It can glide just fine, if it loses power while in horizontal flight mode. The problem is that it is most likely to get hit on approach (props pointed up) -- which will make it drop like a rock.
It's not supposed to stay around and shoot at the enemy
Certainly true -- but it is very handy to be able to spray fire if you suddenly notice a couple of guys standing where you intended to land holding RPGs, and you want them dodging instead of aiming while you abort and fly away.
The hatred for the v-22 isn't from the design, it is from the number of serious flaws which remained in the final project, that would have sent it back to the drawing board if there hadn't been so many pork-barrel contracts on the line. Basically, its current incarnation lacks both the defensive survivability (autorotate on failure) and offensive armament of helicopters (all it has is a small machine gun, pointing backwards, that you have to OPEN THE DOOR to fire), trading both for a slightly higher top speed. Many of the original requirements were shelved when they proved difficult to meet.
Cool idea....but probably going to needlessly kill a lot of soldiers while working out kinks in the field.
If you have something light and unmanned flying low, I would think it more effective to deploy airbags than parachutes...or just an explosive charge, since you would probably rather prevent than assist recovery on reconnaissance missions.
Well, corporations are to 2007 what Jews were to 1933....
Umm, which is? Statistically over-represented among employees on Wall Street? Middle-aged, on average? Randomly blamed for random societal ills? Fond of matzoh? Confused by inexplicable but vaguely racist metaphors?
Simple mathematical transforms, however, can be stored. EG, if you have set the three sliders to "25," "10" and "15," those numbers can be stored (say, 0.5KB of metadata) instead of the resulting file, and then reapplied every time you want to see the changed version. Photoshop calls them filter layers. Much easier on the hard drive and RAM -- but taking that approach means you have to manually export the resulting file to send it to a friend; not necessarily the best approach for consumer software.
I use OO/NeoOffice on computers regularly that have full, current MSOffice licenses, because OO seems to have less CPU load when idle -- and when my word processor is idle, odds are I'm doing heavy lifting in Photoshop, and don't want some dumb document chewing up 7-10% of CPU.
So if I believe that you're a left handed porcupine then you are?
I am not saying belief makes something fact, I am saying that we disagree about which things are facts. I believe that, for instance, on several occasions Jesus supernaturally healed people of diseases. You do not. Neither of our beliefs affect whether he did so or not (the underlying fact). The relevant point is that I have no "facts" to give you, not because "miracles never occur", but because you believe they don't -- you believe that my facts are not facts, and are based on faulty history, or idiocy. So, no number of things I can give you will convince you, not because my list is short, but because you are asking me to make you believe in something while excluding any data which you don't already believe in.
surely there would be some actual *historical* *facts* to back you up, right?
And where would one look for records of these facts? Perhaps in historical records of facts made by eyewitnesses and their contemporaries? Like say, the Greek texts Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and the string of letters sent between communities of believers at that time? Except, for you, the only admissible texts will be ones that are not "religious," and, oddly enough, the only records of miracles we have are by people who ended up being religious.
Given that you consider all the gods you don't believe in to be fairy tales, consider that it's just as reasonable to consider yours the same.
I do consider it perfectly reasonable to consider mine the same. It is not your reason I am questioning, it is your insistence that nobody could believe in something you do not believe in without being a brainwashed idiot. I happen to have been at times in my life an atheist, agnostic, and Christian -- what changed was my presuppositions and my conclusions, not my reason. Though you, I suspect, would disagree!
Briefly: Is it still a miracle if it only happened in someone's drug-addled brain?
I would say yes. A religious miracle by definition means something extraordinary caused by divine will....the mechanism is irrelevant. So if God chose to reveal something through a bad acid trip or the like, that would still be revelation. But I doubt an all-wise God would choose such a noisy channel as a primary method of revelation...
Sorry, god is a fairy tale and if you think otherwise perhaps you'd like to become the first person in the history of the world to provide *anything* factual to counter that?
For those who believe the accounts of God interacting with people in history, those accounts ARE factual. There is no more evidence for the existence of Caesar, Cicero or Shakespeare than there is for God. But just as an experiment cannot "detect" Cicero, who no longer interacts with this ball of dirt, things don't currently exist which can detect God, aliens, mass particles, etc. That most scientists expect to overcome the latter two but not the first speaks to presuppositions (all that is real can be seen today, using 5 senses or lenses and film) rather than fact-or-fairy-tale.
