Ditto...I never take the airlines domestically anymore. I live in Atlanta and can fly my homebuilt RV-7A non-stop to Chicago and beat the airlines by the time I figure in my drive to Hartsfield, going through security, etc.
I can be in NYC with one stop for fuel and a bathroom break.
It's great, take-off, engage the autopilot, sit back, turn on XM radio, open up my water, have my in-flight meal, etc.
Going west generally takes a little longer (winds aloft are generally west to east), but coming back to Atlanta is generally a little easier.
I only take the bus with wings when going overseas. Canada and Mexico I take my plane.
Owning your own airplane, even with today's high fuel prices, is more attainable than most realize once they get over the initial sticker shock. Of course, I built mine so I have 4 years of sweat equity in it that makes it more affordable dollar-wise.
Yes, Americans use the Harrier because it is presently the only aircraft capable of fulfilling it's mission (it's not the best option...it's the ONLY option). Harriers have been plagued with wrecks and mechanical issues since their inception. The Harriers will be replaced with the Marine version of the Joint Strike Fighter. The JSF will most likely be sold to NATO allies so eventually I bet we'll see the UK flying them.
His entire point was a one of legality and secret "laws". His argument was that there are no laws on the books requiring ID to fly on airliners and therefore the government (TSA) is not in the position to require it since it violates his privacy. It has nothing to do with private companies being allowed to run their businesses as the wish.
Although it seems like a mundane thing, I can most certainly see his point.
I'm a CFII and A&P, but unfortunately my severe color-blindness makes an ATP ticket useless for me. My AME tells me that I'm the most color-blind person she has ever tested in 30 years of practice. I only get the first Ishihara card correct -- and it's just to demonstrate that you know how the test is supposed to work.
One of the most remarkable stories in modern aviation is the Gimli Glider incident. What happens when a 767 runs out of fuel and you must land on a former military base full of drag racers?
That example alone is enough to warrant pilots sitting the front seat. Those pilots did something remarkable that day. Yes, one could argue that the screwed up the fuel calculations so they were at fault...but still...flesh and blood -- not machines saved those peoples' lives.
The idea of unmanned commercial flights is just ridiculous. No one knows more about what's going on in an airplane than a pilot sitting in the passenger's seat. No amount of sensors or cameras is going to let someone remotely know what's going on.
Most flights today are pretty much done by just button pushing. Most FMS in aircraft enable the pilots to just enter the flight and the airplane basically flies itself. If you get an amended clearance from ATC, you just change the flight plan and let it fly the airplane. The FMS can usually take the airplane to just a couple hundred feet off the ground. Still, I want those two folks in the front.
I've always thought it was silly that ATC gets a clearance on a computer and reads it over the radio to a pilot who enters it into his/her computer. Creating a system to allow flight plans to be electronically sent to the aircraft's computers would be a whole lot more practical.
And as for fighter aircraft controlling UAV's...well...the fighter cockpit is already one of the most demanding, high stress environments in the world. If the UAV's were completely autonomous and the pilot could simply instruct the UAV to cover his ass, then OK, that would make sense and might actually lower the stress level of the pilot. Still, the pilot would need to worry about the UAVs' fuel, their position (so as not to mid-air with them), etc.
This is a clever way for the airlines to bypass the MPAA's atrocious licensing fees for movies stored on the aircraft's entertainment system. If the airline doesn't 'own' the copy, they aren't responsible. I predict the MPAA will soon be having shit fits over this system.
In order to assign more meaningful names to the agencies of the federal government, I make a motion that the Dept. of Defense be called the Dept. of Offense and the Dept. of Homeland Security be called the Dept. of Defense.
In all seriousness, I'm not sure that this new guy is going to be any better. Why does a former CIA man make a better Secretary than..hmm...I dunno....a former GENERAL?
...and to declare that rights are inherent to humanity and that government only governs by consent of the governed. That was quite a revolutionary idea too.
What about the 4,000,000 Puerto Ricans who are US citizens and can't vote for the President or Representatives/Senators? They have a "Resident Commissioner" that may address Congress but the Commissioner does not have a vote. They also don't pay federal income taxes, which may be a plus over DC residents, as I'm sure they probably have to pay the IRS leg breakers.
