He apparently had 2 motors - one for the wheels/propeller and one solely for the propeller. The plane flew, according to those articles, for hundreds of yards at a time, doing circuits of the area. So yes - a longer flight than the Wright brothers', with full control. Making guesses about aerodynamic abilities from photos isn't the wisest choice.
Impossible to know, except for the bright light shining on the front when they record anything, and the "ok, glasses, record a video" voice prompt to start the recording itself. There are far more surreptitious recording devices out there for you to get all scared and whiny about.
A rather prominent light is illuminated when video is being recorded. It does not constantly record video, and does not do so surreptitiously. Your claim of "will be recorded" is absolute nonsense. Ignorance isn't helping you sound sane.
Expectation of privacy in public is an expression. It's down to the fact that no-one can legally expect privacy in public, hence English having those two words: "public" and "private". If you are scared of people looking at you or you being recorded, don't leave your house without a disguise. Problem solved.
So Glass is not banned in public places where you live, just the use of it to record video in private property open to the public, just like current cellphones and cameras. Glass doesn't constantly record, and when it does record, a light is illuminated on the front for all to see.
Your arrogance is staggering. You are saying it's perfectly OK to assault someone simply because you assume they are doing something perfectly legal?
Your rant about those damned kids and their damned smart telephone things shows just how self-absorbed and out of touch you are with reality. Then you go on to assert you know more about the market than Google, which is quite frankly incredible, but given the rest of your comment something not entirely unexpected.
Google Glasses don't record constantly, for the reasons you stated - the battery would drain in an hour and the thing would be useless. Or do you think the glasses are hooked up to a notebook battery slung under the wearer's shoulder? To start recording you have to give a voice command ("ok, glass, record a video" or "ok, glass, hang out with [contact or group name]"). The glasses also have an indicating light which shines when video is being recorded.
So yes - either be afraid of cameras, cellphones, and Google Glasses, or none of them, as they all possibly share the same capabilities - taking images and video, and uploading them to the internet.
You can look to many parts of Europe for just that - security, prosperity, great quality of life, and so on. But that's socialism, which clearly doesn't work.
$12bn for the entire project, and $970/kg versus $4,100 for the Falcon 9. The Skylon planes will be entirely reusable, and ready to fly again within days. The two are not comparable with regards to reusability or cost per kilogram. Not everything is developed a business first, remember.
Then explain the 85 newspaper articles of Whitehead's flights before the Wright brothers'? How can you judge aerodynamic properties of an aircraft in a picture? You are clearly not operating in the realm of reality if you think you can. It seems you want them to be the first more than you want to know the truth, which is terribly sad.
Then please explain the 85 newspaper articles from the time which all agree that Whitehead flew many times in 1901/1902. To disprove those you'd have to be the conspiracy theorist! It's only now that the records have been digitised is it so easy to find them. The Wright brothers and anyone seeking to disprove their claims wouldn't have been able to find these articles with anything close to the ease of today. The Wright brothers were excellent, but they were simply not the first nor the best.
Actually it does matter that you are in public - that's the whole point of the word. If you are that scared of people seeing you eat, don't eat in public, but at home or at a private place. I know it kind of defeats your argument in one fell swoop, but that is the very definition of public.
Your ignorance of this subject is simply staggering. I beg you, as one sentient human being to another - research the various effects on the global climate (of which this cycle is just one), and see the correlation (or lack thereof) to global temperature. It's not as clear-cut as you seem to think it is. Hint: If you think you can debunk a well-established branch of science in a one-paragraph post to Slashdot, you're most likely wrong.
You are confusing localised weather and global climate. Your existence is dependent on the global climate - food prices, diseases, populations, infrastructure, foreign production, etc. etc. etc. all play a massive part in keeping you comfortable. It seems you don't understand the implications of global warming. It's not just that the sea will rise a bit and the summers will be nicer - it's far more serious than that. It is possible to do something about it - if you value your grandkids, that is. So be selfish and fuck future generations, or actually do something good and at least try to make a difference.
