That, and the fact that the government will confiscate ALL of your income, if you choose to denominate that income in any currency other than one of their approved ones, you counterfeiting scoundrel you.
Being able to keep half of your money instead of all of it... That's value!
Because, you know, changing configuration items never breaks software. It's just configuration! If it's important, hardcode it like a boss!
Sorry, you fail at basic configuration management, let alone certifiability for life-and-death purposes. You fix a configuration or a narrow range of configurations and certify that specific configuration. You don't let field weenies free-lance on your gamma knife or intravenous infusion pump.
The process is fine. Recertification is a valid cost, considering the safety implications of the alternatives. It's just unfortunate that this mandate is gonna force re-certification of practically every piece of healthcare IT all at once. Process bottleneck for sure.
A few moment's silence, pray, for the demise of an Internet meme?
Alas, no. Regardless of what it's called, this is not the Duke Nukem Forever the prophecies spoke of. It's not the vaporware Messiah; it's just very naughty crap.
The meme is safe. This is not the DNF we're looking for.
.com "belongs" to Verisign. I suspect it doesn't matter what sub-registrar you buy your domain from; if it's.com, it's easily in the reach of US law enforcement action, by virtue of ultimately being controlled by a U.S. company whose headquarters is practically within walking distance of the headquarters of the DoJ and ICE.
I do. Because free pr0n is too much hassle. I know it exists and I know how to obtain it. But the paid service is easier to use and more secure.
Irony: commenting of the ease-of-use and security of using paid pr0n service in discussion about significant compromise of userid, email address, and passwords of a paid pr0n service.
(Actually, I'm kinda ducking my head, in case there's a WHOOSH incoming. It's kinda hard to tell.)
Not a problem. Add a rocket-powered ejection seat. Oh, wait, not in an airframe with an unadorned saddle and a dry weight of 240 pounds. A modern zero-zero egress system probably weighs close to that by itself.
Agreed. It wouldn't be hard to shave off capability until it fits the regulatory guidelines. Of course, since the regulatory guidelines aren't built around the idea of a direct-lift rotorcraft which has to expend engine power just to get off the ground, the Hoverbike's at a distinct disadvantage compared to current-technology ultralights. TBH, as you point out, if you shave off enough capability, you've probably eliminated any practicality.
I just thought I should point out the disingenuous handwaving away of the regulatory challenges in the FAQ's breezy language. "Of course it'll be regulated like an ultralight, if you're unfortunate enough to live in a country blighted by an actual aviation regulation agency."
don't just cut to the chase and dope their deathsticks with methamphetamine and cocaine. It's hard to beat the brand loyalty engendered by those fabulous and time-tested products. Not even Apple electronic products can directly induce physiological withdrawal symptoms like that!
I suspect it's not so much trolling as inadvertent confirmation of TFA: No one can find a WP7 phone in any carrier store without diligence and lots of luck. The actual fact that they've been rolled out by vendors and are in the "official" catalog of the network providers looks purely hypothetical by now.
Crap. I've already commented, so I can't moderate.
+1 On Fscking Point.
Verizon cheerfully gives away craptacular feature phones. They don't need to barely make money (lose money?) on a Win 7P smartphone if they can get you on the same steady per-month wallet drain with something else. They sell other smartphones because people already know to ask for them.
Or, in the immortal words, "one of these things is not like the other."
I expect that the Hoverbike is has about the same static lateral stability as a real bike: not very much. I suppose you could market it as "relaxed aerodynamic stability", although without fly-by-wire and computer stabilization, it doesn't sound like it'd be much fun to ride.
That's what it is. Verizon's holding out for some of that world-famous Microsoft marketing largess. It worked for Nokia, didn't it? Why shouldn't a provider/vendor get some?
Having previous experience in a helicopter or plane would be a great help. That said, this is a new way to fly and one would need to learn to ride the hoverbike in much the same manner as a helicopter or riding a motorcycle. If you live in the USA or your country has similar civil aviation regulations, then the hoverbike will be classed as a 'ultralite' which means you do not need a pilots license to fly the hoverbike.
FAA describes a powered ultralight vehicle as a vehicle that:
* Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant (through exemptions, FAA allows 2-place ultralights to be used for instruction only - see below);
* Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only;
* Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate; and:
Single-Place
* Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation;
* Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons;
* Is not capable of more than 55 knots (63 mph) calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight; and
* Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots (28 mph) calibrated airspeed.
The two items I've emphasized above in bold conflict with current specifications of the prototype: A 30 litre fuel tank and a 150 knots indicated airspeed max. And, the dry weight (105kg) is skirting perilously close to the maximum permissible dry weight of an FAA ultralight, too. They can't afford to add 10kg to the weight of the prototype before going production, or it busts that standard too, and if they're going to a more robust prop design or a bigger engine, it could happen.
