Separate from that, everybody who votes should be informed; but a lack of knowledge is not a barrier to voting. By accident of their birth, U.S. Citizens are eligible. No other test should be applied, as it will someday be abused.
I think the Team America guys had their hearts in the right place; but allowing uninformed or uneducated people to vote is the price we pay for ensuring that nobody does the "literacy test" kind of thing again.
In February of 2001, just one month after his inauguration, the Bush cabinet was already talking about regime change in Iraq. This was 7 months before 9/11. He had designs on Iraq before he was elected. He may very well have held the philosophy you described; but I'm not entirely convinced of that. I will admit that it's plausible; but it's a conclusion drawn without evidence (memos, minutes of meetings, etc.)
It would also be misguided to think that the Arab peoples will unite under Jeffersonian democracies. It ignores their history, their writings, and their speeches to believe that they will. Any democracy in that region will break down or become a shadow of itself. Pakistan is a good example. It remains a democracy as long as that democracy behaves like a dictatorship. On the other hand, the Jordanian Monarchy is perhaps the most stable and moderate government in the region.
Back on the subject of our pretext for invasion, whatever the reason Bush invaded Iraq, he felt it was one we wouldn't swallow, and so lied to us to get his support. That should carry the gravest of consequences. It is far beyond his rights as President to lie to us because he knows what's best even if we don't. If he is kicked out of office (and that appears to be big "if" right now) he will be getting off easy. Because to do such a thing as he has done, to ignore our wishes, or to divert around them by lying to us so that our wishes are those of uninformed or misinformed people, so that he can run the country as he alone sees fit, is to make a mockery of democracy. To pay lip service to democracy in the U.S. (I know we're a democratic republic, not a true democracy; but the point is still valid) while behind the backs of the American public (or in front of them after they've been manipulated) executing your own policies is to defy our constitution and everything it stands for.
So, if your point about Bush's real designs with Iraq are true, I hardly think it supports his re-election.
The way to defeat Islamic radicalism is to make it radical. You need to get Islam to heal itself. Islam is killing itself with this radicalism, and you need the moderates to see it and take action. Until then, every defeat is proof of the need for jihad. Every victory is proof of Allah's grace and support. I don't know if we can accomplish that ourselves. I do know that we can't accomplish it with boondoggles like Iraq. Certainly, we kill those who attack us. That's justice...
But be careful in how you evaluate your own actions. The phrase "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining." comes to mind. If you kill my rapist brother I may see the justice in it; but don't expect me to thank you for improving the family's overall worthiness. Don't expect me to welcome you. And if you kill my Uncle who gave him a place to sleep, and threaten to kill my father for proclaiming his love for his dead son, you can expect me to come after you.
We need to be a friend to the moderates. Currently, we're not.
"Ladies and Gentlemen. The aircraft you have boarded is the most technologically advanced machine ever constructed. A system of hundreds of computers and servos, all checking and correcting eachother's work has eliminated the need for a human crew. Welcome to the maiden flight of the most advanced aircraft in the history of avaiation. Sit back and relax, nothing can go wrong... nothing can go wrong... nothing can..."
I wonder if instead of coloring the windows, we couldn't fleck them with something that would allow decent visibility out; but would be able to diffuse a laser coming in. May not be feasible; but it's an idea.
This isn't quite as rare as it seems. There were semi-regular instances of this happening when laser light shows became all the rage in Vegas, etc. They've since started publishing notices for pilots about laser light show activity at open-air venues.
I've never been hit by a laser; but I've been shined by an idiot with a spotlight before in the local practice area. I'm not sure how you'd ever prevent such things. While the spotlight didn't damage my eye, it certainly ruined my night-vision for some time.
While I generally agree with you, this particular one doesn't really bother me, as it was inevitable.
There was no end to the season, thus dashing our hopes for a perfect run, etc. Ken was/is going to lose eventually. So I know that the inevitable happened. Oh well.
Currently, the only methods for making things fly involve high velocities (rotors, props, turbines) and the associated noise from those moving things.
People already move next to the airport, then sue the airport management for excessive noise. Nobody is going to tolerate a jet-powered car next door.
Finally, it's just not practical to use that much energy to commute downtown. And if you find a destination for which this makes sense, it would probably be better served by an airplane anyhow.
I can see certain applications for the technology (search and rescue, surveillance, etc); but even those are served well by current technology.
As the parent implied, until we find an anti-gravity technology, flying cars will always be a lark.
