Oops...I dropped part of what I had written when I edited. I meant to include experimental aircraft in the sentence "...looking at the high-end...or twin-engine markets." There are indeed a lot of kitplanes -- such as the RV-10 -- that can cruise at 160+ knots.
Bletchley Park, unless I am greatly mistaken, was set up to analyze intercepted data from a foreign power. Domestic wiretapping is an attempt to intercept data from, well, domestic signals. That is why Bush needs to go to the courts -- it is not an intelligence operation, it is a domestic police operation which requires judicial oversight.
No, no, no. The USSR sent political dissidents to the Gulag in Siberia where they were tortured. We send dissidents on a tropical vacation to Guantanamo! It's totally different.
The economic costs of 9/11 are due to overreaction, paranoia and fear. Furthermore, the economy was already in trouble by 2001, since the dot-com bubble had already begun to burst.
The truth is, as horrific as 9/11 was -- and certainly not to belittle the loss that the victims' families have had to deal with since that day -- it was still a drop in the bucket compared to the constant loss of life that we all accept as "the way it is." The difference is, when we get behind the wheel of a car, we think that our superhuman reflexes and above average intelligence will keep us out of trouble. Accidents only happen to the other guy. The terrorist attack on 9/11 forced us to face the reality that it could happen to us and most of us are very, very uncomfortable facing the fact of our own mortality.
Here's a better idea -- instead of pissing everybody off, how about recruiting them to fight on your side? After 9/11, the odds of the passengers on an airplane acting like sheeple is pretty much nil. Don't incapacitate us; turn us loose on the terrorists!!!
Yes, you probably could control hijackers by flying abruptly, but if you think a 747 can go upside down or climb vertically while at cruise altitude, you are sadly mistaken.
Airliners fly just above the stall speed, in a region known as "coffin corner". Speed up and air flow over the wings goes transonic. Slow down and the airplane stalls. This is caused by cruising at an altitude that is so high that the stall speed and mach speeds have almost converged.
In other words, even if the airframe was stressed for aerobatic (or nearly aerobatic) maneuvers -- and make no mistake, it isn't -- the airplane doesn't have the performance margins necessary to do aerobatics at cruise.
and you can cruise (160kts) at about 60% the speed of a turboprop.
What are you flying??? The average G.A. airplane (a 172 or a Cherokee/Warrior) will only hit 160 kts in a descent under power. I've flown most of Cessna's light singles (150, 152, 172, 172XP, 172RG, 182, 185, 206) and some of the Piper light singles (Cherokee 180, Cherokee 181) and a Citabria, but I don't think I have ever *cruised* at 160 kts. I'm not aware of an airplane you could get that can realistically give you a 160 knot cruise until you start looking at the high-end (Malibu/Mirage/Meridian) or twin-engine markets.
Even better -- the car I sold last year would do 120MPH (ummm...or so I've been told, yeah, that's it), it weighed 3600 pounds and therefore had a max kinetic energy of 111513600 lb ft^2/s^2. My airplane, on the other hand tops out at 90 MPH (but only hits 70 in cruise) and fully loaded only weighs 1050 pounds, for a kinetic energy of 18295200 lb ft^2/s^2. That means my car has just over six times the kinetic energy of my airplane. However, which one requires that you get approved by DHS before teaching a foreigner to operate? Which one requires that instructors go through a security theatre training class before providing instruction to others? Which one will have the Secret Service knocking on your door if you get too close (like within 5 miles) of the President? Which one has a zone encircling Washington D.C. through which you are not allowed to enter without prior approval, all in the name of "national security"?
One is clearly more of a threat than the other. But they way they are perceived and regulated by the government is exactly opposite. It's fsking insane.
At least 40 hours x $155 per hour (where I flight instruct, anyway) = $6200 + books + checkride ($300 or so) + some ground instruction at $40 per hour...call it $7K minimum, $8500 for a more realistic figure. If you actually want to fly in the weather, you'll need an instrument rating at another $4-5000.
And no, at least for now, you don't have to deal with this bovine scatology if you fly your own airplane. However, in some cases, it would probably be quicker to drive than to fly your own airplane unless you are one of the 1 in 1000 pilots rich enough to fly one of the new Very Light Jets (VLJs) or a single-engine turboprop like a TBM800 or Pilatus PC-12.
Where are all of these scared people ? Who are they ?
Well, my wife, for one. Of course, 9/11 didn't really affect her fear of flying much...she was already afraid of flying. Rather funny, considering that I am an active flight instructor (wait...maybe that's why she's afraid of flying -- she knows people like me teach the next generation of airline pilots!).
