Ahh, I see. The idea is to patent an implant that goes in our foreheads, with the number "666." on it. The same implant can be used as a credit card, etc.
I don't think this idea can be patented. I think I remember reading about it in an old book, somewhere.
The first version I remember being panned as something of a plotless dud. It was an excuse to to show off then-new special effects, including limited CGI. Even that wasn't all that impressive.
Why anyone would remake the movie is beyond me. And why anyone would want one of those cycles boggles the imagination.
A problem with copyright law is that it appears to no longer protect individuals as much as it protects large corporations. I'd wager a lot of the money to promote copyright extension and enforcement is coming from places like Sony, who have much to gain.
There have been at lest three flying cars in the past. There was Molt Taylor's Aerocar, one design in the 50's from an organization in Greenville, Texas, and another whose genesis I don't specifically remember. At least the Aerocar (and maybe the others) had FAA certification.
Once the technical problems have been surmounted, it always winds up that the cars are using an expensive aircraft engine to drive down the road. The cost of driving goes up fantastically.
People say they want a car that can be flown (or an aircraft that can be driven), but when it comes to actually buying it, the cost of operation drives them away rather quickly.
The thing that distinguishes this latest effort is that it supposedly will meet the light sport aircraft (LSA) criteria. That would open it up to a much wider range of potential purchasers, since it could be flown with lessened pilot criteria.
It's pretty obvious it didn't meet the LSA criteria. The FAA wavier is to allow this thing to be heavier than the LSA rules otherwise allow.
I wish these people luck, but history suggests they are investing their development dollars in the wrong place.
We somehow take technology, and expect miracles from it, far beyond what the users are capable of doing. Computers are tools, and they are only going to produce what the users are willing to invest in them of their time and effort.
Disadvantaged kids need to learn how to study and investigate, before they will be able to use a computer to its potential as a learning aid. If they don't read or investigate now, computers aren't going to produce some sort of overnight change.
Given China's track record in other areas, can we really believe this document at face value? Perhaps we should view it as what China would like the world to believe, rather than the truth.
In dense traffic areas, there is some reason to keep track of aircraft. But other than that, it's none of the government's business where I am.
No personal electronics in the cockpit? Sounds innocent, but this has avionics lobby people written all over it. They want all the equipment to be installed (read: more expensive), not carried on board.
My hand held gps - aircraft variey - does fine for visual flight operations. I don't need any of this fancy stuff. The "gps radar" installation is going to cost more than a lot of airplanes.
The only "ideas" being defended here that I can see are audio and video (and maybe, text). Sorry, but once the digital revolution hit, Pandeora's box was opened. They can pass all the laws they want to, but they'll be almost impossible to enforce.
Second, the duration of copyrights has been extended, not because it makes sense, but because large corporations, many of them foreign, lobbied in this direction. Whatever happened to the voice of the people?
We need shorter copyright terms, and reasonably priced content. The reasons for piracy would largely disappear, as would the reasons to need still more lawyers and law enforcement personnel.
I hold two degrees in physics, but worked as an engineer and around engineers for thirty plus years. The following are generalities:
1) Engineers think they have all the answers, and are very impatient with those who do not, especially governments. If the government isn't doing it right, they have a better answer. No mind that governments are run by people.
2) Engineers know how to design and execute a terrorist plot, including bomb making. They can also think through how to do the most damage in an unexpected and effective way.
I've used the NTFS file system under SuSE Linux for a couple of years without problems. I use NTFS as the common file system for both Windoze and Linux.
Radio Shack started as a mail order electronics company. I believe it was in Mass somewhere. In 1963, they got the idea of opening retail stores. It's been downhill since.
We should probably have a contest for best (or worst) Radio Shack experiences. Mine was in the l;ate 1960s, when I overheard a clerk, holding a very small transistor radio, maybe 3" square, with built-in speaker, and telling a potential buyer: "Now, this radio has the finest sound of any small radio I've seen."
You've got my vote. But something as important as this surely needs a contingent. Perhaps we could come up with a list of key political figures who have expertise in this area? Or who at least think they do.
What an opportunity for another international prize! Here's a subject that needs increased social awareness. Al Gore, where are you when the galaxy needs you?
This seems to me a self-defeating idea. The obvious goal is to get more processing power. Yet using a scripted language is inefficient, and a waste of processing power.