Could decades of political thought in one direction or the other result in chemical changes in the brain?
We do lots of other things that cause chemical changes in our body, lifestyles that cause certain substances to be more or less abundant in our bodies. Are our brains off limits to such things?
This may be a stupid theory, I don't know; but it seems to me that it would be VERY difficult to establish any causality either way.
George Bush was planning the Iraq invasion long before Al-Queda flew airplanes into the WTC and the Pentagon on Sep. 11. His own cabinet members recall discussions about it during his first cabinet meeting. So to say that invading Iraq had anything to do with Al-Queda or with the new terrorism reality is just a mistake. You might certainly use those things to retroactively justify the war; but don't expect the rest of the world to eat that sandwich. Whatever George Bush' s reason for going to war was, he didn't feel he could tell us. Instead, he gave us the WMD line.
Your position on these issues is one that is very narrowly American. While your patriotism is admirable, you must understand that America can not act in isolation of the rest of the world. Certainly, Americans should put American interests first (especially a President); but keeping America's interest first often means participating in the world community.
There is no doubt that Saddam was a bad guy. Nor is there any doubt that his people will eventually be better off without him. All of the horrible things said about Saddam are true, and if ever there was a guy who deserved whatever he got, it was Saddam.
That is not the same as it being justifiable that we gave him what he was deserving.
In the end, it has actually created more violence than it dispelled. The fighting continues daily and if anything, we have brought more terrorists to the country than previously existed there.
Now, as far as we're concerned, that might not be a bad thing. If we give them a focus, and a fight to fight, we can at least draw them to us and take them on. Even better, we're doing it in their neighboring lands, rather than here at home.
If you look at the laundry list of nations you gave that are deserving of our wrath or righteousness or liberation, or whatever you want to call it (let's call it our ass-kicking) I find it interesting that you haven't put Afghanistan at the top of the list; because it's far from over there. Al-Queda is still based and entrenched there. Osama Bin-Laden is believed to still be there (you remember, the guy who actually was responsible for 9-11). The Taliban are still working against us in smaller groups, etc. We have certainly not killed pan-islamic radicalism in that little stretch of the middle east.
Indeed, apparently we ARE more interested in North Korea than we are Afghanistan. We have 35,000 troops stationed across the border from North Korea, and only 20,000 in Afghanistan. Interesting... North Korea never attacked us. Also interesting on that note is that the Korean situation is another U.N. mess that we decided we'd take the burden on. And 50 years later, we're still screwing around with it.
So what happened to this being about terrorism and "pan-islamic radicalism"? Isn't that what Al-Queda is? Shouldn't we then be hitting at them? The thing about an Iraq or an Iran is that they're a stationary target. They'll yell and gesticulate and generally make a spectacle of themselves; but they're not going to do anything that will result in their losing power. See, despite what they tell you about being a theocracy, the Shah, Ghaddafi, Crown Price Abdullah, etc. are more about power than Islam.
You're not going to kill pan-islamic radicalism with a gun. You're only going to incite more of it. It may seem for a while that you have it licked; but will only be burning hotter and hotter under the surface. I don't know how many times people have to learn that lesson from history. It gets proven over and over again. Do you really believe that you can kill enough radical uncles/fathers/brothers/cousins to scare the rest of the family straight? That's worse than a pipe dream. That's a child's pipe dream.
Pre-emptively (and yes, by the way, that is a dirty word) striking any country we believe to be the source of our problems is not going to solve the problem. Furthermore, it's wrong. 9/11 only raised that bar if
Clouds are a confluence of temperature and moisture. It's not like they're all sitting up there waiting to be wafted around the world. They are part of the air itself. Saying that the wind wouldn't be strong enough to push clouds is like saying that wind wouldn't be strong enough to push itself.
If the air moves, its moisture moves with it. If the moisture encounters low enough temperatures that it can't be sustained by the air anymore, it will condense into clouds, rain, whatever. If the temperature raises again, the cloud will dissipate and its moisture will be re-absorbed by the atmosphere, all as it moves with its associated airmass.
It would be a travesty to see Linux shoe-horned into one place and philosophy.
The great thing about Linux now is that you can install a totally free community supported distro like Debian or Gentoo, a good server like RHEL or SEL, a decent desktop like Lycoris, Xandros, Linspire, etc.
If the Linux "community" ever tried to decide that the focus was either solely freedom or market share to the exclusion of all others, I'd be horribly disappointed.
