It's not just the government- take a look at Mike Rowe: given an xbox, and decided to drop his case...
Idealism notwithstanding, this is the way these issues *should* be resolved in the first place (as opposed to a not-so-veiled threat of a lawsuit, something MicroShaft should have never done in the first place).
I think it's about time the US caught up with the rest of the world and ditched these stupid and difficult-to-remember units once and for all.
That is exactly what they were doing! Space mountain is also a very old ride, I have no idea as to the age of that contraption, but it's probably safe to assume it is older than 25 years.
Let me tell you what's really going on with this proposal. Through a series of tax cuts and spending increases, the current administration is doggedly pursuing a "starve the beast" strategy that will ultimately require a huge decrease in the size of the federal government, and a corresponding increase in the power of the states.
Are you suggesting that this would be a bad thing? This is, of course, the original concept of the founders of this country. I for one would love for states to become more self-reliant. The federal government has proven itself to be good at a couple of things: 1) blowing things up and 2) taking money from folks.
It's amazing to me how liberals despise the actions of the Federal government but will give them more power (i.e. money) willingly.
Well, perhaps one of the spending problems with NASA is it's current budget setup. Funding was created for NASA under the national welfare bill. In other words, when NASA's budget increases, the welfare budget decreases. The opposite is also true. If NASA were funded appropriately (i.e. as an independent program) this would really not be much of an issue.
Her job surely isn't a God-given right. When an Indian company produces products comparable to HP's for a fraction of the cost, her executive position will effectively have been outsourced.
Well said. Let's watch her go crying to the government the first time someone infringes one of HP's "intellectual property" holdings. I guess then she will feel like HP has a God-given right to make money! I guess the same doesn't apply to individuals.
Is it just me or does this JAS 39 Gripen fighter look a lot like an F-16? It appears to play the same role as the F-16 (a light fighter/ground attack aircraft). I know that many countries (especially NATO members) use F-16s. Does anyone know if that's what this plane actually is?
The difference is that you/watch/ Scarface, but you/participate in/ Vice City.
Do you remember those books you read in grade school where you could choose the plot of the book by following the instructions at the bottom of a page and turning to the given page? For example, "To kill the Haitians, turn to page 23. To let the Haitians live, turn to page 40." Would this, in your opinion, be free speech? Does the medium play a role here? What level of interactivity is considered "dangerous"?
Sounds to me just like the thought police on yet another rampage.
but apparantly, the U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq
Could it possibly be because France tends to sell all of their nuclear capability to the highest bidder (i.e. Iraq!). Who do you think provided Iraq with the reactor that the Israelis bombed? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know...the US sold Iraq weapons too. How about a graph to show you the truth. The US sold Iraq 1% of its weapons and France sold them 13% of all of their weapons. Oh course, Russia was Iraq's #1 supplier. No wonder Russia and France were so adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq (I'm not saying the war was a Good Thing, BTW). Russia and France wanted to get paid by Iraq and they were afraid a war an ensuing chaos would cause them to have to forgive Iraq's debt. The war wasn't a good thing -- I hate it. However, we must realize that France's and Russia's opposition to it was not an act of kindness, either -- it was about money. The only possible good guy in all of this was Germany, although Iraq also owes German firms a LOT of money for work done there (mostly civil engineering, public works, etc).
I seriously doubt it. Most life insurance policies do not even cover you when flying light aircraft. I (along with most every other pilot) had to take out a life insurance policy just for flying!
Clearly the Wrights could see farther because they stood on the shoulders of giants. It is well known that they were obsessed with a German's (sorry, can't remember his name) research into gliders. The German fellow was the one that pieced together the idea that the top of the wing should be longer than the bottom of the wing, thus creating an area of relatively low pressure on top of the wing. The Wrights discovered that the optimal shape for an airoil is the now common teardrop shape.
The Wright flyer was controlled because it had controls for all three axes: lateral=elevator, vertical=rudder, longitudinal=ailerons. Was it erratic? Yes? Difficult to fly? Absolutely. Controlled? Yes.
Clearly the Wrights didn't come up with everything on their own. Using your logic we can argue that relativity was never really Albert Einstein's discovery/theory...it was an international accomplishment because he used so much information from folks before him!
The Wrights used launching weight (as they called it) because their props were optimal for cruising. In today's airplanes with constant-speed props, the props are adjustable so that when taking off there is a much more corse pitch, meaning that the prop pushes more air but works harder. In cruise, the prop pitch is flattened a bit to provide a better flow of air for cruise flight.
In today's fixed-pitch props, the prop is a compromise between takeoff and cruise. The brothers didn't have enough engine power for compromises to be made in prop pitch.
