I don't hear much about comsumer electronics being fritzed by cosmic rays,
Chances are you'll be hearing about this more and more over the next several decades or so. Scientists have discovered a large spot over the Atlantic (IIRC) where high levels of cosmic radiation are actually making it to the ocean's surface. Further investigation indicates this is because their Earth's magnetosphere is beginning to significantly weaken. Furthermore, its expected that not only will the the level of radiation exposure continue to drastically rise at this particular location, but that radiation exposure globally will drastically rise.
It turns out, it appears this is related to the shifting of Earth's magnetic poles. As the poles continue to migrate away from their axial positions, the earth's magnetosphere begins to dramatically weaken. Not to surprising, the protection extended to both artificial satellites and Earth's occupants will be significantly and negatively affected.
Accordingly, expect far more electronics failures from cosmic radiation over the next several decades and beyond. And over the next thousand years, the levels of radiation may pose a significant risk to all life on Earth - or at least those on the surface. This of course, also suggests we will have a pole reversal sometime within the next thousand years.
You do realize that the USA has 400.000 military personnel and China.... well 1.600.000....... Not saying they have the boats to get them all anywhere, but I would think they can deliver quite a punch if they need to.
There is a huge misconception about the size of China's military. Something like 30% are old women and children. Literally. Furthermore, over half quarters are are simply factory workers who wear uniforms. Yes, those guys who make goods in factories. That means, realistically, something like an effective fighting force, versus a real military, of only 4000,000 - 500,000 or so. Not to mention, all of China's real talent has typically been Russian.
The modern US military has extremely powerful force multipliers. A squad of guys (8-16) today is roughly equivalent to something like 30-100 soldiers during WWII. No joke. And generally speaking, much of N. Korea's tech base hasn't evolved much since the Korean war. Sure they have pockets of their own special forces with modern weapons, but by in large, most of their forces are still using modernized WWII to Vietnam era weaponry; reflective of accuracy and capability. In a nut shell, when compared to modern US forces, China's force is VERY ROUGHLY comparable to 100,000 US troops.
You need to remember, with one ground spotter, one airplane, and one cluster bomb, the US Air Force can take out an entire armored division of armor. Literally. To date, only one has actually been used in combat. It was dropped in Iraq. Ponder that for a second or two. That's what force multipliers are all about.
Realistically, and no jokes, maintaining enough ammo on hand is typically the biggest logistics issue a modern, Western, military would have in opposition to a conflict with China. That's not to say there wouldn't be deaths on the Western's side, but China is far from the big, nasty, million-man-plus boogy man everyone tries to make him out to be. In a toe to toe with the West, China would be missing its toes, feet, and ankles really quickly. And if you can't stand...you've lost.
Given the immensely bad buzz around ACII because of it's draconian DRM, I doubt that they were.
History has proved your doubt is almost surely to be misplaced. Badly misplaced.
At this point in time, if company after company didn't have numbers to validate DRM bolstered sales, and by a lot, they wouldn't be spending the large dollars, plus likely royalty payments, to obtain the various DRM kits and spend the manpower to develop/maintain the implementation.
Simply put, without a doubt, companies lose lots and lots of money from people stealing their property. If that were not the truth, companies would not even make the effort - and especially not at what would otherwise be such large losses because of their investments in DRM. The fact they can make back their investment plus lots more because of DRM speaks volumes about how clueless and completely uninformed the popular lies are about pirates and their stealing ways.
The simple fact is, pirates steal! Because pirates steal, companies lose money. Because companies lose money from pirates stealing, they make investments in DRM. Note the usage of the word, "investments"; its very applicable. Companies then stymie pirates, ranging from short to long durations, allowing them to not only cover their initial DRM investments and manpower, but then make a lot more money because pirates are no longer stealing their properly - or at least not nearly as effectively.
So long as leeches on society, aka pirates, keep stealing other people's properly, we are all going to have to pay the DRM price. So ratcheting up the rhetoric about how DRM is justification to steal, only demands more DRM, which punishes everyone. Period.
The funny part is, idiots now use DRM as a flimsy reason to steal. Its like millions of bank robbers complaining about higher taxes which are then used to hire more police to combat the robber's crimes. In reality, if robbers would just be shot in the head, taxes would go down over time (DRM) and the public in general wouldn't be strapped with needless extra taxes (DRM). But that's yet another lie propagated by scumbag pirates to push their thieving agenda...
So at the end of the day, if you don't like DRM, find a couple of local pirates and kick them repeatedly in the nuts because they are the reason we all pay the DRM tax burden. Period. The sooner pirates are repeatedly kicked in the nuts at every opportunity, the sooner the world starts to become a better place.
Guess who grew up to be a fat adult who tried all the same shit (pills, "diet" meals, "magic" exercise apparatus, etc.) as many other fat people, with the same results... still fat.
I decided to comment rather than moderate. Dieting is a dumb idea thrust upon us by marketing and companies trying to sell us something. Never, ever, never, ever diet. Dieting is for losers. Diet is for marketing sock puppets. There is a huge difference between dieting and a healthy diet. The former is a plan for failure. The later is a plan for a healthy life.
Here's a reasonable basis to begin a healthy life. This may not be for everyone, but for most, it makes for a good basis to move forward.
Every (at least two out of three) meal must have two sources of green, leafy vegetables. Salads are great and can even include fruit. If cooked, each serving should be no smaller than the size of your fist. If uncooked, each serving should be no smaller than twice the size of your fist. Eat red meat no more than once per week. Prefer poultry, fish, oily fish, and pork; but pork no more than twice per week. A red meat serving should never be larger than your fist. Fish and poultry should typically be as large as your fist, but never larger than two. Fish sticks are a processed product and are never made from oily fish. They don't count.
Salad dressing can be used, so long as its not a sweet dressing. As usual moderation is the rule of the day. If you can only see your dressing, you're eating too much. If you're not used to eating salads and salad dressing, look at what is recommended for a single serving. Use that as a starting basis. Remember, a salad should be no smaller than two to four fists in size.
Notice broccoli, despite being green, is not leafy; thusly does not count as a vegetable in your diet. You can still consume it. Its good fiber. With it, hopefully you'll consume other, non-leafy green vegetables too, on a regular basis. Just because the minimum is two, leafy, greens, doesn't mean that's the absolute limit to what you should be consuming.
Corn should be completely out of your diet. Corn is basically fiber plus a simple sugar. Because of the way most people cook it, the sugar is easily processed by your body. The good news is, you can add nuts, seeds, and berries to your diet to replace the sweet fixed provided by corn.