In fact, I'd say that the ability to make your Linux motivation a good "market share" is in fact, a reflection of Linus' and Stallman's motivations for freedom.
I'll admit to being a bit on the cheap side. I'm thinking of training in a C-150/C-152. You could expect about $65/hr where I live and instruct. Add $35/hr for the instructor for an even $100 dual instruction time.
You're required to have 40hrs of flight time, though few get it in 40. 60 is more normal, though just under half of that can be solo.
So, if you're flying a bigger airplane you can expect more. If you're not flying consistently you will pay more as you spend extra time brushing up, and most of it is dual. Finally (and I'm not suggesting this is the case with your friend) some people will pick it up faster than others.
So there are some factors which can make it more expensive. But, most of the students at my location (NE Kansas) get it for around $4k
I wish I had mod points today. You're absolutely correct.
After 15 years of flying I decided to get my CFI (Certificated Flight Instructor) rating. I was amazed at the amount of knowledge involved that I had come to take for granted.
Pilots do indeed learn a lot. They are more informed and skilled that non-pilots who fly other types of aircraft.
As for the expense, you'll spend about $4k to get your Private Pilot's license. How many slashdotters have spent that much on a computer or big-screen television? In the long run, that's not that much money. And you can keep current without breaking the bank.
The things you learn getting your private will be beneficial when flying a sport plane or ultralight.
As others have mentioned, the ultralight rules don't change with this...
But, on a personal note, I would encourage anybody who is going to fly ultralights to get some flight training with a Certificated Flight Instructor in an airplane. I'm not suggesting that you go the whole course and get your license (not a bad idea though); but I do think you'll want some training in stall awareness and recovery.
I'm not at the point of saying that everybody who flies should have a license; but I would say that everybody who flies should have some stall training. It might just save your life.
You certainly could use these in VFR operations. I would think that it would even work better in those conditions as there would likely be less other electromagnetic activity to get in the way.
However, you stated yourself that 15% of the single-engine piston fleet is homebuilt. How many of that 15% are aloft at any given time, and for how long? I don't think the homebuilt crowd by itself is enough to sustain this idea. I believe you need to do this with production aircraft as well to make it work. And that's expensive.
I'm not knocking the homebuilt crowd by any means. I think they're a necessary segment of the industry; but I think this idea for a winged wifi cloud needs more numbers than the homebuilt fleet provides.
The thing about upper-class tax cuts providing stimulus to the economy, thereby procucing tax gains in the long run is something I don't really believe but at the same time won't totally discredit. My arguments against it, however are as follow:
1. You need a LOT of stimulus. If you give up $100 in tax revenue, you need to increase the spending/earning of the economy enough that more than $100 is earned back. If I spend the $100 on goods, the tax income from that will be substantially less than $100. SO, what needs to happen is the $100 needs to inspire others to spend enough that their taxes will increase enough to cover what's left of the government's loss of the original $100. That seems like an awfully big gamble to me. Furthermore, it seems to be one that is very difficult to prove or quantify after the fact, given the complexity of the economy. Tax-cut stimulus packages thus strike me more as hopeful psychology than practical work.
Additionally, the guy with the $1million home won't be out buying more fruit from the local vendor, or a new carb for his Chevy because you gave him a few thousand more dollars this year. He wasn't pinching pennies to begin with, so an extra $10k this year won't significantly change his purchasing habits. Even if it did, he's just as likely to buy foreign goods which do less to help our economy. He's more likely to invest that money, and while that itself can provide some benefits for the economy, it's speculative. Furthermore, the tax cuts aren't usually enough to sustain substantial increases in his payroll. Upper class consumers recognize better than anybody that such a tax cut is a temporary idea to jump-start the economy and that they won't, or shouldn't last.
2. This has more to do with how we've applied this in the past than the actual premise of "trickle-down" economics; but as our legislative body has shown no ability to restrain themselves when it comes to spending, any gains by these tax cut packages are chewed up immediately. You can't run what is essentially a loss-leader type of operation indefinitely. A tax cut to stimulate the economy is a temporary solution at best. You cannot get around the fact that if you spend more than you take in, you lose. We MUST reduce spending to reap any benefits the tax cuts might produce. Eliminate our deficit, pay down our debt, and then give me a REAL tax cut. You don't have to be an economist to see that. In one of the most brazen displays of arrogance I think I've ever heard of, Dick Cheney responded to Paul O'Neill's warning of continued tax cuts racking up debt and deficits by saying "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." If you're not worried about the solvency and integrity of your government, I suppose that's true. I am, however.
