the only people who actually have the time to run the services are first-year people. And now we're starting to find that we can't even attract their help. (Recent graduates are not allowed to help, thanks to some rather bizarre restrictions on clubs and societies, so this is what we're stuck with.)

If this keeps up, we really are going to lose all of our societies.

Because their corporate investors want graduates with Java skills, not Pascal. They deleted Smalltalk from our curriculum at Carleton University in favour of Java because of pressure from both industry and co-op students who both wanted Java skills. Smalltalk was far better at teaching OO, but alas, money talks.

See this link for the full story.

You can use Mikado's excellent 3ds export script to export a Blender scene into 3ds, and from there any small Quake modeling tool can convert it to Quake format. Copy it from chat.carleton.ca/~rmckay /3d/scripts/3DSFormat.blend.
DeMoN has also written a preliminary md2 export script; available from members.xoom.com/chwillrich/, under the "other projects" link.

The Authors Note of Richard Stallman's 'The Right to Read'> (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html)
lists a license agreement of a Chicago university. Although I have not myself seen this agreement, I believe Mr. Stallman that it was in force then. Now? Who knows. One thing is certain though - my university could have had one much the same...


The following text is a direct quote of the Author's note
-------------------------
...For example, a computer at one Chicago-area university prints this message when you log in (quotation marks are in the original):

"This system is for the use of authorized users only. Individuals using this computer system without authority or in the excess of their authority are subject to having all their activities on this system monitored and recorded by system personnel. In the course of monitoring individuals improperly using this system or in the course of system maintenance, the activities of authorized user may also be monitored. Anyone using this system expressly consents to such monitoring and is advised that if such monitoring reveals possible evidence of illegal activity or violation of University regulations system personnel may provide the evidence of such monitoring to University authorities and/or law enforcement officials." This is an interesting approach to the Fourth Amendment: pressure most everyone to agree, in advance, to waive their rights under it.
-------------------

So how does one sue AC?

The same way one sues Major Domo :-)

Squishdot is not a port of the slashcode, it's a clone of some of the basic Slashdot functionality that was produced long before the recent release of the slashcode. It currently lacks features such as self-registration, member pages, post ranking, member pages, etc.

Nevertheless, it is an astonishingly useful product, and can be set up on a working Zope installation within about 5 minutes.

Some sites running Squishdot include:
Technocrat.net
Gnotices, Gnome developer News
70South
eBiquity.org
91.266A - Numerical Methods

and my own FIAWOL site.

There is also a big project underway to build a 'Portal Toolkit' (PTK) for Zope. You can find it here. The features of the PTK include self-registration, member pages, wizards for member contributed content, a review mechanism for member contributed content, multiple integrated sources for user authentication, most portal content 'discussable', etc.
--

Andrew Tanenbaum: Modern Operating Systems, Prentice-Hall.

This is a very good book for introductory Operating Systems.

I learnt one of my programming strengths from Tanebaum's book: multi-processing/threading (experience in the real world has lead me to believe most people have no clue when it comes to programming concurrent code). After taking an OS course, people should be able to describe a solution to the Dining Philosopher's problem (I used to ask about this when conducting interviews of potential new hires, explaining it for those who weren't familiar with it - I was shocked by how many people couldn't deal with it). Every program I write these days seems to have concurrency issues. My course taught this through a thread package that abstracted threads to their base concepts without getting into operating system specific implementation details (it incidentally ran on Linux). Getting bogged down with an operating system's implementation details just causes confusion in an introductory course, making it more difficult to learn the base concepts.

The last project of the course was a bit more specific, and involved writing a mini-shell for Linux, with some of the c-shell functionality (commandline parsing, sychronous and asynch program execution, etc). But by then we were familiar enough with the concepts that we ready to try doing it for real (although a lot people were still able to bring down the Linux boxes by eating up the process table).

My advice: work through Tanenbaum's book, which will explain the most important OS concepts: stressing fundamental issues in design, process management, memory management, synchronization, interprocess communication,, file systems, shared resource management, etc. Then on the practical side, base the assignments on concurrent programming. This takes time to learn, it's best/only learnt through experience, and is a critical concept to understand.

Follow this link for the thread package that I learnt from (Carleton University, Ottawa, course 95.300). It runs in Linux, it's light-weight, it's simple, it helps with learning the concepts.

[Now you can] have a bewolf cluster linked by radio.

Unfortunately, since amateur packet radio is among the most inefficient digital communication modes known to man, such a cluster would be frustratingly slow. All the really cool stuff, at least with wireless networking, is taking place in the license-free bands because license-free is cheaper and you don't have to answer questions about Ohm's law to get access to them.

