See the comment below about crush depth. It's about 10,000 feet.
According to whom? Random Slashdot Poster, right? According to Wikipedia: "They [modern flight data recorders] are designed to emit an underwater locator beacon for up to 30 days and can operate immersed to a depth of up to 6,000 meters (20,000 ft)." I have seen estimates between 5000 meters (about 16,000 ft) and 20,000 ft. for the depth of the ocean in the presumed crash area. There's a pretty good chance that the recorder survived.
So, a little less than 4 miles, then. If the ping is detectable at 10 miles and the source is 4 miles down, you have a circle with a radius of 9 miles in which the ping is detectable at the surface. That's an area of 250 square miles.
Send in the subs!
The maximum operating depth of a Los Angeles class nuclear submarine might be as deep as 950 ft. That's not going to put much of a dent in that 20,000 ft number. Maybe you meant, "Send in the bathyscaphes!"
You seem to have Sarah Palin confused with Tina Fey. SP never said she could see Russia from her window, or her porch, or her back yard, or any other part of her property or of mainland Alaska. She said that Russia could be seen from an island that is part of Alaska, which is actually true.
Shouldn't the size of the club head also be accounted for in the rules? I know it's not, but isn't that something that should be addressed?
Well, actually it is accounted for in the rules. Keep in mind, drivers originally had heads made from wood, which is why they're sometimes referred to as "woods" regardless of the material they're made of.
Sorry, but most people just don't see the way you do.
If you were right about that, this discussion wouldn't be taking place. Maybe you're not quite as in touch with how "most people" see things as you think you are.
Aluminum is not a great choice for a golf club head due to its poor fatigue properties -- it would tend to get very brittle after repeatedly pounding at golf balls. Plus, though Ti is about 70% heavier than Al, it has twice the tensile strength. Aluminum does make a pretty good golf club shaft, though.
I don't play golf, but titanium clubs sounds like the pinnacle of solutions to a problem that doesn't exist. Does using titanium really make the club that much lighter that one would get a significant head speed increase?
No, that isn't the point. All driver clubheads are pretty much the same weight (per golf rules). Since titanium is lighter in weight than steel, an equivalent weight of titanium gives you a larger clubhead, which is the goal.
Sometimes I just wish Clancy would read Conrad's "The Secret Agent" from around a century ago and either give up in despair or take it as inspiration to improve.
That would be quite a feat. Guess you missed the the news of Clancy's death last year.
Be honest, people, if you know you'll never ever have to use the piece of junk you create, how much effort will you put into it past what's necessary to get it to specs, even if you KNOW that the specs don't address something critical that will bite the user in the behind?
You might get by with that if you write apps for smartphones, but not if you're doing anything serious. If one of my co-workers displayed that attitude I'd do my best to get their ass fired, but my boss would probably beat me to it. Most people will never "have to use" the flight control and target tracking software they write for a missile.
Our employer's insurance continued covering him (because they had to), but if he tried to go anywhere else nothing diabetes-related would be covered, as it would be considered a "preexisting condition".
Your friend is a victim of either misinformation or poor understanding. I've been working, and occasionally changing jobs, for over 40 years, and have never been denied coverage for a pre-existing condition, and believe me -- as time passes and one ages, the list of pre-existing conditions can get pretty impressive. As long as there is no gap in coverage, pre-existing conditions are not a consideration in employer-provided health insurance plans.
Unfortunately, most people have no idea how much their healthcare actually costs, and when they find out they are overwhelmed.
You used the term "healthcare", but you seem to be talking about "health insurance", as most employers don't pay for healthcare; they pay for insurance.
It's not like it's hard to figure out the costs. Every company I have ever worked for periodically sends a letter to employees telling them all about all the hidden costs the company bears. I have a company-subsidized health insurance plan. My contribution towards the premium is about $350/month. My company's contribution is about $600/month, making the total premium around $950/month.
The "Covered California" policy offering the closest coverage to the plan I currently have, costs over $1800/month. And by the way, "closest" isn't very close; the deductible, co-insurance, and co-pay are all significantly higher. On top of that, the doctor my wife and I have been seeing for the past 12 years doesn't belong to any of the ACA marketplace plans. I discussed this with him a month ago during my annual physical, and he told me that the reimbursement rates for the ACA plans were set at 60% of Medicare rates, making it a money-losing proposition. This is one of the reasons there aren't very many doctors and hospitals participating.