The fact is that the DC was created for a very good reason -- to provide a neutral place for the seat of government so no state would have a perceived unfair advantage. It's not hard to understand. If Puerto Ricans/DC residents move to an actual state, they get to vote.
You DO still see that risk-taking spirit, though. Spaceship One was pretty seat-of-the-pants.
Hardly. Why was it seat of the pants? Because they didn't spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on it?
I think if you researched it you would see that it was a fairly normal and very scientific undertaking. Burt Rutan is one of the greatest aeronautical minds of our time. I don't think he'll be truly appreciated until he's long gone.
When I was in college I worked at a mom and pop PC store. Mom and pop we're unfortunately going through a terrible divorce that involved the insurance saleswoman next door. My boss got a bill from his lawyer one day and called me into his office. His lawyer had a 30 minute minimum and billed him 30 minutes each for 1 or 2 minute phone calls. He was pissed. Anyway, the divorce was finalized and several months later his lawyer started calling with PC problems. I was instructed to carefully log every call the lawyer made. My boss sent him a bill for all the time.
Imagine my surprise when the attorney actually paid the bill.
Per-capita giving doesn't mean shit. The US is one of if not the least taxed of the first world nations. Per-capita income is the amount of income the THE PEOPLE make, not the government.
And why we're on the subject...US citizens are among the most benevolent in the world. Following the Asian Tsunami tragedy, private US citizens shelled out $1.78 billion dollars for aid -- far more than any other single government donated. This is what private doners gave, not the US government. This is the way it should be done.
The government (IRS) pointing a gun at your head and saying "give me your money, we need to help some people" is not benevolence.
No, you are flat out wrong. Although I'll agree with you that poorer people reproduce more, this is not the primary reason the south is growing. I was born and raised in rural northwest Georgia. I work in Atlanta. There are only three native Georgian's in my company of 50 employees. You see this everywhere. I think that the South's huge growth spurt is mostly due to immigration, both from the nothern states and from other countries.
The small community I live in has a *lot* of asians calling it home now. Almost every church (this is the Bible belt you know) has Korean or Chinese language services. Anecdotal I know...but it's just what I'm observing.
There are many northerners moving down south for retiremeime.nt. I guess they decided they didn't want to spend their golden years shoveling snow. One of the *big* motivators in my opinion is the cost of living. It is still possible to come here and buy a 3000 sqaure foot, 5 bedroom 2.5 bath house for around 200k. You can't buy an apartment up north for that kind of money. People up north are selling their houses, coming down here and buying a smaller house and living off the equity they had in the other house.
Also, your prejudices are apparantly based on what you've seen in Deliverance and on the Jerry Springer show. The south truly is a New South. Sure, if you go out to rural areas you'll find plenty of rednecks, but rednecks tend to not bother anyone and they basically just want to be able to live their lives without anyone messin' with 'em. Believe me...that's most of my family.
I travel a lot for business, mostly just trips around the Southeast US, with an occasional longer trip to New England or the West Coast. I had always been interested in flying and I finally bit the bullet and went and got my license.
I now fly my own airplane. I can beat the airlines time-wise on any trip under about 2000nm. It takes me 40 minutes to drive/take the train to Hartsfield, whereas I can drive to my local airport, pre-flight and load the airplane and be on my way in about 30 minutes. Flight planning I do at home (Internet is wonderful).
I know that not everyone can afford to fly themselves, but I think if most folks would look at the costs involved they would find the convenience very much worth it. Plus, it's lots of fun to spend every weekend with my wife in a different state seeing whatever. And oh yeah, fuel economy is not half bad. I burn about 8.0 gallons per hour @ 160kts which yields about 23 statute miles/gallon. This is far better than the efficiency of passenger/mile/gallon on the airlines. My plane is a little speedster that only carries two people, so my passenger/mile/gallon is about 46, whereas that airlines are around 46.8. These passenger/mile/gallon figures are for airlines in general. Airliners are extremely efficient at altitude at cruise settings -- they burn *lots* of fuel taking off, so the overall efficiency of the flight increases with the length of the flight. So these relatively short 500-1500nm trips I make are done more efficiently in my airplane.
The USA is a Capitalism country who advocates killing anyone who stoods in the way of they being more powerfull and rich. They advocate the overthrow of stable governments simply because they do not let them dominate even more.