My point is that I don't fly a homebuilt airplane. My airplane does require a 337.
Cringely noted that there were 1000 GA aircraft currently on ifr flights. How many do you think were homebuilt? I doubt even a dozen. His idea works only if production GA aircraft carry these things.
He's poo-pooing research into the matter by saying that it doesn't prove anything; and yet he's not giving any evidence that it's not true.
He does have the priviledge under Part 91 to do this in his own plane, though. The thing is, his homebuilt small plane probably has better insulation on the wiring than a mid-80's airliner. Also, he probably doesn't fly his little homebuilt on autopilot much (if it's even equipped with one) whereas an airliner spends most of its time being flown by the flight director (fancy autopilot), which is the component that we're really worried about, as it will follow a failed instrument without question, as opposed to analyzing whether or not the indications make sense. So, in the end, he won't really have proven anything regarding the RF interference issue on aircraft.
Finally, I'm not going to spend $1000 having an A&P mechanic install my $100 wifi router in my airplane. If I could just slap it in myself, that would be one thing; but with an airplane you're going to need a Form 337 approval at least, if not an STC (Supplemental Type Certificate). No big deal on the 337. It just takes time and thus money. That's money I'll be spending just help the wifi cloud when I happen to be flying? Uhh, I'll pass.
Slashdot Mirror
And interestingly, we just told Taiwan not to rock the boat, that we wouldn't support any changes to the status quo.
So much for promoting democracy around the world.
He's wanting somebody to demonstrate a technology that will make his space habitats commercially successful.
He's essentially looking for somebody to produce the shuttle that will take people to his orbital hotels.
Sounds like a great idea to me.
Everybody who is eligible should vote.
Separate from that, everybody who votes should be informed; but a lack of knowledge is not a barrier to voting. By accident of their birth, U.S. Citizens are eligible. No other test should be applied, as it will someday be abused.
I think the Team America guys had their hearts in the right place; but allowing uninformed or uneducated people to vote is the price we pay for ensuring that nobody does the "literacy test" kind of thing again.
In February of 2001, just one month after his inauguration, the Bush cabinet was already talking about regime change in Iraq. This was 7 months before 9/11. He had designs on Iraq before he was elected. He may very well have held the philosophy you described; but I'm not entirely convinced of that. I will admit that it's plausible; but it's a conclusion drawn without evidence (memos, minutes of meetings, etc.)
It would also be misguided to think that the Arab peoples will unite under Jeffersonian democracies. It ignores their history, their writings, and their speeches to believe that they will. Any democracy in that region will break down or become a shadow of itself. Pakistan is a good example. It remains a democracy as long as that democracy behaves like a dictatorship. On the other hand, the Jordanian Monarchy is perhaps the most stable and moderate government in the region.
Back on the subject of our pretext for invasion, whatever the reason Bush invaded Iraq, he felt it was one we wouldn't swallow, and so lied to us to get his support. That should carry the gravest of consequences. It is far beyond his rights as President to lie to us because he knows what's best even if we don't. If he is kicked out of office (and that appears to be big "if" right now) he will be getting off easy. Because to do such a thing as he has done, to ignore our wishes, or to divert around them by lying to us so that our wishes are those of uninformed or misinformed people, so that he can run the country as he alone sees fit, is to make a mockery of democracy. To pay lip service to democracy in the U.S. (I know we're a democratic republic, not a true democracy; but the point is still valid) while behind the backs of the American public (or in front of them after they've been manipulated) executing your own policies is to defy our constitution and everything it stands for.
So, if your point about Bush's real designs with Iraq are true, I hardly think it supports his re-election.
The way to defeat Islamic radicalism is to make it radical. You need to get Islam to heal itself. Islam is killing itself with this radicalism, and you need the moderates to see it and take action. Until then, every defeat is proof of the need for jihad. Every victory is proof of Allah's grace and support. I don't know if we can accomplish that ourselves. I do know that we can't accomplish it with boondoggles like Iraq. Certainly, we kill those who attack us. That's justice...
But be careful in how you evaluate your own actions. The phrase "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining." comes to mind. If you kill my rapist brother I may see the justice in it; but don't expect me to thank you for improving the family's overall worthiness. Don't expect me to welcome you. And if you kill my Uncle who gave him a place to sleep, and threaten to kill my father for proclaiming his love for his dead son, you can expect me to come after you.