And, btw, anyone care to speculate what the power-off stall speed of a direct-lift non-autorotating rotary wing aircraft might be?
So, no, if nothing else changes, the FAA will not accept the Hoverbike as an ultralight.
Nice. Especially since you'll resist being arrested for resisting arrest. So I'll have to arrest you for that, which you'll also resist.
And no, there's no totem. I'll just have to haul you in and book you for infinite charges of resisting arrest.
After duly trying and convicting you, you'll spend 2 1/2 years per charge, for a grand total of 2.5 x infinity years in the state klink, plus fines of $500 x infinity.
I suspect you could probably get 6 months off for good behavior, though.
You do understand that in most traffic situations, there's no such thing as "proper following distance". That specific three-word combination is actually pronounced "invitation for one or more asshats to jump into the gap, reducing 3-second separation into multi-car bumper-to-bumper".
The logical conclusion of your argument is that any vehicle without instantaneous braking capabilities is required to drive backwards in order to maintain proper separation with vehicles in front of it.
If you're sufficiently wasted, then you probably don't have the judgment skills to use the app and avoid the checkpoint in the first place.
I just realized we should all be worried not merely about drunks on the roads, but drunks on the road trying to use their iPhones with this app (or any other app... text messaging, I'm looking at you...) while driving. Or even sober drivers, it they're trying to app while driving.
Yeah, but both sides are making claims, and both sides are disavowing any responsibility to meet any burden of proof. Sounds like it's devolving into a "no, you go first" argument I have to occasionally send my 5-year-olds to time-out to break up.
For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press -- which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress -- are among the fundamental personal rights and "liberties" protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States.
That's weird. I must be reading the wrong fairy tales. Most of the ones I'm familiar with depict the families of protagonist children as cripplingly poor, sociopathically dysfunctional, or utterly aloof from the children, who are usually raised by peasant foster parents, wild beasts, or mythical creatures. Or fattened up for eatin'.
So, apparently, truth isn't stranger than fiction; it's indistiguishable.
Don't get too comfortable. My first lawsuit will be over Bambi. Do you know how offended I was when Bambi's mommy got shot? If you're a Disney shareholder, you will find out.
Slashdot Mirror
Yikes! Lost the punch to the punch line!
Being able to keep half of your money instead of none of it... That's value!
That, and the fact that the government will confiscate ALL of your income, if you choose to denominate that income in any currency other than one of their approved ones, you counterfeiting scoundrel you.
Being able to keep half of your money instead of all of it... That's value!
Because, you know, changing configuration items never breaks software. It's just configuration! If it's important, hardcode it like a boss!
Sorry, you fail at basic configuration management, let alone certifiability for life-and-death purposes. You fix a configuration or a narrow range of configurations and certify that specific configuration. You don't let field weenies free-lance on your gamma knife or intravenous infusion pump.
The process is fine. Recertification is a valid cost, considering the safety implications of the alternatives. It's just unfortunate that this mandate is gonna force re-certification of practically every piece of healthcare IT all at once. Process bottleneck for sure.
A few moment's silence, pray, for the demise of an Internet meme?
Alas, no. Regardless of what it's called, this is not the Duke Nukem Forever the prophecies spoke of. It's not the vaporware Messiah; it's just very naughty crap.
The meme is safe. This is not the DNF we're looking for.
The free market can't work without information.
Well, first things first. Let's get that "free market" thingie working, and then we'll worry about information.
.com "belongs" to Verisign. I suspect it doesn't matter what sub-registrar you buy your domain from; if it's .com, it's easily in the reach of US law enforcement action, by virtue of ultimately being controlled by a U.S. company whose headquarters is practically within walking distance of the headquarters of the DoJ and ICE.
Alas, the Nutrimatic dispenses something which is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea (Earl Grey or not).
I do. Because free pr0n is too much hassle. I know it exists and I know how to obtain it. But the paid service is easier to use and more secure.
Irony: commenting of the ease-of-use and security of using paid pr0n service in discussion about significant compromise of userid, email address, and passwords of a paid pr0n service.
(Actually, I'm kinda ducking my head, in case there's a WHOOSH incoming. It's kinda hard to tell.)
Not a problem. Add a rocket-powered ejection seat. Oh, wait, not in an airframe with an unadorned saddle and a dry weight of 240 pounds. A modern zero-zero egress system probably weighs close to that by itself.
Jetpack?
Agreed. It wouldn't be hard to shave off capability until it fits the regulatory guidelines. Of course, since the regulatory guidelines aren't built around the idea of a direct-lift rotorcraft which has to expend engine power just to get off the ground, the Hoverbike's at a distinct disadvantage compared to current-technology ultralights. TBH, as you point out, if you shave off enough capability, you've probably eliminated any practicality.