Medicare and the VA have the lowest overhead costs for their coverage.
I can't speak to the VA, but the Medicare efficiency numbers tossed around by government health care advocates are somewhat misleading. A lot of Medicare's administrative costs are actually borne by other agencies, such as IRS (collects the taxes that fund the program), Social Security Adminstration (collects premiums from participants), and HHS (manages accounting, auditing, and fraud issues; pays for marketing and building costs). Taking these factors into account, Medicare is at best no more efficient than the private health insurance industry on an overhead cost per patient basis.
There is strong evidence that when affordable healthcare isn't exclusively tied to employment, in more instances people choose to start their own companies
Worker gets laid off, loses employer-provided health plan. Worker can't find full-time employement; becomes consultant to pay bills; buys health insurance. Conclusion: buying health insurance motivates worker to become consultant!
Removing the tax structures that make companies by default intermediaries in the provision of health insurance, and allowing more interstate (and international) competition in health finance options would help on that front, too
Translation: if we can remove one of the incentives for companies to provide health care plans, then more people will be forced to buy private health insurance! Yay!
No, not just arithmetic, you also learn algebra by rote memorization and constant exercise. With time this helps you to spot regularities and later you are able to see possible solutions in complex mathematical problems.
There are experiments about what helps pupils best to get better with mathematics, and it has been shown that drill and constant exercise is the most effective way, even for complexer mathematical problems.
Rote memorization is also an effective way to learn the rules of grammar. More people should try it.
Kinda, sorta... well, not really. The notification that the Japanese ambassador was supposed to deliver 30 minutes before the attack, but didn't deliver until after the attack had started, wasn't a declaration of war, or a warning that Hawaii was going to be attacked; it was a formal notification that negotiations were being broken off.
There is no denying that there were breakdowns in communication within US government and military that lessened the chances that we would figure out that an attack was imminent, and there were some moves by the Army (particularly the failure to disperse aircraft on the ground) that in hindsight look really boneheaded, but in the end, the Japanese successfully obscured their intentions and the attack was a complete surprise.
How's that old saying go? Security through obscurity is not security at all?
As usual, generalizations aren't woth a damn.
Should the Imperial Navy gave told the US Navy they were coming in 1941? Should Ike have let Adolf know it was going to be Normandy? Maybe the Brits should have told the Germans about Bletchley Park?
Sometimes obscurity is all you have to begin with. Sometimes it's all you'll ever have.
What's unreasonable is that 5 million people need a security clearance!!
Not really, under government regulations it requires a security clearance for a government employee to legally know that Edward Snowden even exists. You have to understand the lunacy of the feds, anyone can read the NYT articles that Snowden leaked. But if a federal employee reads that same article without a "clearance" he can be subject to arrest for reading classified documents.
You're a little confused. The act of making classified information public does not automatically declassify that information. Because of that, it is illegal for a person with clearance to reveal that information even though it has been made public. However, it is not illegal for anyone, with or without clearance, to read information in a newspaper or other public publication, regardless of its security classification.
I can't imagine why they wouldn't monitor people with access to secret clearances. I know they polygraph them all the time and regularly perform spot checks for law enforcement violations, etc.
Don't want the government knowing everything about you? Don't request secret clearance from it.
I have held a secret clearance for 36 years and have been polygraphed exactly zero times. But then, I work for a defense contractor, not the Federal government.
The Social Security tax rate is 12.4% up to a maximum of $117,000.
If we were to eliminate the maximum, and charge everyone 12.4% of all their income, that would solve any problem the Social Security system had.
Only the employee's contribution (6.2% of wages) is capped. The employer contributes 6.2% of wages, with no maximum. But you didn't say "12.4% of wages, you said 12.4% of all income, which would include income from other sources (e.g., interest and investment). Is that what you meant? I don't have a problem with removing the cap on wages, even though it would cost me thousands of dollars every year. But I do have a problem with the idea of a payroll tax on income derived from investing money on which I've already paid the tax.
I fully concede that Federal Law gives the FAA the legal power to regulate just about anything with wings.
My whole point is that it is not in the public interest for this kind of activity to be regulated in the manner the FAA is seeking to regulate it. I'm arguing what is right, not what is legal. The law is immaterial.:)
Ok, right and wrong; legal and illegal, I understand.