Thanks for proving my point. I'm just saying that Guevarra and Bush are not that different in execution -- they just had different goals and different means to achieve their goals. Bush's goal is capitalism and he has an Army at his fingertips. Guevarra's was socialism and he had his rag-tag group of revolutionaries.
Gueverra deserves no special treatment for giving up his wealth to fight for what he believes in. I believe a man name Usama Bin Laden did the same thing.
Think about your flawed argument. I talk about how Guevarra and Castro were not good people and your response is to point out things Bush has done. This just demonstrates your flawed understanding of issues.
Most Americans would probably like to see the embargo ended, but unfortunately for most of them its not a big deal one way or the other. The embargo persists to keep the Cuban-American population (especially in South Florida) content at the polls. By in large these people are strongly in favor of the embargo and they often times turn this into a one issue vote.
Cuba is NOT poor because of the US embargo. I'll say it once again: EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD TRADES WITH CUBA EXCEPT THE US. You do know that Canada has everything the US has, right? Canadians go there often and Canada does free trade with Cuba. So you can explain to me why Cuba is still poor? Plain and simple: socialism/communism creates poverty. Wealth is a product of capitalism. That's where the wealth of China and India (the world's only freely elected communist government) come from. China's manufacturing and India's IT industry are booming. These are clearly capitalist concepts.
Look at Cuba's resort areas. They're the ultimate hypocrisy of the Cuban revolution. Castro espouses the virtues of communism, yet they will gladly take money from capitalists in a *VERY* capitalist way in Varadero and the other resort areas. Cuba is frequented by many Europeans and Canadians and yes, even Americans. If capitalism isn't important, why the hell does Cuba have these capitalistic ventures on it's beaches (which are among the most beautiful in the world, by the way).
And on that note -- Cuba's #1 industry before the revolution? Tourism! That revolution has been a great boon for Cuba!
Oh yeah, one more thing -- regarding your calling the people in the WTC bastards (in another thread)-- FUCK YOU. You sound really big behind a computer screen. I would love for you to go to Manhattan or anywhere else in the US and say those same things. Those people were innocents. They were stock brockers, restaurant workers, janitors, mothers, fathers, husbands, and wives. Just in case you missed it the first time -- FUCK YOU.
Che Guevarra was a socialist militant who advocated killing anyone who stood in the way of the socialist cause. He advocated the overthrow of stable governments simply because they did not adhere to his socialist idealogies.
Castro is an asshole, plain and simple. He had over 700 of Batista's supporters assasinated after Batista was overthrown.
It's amazing how asses like you think that everything the US does is evil and Castro, et al are just misunderstood grandfather figures who deserve our sympathies.
I do not agree with everything the US does by any stretch, but simply thinking that Castro is a good guy...well...you just demonstrated your willingness to forgive anyone of anything as long as they're socialists.
What the fuck is going on? Now we publish articles written by a bunch of assholes that beleives such shit as the existence of a god, and not happy with that (enough reason to diserve a very painfull dead), call themselves "scientists"?
It's great to see that your enlightened belief system has led you to the tolerant, compassionate moral high ground.
What does being a lesbian have to do with having a child? A lesbian friend of mine just had a child (through AI). Rather strange situation though. Her partner has a twin brother who donated the swimmers.
Also, if you remember Dolly the sheep -- she was created without ANY male DNA. I anticipate in the future that lesbians will be able to have their partner's children through 'cloning'.
I'm not quite sure what the parent's point is with regard to the pictures of pro Iraq War demonstrators in the US. People (especially foreigners) seem to forget that the US is a country of 300,000,000 people. You can find people that support almost any cause imaginable. It is impossible to stereotype Americans into any one idealogy or groupthink. Yes, there were quite a few pro-war demonstrators, but I think it was very few. I know I saw FAR more anti-war protesters in and around Atlanta than I ever did pro-war protesters.
You link to 10 pictures and you think that this is somehow a reflective of 300,000,000 people. Whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
Ditto...I never take the airlines domestically anymore. I live in Atlanta and can fly my homebuilt RV-7A non-stop to Chicago and beat the airlines by the time I figure in my drive to Hartsfield, going through security, etc.
I can be in NYC with one stop for fuel and a bathroom break.
