So if I request Utah Online, Inc. not transmit "offensive" content, does that apply to _me_, or does it apply to _all_ of UOI's customers, because one person made the request?
That's exactly what private enterprise wants you to think -- that they can do it better and cheaper.
Of course, Comcast is doing a great job of delivering broadband Internet "better and cheaper" than the alternative means, aren't they? And isn't SBC doing such a great job being "better and cheaper" than alternatives, too?
Oh, what's that? They suck? They're a huge pain in the ass, they have local monopolies, and they fix prices at whatever level they wish? Naaaah, that couldn't possibly be the case...
With the aspect ratio of that wing, I wouldn't be surprised either. Heck, that airplane probably has a glide ratio of about 30- or 40-to-1, or about 3-4x that of commercial airliners, and about 1/2 to 3/4 that of top-notch gliders/sailplanes.
Care to explain cable TV, then? No airwaves there...
What about the people who subscribe to satellite Internet? Should all the pr0n they download be censored, too, since that's travelling through U.S. airspace (regardless of the fact that Joe Sixpack can't accidentally intercept the signal)?
You can't run around naked or have sex in public because anyone can accidentally see you doing those things. It takes intent and effort to intercept a satellite TV or radio signal, either by subscribing to the service or by purchasing hardware to do so without a subscription. You can't accidentally get those signals on ordinary equipment.
If someone wants to put a channel on the Dish Network, or on Sirius, or on XM, or on Voom, or on digital cable, that consists of nothing but a voiceover saying "Shit Cunt Fuck Asshole" and a picture of the Goatse Man, they're more then entitled to do so. I won't ever watch such a channel, but they're doing it on private property, so I will support their right to do so until my dying breath.
Censorship of or on private property has absolutely no business in any so-called "free" society.
The BBC said the original deviation over North Africa was to take advantage of more favourable winds. When Algeria closed the airspace, they had no choice but to take the more northerly (and apparently somewhat shorter) route.
Length isn't the only reason. The Global Flyer's service ceiling is about 50,000 feet. Voyager's was 11,000 (it was unpressurised). Even if Global Flyer's speed weren't so much faster, being above all the weather has some pretty huge advantages on its own.
Turbine engine failures due to anything other than foreign object damage (FOD) are incredibly rare. So rare, in fact, that the failure of any turbine powerplant on a US-certificated aircraft is required by law to be reported to the FAA.
He's a LOT more likely to run out of gas than to have an engine failure.
Yeah, but remove any one clause, and doing it is also a lot less impressive (and, frankly, trivial).
This is the last great milestone in powered fixed-wing aviation. There are a lot of milestones left elsewhere, but there isn't a whole lot else you can do with an airplane that runs on dead dino juice.
Hey, how long 'till the first solo non-stop round-the-world human-powered flight? Without eating!
It's a Williams FJ44 turbofan. More about that at the Global Flyer Wikipedia page. Fairly common engine these days, used on (or planned for) several other light jets.
And for the thrust you get out of them, jets -- particularly high-bypass turbofans, which are almost like a direct-drive ducted turboprop -- are FAR more efficient than piston engines. Granted, they *do* have to store more fuel on this than on Voyager, but they've enlarged the wings a bit and probably have more room in the fuselage, since there's only one pilot rather than two. There's some discussion of that engineering difficulty at the Scaled project page.
Now, keep in mind that Yeager and Rutan took a WEEK to do this in 1987 in Voyager. Fossett is going to do it in just over three days (that's twice as fast), on only marginally more fuel.
Landing generally takes anywhere from 3/4 to as little as about 1/3 of the length required to get off the ground. Obviously this depends a lot on the plane's design, but I've yet to see ANY fixed-wing aircraft that requires more runway to land than to take off. (The space shuttle doesn't count.)
When you're landing, you can dump your (remaining) fuel and land at a much lighter weight, thereby giving the brakes less energy to dissipate. Also, brakes are typically far more efficient at destroying thrust than engines are at creating it. Finally, most aircraft have other thrust- and lift-destroying devices that can be deployed during a maximum-performance landing (thrust reversers, speed brakes, spoilers, etc.), all of which help to reduce the landing distance, but don't help takeoffs at all.