Contrary to popular myth, potatoes are not bad. Eat one up to a couple times per week. This should not be confused with mashed potatoes and especially never with instant, mashed potatoes. The later of which has largely been broken down and is more readily converted into sugars. The former of which is a complex carb and is much more slowly broken down into sugars. The later is a excellent source of fiber and long lasting energy. That's why its literally fed to Olympians during competition. When you cook it, cook it until its tender and eatable, but no more. The more you cook it, the more you convert it to a simple carb, which is more easily broken down into sugar.
Speaking of potatoes, cheeses can and should be consumed. Several studies indicate the calcium plus other "stuff" in cheese seems to encourage your body to naturally trim down. Even people who are lactose intolerant can consume cheese. As with anything, moderation should be used. Regardless, it can be consumed on a daily basis. To be absolutely clear, I'm talking about real cheese - not just cheese with a label. Highly processed cheeses such as Krafts Singles and Velveeta are completely out. This, of course, means all cheeses used in fast food is also out. So if your cheese did not come from a wheel or block, don't eat it. Again, I want to stress moderation.
Next, eliminate all soda from your diet. This especially includes all diet sodas. If you want a treat from time to time, only drink clear, non-diet sodas. Sodas on the number one cause of people going off on sugar binges; and especially those who drink diet sodas.
Eliminate all artificial sweeteners. If you can, cons
I have an android phone. I've never owned an iPhone. Re-read what I said. Everything is factually accurate.
Though honestly, I can't disagree with anything you said in your phone comparisons. Simply put, Android is a superior solution to the iPhone. Android even has higher end hardware available now and is far more likely to get next generation wireless technologies before the iPhone simply because its available on so many carriers and from so many more manufacturers.
it's what's provided to the end-user that matters.
Yes and no. The long list of problems, of which I outlined a very short list, is the major reason so many developers have either decided to pass (for now) on Android and or stopped developing on Android (yes, many have left Android). This means end-users are getting fewer quality applications. Right now Android has something like 30k apps available on the market. Of those, maybe 6k are worth consideration. Of those, maybe a couple hundred are really top notch, high quality applications.
Additionally, the service bug I described absolutely does affect end users and is one of the reasons why so many users feel the need for applications, like Task Killer, are required.
So please, grow up. As I previously said, Android isn't perfect and anyone who believes otherwise is an idiot. The sooner people like you stop acting like an idiot and start supporting your developers, the sooner EVERYONE involved with Android will benefit. Right now, your blind, idiotic, position is only helping to hinder developers. Stop being a problem and start supporting your developers.
SCO is strictly a civil case. The current spam laws are criminal prosecutions with the end result being fines. Filing bankruptcy to escape criminal prosecution isn't likely to be smiled on by the state.
Run up a couple million in traffic ticket fines and then attempt to file bankruptcy - see how far that'll get you.
A judge still has to grant bankruptcy status. Due to the nature of his problems, its likely a judge will not give him a pass. Abuse of the law to side step the other hand of the law isn't a typical reason allowed for bankruptcy.
meh - I dont understand all of this. Are you speaking from experience or are you quoting all of the FUD
Really? I just explained, what is in its own right, a major headache, and you're complaining about FUD? Your middle name is either "Bullshit Artist" or "FUD Master". Of those OS numbers which were released last year, 1.0 and 2.0 have been declared obsolete. That still leaves 1.5, 1.6, 2.01, and 2.1 to validate and test against. And in order to ensure proper functionality, many developers forced to either target a subset of OSes, or bring with their application chucks of the OS. Watch logs sometimes when you're installing applications - often you'll see a long list of OS functions which are replaced internally by the application. That's because the application includes them as they are not reliable across all OS versions.
No FUD needed - just fact.
I've got a HTC magic - still running 1.6 and I've yet to come across any of these supposed incompatibilities.
Try speaking with actual developers. I know, how odd - talk to someone who actually knows. Or, try developing an actual, non-trivial application on the platform. This is not to say every application suffers. Additionally, the older the OS, the less likely you are to experience compatibility issues. Version 1.6 has been out for a while now so compatibility issues have long been resolved. You're position is like staring at a wall and saying, "I can't see traffic on highways, therefore it doesn't exist."
The only exception is if there is a bug in the API implementation
There has been plenty of bugs in the OS. Additionally, some API's have been deprecated and some have been obsoleted. The fact you don't know this further validates you're clueless on the subject matter. Furthermore, I know of at least one incompatible change made in 2.0, and carried forward to 2.1, which is in place strictly to break applications.
As far as the API model goes, I cant see a problem with it. As long as google implements it properly
As far as the API model goes, all versions previous to Android 2.1 have a serious service life cycle bug. That's per Google themselves - and contrary to their assurances, its still doesn't completely fix the problem. Additionally, the requirement for introspection is becoming standard fair. That's a sure sign of incompatibilities and breakage. Go read the docs already, not to mention Google's Android developer blog. As a side note, this bug is so serious (wastes lots of memory and slows device), IMOHO, that's why Google is pushing to get everyone to 2.1. Additionally, getting everyone to 2.1 will go a long ways to easing the support headache Google has created for developers.
Don't get me wrong, I love Android, but to pretend its perfect is nothing short of idiotic. Realistically, there has been many, many problems and they've done a very poor job of taking care of developers as a whole; though phone give-aways are certainly nice.
Since you obviously just want to Rah-Rah as a fan boy, and have no idea what you're talking about, don't expect another reply. In stead of sticking to your guns, might I suggest you actually go learn the facts first hand.
technology really wants to win, they have to be technically better. There is no other way.
How'd that betamax work for you?
Superior solutions don't always win. This is true for a long list of potential reasons. Simply put, Theorea isn't necessarily down and out - yet. A lot of people want Theorea or some other free contender to take over the pilot's seat in the standards. Even if its able to grab a co-pilot seat, most would consider that a win.
Five versions of Android were released last year (1.1, 1.5, 1.6, 2.0, 2.01). Furthermore, Verizon's Droid also has their own subtle incompatibilities with 2.0 and 2.01. Almost all releases had incompatibilities with each other and caused problems for various applications - including fully compliant applications. Really, the biggest problem is Google has created the world's biggest headache for developers to properly support their customers - for an *extremely* long list of reasons.