It's great, take-off, engage the autopilot, sit back, turn on XM radio, open up my water, have my in-flight meal, etc.
Going west generally takes a little longer (winds aloft are generally west to east), but coming back to Atlanta is generally a little easier.
I only take the bus with wings when going overseas. Canada and Mexico I take my plane.
Owning your own airplane, even with today's high fuel prices, is more attainable than most realize once they get over the initial sticker shock. Of course, I built mine so I have 4 years of sweat equity in it that makes it more affordable dollar-wise.
Yes, Americans use the Harrier because it is presently the only aircraft capable of fulfilling it's mission (it's not the best option...it's the ONLY option). Harriers have been plagued with wrecks and mechanical issues since their inception. The Harriers will be replaced with the Marine version of the Joint Strike Fighter. The JSF will most likely be sold to NATO allies so eventually I bet we'll see the UK flying them.
Someone remind me to bring a big-ass mirror to the next protest I attend.
His entire point was a one of legality and secret "laws". His argument was that there are no laws on the books requiring ID to fly on airliners and therefore the government (TSA) is not in the position to require it since it violates his privacy. It has nothing to do with private companies being allowed to run their businesses as the wish.
Although it seems like a mundane thing, I can most certainly see his point.
I'm a CFII and A&P, but unfortunately my severe color-blindness makes an ATP ticket useless for me. My AME tells me that I'm the most color-blind person she has ever tested in 30 years of practice. I only get the first Ishihara card correct -- and it's just to demonstrate that you know how the test is supposed to work.
One of the most remarkable stories in modern aviation is the Gimli Glider incident. What happens when a 767 runs out of fuel and you must land on a former military base full of drag racers?
That example alone is enough to warrant pilots sitting the front seat. Those pilots did something remarkable that day. Yes, one could argue that the screwed up the fuel calculations so they were at fault...but still...flesh and blood -- not machines saved those peoples' lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider
Oh if only Slashdot would let users edit posts. :-)
The idea of unmanned commercial flights is just ridiculous. No one knows more about what's going on in an airplane than a pilot sitting in the passenger's seat. No amount of sensors or cameras is going to let someone remotely know what's going on.
Most flights today are pretty much done by just button pushing. Most FMS in aircraft enable the pilots to just enter the flight and the airplane basically flies itself. If you get an amended clearance from ATC, you just change the flight plan and let it fly the airplane. The FMS can usually take the airplane to just a couple hundred feet off the ground. Still, I want those two folks in the front.
I've always thought it was silly that ATC gets a clearance on a computer and reads it over the radio to a pilot who enters it into his/her computer. Creating a system to allow flight plans to be electronically sent to the aircraft's computers would be a whole lot more practical.
And as for fighter aircraft controlling UAV's...well...the fighter cockpit is already one of the most demanding, high stress environments in the world. If the UAV's were completely autonomous and the pilot could simply instruct the UAV to cover his ass, then OK, that would make sense and might actually lower the stress level of the pilot. Still, the pilot would need to worry about the UAVs' fuel, their position (so as not to mid-air with them), etc.
This is a clever way for the airlines to bypass the MPAA's atrocious licensing fees for movies stored on the aircraft's entertainment system. If the airline doesn't 'own' the copy, they aren't responsible. I predict the MPAA will soon be having shit fits over this system.
Thanks...that's my 'something new' that I learned today.
In order to assign more meaningful names to the agencies of the federal government, I make a motion that the Dept. of Defense be called the Dept. of Offense and the Dept. of Homeland Security be called the Dept. of Defense.
In all seriousness, I'm not sure that this new guy is going to be any better. Why does a former CIA man make a better Secretary than..hmm...I dunno....a former GENERAL?
...and to declare that rights are inherent to humanity and that government only governs by consent of the governed. That was quite a revolutionary idea too.
What about the 4,000,000 Puerto Ricans who are US citizens and can't vote for the President or Representatives/Senators? They have a "Resident Commissioner" that may address Congress but the Commissioner does not have a vote. They also don't pay federal income taxes, which may be a plus over DC residents, as I'm sure they probably have to pay the IRS leg breakers.
The fact is that the DC was created for a very good reason -- to provide a neutral place for the seat of government so no state would have a perceived unfair advantage. It's not hard to understand. If Puerto Ricans/DC residents move to an actual state, they get to vote.
