Indeed. You'll also note that he spent time giving it an enclosed, poorly sealed cockpit. Since he's clearly not pressurizing the thing, I fail to see what benefit he gets by obstructing his view. Especially in front and below the pilot.
It's definitely a homecoming float.
On the other hand, perhaps we are not shown the actual aircraft:
For a four-seater it is a big aircraft, measuring twelve metres (39 feet) long, seven metres high by five wide. It has never attained an altitude of more than seven feet
Simply because we lack either or all of: the processing power, sufficiently detailed measurements or sufficiently accurate models does not mean that hurricanes are chaotic. In fact, you can't steer them if they're chaotic because your inputs would have to be extremely precise and based on predictions that are more accurate than we currently are capable of.
In a chaotic system, any small change, regardless of size can have an effect on the whole shebang. Encryption algorithms are an attempt at approximating chaos in a sense. But hurricanes don't work that way. They are unaffected by, say, all of the people in Cuba breathing in the same direction. (which is a surprising amount of power in aggregate.)
The maximum energy levels of HAARP are about 8-20x that of the energy expended by 11 million Cubans breathing. I really don't see why one would think that they could be any more effective.
The analogy of controlling something with a lot of energy using something with less energy is a good one, but the energy levels of a hurricane are so staggeringly huge compared to the energy levels many of the items proffered as potential steering inputs as to be laughable.
Except.. Hurricanes form and remain in the troposphere, up to the stratosphere. HAARP's main effects are in the ionosphere, and there isn't exactly very good mixing between those regions, let alone strong interaction. And the numbers sound big, but compared to the energy of a storm are quite insignificant.
To further butcher the car analogy, imagine trying to steer your car by blowing on a string loosely draped over the steering column.
He dresses funny (according to you), advocates marijuana use, rails against his imagined definition of terrorism by the US government, rants a bit about censorship, specifically uses Senator McCarthy as a bogeyman, and has a remarkably similar position on intellectual property as Stallman.
How are those positions that hippies and commies wouldn't take?
Not true in this specific case. If I know my baggage is going to take a half hour to even show up on the conveyor, I can stop at the airport lounge for a brew or browse the bookstore, or get a massage. I don't have to hurry to the bag return to fight with the crowds just to make sure I get my luggage off as soon as possible.
What I don't understand is why we don't see the "major" airlines copying the one airline that actually posts a profit: Southwest, by moving to more frequent direct flights in smaller planes.
You actually don't need anywhere near an inch over a huge portion of your body. Here's the experiment, gratuitously stolen from the late Don Herbert.
Get two sewing needles and a person you trust. Close your eyes and have them poke you with the two needles on, say.. your forearm. Have them move the needles until you can't tell whether there are two needles or just one. Open your eyes and be astounded!
It's not so bad though. With perfect enforcement, people might actually start complaining about the right things. Like roads whose speed limit is set at "revenue generating" levels or roads which really aren't safe enough for the speeds people tend to drive them and therefore need a redesign.
Re:This is HIGHLY illegal in the US
on
eBay The Vote
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Taxes are irrelevant. Kenysians have it all wrong.
It is government spending which is the problem. Government can't possibly direct the national output more efficiently than the free market can* because the free market is the mechanism by which the the economy relaxes into its most efficient configuration.
*There are a few areas, known as "market failures" where government is sometimes necessary. For instance, military spending does nothing for the economy other than to prevent outsiders from muscling in.
The money itself isn't actually relevant except wherein it represents a claim to someone's time. Whether government raises taxes, goes into debt, or simply demands people do certain things, the effect is the same: The efforts of the people involved are directed in ways that are not economically optimal. They won't have zero benefit to the economy, but they will have less benefit than they would if the government weren't directing their effort.
Taxes serve basically two purposes, neither of which need have anything to do with the operation of the government. The first is that they balance the books regarding the government's direction of resources. Without taxes, inflation is the mechanism by which the nation's efforts are extracted (well inflation if extra money is printed. Slavery of a specific few, otherwise).
The other is that they allow the government to engage in social meddling. Extracting the labor of certain people more than others for various reasons, but it amounts shifting around or enhancing the non-optimal direction of the economy through additional non-optimal direction of the economy.