The point of this long-windedness is basically to say that they won't have any problem finding emergency landing strips in the (fairly unlikely, IMO) event that they need one.
OK, YOU try converting a gallon into teaspoons without using Google.:-p
Dividing and multiplying by ten make a lot of sense. That said, I have no idea how tall "178 centimeters" is, or if weighing "70 kilograms" is anorexic, average, or fat for a person "178 centimeters" in height.
My favourite aspect of the metric system is conversions. It really *does* make conversions a whole lot easier.
I know exactly what your religion and politics are. You've put them on the Internet for anyone to read about.
Or had you forgotten that your Christianity is on your Slashdot user page, and that your rampant right-wing Republicanism is plastered all over your blog, which I found two seconds after clicking on the website linked below your user name?
If you're so adamantly in favour of teaching ID, but you're not doing so out of bias toward Christianity, then you should be campaigning just as vigorously to have Buddhist, Hindi, Muslim, Native American, Wiccan, etc. creation stories taught in a science class.
Which IS REALLY FUCKING STUPID BECAUSE RELIGION IS NOT SCIENCE.
Just admit it. You want ID taught because it allows you to sneak your religion in the back door of public education, in complete violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The Constitution, in case you've forgotten, is the document by which this country is governed. The first ten Amendments are called the Bill of Rights, and to people who are not named "John Ashcroft" or "Alberto Gonzales," these rights are sacrosanct and uninfringeable.
Talking to you fundies is like pissing in the wind. I might as well be talking to a brick wall. You don't listen to anything.
Chemists review chemistry papers, biologists review biology papers, mathematicians review mathematics papers, and psychologists review psychology papers. Can you imagine what a giant mess it would be if chemists reviewed psychology papers, psychologists reviewed biology papers, biologists reviewed mathematics papers, and mathematicians reviewed chemistry papers?
Remember, the lack of true democracy is not always a bad thing. It's good in government, and nearly worthless almost everywhere else, ESPECIALLY in science. Maybe the next Slashdot poll ought to be:
6 * 9 = ?
a) 54 b) 42 c) 55 d) 12 e) 15 f) CowboyNeal
Whatever wins, we all agree is the new value for six times nine.
I didn't say it was. What, did would you rather I call it a "meme"?
You implied it was by stating it should be taught in science class and that it had equal bearing with evolution. And yes, I would rather you call it a meme, because that's all it is, nothing more.
You just don't get it, do you? Religion has no place in science class, just like psychology has no place in math class. You don't teach Freud or Jung to algebra students, so why the hell are people insisting we teach the concept of a god in a science class? Moreover, why is it that these people always insist only the Christian idea of so-called "intelligent design" be taught? Why not the Buddhist or Hindi concepts? Why not the Native American idea?
Oh, right, because the motivating force behind the teaching of intelligent design is right-wing Christianity. You guys are the ones making it political, not us scientists, and you're killing the value of American scientific education in the process.
Intelligent design is not an accepted scientific theorem because a scientific theorem requires a provable hypothesis. It is not possible to prove the existence of a deity, higher power, or whatever else you want to call it. Heck, ID isn't even a hypothesis! From dictionary.com:
hypothesis: A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
The key phrase there is "can be tested by further investigation."
How exactly do you propose to "further investigate" the idea of an intelligent designer? When you think of a way, please let the world know. Until then, as one of your other respondents said, don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church.
Let me say that one more time, so you're sure to get it clear in your little pea brain.
Intelligent design is not science.
It is not a hypothesis that can be tested. It has no business in science class. If science class were about teaching untestable hypotheses, we could re-name it "religion" class.
Science classes are for teaching science. That is all they are for, and THAT is why most people have a problem with the idea of so-called "intelligent design" being taught in science class.
Holy Christ, this story is a MONTH OLD! Anyone who gave a shit read it four weeks ago, and anyone who didn't hear about it when it was ALL OVER THE INTERNET back then isn't going to read Slashdot anyway.