You're doing yourself a great disservice. There are more than "a handful" of actual real scientists doing actual real science who can demonstrate the "A" exceedingly well. Whether people see them as priests or not doesn't change the fact that their science is solid.
Those 900,000 people includes a massive amount of military personnel who signed up and appreciated the risk. The 110,000 people I stated (who were literally killed by direct military action by the allies, not Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence) were civilians only.
Your meandering diatribe arguing that the power vacuum caused by the invasion was somehow justified or cool is mind-boggling. These are facts, and clearly have lead to the destabilisation of the country. It has nothing to do with liberal tendencies what-so-ever. Your argument is fatuous beyond belief.
Making sweeping generalisations isn't helping you not look like a moron. And no, not every industrialised country has single payer systems - that doesn't mean it's fine to not have one and that it's the best route to go. The UK spends far less than the US and achieves similar results. Hell, in parts of the UK all prescriptions are free. Most developed countries have abolished the death penalty. Most dictatorships and fucked-up countries still have it, however, so I don't know what point you are trying to make.
And yet all three have happened, which has only served to make the US government look absolutely ridiculous: running around in a fit of pique screaming and crying at being called out for being systematic assholes.
The number of Iraqi deaths before the invasion was lower than afterwards, as the invasion removed the basic security which prevented any sectarian violence. Yes, Saddam's regime had a terrible history of mass murder, but it didn't come anywhere close to the slaughter conducted in the absence of any security what-so-ever. The US's plan to disband the Iraqi army then released hundreds of thousands of well-armed and well-trained people back into the civilian population, which absolutely did not help the situation. The number of civilian deaths directly attributable to military actions of the invading allies is over 110,000.
Slashdot Mirror
He apparently had 2 motors - one for the wheels/propeller and one solely for the propeller. The plane flew, according to those articles, for hundreds of yards at a time, doing circuits of the area. So yes - a longer flight than the Wright brothers', with full control. Making guesses about aerodynamic abilities from photos isn't the wisest choice.
Impossible to know, except for the bright light shining on the front when they record anything, and the "ok, glasses, record a video" voice prompt to start the recording itself. There are far more surreptitious recording devices out there for you to get all scared and whiny about.
A rather prominent light is illuminated when video is being recorded. It does not constantly record video, and does not do so surreptitiously. Your claim of "will be recorded" is absolute nonsense. Ignorance isn't helping you sound sane.
And everyone wins.
Expectation of privacy in public is an expression. It's down to the fact that no-one can legally expect privacy in public, hence English having those two words: "public" and "private". If you are scared of people looking at you or you being recorded, don't leave your house without a disguise. Problem solved.
So Glass is not banned in public places where you live, just the use of it to record video in private property open to the public, just like current cellphones and cameras. Glass doesn't constantly record, and when it does record, a light is illuminated on the front for all to see.
Your arrogance is staggering. You are saying it's perfectly OK to assault someone simply because you assume they are doing something perfectly legal?
Your rant about those damned kids and their damned smart telephone things shows just how self-absorbed and out of touch you are with reality. Then you go on to assert you know more about the market than Google, which is quite frankly incredible, but given the rest of your comment something not entirely unexpected.
Google Glasses don't record constantly, for the reasons you stated - the battery would drain in an hour and the thing would be useless. Or do you think the glasses are hooked up to a notebook battery slung under the wearer's shoulder? To start recording you have to give a voice command ("ok, glass, record a video" or "ok, glass, hang out with [contact or group name]"). The glasses also have an indicating light which shines when video is being recorded.
So yes - either be afraid of cameras, cellphones, and Google Glasses, or none of them, as they all possibly share the same capabilities - taking images and video, and uploading them to the internet.
You can look to many parts of Europe for just that - security, prosperity, great quality of life, and so on. But that's socialism, which clearly doesn't work.
$12bn for the entire project, and $970/kg versus $4,100 for the Falcon 9. The Skylon planes will be entirely reusable, and ready to fly again within days. The two are not comparable with regards to reusability or cost per kilogram. Not everything is developed a business first, remember.