Regardless, in a nut shell, Google has stated they intend to bring all current Android devices to 2.1. World wide, some carriers have indicated they'll resist the migration. AFAIK, no US carriers have signaled this reluctance. Overall, 2010 is looking to be the year of Android.
And they're not targeting individuals with artillery shells either.
Where in the hell did you get this incredibly wrong information? We have GPS guided shells now. Not to mention we commonly fire artillery from planes which have been visually aimed, including via FLIR-like systems.
If a known combatant can be identified, they have been targeted since day one of the war. Its called actionable intelligence and is considered SOP so long as an order to fire can be obtained. Remember, sine the majority of the combatants don't wear uniforms, identification is the next best thing. And according to the Geneva Convention, soldiers who do not wear uniforms are considered spies and/or illegal combatants and can be summarily executed on the spot.
it's assassination.
No! Assassination is the political targeting of individuals who may or may not pose an immediate threat in a combat situation. I have no idea if individuals are being assassinated. But to be clear, if you are carrying a weapon and can be identified as an enemy combatant/soldier in a legitimate combat zone, you absolutely are a valid target. Just because someone knows your name doesn't mean all direct fire weapons are illegal. That would be complete bullshit.
you can't build a wind farm because some birds are going to die.
Except they know birds are not going to die in any numbers worth consideration. Companies were actively working on solutions before it ever actually became a problem, and LONG before these wackos got wind of it. Companies don't like bad press. Lots of dead animals tends to create bad press. Companies were looking at the situation before there ever were, "lots of dead animals." Additionally, roosting birds (and bees for that matter) are well known to cause problems for equipment - including fires and maintenance issues. Long story short, contrary to the bullshit of environmental extremists, which is often parroted, no such wide spread problem exists or ever existed. They saved nothing. They rescued nothing. The only thing they've done is spew a bunch of bullshit and steal credit from companies deploying and maintaining wind farms.
This does not mean a random, dumb, bird won't get killed. But if this is really a problem, then all roads must immediately be shutdown, all factories must be stopped, all electric use must come to a halt. That's not hyperbole, that's fact. Lots of animals die from roads and current power production. Not to mention, the environment is directly affected, even with EPA regulations, from lots of various manufacturing methods. Hindering efforts to improves things only makes things worse for everyone. Realistically, there are things we should be worried about, but halting production of new, clean power, which is far more likely to benefit everyone isn't one of them.
Things to seriously be concerned about: drastic over fishing in the oceans (especially by Asian countries), over logging in the amazon, illegal waste disposal, lack of new nuclear sites, lack of nuclear waste storage, massive wild bore population explosion world wide (poses risk to everyone and everything), non-indigenous species invasions, etc... But building solar in the middle of the desert doesn't even come up on the list. And neither does building wind farms.
To be fair, I should have announced I was speaking from a soap box rather than directly to you. Sorry about that.
Comments are not to explain code. They are to explain thought processes to other programmers.
I hope you'll later understand the ambiguity of that line - which is something I directly addressed in my original reply. And so long as they are not used intrusively, what does it hurt?
"# Creating the user" isn't helpful.
Again, I addressed this. On the surface, that may be true - for you. When the code was being written, it likely was helpful. Additionally, comments like that may appear to be completely useless but occasionally I've seen code where the next thing it does is call a function which isn't really obvious what all it does. So one of the side effects may be to "create the user". And without that comment, it may not have been completely obvious that was the result of the call - because the call actually achieves far more than simply creating the user.
I used to subscribe to your terse comment ideas. They are, after all, very popular notions. But because of lots of experience, I can authoritatively say, the notion is wrong. Feedback on my use of comments tends to be two polar opposites. From experienced developers who are familiar with the code, they sometimes say the extra comments are distracting - but soon find they don't even notice - and don't even realize they've been reading the comments to locate bugs or to enhance comprehension during refactoring. From inexperienced coders, or simply developers not familiar with the code, the feedback is the comments are excellent and very helpful.
As another respondent proved, there can be too much of a good thing, and I agree with that. I even laid out an example of when comments can be far too distracting to provide value. Just the same, there is nothing wrong with liberal comments. Just because they may not be of value to you doesn't mean they are not of value to other developers, or especially the original author. And once you get your mindset in the right place, you really don't even notice them. Even better, the extra comments now improve search-ability and context without requiring to read lots of potentially complex code to locate the end target. This in turn improves efficiency.
int foo( int bar) {/*begin function foo, accepts bar as an argument */ return bar * bar;/*multiplies bar with itself and returns the value*/ }/*end function definition for foo */
Never seen that one before. I consider that broken too. It's not far off from the example I provided of some of the worst use comments.
In this day and age, where searching is so easy, you certainly would not want to make it easier. *rolling eyes*
The mark of a poor developer is one who says comments are not needed. Furthermore, comments make for good content to improve searchability and often allows coders to think something through before they actually code it up.
The all too common position that well written code is its own best documentation also poorly assumes all developers have at least the original author's skill set. Additionally, many coders seem to believe they write excellent code when in fact they don't. Even worse, some coders come up with truly bazaar coding styles which makes it down right painful to read and comprehend. This combination of factors often takes finding and/or maintaining relevant code long and tedious.
Never underestimate the stupidity of a smart person. I can't stress this enough.
At the end of the day, its extremely difficult for comments to ever pose a problem so long as they are properly maintained. About the only time I've seen comments that were horrible is when they insist on constantly intermixing comments and code on the same line (example: code comment code comment code comment), especially when it spans many, many lines. Aside from that, comments can provide incite into why a direction was taken, or a road left untraveled, what the developer was thinking, why code may have been duplicated or other code wasn't re-used, explain a general approach, etc. Some of this may seem obvious once you visit the code, but I can't tell you how many times developers go to "optimize" or simply change "obvious" code only to find out the "obvious" reasons for the code were not obvious at all and they had far reaching implementation implications.
The primary problem I find with comments are they are not properly maintained. For developers which do provide comments, comments should be viewed as on equal footing with code. If the comments are wrong, they should be marked as a bug and fixed, or deleted. If accurate comments prove troublesome for you, you likely need to be using a different editor.
Remember, at the end of the day, most developers are still human and comments can serve an important function outside of terse, useless grave stones within code, for other humans.
The vast majority of coders who I've seen which hate comments have been lazy and simply don't want to write comments, or worse, have an over inflated since of their skills. Just write the comments you believe others will find helpful and properly maintain them. Those who come after will thank you. And if they are confused by accurate comments, then they are likely very poor coders anyways - so code alone isn't going to help them.