I concur. There HAVE to be better submissions in the queue than month-old crap that wasn't even all that interesting the first time around.
If so, you know what I *would* buy, and I bet a lot of people would also buy?
A Faraday charger that clips on your belt when you go running or walking. Kinda like a really big version of a kinetic watch movement, except it charges a battery, which you then use to charge the fone after your run.
You can get windup generators now; I'm not sure if anyone is making one with a cell fone-compatible voltage output or power adapter, though.
Why not use Faraday's Principle of Induction like these LED torches
Because I've used one of those, and they royally suck. The light is nearly worthless. I blame this on their reliance on an ultracapacitor rather than rechargeable batteries. Batteries would enable the use of more LEDs, making the light a lot more useful. Nothing wrong with Faraday induction, just that's a HORRID example of it.
Also, doing this in a fone would require substantial empty space and weight, neither of which seems to be all that popular at the moment.
or a windup charger?
See comment above about added volume/weight.
I don't see anything in TFA about the volume or weight of this thing, but I get the impression it's a lot smaller and lighter than either a windup or Faraday charger would be.
OK, let's think about this. They could take the custom TiVo software and port it to Mac OS X in what, a month? That, by the way, includes the time to write a nice Aqua front-end.
After all, as you so astutely pointed out, TiVo runs Linux, and Mac OS is based on BSD. The two are far more similar than different.
I think the "analyst" -- and I use that term very loosely -- is demonstrating the very definition of "wishful thinking," but you're insane if you think an Apple TiVo would cost $200 more than a Mac mini, come in blue plastic, and take a year to get to market just because of some trivial software differences.
Slashdot Mirror
That'd sure make it easy to remove from my history, too! ;)
Also, your sig quotes Yoda, not Spock.
p
So if I request Utah Online, Inc. not transmit "offensive" content, does that apply to _me_, or does it apply to _all_ of UOI's customers, because one person made the request?
p
Yeah, I'm still disappointed they didn't go with '900913'...
p
That's exactly what private enterprise wants you to think -- that they can do it better and cheaper.
Of course, Comcast is doing a great job of delivering broadband Internet "better and cheaper" than the alternative means, aren't they? And isn't SBC doing such a great job being "better and cheaper" than alternatives, too?
Oh, what's that? They suck? They're a huge pain in the ass, they have local monopolies, and they fix prices at whatever level they wish? Naaaah, that couldn't possibly be the case...
p
With the aspect ratio of that wing, I wouldn't be surprised either. Heck, that airplane probably has a glide ratio of about 30- or 40-to-1, or about 3-4x that of commercial airliners, and about 1/2 to 3/4 that of top-notch gliders/sailplanes.
p
Care to explain cable TV, then? No airwaves there...
What about the people who subscribe to satellite Internet? Should all the pr0n they download be censored, too, since that's travelling through U.S. airspace (regardless of the fact that Joe Sixpack can't accidentally intercept the signal)?
You can't run around naked or have sex in public because anyone can accidentally see you doing those things. It takes intent and effort to intercept a satellite TV or radio signal, either by subscribing to the service or by purchasing hardware to do so without a subscription. You can't accidentally get those signals on ordinary equipment.
If someone wants to put a channel on the Dish Network, or on Sirius, or on XM, or on Voom, or on digital cable, that consists of nothing but a voiceover saying "Shit Cunt Fuck Asshole" and a picture of the Goatse Man, they're more then entitled to do so. I won't ever watch such a channel, but they're doing it on private property, so I will support their right to do so until my dying breath.
Censorship of or on private property has absolutely no business in any so-called "free" society.
p
Which would be a great theory, but for the fact that Apple Store employees aren't commissioned.
p
The BBC said the original deviation over North Africa was to take advantage of more favourable winds. When Algeria closed the airspace, they had no choice but to take the more northerly (and apparently somewhat shorter) route.
p
Length isn't the only reason. The Global Flyer's service ceiling is about 50,000 feet. Voyager's was 11,000 (it was unpressurised). Even if Global Flyer's speed weren't so much faster, being above all the weather has some pretty huge advantages on its own.
p
Turbine engine failures due to anything other than foreign object damage (FOD) are incredibly rare. So rare, in fact, that the failure of any turbine powerplant on a US-certificated aircraft is required by law to be reported to the FAA.