We need to be a friend to the moderates. Currently, we're not.
"Ladies and Gentlemen. The aircraft you have boarded is the most technologically advanced machine ever constructed. A system of hundreds of computers and servos, all checking and correcting eachother's work has eliminated the need for a human crew. Welcome to the maiden flight of the most advanced aircraft in the history of avaiation. Sit back and relax, nothing can go wrong... nothing can go wrong... nothing can..."
I wonder if instead of coloring the windows, we couldn't fleck them with something that would allow decent visibility out; but would be able to diffuse a laser coming in. May not be feasible; but it's an idea.
This isn't quite as rare as it seems. There were semi-regular instances of this happening when laser light shows became all the rage in Vegas, etc. They've since started publishing notices for pilots about laser light show activity at open-air venues.
I've never been hit by a laser; but I've been shined by an idiot with a spotlight before in the local practice area. I'm not sure how you'd ever prevent such things. While the spotlight didn't damage my eye, it certainly ruined my night-vision for some time.
While I generally agree with you, this particular one doesn't really bother me, as it was inevitable.
There was no end to the season, thus dashing our hopes for a perfect run, etc. Ken was/is going to lose eventually. So I know that the inevitable happened. Oh well.
Let's change the logo to be the Diebold logo!
Funny, last time I went gliding, it was fairly quiet. :-) I'll give you that.
I agree completely.
Currently, the only methods for making things fly involve high velocities (rotors, props, turbines) and the associated noise from those moving things.
People already move next to the airport, then sue the airport management for excessive noise. Nobody is going to tolerate a jet-powered car next door.
Finally, it's just not practical to use that much energy to commute downtown. And if you find a destination for which this makes sense, it would probably be better served by an airplane anyhow.
I can see certain applications for the technology (search and rescue, surveillance, etc); but even those are served well by current technology.
As the parent implied, until we find an anti-gravity technology, flying cars will always be a lark.
Could decades of political thought in one direction or the other result in chemical changes in the brain?
We do lots of other things that cause chemical changes in our body, lifestyles that cause certain substances to be more or less abundant in our bodies. Are our brains off limits to such things?
This may be a stupid theory, I don't know; but it seems to me that it would be VERY difficult to establish any causality either way.
Oy. Where to start...
George Bush was planning the Iraq invasion long before Al-Queda flew airplanes into the WTC and the Pentagon on Sep. 11. His own cabinet members recall discussions about it during his first cabinet meeting. So to say that invading Iraq had anything to do with Al-Queda or with the new terrorism reality is just a mistake. You might certainly use those things to retroactively justify the war; but don't expect the rest of the world to eat that sandwich. Whatever George Bush' s reason for going to war was, he didn't feel he could tell us. Instead, he gave us the WMD line.
Your position on these issues is one that is very narrowly American. While your patriotism is admirable, you must understand that America can not act in isolation of the rest of the world. Certainly, Americans should put American interests first (especially a President); but keeping America's interest first often means participating in the world community.
There is no doubt that Saddam was a bad guy. Nor is there any doubt that his people will eventually be better off without him. All of the horrible things said about Saddam are true, and if ever there was a guy who deserved whatever he got, it was Saddam.
That is not the same as it being justifiable that we gave him what he was deserving.
In the end, it has actually created more violence than it dispelled. The fighting continues daily and if anything, we have brought more terrorists to the country than previously existed there.
Now, as far as we're concerned, that might not be a bad thing. If we give them a focus, and a fight to fight, we can at least draw them to us and take them on. Even better, we're doing it in their neighboring lands, rather than here at home.
If you look at the laundry list of nations you gave that are deserving of our wrath or righteousness or liberation, or whatever you want to call it (let's call it our ass-kicking) I find it interesting that you haven't put Afghanistan at the top of the list; because it's far from over there. Al-Queda is still based and entrenched there. Osama Bin-Laden is believed to still be there (you remember, the guy who actually was responsible for 9-11). The Taliban are still working against us in smaller groups, etc. We have certainly not killed pan-islamic radicalism in that little stretch of the middle east.
Indeed, apparently we ARE more interested in North Korea than we are Afghanistan. We have 35,000 troops stationed across the border from North Korea, and only 20,000 in Afghanistan. Interesting... North Korea never attacked us. Also interesting on that note is that the Korean situation is another U.N. mess that we decided we'd take the burden on. And 50 years later, we're still screwing around with it.