# Checking roles....
# now we save the user
You forget that the above may have started out as: void foo() { # Checking roles.... # now we save the user }
Many coders like to stub things in and develop in an iterative fashion. So at some point, the comments you find useless may have actually been more important than the code you're now sneering at.;)
the point is that there is a lot of variability on storeys
Of course there is. My initial answer made that pretty clear. Using the word, "roughly", very clearly means its not an exact measurement. Its a mechanism which allows someone to relate to scale without using an actual scale or image. Nothing more, nothing less. You're problem is, and many others, you keep trying to use it as an exact measurement when it was never intended to be used as such. The simple fact remains, most people can't relate to large numbers, and humans in general are extremely bad at estimating distances. Most people in the modern world have seen tall buildings. As a "story", on average, is roughly 10 feet (3 meters), it makes for pretty easy math to estimate and give a relative size.
At the end of the day, you're needless rattling makes you appear needy and brainless; only able to understand literal black and white, in bold print. And contrary to saying, "that's wrong", "its 18 stories, not 15", and other idiotic bullshit, it doesn't change anything. In the grand scheme of things, a 15-18 story building, in height, gives a good idea of how tall the rocket it, without regard for the specific building used for comparison. Either way, its big, and in most people's imagination, the difference of 3 stories one way or the other doesn't change anything. And if it does for you, then you don't understand the most basic concepts of estimation or relative comparison.
The average story is 10 feet with the average ceiling 8 feet. Period. So since you didn't understand the first time, a 15 story building is on average 150 feet tall.
Have you seen an numbers on GA safety that look good?
I would recommend you start at the head of this thread. GA safety is surprisingly good so long as a number of low hanging misfits are removed. The same can not be said for driving as, unless you live in the middle of no where, there's not a lot you can do about other drivers. Whereas for pilots, many are able to spend large amounts of their flying time away from other pilots - leaving themselves and their equipment to work.
None of this should viewed that I'm trying to assert GA is anywhere near as safe as commercial people/cargo movers. It is not - and to be clear, I never made such a statement. All I'm asserting is that with the right mentality for safety (which affects the planes flown), its easily achievable for GA pilots to obtain safety statistics better than their driving brethren. Take a hard look at GA statistics and you'll quickly realize just how many accidents are "pilot error" and more often than not, covered by the "don't do this" of piloting 101.
There's still a big gap between modestly better than being on the road and commercial aviation's statistics. Just the same, if it were not for the FAA themselves, even these numbers can be substantially improved. Between the FAA (2x) and lawyers, they keep the cost of aviation 3x-4x more expensive than need be; while at the same time keeping lots of modern equipment out of cockpits. There is no shortage of blood on the hands of the FAA and liability lawyers.
If you want yet safer skies for everyone, you need only change aviation liability laws and fix a complex web of bureaucracy, which is the FAA. The status quo is literally killing GA.
For example, in 1962 you could rent a Cessna 152 for $7/hr, including fuel, oil and insurance. After adjusting for inflation, that same rental is $49/hr. Today's actual cost is ~$100/hr. And keep in mind, changes in liability laws (which drastically reduce liability) are in affect for this aircraft which means its actually cheaper than many other types of aircraft. Oddly enough, FAA's cost of 2x is right spot on in this example.
Most of the pilots I know are very safety minded, much more so than drivers. Even so, statistically GA aircraft are more dangerous than cars - similar to motorcycles.
That's not accurate. Statically, "GA" is as safe as riding a motorcycle. Once you begin to exclude various sub-categories of light GA, statistically, safety considerably improves.
It is common for pilots to claim that flying is safer than driving, but much as I would like it to be true, I've never seen statistics to support it.
It's common because its true. It's a simple fact. But that fact is commonly associated with commercial aviation, and more specifically, passenger/cargo transport. General Aviation, on the other hand, can not make that blanket statement. Just the same, if you exclude several categories of GA, statistically, you're somewhere between motorcycles and cars, and much, much closer to cars. There are additional other factors you do apply which further increases your safety.
Remember, statistics are passive numbers which include both the best and the worst. Since these statistics specifically exist to examine the worst, that means anything you do to mitigate the risks which removes you from their associated factors means you're well on your way of being the exception rather than another statistic. In short, pilots have an active role to play in determining which side of those statistics they wish to reside.
This is not to say flying is risk free - but there are few things which are risk free.
Either way, my point was that you seemed to be comparing "safety conscious pilots/air passengers" to "general road users"
That's for a very good reason - because it makes absolute sense to do so. That's not out of the ordinary at all, as pilots are swimming in a safety conscious coulture, which is absolutely not true for drivers. Drivers, on the other hand, will openly show contempt for safety topics whereas all but a tiny, tiny, minority of pilots will openly enbrace such topics until mitigation is understood. Accordingly, your slant on this is completely without merit.
In short, you're attempting to compare the typical driver with the rare exception of pilots. There is a reason why the common cliche for newly licenses pilots is to be told, , "You now have your license to continue your lifetime of learning."
is the apathy of many road users
And that's but one of many reasons why pilots are required to take a BFR (Bi-annual Flight Review) such that apathy can be shaken from one's shoulders, as well as to address any bad habits which may have blossomed since the previous BFR.
i.e. Is flying well maintained equipment statistically safer than an equally well-maintained vehicle on the road?
Its more complex than that as there are so many types of aircraft used for a variety of purposes. Just the same, after making some reasonable assumptions, excluding some categories (acrobats and agriculture; whereby the later of the two has one of the highest fatality rates in all of aviation), yes, that's true. That's, of course, why maintenance is tightly regulated, with frequent FAA inspections, for larger commercial operators.
I'll go take my medication and leave you alone now.:)
Those are some perfectly reasonable questions and assumptions. As such, IMOHO, no medication is required. I must say, its a refreshing exchange from the typical angry, ignorant rant, which is all too typical here.
, in response to the original "flight worthy" comment.
All aircraft are either "air worthy" or not. Furthermore, all aircraft and their components are either "certified" or not. Plus, its not entirely clear to me this vehicle will continue to fall into the ultralight category - or if it initially qualifies.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't hear much about comsumer electronics being fritzed by cosmic rays,
Chances are you'll be hearing about this more and more over the next several decades or so. Scientists have discovered a large spot over the Atlantic (IIRC) where high levels of cosmic radiation are actually making it to the ocean's surface. Further investigation indicates this is because their Earth's magnetosphere is beginning to significantly weaken. Furthermore, its expected that not only will the the level of radiation exposure continue to drastically rise at this particular location, but that radiation exposure globally will drastically rise.