Also, the pastor of my church used to be afraid of flying (also pre-9/11), although he got over it when he realized that it wasn't a fear of flying so much as other fears and insecurities he had suppressed since childhood that made him anxious on an airliner.
I can't help but wonder if this is really in response to 9/11 or if it is more in response to reports of air rage. All I can say is with the horror stories of people sitting on the ramp for hours with the cabin doors locked, the a/c shut off, no food, no water and the "fasten seat belts" sign lit -- and with no idea when the trip will finally get under way -- the airlines need something like this if they don't want a replay of "Mutiny on the Bounty".
Of course, shackling paying customers with shock collars will only make things worse...
IANAL, and it varies with jurisdiction, so take this for what it's worth, but as I understand, it is a crime if you give false information to obtain a service for which you would otherwise be unable to obtain (i.e., using a false identity to obtain a loan which you never intend to repay).
The act of using a false identity to obtain a service which you would receive even if you gave your real identity is NOT fraudulent.
As for your driving 38 in a 35 zone, then charge Ms. Drew with homicide, just like you would charge a speeder with homicide.
Let's use a more applicable analogy. I go to the local Radio Shack (I am a geek, after all). They ask me for my phone number, even though I'm paying cash. There is no reason they need my phone number for a cash transaction and I don't like giving out personal information when it's not necessary, so I give them a fake number, instead.
Can you give me one good, solid, rational, legal reason why I should potentially face legal consequences for not giving my real phone number or other identifying information?
Let's go a step further. Instead of being a fat, hairy thirty something guy, suppose I am a cute, slender twenty-something girl, and the pimply faced geek behind the counter has been hitting on me the whole time I'm shopping at Radio Shack. Can you still think of a good reason I should give my phone number?
Okay, one step further. Suppose that not only am I a cute, slender twenty-something girl, suppose I am also your daughter? Should I still have to give the pimply faced geek behind the counter my phone number so I can buy a $3 part?
Stop asking for personal information for every transaction or web site account, and I'll stop giving you fake information. Period.
Fine. Make sure you use a law that actually applies to do so. IIRC, there are already laws prohibiting harassment. A sharp lawyer could probably even make an involuntary manslaughter charge stick. It is not necessary to misapply a felony fraud law to lock up someone who signed up for an account -- which she could have gotten anyway -- under a false name.
What law is supposed to be for is removing dangerous people from society for the good of said society. What misapplying law, as in this case, does is create a precedent that can be used against pretty much anyone who has ever gone on-line.
Post an inflammatory anti-government rant on/. and, hey look -- you provided a false e-mail address when you signed up! Off to jail for 5 years.
Post an embarrassing (but legal) photo of a public official on flickr -- oh, wait a minute...you used your high school nickname rather than your legal name on the account. Off to the slammer with you!
"undesireable" is a very subjective term. Bending laws to the whim of the prosecutor so you can f**k with undesirables is not a very, very Bad Thing (tm).
But then, the only way we got Capone in jail was with tax-evasion... so...
I was with you to here. However, tax evasion was a real crime at the time, and Al Capone was absolutely guilty of evading taxes. In this case, Ms. Drew may very well be guilty of various crimes (harassment comes to mind), but to my non-lawyer mind, convicting her of felony fraud would be a miscarriage of justice, not mention exceedingly bad precedent.
Then charge the person with the real crime committed. Don't set bad precedent by using a law that has absolutely no bearing on the case to make sure the defendant is convicted of something, no matter how absurd.
Your point sounds good, but unfortunately, I think your analogy is flawed.
If you don't want to be photographed at the baseball game, you won't be arrested for covering your face with a baseball cap as the photographer snaps the picture.
You won't be sued for breach of contract if you cover your eyes during the scary/gross parts of the horror film.
Enter false information on the Internet site that wants to add you to their e-mail marketing list -- and the e-mail lists of their 1000 closest friends -- and you can be sentenced to 5 years in jail.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops...I dropped part of what I had written when I edited. I meant to include experimental aircraft in the sentence "...looking at the high-end...or twin-engine markets." There are indeed a lot of kitplanes -- such as the RV-10 -- that can cruise at 160+ knots.
Ah...I have to admit, I haven't had a chance to fly the new Diamond or Cirrus airplanes.
:)
I stand corrected, and thanks for the education!
Geeks love the chaos and security challenges that is posed by Windows.
You mean.... I'm not really a geek?!?!?! [cries as self perception shatters]
Yeah, both 1984 and The Prince.