A bit upthread, you said, " I get why it is necessary to regulate air traffic in general, because collision is a very real threat and it really can only be prevented via compliance with standardized procedures. That doesn't apply to stuff near the earth." But it absolutely does apply to stuff near the earth. Part of the FAA's charter, and a major topic in the FARs, is preventing damage and injury to property and people on the ground. This is not something new with the advent of UAVs.
In parting, If you really think the law is immaterial, you should take another look at the subject line of this thread;-)
If the rock is remotely piloted, it is appropriate for the FAA to deal with.
Why?
Because the FAA has authority over things that fly in US airspace under human control. Look, I understand your argument, but you're trying to apply logic to a situation governed by law and not by logical argument. How YOU would regulate it is immaterial; you're not the Federal government.
By the way, the FAA has authority over things that fly in US airspace but not under human control (e.g., fully autonomous drones flying a flight plan) as well; I just didn't want to complicate the discussion. And no, a rock falling through the air does not qualify as a drone flying a flight plan, even though its path through the air is determined by the laws of physics and prevailing weather conditions.
And consider this, the original author got their point across, so those who attack the argument on the basis of "bad form" betray their lack of a REAL argument. But we digress...
Consider this: A person might be able to eventually get their point across by scratching in the dirt and making hooting noises. That does not make them effective communicators. Errors in grammar, syntax and spelling distract from the discussion, as evidenced by Crimson Avenger's comment and the comments in response.
If I throw a rock at you, clearly you will have to duck. Clearly I've broken the law. And yet, this isn't considered something appropriate for the FAA to deal with.
For garden-variety rocks, you're correct. But a rock is not a remotely piloted aircraft, is it? If the rock is remotely piloted, it is appropriate for the FAA to deal with.
There don't need to be consequences for things that MIGHT lead to something more serious. If he caused any actual damage or injury, he could be prosecuted for that.
Right. Let's repeal the Motor Vehicle Code. As long as you don't hit any pedestrians or cause any wrecks, running red lights and driving drunk and tailgating and excessive speed shouldn't be a problem at all.
Slashdot Mirror
See the comment below about crush depth. It's about 10,000 feet.
According to whom? Random Slashdot Poster, right? According to Wikipedia: "They [modern flight data recorders] are designed to emit an underwater locator beacon for up to 30 days and can operate immersed to a depth of up to 6,000 meters (20,000 ft)." I have seen estimates between 5000 meters (about 16,000 ft) and 20,000 ft. for the depth of the ocean in the presumed crash area. There's a pretty good chance that the recorder survived.
Don't forget the ocean is ~20,000 feet deep here.
So, a little less than 4 miles, then. If the ping is detectable at 10 miles and the source is 4 miles down, you have a circle with a radius of 9 miles in which the ping is detectable at the surface. That's an area of 250 square miles.
Send in the subs!
The maximum operating depth of a Los Angeles class nuclear submarine might be as deep as 950 ft. That's not going to put much of a dent in that 20,000 ft number. Maybe you meant, "Send in the bathyscaphes!"
You seem to have Sarah Palin confused with Tina Fey. SP never said she could see Russia from her window, or her porch, or her back yard, or any other part of her property or of mainland Alaska. She said that Russia could be seen from an island that is part of Alaska, which is actually true.
Shouldn't the size of the club head also be accounted for in the rules? I know it's not, but isn't that something that should be addressed?
Well, actually it is accounted for in the rules. Keep in mind, drivers originally had heads made from wood, which is why they're sometimes referred to as "woods" regardless of the material they're made of.
Sorry, but most people just don't see the way you do.
If you were right about that, this discussion wouldn't be taking place. Maybe you're not quite as in touch with how "most people" see things as you think you are.
Aluminum is not a great choice for a golf club head due to its poor fatigue properties -- it would tend to get very brittle after repeatedly pounding at golf balls. Plus, though Ti is about 70% heavier than Al, it has twice the tensile strength. Aluminum does make a pretty good golf club shaft, though.
I don't play golf, but titanium clubs sounds like the pinnacle of solutions to a problem that doesn't exist. Does using titanium really make the club that much lighter that one would get a significant head speed increase?
No, that isn't the point. All driver clubheads are pretty much the same weight (per golf rules). Since titanium is lighter in weight than steel, an equivalent weight of titanium gives you a larger clubhead, which is the goal.
Sometimes I just wish Clancy would read Conrad's "The Secret Agent" from around a century ago and either give up in despair or take it as inspiration to improve.