This does not mean that the plane was simply thrown into the air and never really flew. Are you saying that F-18's don't fly because they are propelled off of aircraft carriers?
The irony of today's events in North Carolina is that Bush's attending of the events is shutting down all of the airports in the area because of a presidential movement TFR (temporary flight restriction)!
The Wrights created the *modern* airplane. The definition of controlled flight is take-off, inflight control, and landing. Just because someone else's design could leave the ground doesn't mean they were in *controlled* flight. Look at the Wright plane and then look at modern canard-style aircraft (e.g. Velocity Aircraft. The premise of design is virtually unchanged.
The Wrights were engineers. Many people have the mistaken impression that they were just bumbling bicycle repairmen that got lucky or that they stumbled upon the right combination to be able to fly. This was simply not the case. The Wrights built the first wind tunnel that they used to test miniature airfoils (and consequently propellers).
The accomplishments of the Wrights cannot be dismissed as they flew an only slightly modifed flyer nonstop over 20 miles in 1906, the time that the Brazillians claim Alberto Santos Dumont achieved the 'real' first flight.
This is an interesting point. I wonder how many people buy these access points, never change the default settings, then actually end up connecting to a neighbor's AP without ever using the service they are paying for? I bet it happens quite often.
Well, if you think the only science involved in building an airplane from a kit (and I use that term very, very loosely), I would urge you to reconsider. There are a lot of things involved and many times there are parts to be designed / fabricated, etc. The plane I'm building will have a Linux box with a solid state hdd wired to digital video cameras on the wingtip, cockpit, and vertical stab and will record continuously, encoding the current position from GPS on each frame. So, I guess there's nothing *geeky* enough about homebuilding for slashdot, huh?
I submitted the article under Science because I wasn't really clear where it belonged, but I was sure it would interest the slashdot readership (680 comments so far!).
I used to work as a leader of a Civil Air Patrol search and rescue team. I've seen my share of aircraft accidents. My mother wonders why I persist with this flying 'nonsense' when she knows how I had to burn an entire change of clothes because they smelled like two week old decaying human flesh. I literally stripped naked outside (we had a privacy fence and lived in a rural area) and took a shower with a water hose because I didn't want to bring that smell into my house. I still remember that smell today. It was like nothing else you have ever smelled. Roadkill and humans strangely don't smell the same when decaying. I honestly believe that we are genetically programmed to be horrified by that scent.
Having said that I do believe that there is simply an appeal to take chances and do something incredible with one's life. That is why I fly and will continue to do so.
Still, it stands out to me...I would not trust anything that I built to fly my ass down to the other end of the state
Well, I'm currenlty building an RV-7A, and I could tell you that from my experiences flying Cessnas/Pipers/Bonanzas/Mooneys, I would *much* rather be in an RV. They are absolutely incredible airplanes. I flew right seat in an RV to Oshkosh, WI from Georgia and never felt the slightest bit apprehensive. The most scarey times in an airplane for me is flying in busy traffic with a high-wing Cessna trying to peer around the wings, the struts, out the rear windows looking for other traffic. The bubble canopies on the RV series are certainly superior. I would trust myself building an airplane much more than I would trust Joe Blow and Aircraft Company X who has no personal stake in my well-being.
Remember that airplanes are certified by government beaurocrats. Don't confuse that with quality workmanship.
As the poster of this story and a homebuilt airplane builder myself (RV-7A), I can tell you that this guy probably does have more sense than money. He's a nurse midwife (yes, he delivers babies). He isn't overly wealthy and neither am I. I'm a software engineer with 5 years of experience and according to most salary surveys I make about average salary. Johanson really dedicated himself to building the plane and made it happen by saving money in other areas of his life (like most homebuilders do). Don't think this guy is a rich flyboy like that Branson fellow circling the world in a balloon. This guys track record shows that he does know what he's doing (he's circled the Earth thrice). On the other hand, I do agree with you that he screwed up royally by not making prior arrangements with McMurdo in case of an emergency.
Hopefully the judge will order SCO to pay for the courts' time in filing such a meritless suit, a practice I believe our entire tort system should follow.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not just the government- take a look at Mike Rowe: given an xbox, and decided to drop his case...
Idealism notwithstanding, this is the way these issues *should* be resolved in the first place (as opposed to a not-so-veiled threat of a lawsuit, something MicroShaft should have never done in the first place).
Hmm...the Space Mountain engineers were doing precisely that! They were converting Imperial to English units (i.e. playing catch-up).
Hmm...
I think it's about time the US caught up with the rest of the world and ditched these stupid and difficult-to-remember units once and for all.