You would do well to take some remedial history lessons. Sigh.
It's just you.
Bletchley Park, unless I am greatly mistaken, was set up to analyze intercepted data from a foreign power. Domestic wiretapping is an attempt to intercept data from, well, domestic signals. That is why Bush needs to go to the courts -- it is not an intelligence operation, it is a domestic police operation which requires judicial oversight.
No, no, no. The USSR sent political dissidents to the Gulag in Siberia where they were tortured. We send dissidents on a tropical vacation to Guantanamo! It's totally different.
;)
</sarcasm>, just in case someone misses it
Nack.
The economic costs of 9/11 are due to overreaction, paranoia and fear. Furthermore, the economy was already in trouble by 2001, since the dot-com bubble had already begun to burst.
The truth is, as horrific as 9/11 was -- and certainly not to belittle the loss that the victims' families have had to deal with since that day -- it was still a drop in the bucket compared to the constant loss of life that we all accept as "the way it is." The difference is, when we get behind the wheel of a car, we think that our superhuman reflexes and above average intelligence will keep us out of trouble. Accidents only happen to the other guy. The terrorist attack on 9/11 forced us to face the reality that it could happen to us and most of us are very, very uncomfortable facing the fact of our own mortality.
If a mob of 1,000,000 people march on the white house with pitchforks and tourches demanding justice, there will be justice.
Sweet! Where's the other 999,999 people?
Here's a better idea -- instead of pissing everybody off, how about recruiting them to fight on your side? After 9/11, the odds of the passengers on an airplane acting like sheeple is pretty much nil. Don't incapacitate us; turn us loose on the terrorists!!!
Yes, you probably could control hijackers by flying abruptly, but if you think a 747 can go upside down or climb vertically while at cruise altitude, you are sadly mistaken.
Airliners fly just above the stall speed, in a region known as "coffin corner". Speed up and air flow over the wings goes transonic. Slow down and the airplane stalls. This is caused by cruising at an altitude that is so high that the stall speed and mach speeds have almost converged.
In other words, even if the airframe was stressed for aerobatic (or nearly aerobatic) maneuvers -- and make no mistake, it isn't -- the airplane doesn't have the performance margins necessary to do aerobatics at cruise.
The airlines won't allow this. Anything that makes flying more of a pain reduces their profits
Yeah, because they sure managed to shoot down arriving two hours early so TSA can fondle you before you get on an airplane...</sarcasm>
Sorry, I'm in a grumpy mood today and stories like this one don't help my outlook.
and you can cruise (160kts) at about 60% the speed of a turboprop.
What are you flying??? The average G.A. airplane (a 172 or a Cherokee/Warrior) will only hit 160 kts in a descent under power. I've flown most of Cessna's light singles (150, 152, 172, 172XP, 172RG, 182, 185, 206) and some of the Piper light singles (Cherokee 180, Cherokee 181) and a Citabria, but I don't think I have ever *cruised* at 160 kts. I'm not aware of an airplane you could get that can realistically give you a 160 knot cruise until you start looking at the high-end (Malibu/Mirage/Meridian) or twin-engine markets.
Even better -- the car I sold last year would do 120MPH (ummm...or so I've been told, yeah, that's it), it weighed 3600 pounds and therefore had a max kinetic energy of 111513600 lb ft^2/s^2. My airplane, on the other hand tops out at 90 MPH (but only hits 70 in cruise) and fully loaded only weighs 1050 pounds, for a kinetic energy of 18295200 lb ft^2/s^2. That means my car has just over six times the kinetic energy of my airplane. However, which one requires that you get approved by DHS before teaching a foreigner to operate? Which one requires that instructors go through a security theatre training class before providing instruction to others? Which one will have the Secret Service knocking on your door if you get too close (like within 5 miles) of the President? Which one has a zone encircling Washington D.C. through which you are not allowed to enter without prior approval, all in the name of "national security"?
One is clearly more of a threat than the other. But they way they are perceived and regulated by the government is exactly opposite. It's fsking insane.
At least 40 hours x $155 per hour (where I flight instruct, anyway) = $6200 + books + checkride ($300 or so) + some ground instruction at $40 per hour...call it $7K minimum, $8500 for a more realistic figure. If you actually want to fly in the weather, you'll need an instrument rating at another $4-5000.
And no, at least for now, you don't have to deal with this bovine scatology if you fly your own airplane. However, in some cases, it would probably be quicker to drive than to fly your own airplane unless you are one of the 1 in 1000 pilots rich enough to fly one of the new Very Light Jets (VLJs) or a single-engine turboprop like a TBM800 or Pilatus PC-12.