That would be quite a feat. Guess you missed the the news of Clancy's death last year.
Be honest, people, if you know you'll never ever have to use the piece of junk you create, how much effort will you put into it past what's necessary to get it to specs, even if you KNOW that the specs don't address something critical that will bite the user in the behind?
You might get by with that if you write apps for smartphones, but not if you're doing anything serious. If one of my co-workers displayed that attitude I'd do my best to get their ass fired, but my boss would probably beat me to it. Most people will never "have to use" the flight control and target tracking software they write for a missile.
Our employer's insurance continued covering him (because they had to), but if he tried to go anywhere else nothing diabetes-related would be covered, as it would be considered a "preexisting condition".
Your friend is a victim of either misinformation or poor understanding. I've been working, and occasionally changing jobs, for over 40 years, and have never been denied coverage for a pre-existing condition, and believe me -- as time passes and one ages, the list of pre-existing conditions can get pretty impressive. As long as there is no gap in coverage, pre-existing conditions are not a consideration in employer-provided health insurance plans.
Unfortunately, most people have no idea how much their healthcare actually costs, and when they find out they are overwhelmed.
You used the term "healthcare", but you seem to be talking about "health insurance", as most employers don't pay for healthcare; they pay for insurance.
It's not like it's hard to figure out the costs. Every company I have ever worked for periodically sends a letter to employees telling them all about all the hidden costs the company bears. I have a company-subsidized health insurance plan. My contribution towards the premium is about $350/month. My company's contribution is about $600/month, making the total premium around $950/month.
The "Covered California" policy offering the closest coverage to the plan I currently have, costs over $1800/month. And by the way, "closest" isn't very close; the deductible, co-insurance, and co-pay are all significantly higher. On top of that, the doctor my wife and I have been seeing for the past 12 years doesn't belong to any of the ACA marketplace plans. I discussed this with him a month ago during my annual physical, and he told me that the reimbursement rates for the ACA plans were set at 60% of Medicare rates, making it a money-losing proposition. This is one of the reasons there aren't very many doctors and hospitals participating.
Medicare and the VA have the lowest overhead costs for their coverage.
I can't speak to the VA, but the Medicare efficiency numbers tossed around by government health care advocates are somewhat misleading. A lot of Medicare's administrative costs are actually borne by other agencies, such as IRS (collects the taxes that fund the program), Social Security Adminstration (collects premiums from participants), and HHS (manages accounting, auditing, and fraud issues; pays for marketing and building costs). Taking these factors into account, Medicare is at best no more efficient than the private health insurance industry on an overhead cost per patient basis.
There is strong evidence that when affordable healthcare isn't exclusively tied to employment, in more instances people choose to start their own companies
Worker gets laid off, loses employer-provided health plan. Worker can't find full-time employement; becomes consultant to pay bills; buys health insurance. Conclusion: buying health insurance motivates worker to become consultant!
Removing the tax structures that make companies by default intermediaries in the provision of health insurance, and allowing more interstate (and international) competition in health finance options would help on that front, too
Translation: if we can remove one of the incentives for companies to provide health care plans, then more people will be forced to buy private health insurance! Yay!
No, not just arithmetic, you also learn algebra by rote memorization and constant exercise. With time this helps you to spot regularities and later you are able to see possible solutions in complex mathematical problems.
There are experiments about what helps pupils best to get better with mathematics, and it has been shown that drill and constant exercise is the most effective way, even for complexer mathematical problems.
Rote memorization is also an effective way to learn the rules of grammar. More people should try it.
Should the Imperial Navy gave told the US Navy they were coming in 1941?
Well, kinda, yeah.
Kinda, sorta... well, not really. The notification that the Japanese ambassador was supposed to deliver 30 minutes before the attack, but didn't deliver until after the attack had started, wasn't a declaration of war, or a warning that Hawaii was going to be attacked; it was a formal notification that negotiations were being broken off.
There is no denying that there were breakdowns in communication within US government and military that lessened the chances that we would figure out that an attack was imminent, and there were some moves by the Army (particularly the failure to disperse aircraft on the ground) that in hindsight look really boneheaded, but in the end, the Japanese successfully obscured their intentions and the attack was a complete surprise.
How's that old saying go? Security through obscurity is not security at all?
As usual, generalizations aren't woth a damn.