That is exactly what they were doing! Space mountain is also a very old ride, I have no idea as to the age of that contraption, but it's probably safe to assume it is older than 25 years.
It is amazing to me to observe the two schools of thought these days.
School Of Thought #1: Doubleclick says that it can legally bypass ad-blocking software to show ads to "customers" who clearly don't want to see them.
School of Thought #2: It is, however illegal to bypass protections to view media (e.g. DVDs) that one purchases legally.
These are intangibles bought with money but paid for by consumers.
If Episode III isn't incredible, Mr. Lucas can forget about any other Episodes.
"So I'm a biased pedestrian..."
So I suppose you wouldn't mind if the government planted a GPS unit in your person to make sure you only crossed the street at crosswalks?
Let me tell you what's really going on with this proposal. Through a series of tax cuts and spending increases, the current administration is doggedly pursuing a "starve the beast" strategy that will ultimately require a huge decrease in the size of the federal government, and a corresponding increase in the power of the states.
Are you suggesting that this would be a bad thing? This is, of course, the original concept of the founders of this country. I for one would love for states to become more self-reliant. The federal government has proven itself to be good at a couple of things: 1) blowing things up and 2) taking money from folks.
It's amazing to me how liberals despise the actions of the Federal government but will give them more power (i.e. money) willingly.
Well, perhaps one of the spending problems with NASA is it's current budget setup. Funding was created for NASA under the national welfare bill. In other words, when NASA's budget increases, the welfare budget decreases. The opposite is also true. If NASA were funded appropriately (i.e. as an independent program) this would really not be much of an issue.
Her job surely isn't a God-given right. When an Indian company produces products comparable to HP's for a fraction of the cost, her executive position will effectively have been outsourced.
Well said. Let's watch her go crying to the government the first time someone infringes one of HP's "intellectual property" holdings. I guess then she will feel like HP has a God-given right to make money! I guess the same doesn't apply to individuals.
Is it just me or does this JAS 39 Gripen fighter look a lot like an F-16? It appears to play the same role as the F-16 (a light fighter/ground attack aircraft). I know that many countries (especially NATO members) use F-16s. Does anyone know if that's what this plane actually is?
The difference is that you /watch/ Scarface, but you /participate in/ Vice City.
Do you remember those books you read in grade school where you could choose the plot of the book by following the instructions at the bottom of a page and turning to the given page? For example, "To kill the Haitians, turn to page 23. To let the Haitians live, turn to page 40." Would this, in your opinion, be free speech? Does the medium play a role here? What level of interactivity is considered "dangerous"?
Sounds to me just like the thought police on yet another rampage.
You're exactly right. I meant that the Wrights where the first to actually use a wind tunnel to test airfoils.
but apparantly, the U.S. is opposing a french site because France opposed the war in Iraq
Could it possibly be because France tends to sell all of their nuclear capability to the highest bidder (i.e. Iraq!). Who do you think provided Iraq with the reactor that the Israelis bombed? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know...the US sold Iraq weapons too. How about a graph to show you the truth. The US sold Iraq 1% of its weapons and France sold them 13% of all of their weapons. Oh course, Russia was Iraq's #1 supplier. No wonder Russia and France were so adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq (I'm not saying the war was a Good Thing, BTW). Russia and France wanted to get paid by Iraq and they were afraid a war an ensuing chaos would cause them to have to forgive Iraq's debt. The war wasn't a good thing -- I hate it. However, we must realize that France's and Russia's opposition to it was not an act of kindness, either -- it was about money. The only possible good guy in all of this was Germany, although Iraq also owes German firms a LOT of money for work done there (mostly civil engineering, public works, etc).
I seriously doubt it. Most life insurance policies do not even cover you when flying light aircraft. I (along with most every other pilot) had to take out a life insurance policy just for flying!
Clearly the Wrights could see farther because they stood on the shoulders of giants. It is well known that they were obsessed with a German's (sorry, can't remember his name) research into gliders. The German fellow was the one that pieced together the idea that the top of the wing should be longer than the bottom of the wing, thus creating an area of relatively low pressure on top of the wing. The Wrights discovered that the optimal shape for an airoil is the now common teardrop shape.
The Wright flyer was controlled because it had controls for all three axes: lateral=elevator, vertical=rudder, longitudinal=ailerons. Was it erratic? Yes? Difficult to fly? Absolutely. Controlled? Yes.
Clearly the Wrights didn't come up with everything on their own. Using your logic we can argue that relativity was never really Albert Einstein's discovery/theory...it was an international accomplishment because he used so much information from folks before him!