Where are all of these scared people ? Who are they ?
Well, my wife, for one. Of course, 9/11 didn't really affect her fear of flying much...she was already afraid of flying. Rather funny, considering that I am an active flight instructor (wait...maybe that's why she's afraid of flying -- she knows people like me teach the next generation of airline pilots!).
Also, the pastor of my church used to be afraid of flying (also pre-9/11), although he got over it when he realized that it wasn't a fear of flying so much as other fears and insecurities he had suppressed since childhood that made him anxious on an airliner.
I can't help but wonder if this is really in response to 9/11 or if it is more in response to reports of air rage. All I can say is with the horror stories of people sitting on the ramp for hours with the cabin doors locked, the a/c shut off, no food, no water and the "fasten seat belts" sign lit -- and with no idea when the trip will finally get under way -- the airlines need something like this if they don't want a replay of "Mutiny on the Bounty".
Of course, shackling paying customers with shock collars will only make things worse...
Uh, we don't. We just hate bad precedent and brain-dead application of laws in cases where they don't belong even more.
Uh, no.
IANAL, and it varies with jurisdiction, so take this for what it's worth, but as I understand, it is a crime if you give false information to obtain a service for which you would otherwise be unable to obtain (i.e., using a false identity to obtain a loan which you never intend to repay).
The act of using a false identity to obtain a service which you would receive even if you gave your real identity is NOT fraudulent.
As for your driving 38 in a 35 zone, then charge Ms. Drew with homicide, just like you would charge a speeder with homicide.
Let's use a more applicable analogy. I go to the local Radio Shack (I am a geek, after all). They ask me for my phone number, even though I'm paying cash. There is no reason they need my phone number for a cash transaction and I don't like giving out personal information when it's not necessary, so I give them a fake number, instead.
Can you give me one good, solid, rational, legal reason why I should potentially face legal consequences for not giving my real phone number or other identifying information?
Let's go a step further. Instead of being a fat, hairy thirty something guy, suppose I am a cute, slender twenty-something girl, and the pimply faced geek behind the counter has been hitting on me the whole time I'm shopping at Radio Shack. Can you still think of a good reason I should give my phone number?
Okay, one step further. Suppose that not only am I a cute, slender twenty-something girl, suppose I am also your daughter? Should I still have to give the pimply faced geek behind the counter my phone number so I can buy a $3 part?
Stop asking for personal information for every transaction or web site account, and I'll stop giving you fake information. Period.
Fine. Make sure you use a law that actually applies to do so. IIRC, there are already laws prohibiting harassment. A sharp lawyer could probably even make an involuntary manslaughter charge stick. It is not necessary to misapply a felony fraud law to lock up someone who signed up for an account -- which she could have gotten anyway -- under a false name.
And that is a problem.
/. and, hey look -- you provided a false e-mail address when you signed up! Off to jail for 5 years.
What law is supposed to be for is removing dangerous people from society for the good of said society. What misapplying law, as in this case, does is create a precedent that can be used against pretty much anyone who has ever gone on-line.
Post an inflammatory anti-government rant on
Post an embarrassing (but legal) photo of a public official on flickr -- oh, wait a minute...you used your high school nickname rather than your legal name on the account. Off to the slammer with you!
"undesireable" is a very subjective term. Bending laws to the whim of the prosecutor so you can f**k with undesirables is not a very, very Bad Thing (tm).
But then, the only way we got Capone in jail was with tax-evasion... so...
I was with you to here. However, tax evasion was a real crime at the time, and Al Capone was absolutely guilty of evading taxes. In this case, Ms. Drew may very well be guilty of various crimes (harassment comes to mind), but to my non-lawyer mind, convicting her of felony fraud would be a miscarriage of justice, not mention exceedingly bad precedent.
Then charge the person with the real crime committed. Don't set bad precedent by using a law that has absolutely no bearing on the case to make sure the defendant is convicted of something, no matter how absurd.
Your point sounds good, but unfortunately, I think your analogy is flawed.
If you don't want to be photographed at the baseball game, you won't be arrested for covering your face with a baseball cap as the photographer snaps the picture.
You won't be sued for breach of contract if you cover your eyes during the scary/gross parts of the horror film.
Enter false information on the Internet site that wants to add you to their e-mail marketing list -- and the e-mail lists of their 1000 closest friends -- and you can be sentenced to 5 years in jail.
It's not the same.