If you want more processing power, you need to group computers of the same general instruction set, and which can run compiled (or, dare I say it?) assembled machine code.
We managed to get along without any beacons for many years. Suddenly, around 1972, when a couple of government officials were killed in a crash, Congress, not the FAA, decreed we should all have beacons.
Despite all claims to the contrary, they have never worked very well. They've been known to go off when a strong wind moves an aircraft against its tie downs. They've all too frequently been known to not go off when aircraft crash.
As the respondent above says, pilots are not all rich. In fact, most of us aren't. Expecting us to run out and spend $1,200, plus installation costs, for a new gizmo of debatable that Big Brother thinks is a really keen idea, is extremely naive.
Non-pilots simply don't appear to understand: there are other things in the $1,200 range that would have a lot more value. But I'm sure the radio manufacturers think this is a great idea, and that we should all run out and but one.
Sorry, the last time this was tried was not in the 1940s, but at least in the 1950s, and I believe, in the 1960s. I'm too lazy to go look up the exact dates.
It always seems to start the same way: there should be a huge demand for this type of device, but there never is. It's hard to know where to start.
Airplane engines aren't car engines, and car engines aren't airplane engines. An airplane engine must deliver approximately 75% of its power most of the time its flying. A car engine doesn't need to produce the same percentage of its power for extended periods.
Airplane engines are more expensive than car engines. They cost more per hour to run, whether they are going down the road, or flying. It takes an A&P to work on both the engine and the airframe, so this must go to the local airport for anything significant.
The gear (wheels) on an airplane aren't powered. They are in a car. The prop must be disconnected from the wheels when this thing is on the road. There are two sets of systems for too many things. That eats up the payload of the vehicle.
By the time everything is done, I suspect you can buy both an aircraft and a car cheaper than one of these things. Both will certainly perform better in their respective domains: this vehicle is a compromise, at best.
It sounds enticing, but it's been tried before. It winds up costing far more than it could be worth to anyone, and the performane is a compromise. As a result, it's hard to sell.
I hold an airframe and powerplant certificate with an inspection authorization, and a pilot's license. I've been involved in major aircraft modifications for a living, and was the project engineer on one project to certify a new aircraft. If somebody builds one of these things, I can't help you at a price you'd want to hear.
I'm 65, and have spinal arthritis. There are mornings when I get up, and everything is normal, and mornings when I'm not functional. The problem sometimes is making sure how functional I am before I try to do anything, especially operating machinery or driving.
I've found that playing a computer game before I do much else is a really good indicator of how well I am functioning. I also get the impression that playing the game for a while seems to improve my functionality.
I don't consider this hard proof of anything. I do think it may be an indicator that there is something to this idea. It may merit serious research.
First off, when an aircraft is in an emergency, you can do a lot of things that would otherwise be banned. You save your fanny first, then worry about regulations later.
Second, the reasons given for the cell phone ban appear to be largely misinformed. I know of two: potential interferrence with aircraft equipment, and interferrence with ground cell phone towers.
To demonstrate that cell phones categorically do not interfere with aircraft equipment, in the US, the FAA would require that each cell phone design demonstrate that it does not cause interferrence. Change the design, or have a different design? New demonstration required. Cell phones passing the test would more than likely need some sort of identifying mark showing that they were approved for aircraft use.
Don't like this idea? Perhaps you'd like to fly with someone who can interfere with the aircraft instruments. I can imagine the headlines: "FAA fails to insure airline safety. Cell phone determined to be cause of crash claiming 150 lives!"
As much as I dislike the airlines getting a free ride on their phones being the only ones usable on the aircraft, those phones have been verified not to interfere with other equipment on the aircraft.
The other problem is that ground based cell phones were designed for ground usage. They punch into whatever cell phone towers happen to be in range. As long as the cell phone itself isn't at a higher elevation, it only reaches a limited number of towers. Put it in an airplane, and it reaches a much larger number of towers. Which tower should be handling the call? Who knows?
This might not be too bad for one or two cell phones, but open it up to all cell phones, and significant interference could result.
It is possible to design a cell phone for airborne use. All it takes is money.
One can, of course, legislate this problem, and declare whatever the legislators think will please the electorate the most. But that, of course, does not change the laws of physics.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh, I see. The idea is to patent an implant that goes in our foreheads, with the number "666." on it. The same implant can be used as a credit card, etc.