The Wrights used launching weight (as they called it) because their props were optimal for cruising. In today's airplanes with constant-speed props, the props are adjustable so that when taking off there is a much more corse pitch, meaning that the prop pushes more air but works harder. In cruise, the prop pitch is flattened a bit to provide a better flow of air for cruise flight.
In today's fixed-pitch props, the prop is a compromise between takeoff and cruise. The brothers didn't have enough engine power for compromises to be made in prop pitch.
This does not mean that the plane was simply thrown into the air and never really flew. Are you saying that F-18's don't fly because they are propelled off of aircraft carriers?
The irony of today's events in North Carolina is that Bush's attending of the events is shutting down all of the airports in the area because of a presidential movement TFR (temporary flight restriction)!
Presidential TFR
The event coordinators have obtained special clearance for the Wright flyer to fly, along with the other planes for the airshows, etc.
You don't throw something that big and light in a 26 knot headwind for such a long distance.
The Wrights created the *modern* airplane. The definition of controlled flight is take-off, inflight control, and landing. Just because someone else's design could leave the ground doesn't mean they were in *controlled* flight. Look at the Wright plane and then look at modern canard-style aircraft (e.g. Velocity Aircraft. The premise of design is virtually unchanged.
The Wrights were engineers. Many people have the mistaken impression that they were just bumbling bicycle repairmen that got lucky or that they stumbled upon the right combination to be able to fly. This was simply not the case. The Wrights built the first wind tunnel that they used to test miniature airfoils (and consequently propellers).
The accomplishments of the Wrights cannot be dismissed as they flew an only slightly modifed flyer nonstop over 20 miles in 1906, the time that the Brazillians claim Alberto Santos Dumont achieved the 'real' first flight.
This is an interesting point. I wonder how many people buy these access points, never change the default settings, then actually end up connecting to a neighbor's AP without ever using the service they are paying for? I bet it happens quite often.
Well, if you think the only science involved in building an airplane from a kit (and I use that term very, very loosely), I would urge you to reconsider. There are a lot of things involved and many times there are parts to be designed / fabricated, etc. The plane I'm building will have a Linux box with a solid state hdd wired to digital video cameras on the wingtip, cockpit, and vertical stab and will record continuously, encoding the current position from GPS on each frame. So, I guess there's nothing *geeky* enough about homebuilding for slashdot, huh?
I submitted the article under Science because I wasn't really clear where it belonged, but I was sure it would interest the slashdot readership (680 comments so far!).
Agreed.
I used to work as a leader of a Civil Air Patrol search and rescue team. I've seen my share of aircraft accidents. My mother wonders why I persist with this flying 'nonsense' when she knows how I had to burn an entire change of clothes because they smelled like two week old decaying human flesh. I literally stripped naked outside (we had a privacy fence and lived in a rural area) and took a shower with a water hose because I didn't want to bring that smell into my house. I still remember that smell today. It was like nothing else you have ever smelled. Roadkill and humans strangely don't smell the same when decaying. I honestly believe that we are genetically programmed to be horrified by that scent.
Having said that I do believe that there is simply an appeal to take chances and do something incredible with one's life. That is why I fly and will continue to do so.
Still, it stands out to me...I would not trust anything that I built to fly my ass down to the other end of the state
Well, I'm currenlty building an RV-7A, and I could tell you that from my experiences flying Cessnas/Pipers/Bonanzas/Mooneys, I would *much* rather be in an RV. They are absolutely incredible airplanes. I flew right seat in an RV to Oshkosh, WI from Georgia and never felt the slightest bit apprehensive. The most scarey times in an airplane for me is flying in busy traffic with a high-wing Cessna trying to peer around the wings, the struts, out the rear windows looking for other traffic. The bubble canopies on the RV series are certainly superior. I would trust myself building an airplane much more than I would trust Joe Blow and Aircraft Company X who has no personal stake in my well-being.
Remember that airplanes are certified by government beaurocrats. Don't confuse that with quality workmanship.
As the poster of this story and a homebuilt airplane builder myself (RV-7A), I can tell you that this guy probably does have more sense than money. He's a nurse midwife (yes, he delivers babies). He isn't overly wealthy and neither am I. I'm a software engineer with 5 years of experience and according to most salary surveys I make about average salary. Johanson really dedicated himself to building the plane and made it happen by saving money in other areas of his life (like most homebuilders do). Don't think this guy is a rich flyboy like that Branson fellow circling the world in a balloon. This guys track record shows that he does know what he's doing (he's circled the Earth thrice). On the other hand, I do agree with you that he screwed up royally by not making prior arrangements with McMurdo in case of an emergency.
Hopefully the judge will order SCO to pay for the courts' time in filing such a meritless suit, a practice I believe our entire tort system should follow.