You presuppose there is no God, so accounts of miracles will always be fairy tales to you, regardless of fact. I (now) no longer feel that way, so some seem plausible to me (though I dismiss many, if not most). So, for me, accounts of Jesus doing-things-humans-can't and claiming to be God are historical facts. For you....you would have to have been there. And even then you probably would swear it was a trick. So -- for you, I've got nothing, for me, I've got plenty.
Rather, God is a described entity, for which certain people accept certain accounts of as history, and others dismiss all accounts as fairy tale.
Science tells us that the universe acts in a particular manner, consistently. As to whether there is a "super-universe" that exists outside of what we can detect -- be it before the big bang, "outside" the universe created by the big bang, or in some parallel existence with a God (or ghosts or whatever) -- current science has not a bloody idea. The prevalence of atheism among current scientists is more a cultural artifact than anything -- universes beyond what we can see are cool when proposed in scientific journals, but absurd in church. So believe what you want, and dismiss what you want as unlikely -- but ditch the attitude until you actually have counter-evidence.
Furthermore, this argument is ridiculous: "Most definitely a primitive stress reaction"? Saying early man knew to pray when threatened says nothing about whether or not anyone was listening. Not walking alone in the dark and screaming for help are also primitive stress reactions -- but we don't call people who still put those into practice un-evolved idiots.
No doctor in their right mind would call the Rhythm Method (what you are referring to) a fraud. It just isn't nearly as effective as the pill, or virtually any other common method of contraception.
It should also be noted that the traditional, counting-based, ineffective Rhythm Method is a very different animal from modern "sympto-thermal" methods -- ovulation (and the monthly changes in a woman in preparation for it) cause predictable and measurable changes in a woman's body (temperature and type of cervical mucous are easy to check). People who measure these things and rigorously follow their findings have an accidental pregnancy rate roughly equivalent to barrier methods. Yes, not as "good" as the pill -- but massively more effective than what people were doing when the current crop of health teachers went to school.
No. That "tug" propagates at some given speed, generally faster than the eye can see but much slower than light. Think of it like the slow-motion videos of car crashes, where it takes a few frames for the back bumper to be affected after the front bumper hits the wall.
"That's why I keep saying we need to eliminate warning labels."
You assume the increased number of subsequent Darwinian deaths will outnumber the number of stupid birth-control failures. Also, that dumbness is primarily genetic. Neither is that likely.
I'm pretty sure that saying 1% of the population pays 37% of taxes does not mean that their tax rate is 37%. You're correct in interpreting the GP, but wrong in assuming the wealthy pay more.
The highest US tax bracket is 35%, before deductions.
I'm miffed at Obama's crew for their action as well -- not that they took over the profile, but that they did it in a hurry, without coming to some sort of agreement with the guy. Heck -- they even could have offered him a prime spot in the campaign if they wanted to. I still think I'd vote for Obama if the election were tomorrow....but a poor show all around, really. I hope they at least try to make it right with him, rather than steamrolling on.
All true, but at the moment it's more "Mutual Assured Destruction" than a smart bomb -- eg, it would take China more than a year to offload all its dollar based assets, but the dollar would tank the moment they started to do so -- crushing the value of their assets and collapsing their economy by an equal amount.
And even if it were confirmed, there would be a better-than-reasonable chance that some primitive part of our brain processes input coming from peripheral vision, and sorts it for input that might correspond to potential threats -- like "pairs of eyes directed directly at our tasty flesh."
Slashdot Mirror
The hatred for the v-22 isn't from the design, it is from the number of serious flaws which remained in the final project, that would have sent it back to the drawing board if there hadn't been so many pork-barrel contracts on the line. Basically, its current incarnation lacks both the defensive survivability (autorotate on failure) and offensive armament of helicopters (all it has is a small machine gun, pointing backwards, that you have to OPEN THE DOOR to fire), trading both for a slightly higher top speed. Many of the original requirements were shelved when they proved difficult to meet.
Cool idea....but probably going to needlessly kill a lot of soldiers while working out kinks in the field.
If you have something light and unmanned flying low, I would think it more effective to deploy airbags than parachutes...or just an explosive charge, since you would probably rather prevent than assist recovery on reconnaissance missions.
Simple mathematical transforms, however, can be stored. EG, if you have set the three sliders to "25," "10" and "15," those numbers can be stored (say, 0.5KB of metadata) instead of the resulting file, and then reapplied every time you want to see the changed version. Photoshop calls them filter layers. Much easier on the hard drive and RAM -- but taking that approach means you have to manually export the resulting file to send it to a friend; not necessarily the best approach for consumer software.