It turns out, it appears this is related to the shifting of Earth's magnetic poles. As the poles continue to migrate away from their axial positions, the earth's magnetosphere begins to dramatically weaken. Not to surprising, the protection extended to both artificial satellites and Earth's occupants will be significantly and negatively affected.
Accordingly, expect far more electronics failures from cosmic radiation over the next several decades and beyond. And over the next thousand years, the levels of radiation may pose a significant risk to all life on Earth - or at least those on the surface. This of course, also suggests we will have a pole reversal sometime within the next thousand years.
Obviously far more research is required.
You do realize that the USA has 400.000 military personnel and China.... well 1.600.000....... Not saying they have the boats to get them all anywhere, but I would think they can deliver quite a punch if they need to.
There is a huge misconception about the size of China's military. Something like 30% are old women and children. Literally. Furthermore, over half quarters are are simply factory workers who wear uniforms. Yes, those guys who make goods in factories. That means, realistically, something like an effective fighting force, versus a real military, of only 4000,000 - 500,000 or so. Not to mention, all of China's real talent has typically been Russian.
The modern US military has extremely powerful force multipliers. A squad of guys (8-16) today is roughly equivalent to something like 30-100 soldiers during WWII. No joke. And generally speaking, much of N. Korea's tech base hasn't evolved much since the Korean war. Sure they have pockets of their own special forces with modern weapons, but by in large, most of their forces are still using modernized WWII to Vietnam era weaponry; reflective of accuracy and capability. In a nut shell, when compared to modern US forces, China's force is VERY ROUGHLY comparable to 100,000 US troops.
You need to remember, with one ground spotter, one airplane, and one cluster bomb, the US Air Force can take out an entire armored division of armor. Literally. To date, only one has actually been used in combat. It was dropped in Iraq. Ponder that for a second or two. That's what force multipliers are all about.
Realistically, and no jokes, maintaining enough ammo on hand is typically the biggest logistics issue a modern, Western, military would have in opposition to a conflict with China. That's not to say there wouldn't be deaths on the Western's side, but China is far from the big, nasty, million-man-plus boogy man everyone tries to make him out to be. In a toe to toe with the West, China would be missing its toes, feet, and ankles really quickly. And if you can't stand...you've lost.
Given the immensely bad buzz around ACII because of it's draconian DRM, I doubt that they were.
History has proved your doubt is almost surely to be misplaced. Badly misplaced.
At this point in time, if company after company didn't have numbers to validate DRM bolstered sales, and by a lot, they wouldn't be spending the large dollars, plus likely royalty payments, to obtain the various DRM kits and spend the manpower to develop/maintain the implementation.
Simply put, without a doubt, companies lose lots and lots of money from people stealing their property. If that were not the truth, companies would not even make the effort - and especially not at what would otherwise be such large losses because of their investments in DRM. The fact they can make back their investment plus lots more because of DRM speaks volumes about how clueless and completely uninformed the popular lies are about pirates and their stealing ways.
The simple fact is, pirates steal! Because pirates steal, companies lose money. Because companies lose money from pirates stealing, they make investments in DRM. Note the usage of the word, "investments"; its very applicable. Companies then stymie pirates, ranging from short to long durations, allowing them to not only cover their initial DRM investments and manpower, but then make a lot more money because pirates are no longer stealing their properly - or at least not nearly as effectively.
So long as leeches on society, aka pirates, keep stealing other people's properly, we are all going to have to pay the DRM price. So ratcheting up the rhetoric about how DRM is justification to steal, only demands more DRM, which punishes everyone. Period.
The funny part is, idiots now use DRM as a flimsy reason to steal. Its like millions of bank robbers complaining about higher taxes which are then used to hire more police to combat the robber's crimes. In reality, if robbers would just be shot in the head, taxes would go down over time (DRM) and the public in general wouldn't be strapped with needless extra taxes (DRM). But that's yet another lie propagated by scumbag pirates to push their thieving agenda...
So at the end of the day, if you don't like DRM, find a couple of local pirates and kick them repeatedly in the nuts because they are the reason we all pay the DRM tax burden. Period. The sooner pirates are repeatedly kicked in the nuts at every opportunity, the sooner the world starts to become a better place.
Guess who grew up to be a fat adult who tried all the same shit (pills, "diet" meals, "magic" exercise apparatus, etc.) as many other fat people, with the same results... still fat.
I decided to comment rather than moderate. Dieting is a dumb idea thrust upon us by marketing and companies trying to sell us something. Never, ever, never, ever diet. Dieting is for losers. Diet is for marketing sock puppets. There is a huge difference between dieting and a healthy diet. The former is a plan for failure. The later is a plan for a healthy life.
Here's a reasonable basis to begin a healthy life. This may not be for everyone, but for most, it makes for a good basis to move forward.
Every (at least two out of three) meal must have two sources of green, leafy vegetables. Salads are great and can even include fruit. If cooked, each serving should be no smaller than the size of your fist. If uncooked, each serving should be no smaller than twice the size of your fist. Eat red meat no more than once per week. Prefer poultry, fish, oily fish, and pork; but pork no more than twice per week. A red meat serving should never be larger than your fist. Fish and poultry should typically be as large as your fist, but never larger than two. Fish sticks are a processed product and are never made from oily fish. They don't count.
Salad dressing can be used, so long as its not a sweet dressing. As usual moderation is the rule of the day. If you can only see your dressing, you're eating too much. If you're not used to eating salads and salad dressing, look at what is recommended for a single serving. Use that as a starting basis. Remember, a salad should be no smaller than two to four fists in size.
Notice broccoli, despite being green, is not leafy; thusly does not count as a vegetable in your diet. You can still consume it. Its good fiber. With it, hopefully you'll consume other, non-leafy green vegetables too, on a regular basis. Just because the minimum is two, leafy, greens, doesn't mean that's the absolute limit to what you should be consuming.
Corn should be completely out of your diet. Corn is basically fiber plus a simple sugar. Because of the way most people cook it, the sugar is easily processed by your body. The good news is, you can add nuts, seeds, and berries to your diet to replace the sweet fixed provided by corn.