Maybe the equipment required to parachute the rocket to the ground weighs more than the fuel required to land it?
Anyway, Skylon seems to be a far better launch vehicle for us here on Earth. Entirely reusable, and very efficient.
Then explain the 85 newspaper articles of Whitehead's flights before the Wright brothers'? How can you judge aerodynamic properties of an aircraft in a picture? You are clearly not operating in the realm of reality if you think you can. It seems you want them to be the first more than you want to know the truth, which is terribly sad.
Then please explain the 85 newspaper articles from the time which all agree that Whitehead flew many times in 1901/1902. To disprove those you'd have to be the conspiracy theorist! It's only now that the records have been digitised is it so easy to find them. The Wright brothers and anyone seeking to disprove their claims wouldn't have been able to find these articles with anything close to the ease of today. The Wright brothers were excellent, but they were simply not the first nor the best.
One can find the answer in seconds.
Actually it does matter that you are in public - that's the whole point of the word. If you are that scared of people seeing you eat, don't eat in public, but at home or at a private place. I know it kind of defeats your argument in one fell swoop, but that is the very definition of public.
Your ignorance of this subject is simply staggering. I beg you, as one sentient human being to another - research the various effects on the global climate (of which this cycle is just one), and see the correlation (or lack thereof) to global temperature. It's not as clear-cut as you seem to think it is. Hint: If you think you can debunk a well-established branch of science in a one-paragraph post to Slashdot, you're most likely wrong.
You are confusing localised weather and global climate. Your existence is dependent on the global climate - food prices, diseases, populations, infrastructure, foreign production, etc. etc. etc. all play a massive part in keeping you comfortable. It seems you don't understand the implications of global warming. It's not just that the sea will rise a bit and the summers will be nicer - it's far more serious than that. It is possible to do something about it - if you value your grandkids, that is. So be selfish and fuck future generations, or actually do something good and at least try to make a difference.
The ice age cycle is but one small part of what's going on. The science is well understood, just not by you, apparently.
You're doing yourself a great disservice. There are more than "a handful" of actual real scientists doing actual real science who can demonstrate the "A" exceedingly well. Whether people see them as priests or not doesn't change the fact that their science is solid.
"Survival of the fittest" should be read as "survival of the most fit-for-purpose". It has nothing to do with strength, ferocity, sharp teeth, etc.
Those 900,000 people includes a massive amount of military personnel who signed up and appreciated the risk. The 110,000 people I stated (who were literally killed by direct military action by the allies, not Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence) were civilians only.
Your meandering diatribe arguing that the power vacuum caused by the invasion was somehow justified or cool is mind-boggling. These are facts, and clearly have lead to the destabilisation of the country. It has nothing to do with liberal tendencies what-so-ever. Your argument is fatuous beyond belief.
Making sweeping generalisations isn't helping you not look like a moron. And no, not every industrialised country has single payer systems - that doesn't mean it's fine to not have one and that it's the best route to go. The UK spends far less than the US and achieves similar results. Hell, in parts of the UK all prescriptions are free. Most developed countries have abolished the death penalty. Most dictatorships and fucked-up countries still have it, however, so I don't know what point you are trying to make.
And yet all three have happened, which has only served to make the US government look absolutely ridiculous: running around in a fit of pique screaming and crying at being called out for being systematic assholes.
So you have to demonstrate his motive was to aid the enemy. You can't have it both ways.
The number of Iraqi deaths before the invasion was lower than afterwards, as the invasion removed the basic security which prevented any sectarian violence. Yes, Saddam's regime had a terrible history of mass murder, but it didn't come anywhere close to the slaughter conducted in the absence of any security what-so-ever. The US's plan to disband the Iraqi army then released hundreds of thousands of well-armed and well-trained people back into the civilian population, which absolutely did not help the situation. The number of civilian deaths directly attributable to military actions of the invading allies is over 110,000.