What the heck kind of super-quiet planes are you guys flying on that air-phone talkers are disturbing your sleep? Whenever I fly, there's like 60dB (not sure the exact number, I'm very bad at estimating this, but it's pretty loud) of white noise muffling everything. Even so, the thing that keeps me from napping is that the seats are too small relax (unless you lean on a passenger or have a window seat).
If you're flying without hearing protection, a "gotta be connected" person you're jealous of really ought to be the least of your worries.
The only thing I can't tune out over the constant din of the engines are the pained high-pitch cries of babies in nearby rows with ear blockages who are not yet old enough to learn the Valsalva maneuver (fortunately, crying also clears the ears, though not as quickly). And even that only bothers me because I know both why they're crying and that their inattentive parents aren't going to change them when they poo twenty-five minutes into a three hour flight.
I'm just calling them out. They're always claiming their cars are so much more efficient than ours. Or that their average speeds are so much higher than ours, despite our roads being much straighter and wider than theirs (they're much better drivers, too, you see).
"This would help the patent examiners," But this would not help the lawyers. One of the few groups, as you know, with both enough wealth and free time to actually convince a bunch of senile retirees to put marks next to their names on piece of medium-sized card stock. So your "no legalese" requirement has about as much chance as Hell's postmaster has of avoiding a mountain of novelty remailings this month.
Please explain what you mean by "illegal immigration reform" There are at least two entities demanding this, and their proposals are not in any way similar.
Except that PC games have been basically high def (and non-interlaced) for longer than the past two generations of consoles and typically debut at $50-$60. And have had lower numbers than console games over the same time period.
The games need to sell in great enough volume to pay for their production. If the price is too high to sell enough copies, they will not even break even. Obviously, $70 is not too high as enough people are paying this price to keep the game makers in business.
How does "general welfare" of a nation in any way imply the specific welfare of any given individual? If socialist programs are so important to you, why not propose an amendment specifically granting the government the authority to do them?
Everyone always wants to do things of arguable constitutionality (and by virtue of the certitude of both sides of the various debates, certainly ambiguous constitutionality), but it seems that lately (as in the past half century or so) the route has been to get the courts to declare those things within the existing document rather than using the process specifically delineated to accomplish their goal.
As another example, the second amendment. Everyone argues about whether the "well regulated militia" clause means that the government has the right to register or deny specific arms in the population. I say, let's just have a constitutional convention, with all the attendant public debate, and make the constitution say what we want it to mean.
It's not supposed to be a "living document" in the sense that it means what it needs to mean according to fashionable social mores at any given time. It's supposed to be in the sense that there is a mechanism to change it to say what we need it to say. That mechanism is deliberately a slow and cumbersome process for what should be obvious reasons.
You could just buy the shows on DVD after the season's over. You'd miss out on the water-cooler talk, but who does that anymore, anyway? Would you really want to admit to watching, say, "Eureka?"
Stick that stuff in curly braces and put it in the proper container when you're marking it up in the editor of choice. You shouldn't be thinking about formatting text until you have text to format. You end up spending way more time than necessary on it.
Yes, and Hollywood movies rarely break even, let alone show a profit.
Are you saying it's impossible for a division to inflate the costs of those items, or simply to charge other divisions the same price that they charge outside companies for the same items?
Yeah, but is that real money or is that subdivision expensing. In other words, does it lose $240 because Sony must use $800 of resources to produce a $600 product, or because sony-chipfab charges sony-board-assembly $60 for a part that cost $5 to produce?
Yes, but he's not putting the people outside his path at risk. You shouldn't be looking at the aggregate odds of encountering a super-fast scofflaw. Those odds are always going to be low for as long as ditsy drivers in comically large (grr. Avalanche. How many times have you tried to kill me) vehicles vastly outnumber more conventional sociopaths. It's the odds of being in an accident after finding yourself in his path that counts.
The question is not how much risk he put people in general in. The question is how much risk he put a very small subset of drivers in: the drivers near his time-space worldline.
Yes, but if you're from one of those more sensible countries, you should be aware that k != m.
ms over here are about 1.6x your ks.
I'll believe you guys drive fast, but 120mph, regularly? In small cars that are supposedly much more environmentally friendly than American cars? On precarious mountain passes?
I hope that's not it. That is one ugly beast. And what's the deal with all the buttons? Do they seriously expect people to want to type on a 1 hz display?