Contrary to popular myth, potatoes are not bad. Eat one up to a couple times per week. This should not be confused with mashed potatoes and especially never with instant, mashed potatoes. The later of which has largely been broken down and is more readily converted into sugars. The former of which is a complex carb and is much more slowly broken down into sugars. The later is a excellent source of fiber and long lasting energy. That's why its literally fed to Olympians during competition. When you cook it, cook it until its tender and eatable, but no more. The more you cook it, the more you convert it to a simple carb, which is more easily broken down into sugar.
Speaking of potatoes, cheeses can and should be consumed. Several studies indicate the calcium plus other "stuff" in cheese seems to encourage your body to naturally trim down. Even people who are lactose intolerant can consume cheese. As with anything, moderation should be used. Regardless, it can be consumed on a daily basis. To be absolutely clear, I'm talking about real cheese - not just cheese with a label. Highly processed cheeses such as Krafts Singles and Velveeta are completely out. This, of course, means all cheeses used in fast food is also out. So if your cheese did not come from a wheel or block, don't eat it. Again, I want to stress moderation.
Next, eliminate all soda from your diet. This especially includes all diet sodas. If you want a treat from time to time, only drink clear, non-diet sodas. Sodas on the number one cause of people going off on sugar binges; and especially those who drink diet sodas.
Eliminate all artificial sweeteners. If you can, cons
You lose! Try again.
LOL! What a douche!
I have an android phone. I've never owned an iPhone. Re-read what I said. Everything is factually accurate.
Though honestly, I can't disagree with anything you said in your phone comparisons. Simply put, Android is a superior solution to the iPhone. Android even has higher end hardware available now and is far more likely to get next generation wireless technologies before the iPhone simply because its available on so many carriers and from so many more manufacturers.
it's what's provided to the end-user that matters.
Yes and no. The long list of problems, of which I outlined a very short list, is the major reason so many developers have either decided to pass (for now) on Android and or stopped developing on Android (yes, many have left Android). This means end-users are getting fewer quality applications. Right now Android has something like 30k apps available on the market. Of those, maybe 6k are worth consideration. Of those, maybe a couple hundred are really top notch, high quality applications.
Additionally, the service bug I described absolutely does affect end users and is one of the reasons why so many users feel the need for applications, like Task Killer, are required.
So please, grow up. As I previously said, Android isn't perfect and anyone who believes otherwise is an idiot. The sooner people like you stop acting like an idiot and start supporting your developers, the sooner EVERYONE involved with Android will benefit. Right now, your blind, idiotic, position is only helping to hinder developers. Stop being a problem and start supporting your developers.
SCO is strictly a civil case. The current spam laws are criminal prosecutions with the end result being fines. Filing bankruptcy to escape criminal prosecution isn't likely to be smiled on by the state.
Run up a couple million in traffic ticket fines and then attempt to file bankruptcy - see how far that'll get you.
This guy is going to declare bankruptcy
A judge still has to grant bankruptcy status. Due to the nature of his problems, its likely a judge will not give him a pass. Abuse of the law to side step the other hand of the law isn't a typical reason allowed for bankruptcy.
meh - I dont understand all of this. Are you speaking from experience or are you quoting all of the FUD
Really? I just explained, what is in its own right, a major headache, and you're complaining about FUD? Your middle name is either "Bullshit Artist" or "FUD Master". Of those OS numbers which were released last year, 1.0 and 2.0 have been declared obsolete. That still leaves 1.5, 1.6, 2.01, and 2.1 to validate and test against. And in order to ensure proper functionality, many developers forced to either target a subset of OSes, or bring with their application chucks of the OS. Watch logs sometimes when you're installing applications - often you'll see a long list of OS functions which are replaced internally by the application. That's because the application includes them as they are not reliable across all OS versions.
No FUD needed - just fact.
I've got a HTC magic - still running 1.6 and I've yet to come across any of these supposed incompatibilities.
Try speaking with actual developers. I know, how odd - talk to someone who actually knows. Or, try developing an actual, non-trivial application on the platform. This is not to say every application suffers. Additionally, the older the OS, the less likely you are to experience compatibility issues. Version 1.6 has been out for a while now so compatibility issues have long been resolved. You're position is like staring at a wall and saying, "I can't see traffic on highways, therefore it doesn't exist."
The only exception is if there is a bug in the API implementation
There has been plenty of bugs in the OS. Additionally, some API's have been deprecated and some have been obsoleted. The fact you don't know this further validates you're clueless on the subject matter. Furthermore, I know of at least one incompatible change made in 2.0, and carried forward to 2.1, which is in place strictly to break applications.
As far as the API model goes, I cant see a problem with it. As long as google implements it properly
As far as the API model goes, all versions previous to Android 2.1 have a serious service life cycle bug. That's per Google themselves - and contrary to their assurances, its still doesn't completely fix the problem. Additionally, the requirement for introspection is becoming standard fair. That's a sure sign of incompatibilities and breakage. Go read the docs already, not to mention Google's Android developer blog. As a side note, this bug is so serious (wastes lots of memory and slows device), IMOHO, that's why Google is pushing to get everyone to 2.1. Additionally, getting everyone to 2.1 will go a long ways to easing the support headache Google has created for developers.
Don't get me wrong, I love Android, but to pretend its perfect is nothing short of idiotic. Realistically, there has been many, many problems and they've done a very poor job of taking care of developers as a whole; though phone give-aways are certainly nice.
Since you obviously just want to Rah-Rah as a fan boy, and have no idea what you're talking about, don't expect another reply. In stead of sticking to your guns, might I suggest you actually go learn the facts first hand.
Monty Python joke...
technology really wants to win, they have to be technically better. There is no other way.
How'd that betamax work for you?
Superior solutions don't always win. This is true for a long list of potential reasons. Simply put, Theorea isn't necessarily down and out - yet. A lot of people want Theorea or some other free contender to take over the pilot's seat in the standards. Even if its able to grab a co-pilot seat, most would consider that a win.
Five versions of Android were released last year (1.1, 1.5, 1.6, 2.0, 2.01). Furthermore, Verizon's Droid also has their own subtle incompatibilities with 2.0 and 2.01. Almost all releases had incompatibilities with each other and caused problems for various applications - including fully compliant applications. Really, the biggest problem is Google has created the world's biggest headache for developers to properly support their customers - for an *extremely* long list of reasons.
Regardless, in a nut shell, Google has stated they intend to bring all current Android devices to 2.1. World wide, some carriers have indicated they'll resist the migration. AFAIK, no US carriers have signaled this reluctance. Overall, 2010 is looking to be the year of Android.