You DO still see that risk-taking spirit, though. Spaceship One was pretty seat-of-the-pants.
Hardly. Why was it seat of the pants? Because they didn't spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on it?
I think if you researched it you would see that it was a fairly normal and very scientific undertaking. Burt Rutan is one of the greatest aeronautical minds of our time. I don't think he'll be truly appreciated until he's long gone.
Funny story time:
When I was in college I worked at a mom and pop PC store. Mom and pop we're unfortunately going through a terrible divorce that involved the insurance saleswoman next door. My boss got a bill from his lawyer one day and called me into his office. His lawyer had a 30 minute minimum and billed him 30 minutes each for 1 or 2 minute phone calls. He was pissed. Anyway, the divorce was finalized and several months later his lawyer started calling with PC problems. I was instructed to carefully log every call the lawyer made. My boss sent him a bill for all the time.
Imagine my surprise when the attorney actually paid the bill.
Per-capita giving doesn't mean shit. The US is one of if not the least taxed of the first world nations. Per-capita income is the amount of income the THE PEOPLE make, not the government.
And why we're on the subject...US citizens are among the most benevolent in the world. Following the Asian Tsunami tragedy, private US citizens shelled out $1.78 billion dollars for aid -- far more than any other single government donated. This is what private doners gave, not the US government. This is the way it should be done.
The government (IRS) pointing a gun at your head and saying "give me your money, we need to help some people" is not benevolence.
Here, here. Very well said indeed.
No, you are flat out wrong. Although I'll agree with you that poorer people reproduce more, this is not the primary reason the south is growing. I was born and raised in rural northwest Georgia. I work in Atlanta. There are only three native Georgian's in my company of 50 employees. You see this everywhere. I think that the South's huge growth spurt is mostly due to immigration, both from the nothern states and from other countries.
The small community I live in has a *lot* of asians calling it home now. Almost every church (this is the Bible belt you know) has Korean or Chinese language services. Anecdotal I know...but it's just what I'm observing.
There are many northerners moving down south for retiremeime.nt. I guess they decided they didn't want to spend their golden years shoveling snow. One of the *big* motivators in my opinion is the cost of living. It is still possible to come here and buy a 3000 sqaure foot, 5 bedroom 2.5 bath house for around 200k. You can't buy an apartment up north for that kind of money. People up north are selling their houses, coming down here and buying a smaller house and living off the equity they had in the other house.
Also, your prejudices are apparantly based on what you've seen in Deliverance and on the Jerry Springer show. The south truly is a New South. Sure, if you go out to rural areas you'll find plenty of rednecks, but rednecks tend to not bother anyone and they basically just want to be able to live their lives without anyone messin' with 'em. Believe me...that's most of my family.
Do what I do.
I travel a lot for business, mostly just trips around the Southeast US, with an occasional longer trip to New England or the West Coast. I had always been interested in flying and I finally bit the bullet and went and got my license.
I now fly my own airplane. I can beat the airlines time-wise on any trip under about 2000nm. It takes me 40 minutes to drive/take the train to Hartsfield, whereas I can drive to my local airport, pre-flight and load the airplane and be on my way in about 30 minutes. Flight planning I do at home (Internet is wonderful).
I know that not everyone can afford to fly themselves, but I think if most folks would look at the costs involved they would find the convenience very much worth it. Plus, it's lots of fun to spend every weekend with my wife in a different state seeing whatever. And oh yeah, fuel economy is not half bad. I burn about 8.0 gallons per hour @ 160kts which yields about 23 statute miles/gallon. This is far better than the efficiency of passenger/mile/gallon on the airlines. My plane is a little speedster that only carries two people, so my passenger/mile/gallon is about 46, whereas that airlines are around 46.8. These passenger/mile/gallon figures are for airlines in general. Airliners are extremely efficient at altitude at cruise settings -- they burn *lots* of fuel taking off, so the overall efficiency of the flight increases with the length of the flight. So these relatively short 500-1500nm trips I make are done more efficiently in my airplane.
The USA is a Capitalism country who advocates killing anyone who stoods in the way of they being more powerfull and rich. They advocate the overthrow of stable governments simply because they do not let them dominate even more.