Slashdot Mirror
It's definitely a homecoming float.
On the other hand, perhaps we are not shown the actual aircraft: emphasis mine.
Those dimensions are almost as large as my house.
difficult to predict != chaotic.
Simply because we lack either or all of: the processing power, sufficiently detailed measurements or sufficiently accurate models does not mean that hurricanes are chaotic. In fact, you can't steer them if they're chaotic because your inputs would have to be extremely precise and based on predictions that are more accurate than we currently are capable of.
In a chaotic system, any small change, regardless of size can have an effect on the whole shebang. Encryption algorithms are an attempt at approximating chaos in a sense. But hurricanes don't work that way. They are unaffected by, say, all of the people in Cuba breathing in the same direction. (which is a surprising amount of power in aggregate.)
The maximum energy levels of HAARP are about 8-20x that of the energy expended by 11 million Cubans breathing. I really don't see why one would think that they could be any more effective.
The analogy of controlling something with a lot of energy using something with less energy is a good one, but the energy levels of a hurricane are so staggeringly huge compared to the energy levels many of the items proffered as potential steering inputs as to be laughable.
Except.. Hurricanes form and remain in the troposphere, up to the stratosphere. HAARP's main effects are in the ionosphere, and there isn't exactly very good mixing between those regions, let alone strong interaction. And the numbers sound big, but compared to the energy of a storm are quite insignificant.
To further butcher the car analogy, imagine trying to steer your car by blowing on a string loosely draped over the steering column.
He dresses funny (according to you), advocates marijuana use, rails against his imagined definition of terrorism by the US government, rants a bit about censorship, specifically uses Senator McCarthy as a bogeyman, and has a remarkably similar position on intellectual property as Stallman.
How are those positions that hippies and commies wouldn't take?
Not true in this specific case. If I know my baggage is going to take a half hour to even show up on the conveyor, I can stop at the airport lounge for a brew or browse the bookstore, or get a massage. I don't have to hurry to the bag return to fight with the crowds just to make sure I get my luggage off as soon as possible.
What I don't understand is why we don't see the "major" airlines copying the one airline that actually posts a profit: Southwest, by moving to more frequent direct flights in smaller planes.
You actually don't need anywhere near an inch over a huge portion of your body. Here's the experiment, gratuitously stolen from the late Don Herbert.
Get two sewing needles and a person you trust. Close your eyes and have them poke you with the two needles on, say.. your forearm. Have them move the needles until you can't tell whether there are two needles or just one. Open your eyes and be astounded!
It's not so bad though. With perfect enforcement, people might actually start complaining about the right things. Like roads whose speed limit is set at "revenue generating" levels or roads which really aren't safe enough for the speeds people tend to drive them and therefore need a redesign.
Taxes are irrelevant. Kenysians have it all wrong.
It is government spending which is the problem. Government can't possibly direct the national output more efficiently than the free market can* because the free market is the mechanism by which the the economy relaxes into its most efficient configuration.
*There are a few areas, known as "market failures" where government is sometimes necessary. For instance, military spending does nothing for the economy other than to prevent outsiders from muscling in.
The money itself isn't actually relevant except wherein it represents a claim to someone's time. Whether government raises taxes, goes into debt, or simply demands people do certain things, the effect is the same: The efforts of the people involved are directed in ways that are not economically optimal. They won't have zero benefit to the economy, but they will have less benefit than they would if the government weren't directing their effort.
Taxes serve basically two purposes, neither of which need have anything to do with the operation of the government. The first is that they balance the books regarding the government's direction of resources. Without taxes, inflation is the mechanism by which the nation's efforts are extracted (well inflation if extra money is printed. Slavery of a specific few, otherwise).
The other is that they allow the government to engage in social meddling. Extracting the labor of certain people more than others for various reasons, but it amounts shifting around or enhancing the non-optimal direction of the economy through additional non-optimal direction of the economy.
Yeah, we had much more diversity when it was just CBS, NBC, and ABC.
What the heck kind of super-quiet planes are you guys flying on that air-phone talkers are disturbing your sleep? Whenever I fly, there's like 60dB (not sure the exact number, I'm very bad at estimating this, but it's pretty loud) of white noise muffling everything. Even so, the thing that keeps me from napping is that the seats are too small relax (unless you lean on a passenger or have a window seat).