I don't think this idea can be patented. I think I remember reading about it in an old book, somewhere.
The first version I remember being panned as something of a plotless dud. It was an excuse to to show off then-new special effects, including limited CGI. Even that wasn't all that impressive.
Why anyone would remake the movie is beyond me. And why anyone would want one of those cycles boggles the imagination.
A problem with copyright law is that it appears to no longer protect individuals as much as it protects large corporations. I'd wager a lot of the money to promote copyright extension and enforcement is coming from places like Sony, who have much to gain.
There have been at lest three flying cars in the past. There was Molt Taylor's Aerocar, one design in the 50's from an organization in Greenville, Texas, and another whose genesis I don't specifically remember. At least the Aerocar (and maybe the others) had FAA certification. Once the technical problems have been surmounted, it always winds up that the cars are using an expensive aircraft engine to drive down the road. The cost of driving goes up fantastically. People say they want a car that can be flown (or an aircraft that can be driven), but when it comes to actually buying it, the cost of operation drives them away rather quickly. The thing that distinguishes this latest effort is that it supposedly will meet the light sport aircraft (LSA) criteria. That would open it up to a much wider range of potential purchasers, since it could be flown with lessened pilot criteria. It's pretty obvious it didn't meet the LSA criteria. The FAA wavier is to allow this thing to be heavier than the LSA rules otherwise allow. I wish these people luck, but history suggests they are investing their development dollars in the wrong place.
OK, everybody, let's have a contest to see which political party can do the most to suppress liberty ... the Democrats or the Republicians?
We somehow take technology, and expect miracles from it, far beyond what the users are capable of doing. Computers are tools, and they are only going to produce what the users are willing to invest in them of their time and effort. Disadvantaged kids need to learn how to study and investigate, before they will be able to use a computer to its potential as a learning aid. If they don't read or investigate now, computers aren't going to produce some sort of overnight change.
1. Keep the things in positive controlled airspace at all times. 2. Minimize the amount of positive controlled airspace.
Given China's track record in other areas, can we really believe this document at face value? Perhaps we should view it as what China would like the world to believe, rather than the truth.
I'd think they'd fit right in in a controlled society.
In dense traffic areas, there is some reason to keep track of aircraft. But other than that, it's none of the government's business where I am. No personal electronics in the cockpit? Sounds innocent, but this has avionics lobby people written all over it. They want all the equipment to be installed (read: more expensive), not carried on board. My hand held gps - aircraft variey - does fine for visual flight operations. I don't need any of this fancy stuff. The "gps radar" installation is going to cost more than a lot of airplanes.
The only "ideas" being defended here that I can see are audio and video (and maybe, text). Sorry, but once the digital revolution hit, Pandeora's box was opened. They can pass all the laws they want to, but they'll be almost impossible to enforce. Second, the duration of copyrights has been extended, not because it makes sense, but because large corporations, many of them foreign, lobbied in this direction. Whatever happened to the voice of the people? We need shorter copyright terms, and reasonably priced content. The reasons for piracy would largely disappear, as would the reasons to need still more lawyers and law enforcement personnel.
I hold two degrees in physics, but worked as an engineer and around engineers for thirty plus years. The following are generalities: 1) Engineers think they have all the answers, and are very impatient with those who do not, especially governments. If the government isn't doing it right, they have a better answer. No mind that governments are run by people. 2) Engineers know how to design and execute a terrorist plot, including bomb making. They can also think through how to do the most damage in an unexpected and effective way.
I've used the NTFS file system under SuSE Linux for a couple of years without problems. I use NTFS as the common file system for both Windoze and Linux.
Radio Shack started as a mail order electronics company. I believe it was in Mass somewhere. In 1963, they got the idea of opening retail stores. It's been downhill since. We should probably have a contest for best (or worst) Radio Shack experiences. Mine was in the l;ate 1960s, when I overheard a clerk, holding a very small transistor radio, maybe 3" square, with built-in speaker, and telling a potential buyer: "Now, this radio has the finest sound of any small radio I've seen."
You've got my vote. But something as important as this surely needs a contingent. Perhaps we could come up with a list of key political figures who have expertise in this area? Or who at least think they do.
What an opportunity for another international prize! Here's a subject that needs increased social awareness. Al Gore, where are you when the galaxy needs you?