For more information about wireless networking, you can start at The wireless field test at Old Colorado City communications/ or you can go to the Wireless LAN/MAN Modem Product Directory.

Wireless networks are the way of the future, it's just that Ham Radio isn't the way to get there.

Jonathan Guthrie, KA8KPN, Amateur Extra class (now grandfathered) since 1980.

There's no shortage of wireless LAN products for around the office. Try this list. Outside the office, you'd really like something like a Metricom Ricochet modem.

Ah, finally we hear the voice of the Cult of $cientology, as filtered through one of their loyal members. At least it's better than all the 'Natalie Portman' sporgery that's been going on.

Well, duh! The Catholic Church and the German State are, of course, quite innocent of such motives; the Inquisition and the NAZI (most regrettable) excesses didn't really happen.

Well, duh! yourself. Please remember that those happened years (at least 50) ago and aren't really relevant to the issue at hand. Then again, if your policy is "allways attack / never defend", I guess it's more important to you to hit back than to make your arguement relevant. If relevance is an issue, the Cult of $cientology has been busy much more recently with such things as Operation China Shop, Operation Orange Juice, Operation Funny Bone, Operation Freakout, Operation Snow White, the murder of Lisa McPherson (as well as many others), and far too many other acts of pure evil to mention here (but that you can find here). And while were on the subject of $cientology and the Nazi-ism (you brought it up), don't forget to look here.

At least the Scientologists put out a good product

Matter of opinion. I've used both Diskeeper and Norton Utilities. It's my opinion that Norton Utilities is a much better product. I think it's pretty clear where your opinion comes from.

waged their war for the planet by reason and by legal means

Haha. Yeah, right. 'Reason'? From the people who brought you Xenu (Galactic Overlord of Distinction). And 'legal'? It sure doesn't look that way from where I'm sitting. Once again, what about Operation Snow White etc.?

for the real betterment of humanity

I think these people would disagree. Too bad they can't in person because they're dead.

Every organization screws up from time to time.

Thank god the Cult of $cientology screws up from time to time. Think of the evil they could accomplish if they weren't so incompetent.

But Scientology's screw-ups have been strategic rather than morally flawed.

Um. No. Maybe by the Cult of $Scientology's own special definition of ethics, but not in the real world. Once again, look at Operation Snow White etc.

Whatever you may think of proprietary religion, it is certainly no worse than proprietary software

It is when it kills people. And no, we don't like proprietary software around here either. Choose your arguements more carefully in future.

Scientology is not a threat to democracy.

Not while the Cult of $cientology can use the tools of democracy to press it's own totalitarian agenda. Once they do get control, though, watch out! The Germans have special experience with totalitarianism, and they know it when they see it.

Although Scientology admits to a plan for world domination, so does a certain cabal of OS programmers

But when we say it, it's a joke. When the Cult of $cientology says it, they mean it. Personally, I'd much rather have Linus in charge if I had to choose. And judging from how it treats its own members I'd have to say the Cult of $cientology is my last choice.

"Battlefield Earth"? I loved it. So did my 12 yr old son.

Really? I thought it kind of sucked. Well, actually I though it really sucked. I would think the average 12 year old would have better taste. At 12 years old, I was reading (and enjoying) Heinlein.

Oh, and before you start branding me as some anti-religious bigot or pawn of the anti-$cientology movement, don't. I like most religions. Comparative theology is one of my hobbies. $cientology is just one of the many religions I've studied, and not even the most evil one at that. It's just currently on topic.

Couldn't resist blowing my own horn. See you all on 5711/1/1

David F. Skoll.

My Remind calendar program has been using this technique since 1990. The patent is clearly invalid.

If anyone wants to fight this patent, I will be happy to provide evidence and testimony of prior art.

Just a shameless plug for my school. </ALEX_AND_DAVE=IGNORE>

Just a shameless plug for my school. </ALEX_AND_DAVE=IGNORE>

Just a shameless plug for my school. </ALEX_AND_DAVE=IGNORE>

Here's some bugtraq discussion on removing the execute bits from the stack. A nicer reference in some senses is this fine paper describing a lot of technical details.

M200:
It would be nice to see some of the results of the '150' flights of the M200. Was this with a different engine than the Freedom Rotary? The technical information is really a bit lax.

Horizontal: What about landing horizontally? Surely this would save fuel, and be useful when flying into a normal air strip. If they are conforming to anything near the FARs for helicopters, then the landing gear should be strong enough.

Low Speed: The website doesn't give any decent information about the low speed characteristics (stall anyone?) or transition stability.

But then.. maybe they don't have the budget to put all of this information online.

Joshua Lamorie
Aerospace Electronics IV
Carleton University