Thank you! One of the few people who actually understand what they are talking about. If I could vote you +10 Informative, I most certainly would!
And they're not targeting individuals with artillery shells either.
Where in the hell did you get this incredibly wrong information? We have GPS guided shells now. Not to mention we commonly fire artillery from planes which have been visually aimed, including via FLIR-like systems.
If a known combatant can be identified, they have been targeted since day one of the war. Its called actionable intelligence and is considered SOP so long as an order to fire can be obtained. Remember, sine the majority of the combatants don't wear uniforms, identification is the next best thing. And according to the Geneva Convention, soldiers who do not wear uniforms are considered spies and/or illegal combatants and can be summarily executed on the spot.
it's assassination.
No! Assassination is the political targeting of individuals who may or may not pose an immediate threat in a combat situation. I have no idea if individuals are being assassinated. But to be clear, if you are carrying a weapon and can be identified as an enemy combatant/soldier in a legitimate combat zone, you absolutely are a valid target. Just because someone knows your name doesn't mean all direct fire weapons are illegal. That would be complete bullshit.
The thing is: Firefox does not have multicore support IE got.
And that's quickly changing. The ff efforts to bring each tab its own process means multi-core support - if albeit, coarse grained.
you can't build a wind farm because some birds are going to die.
Except they know birds are not going to die in any numbers worth consideration. Companies were actively working on solutions before it ever actually became a problem, and LONG before these wackos got wind of it. Companies don't like bad press. Lots of dead animals tends to create bad press. Companies were looking at the situation before there ever were, "lots of dead animals." Additionally, roosting birds (and bees for that matter) are well known to cause problems for equipment - including fires and maintenance issues. Long story short, contrary to the bullshit of environmental extremists, which is often parroted, no such wide spread problem exists or ever existed. They saved nothing. They rescued nothing. The only thing they've done is spew a bunch of bullshit and steal credit from companies deploying and maintaining wind farms.
This does not mean a random, dumb, bird won't get killed. But if this is really a problem, then all roads must immediately be shutdown, all factories must be stopped, all electric use must come to a halt. That's not hyperbole, that's fact. Lots of animals die from roads and current power production. Not to mention, the environment is directly affected, even with EPA regulations, from lots of various manufacturing methods. Hindering efforts to improves things only makes things worse for everyone. Realistically, there are things we should be worried about, but halting production of new, clean power, which is far more likely to benefit everyone isn't one of them.
Things to seriously be concerned about: drastic over fishing in the oceans (especially by Asian countries), over logging in the amazon, illegal waste disposal, lack of new nuclear sites, lack of nuclear waste storage, massive wild bore population explosion world wide (poses risk to everyone and everything), non-indigenous species invasions, etc... But building solar in the middle of the desert doesn't even come up on the list. And neither does building wind farms.
I never said comments were not needed.
To be fair, I should have announced I was speaking from a soap box rather than directly to you. Sorry about that.
Comments are not to explain code. They are to explain thought processes to other programmers.
I hope you'll later understand the ambiguity of that line - which is something I directly addressed in my original reply. And so long as they are not used intrusively, what does it hurt?
"# Creating the user" isn't helpful.
Again, I addressed this. On the surface, that may be true - for you. When the code was being written, it likely was helpful. Additionally, comments like that may appear to be completely useless but occasionally I've seen code where the next thing it does is call a function which isn't really obvious what all it does. So one of the side effects may be to "create the user". And without that comment, it may not have been completely obvious that was the result of the call - because the call actually achieves far more than simply creating the user.
I used to subscribe to your terse comment ideas. They are, after all, very popular notions. But because of lots of experience, I can authoritatively say, the notion is wrong. Feedback on my use of comments tends to be two polar opposites. From experienced developers who are familiar with the code, they sometimes say the extra comments are distracting - but soon find they don't even notice - and don't even realize they've been reading the comments to locate bugs or to enhance comprehension during refactoring. From inexperienced coders, or simply developers not familiar with the code, the feedback is the comments are excellent and very helpful.
As another respondent proved, there can be too much of a good thing, and I agree with that. I even laid out an example of when comments can be far too distracting to provide value. Just the same, there is nothing wrong with liberal comments. Just because they may not be of value to you doesn't mean they are not of value to other developers, or especially the original author. And once you get your mindset in the right place, you really don't even notice them. Even better, the extra comments now improve search-ability and context without requiring to read lots of potentially complex code to locate the end target. This in turn improves efficiency.
int foo( int bar) { /*begin function foo, accepts bar as an argument */ /*multiplies bar with itself and returns the value*/ /*end function definition for foo */
return bar * bar;
}
Never seen that one before. I consider that broken too. It's not far off from the example I provided of some of the worst use comments.
In this day and age, where searching is so easy, you certainly would not want to make it easier. *rolling eyes*
The mark of a poor developer is one who says comments are not needed. Furthermore, comments make for good content to improve searchability and often allows coders to think something through before they actually code it up.
The all too common position that well written code is its own best documentation also poorly assumes all developers have at least the original author's skill set. Additionally, many coders seem to believe they write excellent code when in fact they don't. Even worse, some coders come up with truly bazaar coding styles which makes it down right painful to read and comprehend. This combination of factors often takes finding and/or maintaining relevant code long and tedious.
Never underestimate the stupidity of a smart person. I can't stress this enough.
At the end of the day, its extremely difficult for comments to ever pose a problem so long as they are properly maintained. About the only time I've seen comments that were horrible is when they insist on constantly intermixing comments and code on the same line (example: code comment code comment code comment), especially when it spans many, many lines. Aside from that, comments can provide incite into why a direction was taken, or a road left untraveled, what the developer was thinking, why code may have been duplicated or other code wasn't re-used, explain a general approach, etc. Some of this may seem obvious once you visit the code, but I can't tell you how many times developers go to "optimize" or simply change "obvious" code only to find out the "obvious" reasons for the code were not obvious at all and they had far reaching implementation implications.
The primary problem I find with comments are they are not properly maintained. For developers which do provide comments, comments should be viewed as on equal footing with code. If the comments are wrong, they should be marked as a bug and fixed, or deleted. If accurate comments prove troublesome for you, you likely need to be using a different editor.
Remember, at the end of the day, most developers are still human and comments can serve an important function outside of terse, useless grave stones within code, for other humans.