Thanks for proving my point. I'm just saying that Guevarra and Bush are not that different in execution -- they just had different goals and different means to achieve their goals. Bush's goal is capitalism and he has an Army at his fingertips. Guevarra's was socialism and he had his rag-tag group of revolutionaries.
Gueverra deserves no special treatment for giving up his wealth to fight for what he believes in. I believe a man name Usama Bin Laden did the same thing.
Think about your flawed argument. I talk about how Guevarra and Castro were not good people and your response is to point out things Bush has done. This just demonstrates your flawed understanding of issues.
Most Americans would probably like to see the embargo ended, but unfortunately for most of them its not a big deal one way or the other. The embargo persists to keep the Cuban-American population (especially in South Florida) content at the polls. By in large these people are strongly in favor of the embargo and they often times turn this into a one issue vote.
Cuba is NOT poor because of the US embargo. I'll say it once again: EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD TRADES WITH CUBA EXCEPT THE US. You do know that Canada has everything the US has, right? Canadians go there often and Canada does free trade with Cuba. So you can explain to me why Cuba is still poor? Plain and simple: socialism/communism creates poverty. Wealth is a product of capitalism. That's where the wealth of China and India (the world's only freely elected communist government) come from. China's manufacturing and India's IT industry are booming. These are clearly capitalist concepts.
Look at Cuba's resort areas. They're the ultimate hypocrisy of the Cuban revolution. Castro espouses the virtues of communism, yet they will gladly take money from capitalists in a *VERY* capitalist way in Varadero and the other resort areas. Cuba is frequented by many Europeans and Canadians and yes, even Americans. If capitalism isn't important, why the hell does Cuba have these capitalistic ventures on it's beaches (which are among the most beautiful in the world, by the way).
And on that note -- Cuba's #1 industry before the revolution? Tourism! That revolution has been a great boon for Cuba!
Oh yeah, one more thing -- regarding your calling the people in the WTC bastards (in another thread)-- FUCK YOU. You sound really big behind a computer screen. I would love for you to go to Manhattan or anywhere else in the US and say those same things. Those people were innocents. They were stock brockers, restaurant workers, janitors, mothers, fathers, husbands, and wives. Just in case you missed it the first time -- FUCK YOU.
Che Guevarra was a socialist militant who advocated killing anyone who stood in the way of the socialist cause. He advocated the overthrow of stable governments simply because they did not adhere to his socialist idealogies.
Castro is an asshole, plain and simple. He had over 700 of Batista's supporters assasinated after Batista was overthrown.
It's amazing how asses like you think that everything the US does is evil and Castro, et al are just misunderstood grandfather figures who deserve our sympathies.
I do not agree with everything the US does by any stretch, but simply thinking that Castro is a good guy...well...you just demonstrated your willingness to forgive anyone of anything as long as they're socialists.
What the fuck is going on? Now we publish articles written by a bunch of assholes that beleives such shit as the existence of a god, and not happy with that (enough reason to diserve a very painfull dead), call themselves "scientists"?
It's great to see that your enlightened belief system has led you to the tolerant, compassionate moral high ground.
What does being a lesbian have to do with having a child? A lesbian friend of mine just had a child (through AI). Rather strange situation though. Her partner has a twin brother who donated the swimmers.
Also, if you remember Dolly the sheep -- she was created without ANY male DNA. I anticipate in the future that lesbians will be able to have their partner's children through 'cloning'.
What about...
4) Things you think you understand that later turns out to have been a false assumption.
There is no room for smugness in science.
I'm not quite sure what the parent's point is with regard to the pictures of pro Iraq War demonstrators in the US. People (especially foreigners) seem to forget that the US is a country of 300,000,000 people. You can find people that support almost any cause imaginable. It is impossible to stereotype Americans into any one idealogy or groupthink. Yes, there were quite a few pro-war demonstrators, but I think it was very few. I know I saw FAR more anti-war protesters in and around Atlanta than I ever did pro-war protesters.
You link to 10 pictures and you think that this is somehow a reflective of 300,000,000 people. Whatever.
AC, you are right on the mark.
When people talk about freedom (real freedom, not the politician's word), what are they talking about? FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT.
Governments are to be feared. The natural tendency of any government to expand it's power over it's people must be continuously fought.