If you're flying without hearing protection, a "gotta be connected" person you're jealous of really ought to be the least of your worries.
The only thing I can't tune out over the constant din of the engines are the pained high-pitch cries of babies in nearby rows with ear blockages who are not yet old enough to learn the Valsalva maneuver (fortunately, crying also clears the ears, though not as quickly). And even that only bothers me because I know both why they're crying and that their inattentive parents aren't going to change them when they poo twenty-five minutes into a three hour flight.
No.
I'm just calling them out. They're always claiming their cars are so much more efficient than ours. Or that their average speeds are so much higher than ours, despite our roads being much straighter and wider than theirs (they're much better drivers, too, you see).
Yeah, that doesn't sound sketchy at all!
"This would help the patent examiners," But this would not help the lawyers. One of the few groups, as you know, with both enough wealth and free time to actually convince a bunch of senile retirees to put marks next to their names on piece of medium-sized card stock. So your "no legalese" requirement has about as much chance as Hell's postmaster has of avoiding a mountain of novelty remailings this month.
Please explain what you mean by "illegal immigration reform" There are at least two entities demanding this, and their proposals are not in any way similar.
Except that PC games have been basically high def (and non-interlaced) for longer than the past two generations of consoles and typically debut at $50-$60. And have had lower numbers than console games over the same time period.
The games need to sell in great enough volume to pay for their production. If the price is too high to sell enough copies, they will not even break even. Obviously, $70 is not too high as enough people are paying this price to keep the game makers in business.
How does "general welfare" of a nation in any way imply the specific welfare of any given individual? If socialist programs are so important to you, why not propose an amendment specifically granting the government the authority to do them?
Everyone always wants to do things of arguable constitutionality (and by virtue of the certitude of both sides of the various debates, certainly ambiguous constitutionality), but it seems that lately (as in the past half century or so) the route has been to get the courts to declare those things within the existing document rather than using the process specifically delineated to accomplish their goal.
As another example, the second amendment. Everyone argues about whether the "well regulated militia" clause means that the government has the right to register or deny specific arms in the population. I say, let's just have a constitutional convention, with all the attendant public debate, and make the constitution say what we want it to mean.
It's not supposed to be a "living document" in the sense that it means what it needs to mean according to fashionable social mores at any given time. It's supposed to be in the sense that there is a mechanism to change it to say what we need it to say. That mechanism is deliberately a slow and cumbersome process for what should be obvious reasons.
You could just buy the shows on DVD after the season's over. You'd miss out on the water-cooler talk, but who does that anymore, anyway? Would you really want to admit to watching, say, "Eureka?"
Stick that stuff in curly braces and put it in the proper container when you're marking it up in the editor of choice. You shouldn't be thinking about formatting text until you have text to format. You end up spending way more time than necessary on it.
I suggest sometime after the equinox, but before the solstice.
Yes, and Hollywood movies rarely break even, let alone show a profit.
Are you saying it's impossible for a division to inflate the costs of those items, or simply to charge other divisions the same price that they charge outside companies for the same items?
Why not get register? If you care to make a lot of comments, why not register a nickname? It's free. You don't have to be a subscriber.
Yeah, but is that real money or is that subdivision expensing. In other words, does it lose $240 because Sony must use $800 of resources to produce a $600 product, or because sony-chipfab charges sony-board-assembly $60 for a part that cost $5 to produce?
Yes, but he's not putting the people outside his path at risk. You shouldn't be looking at the aggregate odds of encountering a super-fast scofflaw. Those odds are always going to be low for as long as ditsy drivers in comically large (grr. Avalanche. How many times have you tried to kill me) vehicles vastly outnumber more conventional sociopaths. It's the odds of being in an accident after finding yourself in his path that counts.
The question is not how much risk he put people in general in. The question is how much risk he put a very small subset of drivers in: the drivers near his time-space worldline.
Yes, but if you're from one of those more sensible countries, you should be aware that k != m.
ms over here are about 1.6x your ks.
I'll believe you guys drive fast, but 120mph, regularly? In small cars that are supposedly much more environmentally friendly than American cars? On precarious mountain passes?
I hope that's not it. That is one ugly beast. And what's the deal with all the buttons? Do they seriously expect people to want to type on a 1 hz display?