So what happened to this being about terrorism and "pan-islamic radicalism"? Isn't that what Al-Queda is? Shouldn't we then be hitting at them? The thing about an Iraq or an Iran is that they're a stationary target. They'll yell and gesticulate and generally make a spectacle of themselves; but they're not going to do anything that will result in their losing power. See, despite what they tell you about being a theocracy, the Shah, Ghaddafi, Crown Price Abdullah, etc. are more about power than Islam.
You're not going to kill pan-islamic radicalism with a gun. You're only going to incite more of it. It may seem for a while that you have it licked; but will only be burning hotter and hotter under the surface. I don't know how many times people have to learn that lesson from history. It gets proven over and over again. Do you really believe that you can kill enough radical uncles/fathers/brothers/cousins to scare the rest of the family straight? That's worse than a pipe dream. That's a child's pipe dream.
Pre-emptively (and yes, by the way, that is a dirty word) striking any country we believe to be the source of our problems is not going to solve the problem. Furthermore, it's wrong. 9/11 only raised that bar if
Push clouds?
Clouds are a confluence of temperature and moisture. It's not like they're all sitting up there waiting to be wafted around the world. They are part of the air itself. Saying that the wind wouldn't be strong enough to push clouds is like saying that wind wouldn't be strong enough to push itself.
If the air moves, its moisture moves with it. If the moisture encounters low enough temperatures that it can't be sustained by the air anymore, it will condense into clouds, rain, whatever. If the temperature raises again, the cloud will dissipate and its moisture will be re-absorbed by the atmosphere, all as it moves with its associated airmass.
If the wind blows, so blows its moisture.
I agree.
Even cars of different mass would benefit from matching stiffened and zoned parts of the car.
It seems strange to me that we dealt with differences in vehicle height and size only by mounting a third tail light.
It would be a travesty to see Linux shoe-horned into one place and philosophy.
The great thing about Linux now is that you can install a totally free community supported distro like Debian or Gentoo, a good server like RHEL or SEL, a decent desktop like Lycoris, Xandros, Linspire, etc.
If the Linux "community" ever tried to decide that the focus was either solely freedom or market share to the exclusion of all others, I'd be horribly disappointed.
In fact, I'd say that the ability to make your Linux motivation a good "market share" is in fact, a reflection of Linus' and Stallman's motivations for freedom.
I'll admit to being a bit on the cheap side. I'm thinking of training in a C-150/C-152. You could expect about $65/hr where I live and instruct. Add $35/hr for the instructor for an even $100 dual instruction time.
You're required to have 40hrs of flight time, though few get it in 40. 60 is more normal, though just under half of that can be solo.
So, if you're flying a bigger airplane you can expect more. If you're not flying consistently you will pay more as you spend extra time brushing up, and most of it is dual. Finally (and I'm not suggesting this is the case with your friend) some people will pick it up faster than others.
So there are some factors which can make it more expensive. But, most of the students at my location (NE Kansas) get it for around $4k
And of course, the vote went along party lines.
That just tells me that none of them in the room really gave it much thought. It was more about fighting eachother than about NASA.
I wish I had mod points today. You're absolutely correct.
After 15 years of flying I decided to get my CFI (Certificated Flight Instructor) rating. I was amazed at the amount of knowledge involved that I had come to take for granted.
Pilots do indeed learn a lot. They are more informed and skilled that non-pilots who fly other types of aircraft.
As for the expense, you'll spend about $4k to get your Private Pilot's license. How many slashdotters have spent that much on a computer or big-screen television? In the long run, that's not that much money. And you can keep current without breaking the bank.
The things you learn getting your private will be beneficial when flying a sport plane or ultralight.
As others have mentioned, the ultralight rules don't change with this...
But, on a personal note, I would encourage anybody who is going to fly ultralights to get some flight training with a Certificated Flight Instructor in an airplane. I'm not suggesting that you go the whole course and get your license (not a bad idea though); but I do think you'll want some training in stall awareness and recovery.
I'm not at the point of saying that everybody who flies should have a license; but I would say that everybody who flies should have some stall training. It might just save your life.
You could certainly take it with you. But I don't know how effective it would be without an external antenna.
:-)
It's a great idea. I'm just not sure how well the whole things works from a practical standpoint.