I just thought I should point out the disingenuous handwaving away of the regulatory challenges in the FAQ's breezy language. "Of course it'll be regulated like an ultralight, if you're unfortunate enough to live in a country blighted by an actual aviation regulation agency."
don't just cut to the chase and dope their deathsticks with methamphetamine and cocaine. It's hard to beat the brand loyalty engendered by those fabulous and time-tested products. Not even Apple electronic products can directly induce physiological withdrawal symptoms like that!
I suspect it's not so much trolling as inadvertent confirmation of TFA: No one can find a WP7 phone in any carrier store without diligence and lots of luck. The actual fact that they've been rolled out by vendors and are in the "official" catalog of the network providers looks purely hypothetical by now.
Crap. I've already commented, so I can't moderate.
+1 On Fscking Point.
Verizon cheerfully gives away craptacular feature phones. They don't need to barely make money (lose money?) on a Win 7P smartphone if they can get you on the same steady per-month wallet drain with something else. They sell other smartphones because people already know to ask for them.
In comparison, with the Hoverbike, "Contrary to popular belief, having greater mass above the centre of pressure does not mean an unstable craft (yes it is less inherently stable than below)."
Or, in the immortal words, "one of these things is not like the other."
I expect that the Hoverbike is has about the same static lateral stability as a real bike: not very much. I suppose you could market it as "relaxed aerodynamic stability", although without fly-by-wire and computer stabilization, it doesn't sound like it'd be much fun to ride.
That's what it is. Verizon's holding out for some of that world-famous Microsoft marketing largess. It worked for Nokia, didn't it? Why shouldn't a provider/vendor get some?
From the FAQ:
From the summary of vehicle regulations for ultralight aircraft at http://www.ultralightflying.com/ultralight-vehicle-regulations/ultralight-vehicle-regulations.html:
The two items I've emphasized above in bold conflict with current specifications of the prototype: A 30 litre fuel tank and a 150 knots indicated airspeed max. And, the dry weight (105kg) is skirting perilously close to the maximum permissible dry weight of an FAA ultralight, too. They can't afford to add 10kg to the weight of the prototype before going production, or it busts that standard too, and if they're going to a more robust prop design or a bigger engine, it could happen.
And, btw, anyone care to speculate what the power-off stall speed of a direct-lift non-autorotating rotary wing aircraft might be?
So, no, if nothing else changes, the FAA will not accept the Hoverbike as an ultralight.
Nice. Especially since you'll resist being arrested for resisting arrest. So I'll have to arrest you for that, which you'll also resist.
And no, there's no totem. I'll just have to haul you in and book you for infinite charges of resisting arrest.
After duly trying and convicting you, you'll spend 2 1/2 years per charge, for a grand total of 2.5 x infinity years in the state klink, plus fines of $500 x infinity.
I suspect you could probably get 6 months off for good behavior, though.
You do understand that in most traffic situations, there's no such thing as "proper following distance". That specific three-word combination is actually pronounced "invitation for one or more asshats to jump into the gap, reducing 3-second separation into multi-car bumper-to-bumper".
The logical conclusion of your argument is that any vehicle without instantaneous braking capabilities is required to drive backwards in order to maintain proper separation with vehicles in front of it.
If you're sufficiently wasted, then you probably don't have the judgment skills to use the app and avoid the checkpoint in the first place.
I just realized we should all be worried not merely about drunks on the roads, but drunks on the road trying to use their iPhones with this app (or any other app... text messaging, I'm looking at you...) while driving. Or even sober drivers, it they're trying to app while driving.
Yeah, but both sides are making claims, and both sides are disavowing any responsibility to meet any burden of proof. Sounds like it's devolving into a "no, you go first" argument I have to occasionally send my 5-year-olds to time-out to break up.
Good work, Slashdot.
-- Gitlow v. New York
That's weird. I must be reading the wrong fairy tales. Most of the ones I'm familiar with depict the families of protagonist children as cripplingly poor, sociopathically dysfunctional, or utterly aloof from the children, who are usually raised by peasant foster parents, wild beasts, or mythical creatures. Or fattened up for eatin'.
So, apparently, truth isn't stranger than fiction; it's indistiguishable.
Don't get too comfortable. My first lawsuit will be over Bambi. Do you know how offended I was when Bambi's mommy got shot? If you're a Disney shareholder, you will find out.
traduttore, traditore
I think he's just gunning for a CourtTV equivalent of MTV Jackass.
You know, stupid embarrassing courtroom stunts. Midgets. Self-inflicted injuries. Scatological humor.