The vast majority of coders who I've seen which hate comments have been lazy and simply don't want to write comments, or worse, have an over inflated since of their skills. Just write the comments you believe others will find helpful and properly maintain them. Those who come after will thank you. And if they are confused by accurate comments, then they are likely very poor coders anyways - so code alone isn't going to help them.
# Checking roles....
# now we save the user
You forget that the above may have started out as:
void foo() {
# Checking roles....
# now we save the user
}
Many coders like to stub things in and develop in an iterative fashion. So at some point, the comments you find useless may have actually been more important than the code you're now sneering at. ;)
the point is that there is a lot of variability on storeys
Of course there is. My initial answer made that pretty clear. Using the word, "roughly", very clearly means its not an exact measurement. Its a mechanism which allows someone to relate to scale without using an actual scale or image. Nothing more, nothing less. You're problem is, and many others, you keep trying to use it as an exact measurement when it was never intended to be used as such. The simple fact remains, most people can't relate to large numbers, and humans in general are extremely bad at estimating distances. Most people in the modern world have seen tall buildings. As a "story", on average, is roughly 10 feet (3 meters), it makes for pretty easy math to estimate and give a relative size.
At the end of the day, you're needless rattling makes you appear needy and brainless; only able to understand literal black and white, in bold print. And contrary to saying, "that's wrong", "its 18 stories, not 15", and other idiotic bullshit, it doesn't change anything. In the grand scheme of things, a 15-18 story building, in height, gives a good idea of how tall the rocket it, without regard for the specific building used for comparison. Either way, its big, and in most people's imagination, the difference of 3 stories one way or the other doesn't change anything. And if it does for you, then you don't understand the most basic concepts of estimation or relative comparison.
The average story is 10 feet with the average ceiling 8 feet. Period. So since you didn't understand the first time, a 15 story building is on average 150 feet tall.
Exactly how tall is a story?
Each story is roughly 10 feet. So a 15 story building is roughly 150 feet tall.
Have you seen an numbers on GA safety that look good?
I would recommend you start at the head of this thread. GA safety is surprisingly good so long as a number of low hanging misfits are removed. The same can not be said for driving as, unless you live in the middle of no where, there's not a lot you can do about other drivers. Whereas for pilots, many are able to spend large amounts of their flying time away from other pilots - leaving themselves and their equipment to work.
None of this should viewed that I'm trying to assert GA is anywhere near as safe as commercial people/cargo movers. It is not - and to be clear, I never made such a statement. All I'm asserting is that with the right mentality for safety (which affects the planes flown), its easily achievable for GA pilots to obtain safety statistics better than their driving brethren. Take a hard look at GA statistics and you'll quickly realize just how many accidents are "pilot error" and more often than not, covered by the "don't do this" of piloting 101.
There's still a big gap between modestly better than being on the road and commercial aviation's statistics. Just the same, if it were not for the FAA themselves, even these numbers can be substantially improved. Between the FAA (2x) and lawyers, they keep the cost of aviation 3x-4x more expensive than need be; while at the same time keeping lots of modern equipment out of cockpits. There is no shortage of blood on the hands of the FAA and liability lawyers.
If you want yet safer skies for everyone, you need only change aviation liability laws and fix a complex web of bureaucracy, which is the FAA. The status quo is literally killing GA.
For example, in 1962 you could rent a Cessna 152 for $7/hr, including fuel, oil and insurance. After adjusting for inflation, that same rental is $49/hr. Today's actual cost is ~$100/hr. And keep in mind, changes in liability laws (which drastically reduce liability) are in affect for this aircraft which means its actually cheaper than many other types of aircraft. Oddly enough, FAA's cost of 2x is right spot on in this example.
Most of the pilots I know are very safety minded, much more so than drivers. Even so, statistically GA aircraft are more dangerous than cars - similar to motorcycles.
That's not accurate. Statically, "GA" is as safe as riding a motorcycle. Once you begin to exclude various sub-categories of light GA, statistically, safety considerably improves.
It is common for pilots to claim that flying is safer than driving, but much as I would like it to be true, I've never seen statistics to support it.
It's common because its true. It's a simple fact. But that fact is commonly associated with commercial aviation, and more specifically, passenger/cargo transport. General Aviation, on the other hand, can not make that blanket statement. Just the same, if you exclude several categories of GA, statistically, you're somewhere between motorcycles and cars, and much, much closer to cars. There are additional other factors you do apply which further increases your safety.
Remember, statistics are passive numbers which include both the best and the worst. Since these statistics specifically exist to examine the worst, that means anything you do to mitigate the risks which removes you from their associated factors means you're well on your way of being the exception rather than another statistic. In short, pilots have an active role to play in determining which side of those statistics they wish to reside.
This is not to say flying is risk free - but there are few things which are risk free.
Either way, my point was that you seemed to be comparing "safety conscious pilots/air passengers" to "general road users"
That's for a very good reason - because it makes absolute sense to do so. That's not out of the ordinary at all, as pilots are swimming in a safety conscious coulture, which is absolutely not true for drivers. Drivers, on the other hand, will openly show contempt for safety topics whereas all but a tiny, tiny, minority of pilots will openly enbrace such topics until mitigation is understood. Accordingly, your slant on this is completely without merit.
In short, you're attempting to compare the typical driver with the rare exception of pilots. There is a reason why the common cliche for newly licenses pilots is to be told, , "You now have your license to continue your lifetime of learning."
is the apathy of many road users
And that's but one of many reasons why pilots are required to take a BFR (Bi-annual Flight Review) such that apathy can be shaken from one's shoulders, as well as to address any bad habits which may have blossomed since the previous BFR.
i.e. Is flying well maintained equipment statistically safer than an equally well-maintained vehicle on the road?
Its more complex than that as there are so many types of aircraft used for a variety of purposes. Just the same, after making some reasonable assumptions, excluding some categories (acrobats and agriculture; whereby the later of the two has one of the highest fatality rates in all of aviation), yes, that's true. That's, of course, why maintenance is tightly regulated, with frequent FAA inspections, for larger commercial operators.
I'll go take my medication and leave you alone now. :)
Those are some perfectly reasonable questions and assumptions. As such, IMOHO, no medication is required. I must say, its a refreshing exchange from the typical angry, ignorant rant, which is all too typical here.
For an ultralight?
, in response to the original "flight worthy" comment.
All aircraft are either "air worthy" or not. Furthermore, all aircraft and their components are either "certified" or not. Plus, its not entirely clear to me this vehicle will continue to fall into the ultralight category - or if it initially qualifies.