Should the Imperial Navy gave told the US Navy they were coming in 1941? Should Ike have let Adolf know it was going to be Normandy? Maybe the Brits should have told the Germans about Bletchley Park?
Sometimes obscurity is all you have to begin with. Sometimes it's all you'll ever have.
What's unreasonable is that 5 million people need a security clearance!!
Not really, under government regulations it requires a security clearance for a government employee to legally know that Edward Snowden even exists. You have to understand the lunacy of the feds, anyone can read the NYT articles that Snowden leaked. But if a federal employee reads that same article without a "clearance" he can be subject to arrest for reading classified documents.
You're a little confused. The act of making classified information public does not automatically declassify that information. Because of that, it is illegal for a person with clearance to reveal that information even though it has been made public. However, it is not illegal for anyone, with or without clearance, to read information in a newspaper or other public publication, regardless of its security classification.
I can't imagine why they wouldn't monitor people with access to secret clearances. I know they polygraph them all the time and regularly perform spot checks for law enforcement violations, etc.
Don't want the government knowing everything about you? Don't request secret clearance from it.
I have held a secret clearance for 36 years and have been polygraphed exactly zero times. But then, I work for a defense contractor, not the Federal government.
The Social Security tax rate is 12.4% up to a maximum of $117,000.
If we were to eliminate the maximum, and charge everyone 12.4% of all their income, that would solve any problem the Social Security system had.
Only the employee's contribution (6.2% of wages) is capped. The employer contributes 6.2% of wages, with no maximum. But you didn't say "12.4% of wages, you said 12.4% of all income, which would include income from other sources (e.g., interest and investment). Is that what you meant? I don't have a problem with removing the cap on wages, even though it would cost me thousands of dollars every year. But I do have a problem with the idea of a payroll tax on income derived from investing money on which I've already paid the tax.
We're obviously talking past each other.
I fully concede that Federal Law gives the FAA the legal power to regulate just about anything with wings.
My whole point is that it is not in the public interest for this kind of activity to be regulated in the manner the FAA is seeking to regulate it. I'm arguing what is right, not what is legal. The law is immaterial. :)
Ok, right and wrong; legal and illegal, I understand.
A bit upthread, you said, " I get why it is necessary to regulate air traffic in general, because collision is a very real threat and it really can only be prevented via compliance with standardized procedures. That doesn't apply to stuff near the earth." But it absolutely does apply to stuff near the earth. Part of the FAA's charter, and a major topic in the FARs, is preventing damage and injury to property and people on the ground. This is not something new with the advent of UAVs.
In parting, If you really think the law is immaterial, you should take another look at the subject line of this thread ;-)
If the rock is remotely piloted, it is appropriate for the FAA to deal with.
Why?
Because the FAA has authority over things that fly in US airspace under human control. Look, I understand your argument, but you're trying to apply logic to a situation governed by law and not by logical argument. How YOU would regulate it is immaterial; you're not the Federal government.
By the way, the FAA has authority over things that fly in US airspace but not under human control (e.g., fully autonomous drones flying a flight plan) as well; I just didn't want to complicate the discussion. And no, a rock falling through the air does not qualify as a drone flying a flight plan, even though its path through the air is determined by the laws of physics and prevailing weather conditions.
And consider this, the original author got their point across, so those who attack the argument on the basis of "bad form" betray their lack of a REAL argument. But we digress...
Consider this: A person might be able to eventually get their point across by scratching in the dirt and making hooting noises. That does not make them effective communicators. Errors in grammar, syntax and spelling distract from the discussion, as evidenced by Crimson Avenger's comment and the comments in response.
If I throw a rock at you, clearly you will have to duck. Clearly I've broken the law. And yet, this isn't considered something appropriate for the FAA to deal with.
For garden-variety rocks, you're correct. But a rock is not a remotely piloted aircraft, is it? If the rock is remotely piloted, it is appropriate for the FAA to deal with.
There don't need to be consequences for things that MIGHT lead to something more serious. If he caused any actual damage or injury, he could be prosecuted for that.
Right. Let's repeal the Motor Vehicle Code. As long as you don't hit any pedestrians or cause any wrecks, running red lights and driving drunk and tailgating and excessive speed shouldn't be a problem at all.
(differences in size and flight range are not inconsiderable between commercial drones and hobbyist vehicles).
Really? I'll grant you the difference between hobbyist UAVs and drones like this, but what about this, this, and this?