But we are talking about Cringely.
Well, you sort of answered it yourself.
You certainly could use these in VFR operations. I would think that it would even work better in those conditions as there would likely be less other electromagnetic activity to get in the way.
However, you stated yourself that 15% of the single-engine piston fleet is homebuilt. How many of that 15% are aloft at any given time, and for how long? I don't think the homebuilt crowd by itself is enough to sustain this idea. I believe you need to do this with production aircraft as well to make it work. And that's expensive.
I'm not knocking the homebuilt crowd by any means. I think they're a necessary segment of the industry; but I think this idea for a winged wifi cloud needs more numbers than the homebuilt fleet provides.
I certainly want to keep more money in my pocket.
The thing about upper-class tax cuts providing stimulus to the economy, thereby procucing tax gains in the long run is something I don't really believe but at the same time won't totally discredit. My arguments against it, however are as follow:
1. You need a LOT of stimulus. If you give up $100 in tax revenue, you need to increase the spending/earning of the economy enough that more than $100 is earned back. If I spend the $100 on goods, the tax income from that will be substantially less than $100. SO, what needs to happen is the $100 needs to inspire others to spend enough that their taxes will increase enough to cover what's left of the government's loss of the original $100. That seems like an awfully big gamble to me. Furthermore, it seems to be one that is very difficult to prove or quantify after the fact, given the complexity of the economy. Tax-cut stimulus packages thus strike me more as hopeful psychology than practical work.
Additionally, the guy with the $1million home won't be out buying more fruit from the local vendor, or a new carb for his Chevy because you gave him a few thousand more dollars this year. He wasn't pinching pennies to begin with, so an extra $10k this year won't significantly change his purchasing habits. Even if it did, he's just as likely to buy foreign goods which do less to help our economy. He's more likely to invest that money, and while that itself can provide some benefits for the economy, it's speculative. Furthermore, the tax cuts aren't usually enough to sustain substantial increases in his payroll. Upper class consumers recognize better than anybody that such a tax cut is a temporary idea to jump-start the economy and that they won't, or shouldn't last.
2. This has more to do with how we've applied this in the past than the actual premise of "trickle-down" economics; but as our legislative body has shown no ability to restrain themselves when it comes to spending, any gains by these tax cut packages are chewed up immediately. You can't run what is essentially a loss-leader type of operation indefinitely. A tax cut to stimulate the economy is a temporary solution at best. You cannot get around the fact that if you spend more than you take in, you lose. We MUST reduce spending to reap any benefits the tax cuts might produce. Eliminate our deficit, pay down our debt, and then give me a REAL tax cut. You don't have to be an economist to see that. In one of the most brazen displays of arrogance I think I've ever heard of, Dick Cheney responded to Paul O'Neill's warning of continued tax cuts racking up debt and deficits by saying "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." If you're not worried about the solvency and integrity of your government, I suppose that's true. I am, however.
Sorry, it is true.
My point is that I don't fly a homebuilt airplane. My airplane does require a 337.
Cringely noted that there were 1000 GA aircraft currently on ifr flights. How many do you think were homebuilt? I doubt even a dozen. His idea works only if production GA aircraft carry these things.
For the most part, I agree with you.
He's poo-pooing research into the matter by saying that it doesn't prove anything; and yet he's not giving any evidence that it's not true.
He does have the priviledge under Part 91 to do this in his own plane, though. The thing is, his homebuilt small plane probably has better insulation on the wiring than a mid-80's airliner. Also, he probably doesn't fly his little homebuilt on autopilot much (if it's even equipped with one) whereas an airliner spends most of its time being flown by the flight director (fancy autopilot), which is the component that we're really worried about, as it will follow a failed instrument without question, as opposed to analyzing whether or not the indications make sense. So, in the end, he won't really have proven anything regarding the RF interference issue on aircraft.
Finally, I'm not going to spend $1000 having an A&P mechanic install my $100 wifi router in my airplane. If I could just slap it in myself, that would be one thing; but with an airplane you're going to need a Form 337 approval at least, if not an STC (Supplemental Type Certificate). No big deal on the 337. It just takes time and thus money. That's money I'll be spending just help the wifi cloud when I happen to be flying? Uhh, I'll pass.
Seriously, you need to have a drive to constantly learn more. That's more valuable than any pre-written config tool out there.
I know that's not what you wanted; but it's really true. A desire to constantly increase your own knowledge is paramount.