I use OO/NeoOffice on computers regularly that have full, current MSOffice licenses, because OO seems to have less CPU load when idle -- and when my word processor is idle, odds are I'm doing heavy lifting in Photoshop, and don't want some dumb document chewing up 7-10% of CPU.
Encryption's been classified as munitions, so wouldn't a hard drive be classifiable too?
That depends on the velocity of the hard drive.
So if I believe that you're a left handed porcupine then you are?
I am not saying belief makes something fact, I am saying that we disagree about which things are facts. I believe that, for instance, on several occasions Jesus supernaturally healed people of diseases. You do not. Neither of our beliefs affect whether he did so or not (the underlying fact). The relevant point is that I have no "facts" to give you, not because "miracles never occur", but because you believe they don't -- you believe that my facts are not facts, and are based on faulty history, or idiocy. So, no number of things I can give you will convince you, not because my list is short, but because you are asking me to make you believe in something while excluding any data which you don't already believe in.
surely there would be some actual *historical* *facts* to back you up, right?
And where would one look for records of these facts? Perhaps in historical records of facts made by eyewitnesses and their contemporaries? Like say, the Greek texts Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and the string of letters sent between communities of believers at that time? Except, for you, the only admissible texts will be ones that are not "religious," and, oddly enough, the only records of miracles we have are by people who ended up being religious.
Given that you consider all the gods you don't believe in to be fairy tales, consider that it's just as reasonable to consider yours the same.
I do consider it perfectly reasonable to consider mine the same. It is not your reason I am questioning, it is your insistence that nobody could believe in something you do not believe in without being a brainwashed idiot. I happen to have been at times in my life an atheist, agnostic, and Christian -- what changed was my presuppositions and my conclusions, not my reason. Though you, I suspect, would disagree!
You presuppose there is no God, so accounts of miracles will always be fairy tales to you, regardless of fact. I (now) no longer feel that way, so some seem plausible to me (though I dismiss many, if not most). So, for me, accounts of Jesus doing-things-humans-can't and claiming to be God are historical facts. For you....you would have to have been there. And even then you probably would swear it was a trick. So -- for you, I've got nothing, for me, I've got plenty.
Science tells us that the universe acts in a particular manner, consistently. As to whether there is a "super-universe" that exists outside of what we can detect -- be it before the big bang, "outside" the universe created by the big bang, or in some parallel existence with a God (or ghosts or whatever) -- current science has not a bloody idea. The prevalence of atheism among current scientists is more a cultural artifact than anything -- universes beyond what we can see are cool when proposed in scientific journals, but absurd in church. So believe what you want, and dismiss what you want as unlikely -- but ditch the attitude until you actually have counter-evidence.
Furthermore, this argument is ridiculous: "Most definitely a primitive stress reaction"? Saying early man knew to pray when threatened says nothing about whether or not anyone was listening. Not walking alone in the dark and screaming for help are also primitive stress reactions -- but we don't call people who still put those into practice un-evolved idiots.
For the same reason you did.
Good source text: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0060881909/
Hooray! 2.5 MPG! Global warming is like totally history!
No. That "tug" propagates at some given speed, generally faster than the eye can see but much slower than light. Think of it like the slow-motion videos of car crashes, where it takes a few frames for the back bumper to be affected after the front bumper hits the wall.
http://www.google.com/search?q=satellite+broadband
"That's why I keep saying we need to eliminate warning labels."
You assume the increased number of subsequent Darwinian deaths will outnumber the number of stupid birth-control failures. Also, that dumbness is primarily genetic. Neither is that likely.
The highest US tax bracket is 35%, before deductions.
Parent angry? Yes. Troll, no.
I'm miffed at Obama's crew for their action as well -- not that they took over the profile, but that they did it in a hurry, without coming to some sort of agreement with the guy. Heck -- they even could have offered him a prime spot in the campaign if they wanted to. I still think I'd vote for Obama if the election were tomorrow....but a poor show all around, really. I hope they at least try to make it right with him, rather than steamrolling on.
All true, but at the moment it's more "Mutual Assured Destruction" than a smart bomb -- eg, it would take China more than a year to offload all its dollar based assets, but the dollar would tank the moment they started to do so -- crushing the value of their assets and collapsing their economy by an equal amount.
What should worry us greatly are the signs that China is starting to diversify out of dollars.
And even if it were confirmed, there would be a better-than-reasonable chance that some primitive part of our brain processes input coming from peripheral vision, and sorts it for input that might correspond to potential threats -- like "pairs of eyes directed directly at our tasty flesh."