He's a LOT more likely to run out of gas than to have an engine failure.
p
Yeah, but remove any one clause, and doing it is also a lot less impressive (and, frankly, trivial).
This is the last great milestone in powered fixed-wing aviation. There are a lot of milestones left elsewhere, but there isn't a whole lot else you can do with an airplane that runs on dead dino juice.
Hey, how long 'till the first solo non-stop round-the-world human-powered flight? Without eating!
p
It's a Williams FJ44 turbofan. More about that at the Global Flyer Wikipedia page. Fairly common engine these days, used on (or planned for) several other light jets.
And for the thrust you get out of them, jets -- particularly high-bypass turbofans, which are almost like a direct-drive ducted turboprop -- are FAR more efficient than piston engines. Granted, they *do* have to store more fuel on this than on Voyager, but they've enlarged the wings a bit and probably have more room in the fuselage, since there's only one pilot rather than two. There's some discussion of that engineering difficulty at the Scaled project page.
Now, keep in mind that Yeager and Rutan took a WEEK to do this in 1987 in Voyager. Fossett is going to do it in just over three days (that's twice as fast), on only marginally more fuel.
p
Actually, not only has a solo circumglobal flight been done before, Fossett was the one who did it, albeit in a balloon.
p
Landing generally takes anywhere from 3/4 to as little as about 1/3 of the length required to get off the ground. Obviously this depends a lot on the plane's design, but I've yet to see ANY fixed-wing aircraft that requires more runway to land than to take off. (The space shuttle doesn't count.)
When you're landing, you can dump your (remaining) fuel and land at a much lighter weight, thereby giving the brakes less energy to dissipate. Also, brakes are typically far more efficient at destroying thrust than engines are at creating it. Finally, most aircraft have other thrust- and lift-destroying devices that can be deployed during a maximum-performance landing (thrust reversers, speed brakes, spoilers, etc.), all of which help to reduce the landing distance, but don't help takeoffs at all.
The point of this long-windedness is basically to say that they won't have any problem finding emergency landing strips in the (fairly unlikely, IMO) event that they need one.
IAAP&CFI.
p
Call it a logical fallacy if you want, but it's precisely the reason the US has never switched to the metric system.
p
Here's a real simple reason:
We don't have 12 fingers.
A base-12 measurement system will never succeed until we start teaching everyone to count in base-12 from birth, and to do all their math in base-12.
p
OK, YOU try converting a gallon into teaspoons without using Google. :-p
Dividing and multiplying by ten make a lot of sense. That said, I have no idea how tall "178 centimeters" is, or if weighing "70 kilograms" is anorexic, average, or fat for a person "178 centimeters" in height.
My favourite aspect of the metric system is conversions. It really *does* make conversions a whole lot easier.
p
I know exactly what your religion and politics are. You've put them on the Internet for anyone to read about.
Or had you forgotten that your Christianity is on your Slashdot user page, and that your rampant right-wing Republicanism is plastered all over your blog, which I found two seconds after clicking on the website linked below your user name?
If you're so adamantly in favour of teaching ID, but you're not doing so out of bias toward Christianity, then you should be campaigning just as vigorously to have Buddhist, Hindi, Muslim, Native American, Wiccan, etc. creation stories taught in a science class.
Which IS REALLY FUCKING STUPID BECAUSE RELIGION IS NOT SCIENCE.
Just admit it. You want ID taught because it allows you to sneak your religion in the back door of public education, in complete violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The Constitution, in case you've forgotten, is the document by which this country is governed. The first ten Amendments are called the Bill of Rights, and to people who are not named "John Ashcroft" or "Alberto Gonzales," these rights are sacrosanct and uninfringeable.
Talking to you fundies is like pissing in the wind. I might as well be talking to a brick wall. You don't listen to anything.
p
The key term there being "peer."