This seems to me a self-defeating idea. The obvious goal is to get more processing power. Yet using a scripted language is inefficient, and a waste of processing power. If you want more processing power, you need to group computers of the same general instruction set, and which can run compiled (or, dare I say it?) assembled machine code.
We managed to get along without any beacons for many years. Suddenly, around 1972, when a couple of government officials were killed in a crash, Congress, not the FAA, decreed we should all have beacons.
Despite all claims to the contrary, they have never worked very well. They've been known to go off when a strong wind moves an aircraft against its tie downs. They've all too frequently been known to not go off when aircraft crash.
As the respondent above says, pilots are not all rich. In fact, most of us aren't. Expecting us to run out and spend $1,200, plus installation costs, for a new gizmo of debatable that Big Brother thinks is a really keen idea, is extremely naive.
Non-pilots simply don't appear to understand: there are other things in the $1,200 range that would have a lot more value. But I'm sure the radio manufacturers think this is a great idea, and that we should all run out and but one.
Yes! I took myself out of the situation where it mattered by simply retiring!
Sorry, the last time this was tried was not in the 1940s, but at least in the 1950s, and I believe, in the 1960s. I'm too lazy to go look up the exact dates.
It always seems to start the same way: there should be a huge demand for this type of device, but there never is. It's hard to know where to start.
Airplane engines aren't car engines, and car engines aren't airplane engines. An airplane engine must deliver approximately 75% of its power most of the time its flying. A car engine doesn't need to produce the same percentage of its power for extended periods.
Airplane engines are more expensive than car engines. They cost more per hour to run, whether they are going down the road, or flying. It takes an A&P to work on both the engine and the airframe, so this must go to the local airport for anything significant.
The gear (wheels) on an airplane aren't powered. They are in a car. The prop must be disconnected from the wheels when this thing is on the road. There are two sets of systems for too many things. That eats up the payload of the vehicle.
By the time everything is done, I suspect you can buy both an aircraft and a car cheaper than one of these things. Both will certainly perform better in their respective domains: this vehicle is a compromise, at best.
It sounds enticing, but it's been tried before. It winds up costing far more than it could be worth to anyone, and the performane is a compromise. As a result, it's hard to sell.
I hold an airframe and powerplant certificate with an inspection authorization, and a pilot's license. I've been involved in major aircraft modifications for a living, and was the project engineer on one project to certify a new aircraft. If somebody builds one of these things, I can't help you at a price you'd want to hear.
I'm 65, and have spinal arthritis. There are mornings when I get up, and everything is normal, and mornings when I'm not functional. The problem sometimes is making sure how functional I am before I try to do anything, especially operating machinery or driving. I've found that playing a computer game before I do much else is a really good indicator of how well I am functioning. I also get the impression that playing the game for a while seems to improve my functionality. I don't consider this hard proof of anything. I do think it may be an indicator that there is something to this idea. It may merit serious research.
Eubola, the HIV virus, and now this.
First off, when an aircraft is in an emergency, you can do a lot of things that would otherwise be banned. You save your fanny first, then worry about regulations later.
Second, the reasons given for the cell phone ban appear to be largely misinformed. I know of two: potential interferrence with aircraft equipment, and interferrence with ground cell phone towers.
To demonstrate that cell phones categorically do not interfere with aircraft equipment, in the US, the FAA would require that each cell phone design demonstrate that it does not cause interferrence. Change the design, or have a different design? New demonstration required. Cell phones passing the test would more than likely need some sort of identifying mark showing that they were approved for aircraft use.
Don't like this idea? Perhaps you'd like to fly with someone who can interfere with the aircraft instruments. I can imagine the headlines: "FAA fails to insure airline safety. Cell phone determined to be cause of crash claiming 150 lives!"
As much as I dislike the airlines getting a free ride on their phones being the only ones usable on the aircraft, those phones have been verified not to interfere with other equipment on the aircraft.
The other problem is that ground based cell phones were designed for ground usage. They punch into whatever cell phone towers happen to be in range. As long as the cell phone itself isn't at a higher elevation, it only reaches a limited number of towers. Put it in an airplane, and it reaches a much larger number of towers. Which tower should be handling the call? Who knows?
This might not be too bad for one or two cell phones, but open it up to all cell phones, and significant interference could result.
It is possible to design a cell phone for airborne use. All it takes is money.
One can, of course, legislate this problem, and declare whatever the legislators think will please the electorate the most. But that, of course, does not change the laws of physics.