Chemists review chemistry papers, biologists review biology papers, mathematicians review mathematics papers, and psychologists review psychology papers. Can you imagine what a giant mess it would be if chemists reviewed psychology papers, psychologists reviewed biology papers, biologists reviewed mathematics papers, and mathematicians reviewed chemistry papers?
Remember, the lack of true democracy is not always a bad thing. It's good in government, and nearly worthless almost everywhere else, ESPECIALLY in science. Maybe the next Slashdot poll ought to be:
6 * 9 = ?
a) 54
b) 42
c) 55
d) 12
e) 15
f) CowboyNeal
Whatever wins, we all agree is the new value for six times nine.
Sound good?
p
You implied it was by stating it should be taught in science class and that it had equal bearing with evolution. And yes, I would rather you call it a meme, because that's all it is, nothing more.
You just don't get it, do you? Religion has no place in science class, just like psychology has no place in math class. You don't teach Freud or Jung to algebra students, so why the hell are people insisting we teach the concept of a god in a science class? Moreover, why is it that these people always insist only the Christian idea of so-called "intelligent design" be taught? Why not the Buddhist or Hindi concepts? Why not the Native American idea?
Oh, right, because the motivating force behind the teaching of intelligent design is right-wing Christianity. You guys are the ones making it political, not us scientists, and you're killing the value of American scientific education in the process.
Intelligent design is not an accepted scientific theorem because a scientific theorem requires a provable hypothesis. It is not possible to prove the existence of a deity, higher power, or whatever else you want to call it. Heck, ID isn't even a hypothesis! From dictionary.com:
The key phrase there is "can be tested by further investigation."
How exactly do you propose to "further investigate" the idea of an intelligent designer? When you think of a way, please let the world know. Until then, as one of your other respondents said, don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church.
p
Intelligent design is not science.
Let me say that one more time, so you're sure to get it clear in your little pea brain.
Intelligent design is not science.
It is not a hypothesis that can be tested. It has no business in science class. If science class were about teaching untestable hypotheses, we could re-name it "religion" class.
Science classes are for teaching science. That is all they are for, and THAT is why most people have a problem with the idea of so-called "intelligent design" being taught in science class.
One more time:
Intelligent design is not science.
p
Holy Christ, this story is a MONTH OLD! Anyone who gave a shit read it four weeks ago, and anyone who didn't hear about it when it was ALL OVER THE INTERNET back then isn't going to read Slashdot anyway.
I concur. There HAVE to be better submissions in the queue than month-old crap that wasn't even all that interesting the first time around.
Ah well. At least it's not a dupe...
p
If so, you know what I *would* buy, and I bet a lot of people would also buy?
A Faraday charger that clips on your belt when you go running or walking. Kinda like a really big version of a kinetic watch movement, except it charges a battery, which you then use to charge the fone after your run.
You can get windup generators now; I'm not sure if anyone is making one with a cell fone-compatible voltage output or power adapter, though.
p
Why not use Faraday's Principle of Induction like these LED torches
Because I've used one of those, and they royally suck. The light is nearly worthless. I blame this on their reliance on an ultracapacitor rather than rechargeable batteries. Batteries would enable the use of more LEDs, making the light a lot more useful. Nothing wrong with Faraday induction, just that's a HORRID example of it.
Also, doing this in a fone would require substantial empty space and weight, neither of which seems to be all that popular at the moment.
or a windup charger?
See comment above about added volume/weight.
I don't see anything in TFA about the volume or weight of this thing, but I get the impression it's a lot smaller and lighter than either a windup or Faraday charger would be.
p
OK, let's think about this. They could take the custom TiVo software and port it to Mac OS X in what, a month? That, by the way, includes the time to write a nice Aqua front-end.
After all, as you so astutely pointed out, TiVo runs Linux, and Mac OS is based on BSD. The two are far more similar than different.
I think the "analyst" -- and I use that term very loosely -- is demonstrating the very definition of "wishful thinking," but you're insane if you think an Apple TiVo would cost $200 more than a Mac mini, come in blue plastic, and take a year to get to market just because of some trivial software differences.
p