According to Christian theology, that no longer applies to the world.
The problem with saying something like that is that Christians, as a whole, are a lot like/. as a whole: there is no such thing. Here on/., there are liberals, libertarians and conservatives. There are atheists, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Islamics, and pagans. There are Windows fanboys, Mac fanboys, and Linux fanboys. Likewise, saying that "Christians believe ${theology}" is an oversimplification.
And Genesis 2:25 was in the Garden of Eden, and prior to the original sin/fall of man. It is followed by Genesis 3:7 [biblegateway.com]: "At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves."
Yes, I was stretching a bit to use Genesis 2:25 in my point above, but I maintain that I wasn't stretching that much. What, according to Genesis, did God say when He finished creation, including His two naked-as-a-jaybird human beings? "It was very good." And if creation, including the two naked people, was "very good" why did it suddenly become not-so-very-good in Genesis 3:7, as you point out? Here's my $0.02 -- please feel free to disagree, but this is my opinion: At the fall, sin entered into the world. Prior to that, it was good that Adam and Eve were naked. Why? Well, let me answer that by asking you another question: what is the problem with nudity now? I maintain that when women see other women naked, they compare themselves to the other women, giving rise to jealousy, envy, pride, insecurity...it depends upon the individual women involved, but the point is, they begin judging each other. Uh-oh. What did Jesus and James (among others) say about judging others? When men, on the other hand, see women naked, it gives rise to lust, and Jesus had a few things to say about that, too. Have you ever read "Gulliver's Travels"? Not just the scene in Lilliput that is often found in childrens' books, but the entire, unabridged book? There's a scene where Gulliver is in the court room, describing a group of intelligent creatures (horse-like, IIRC) that were completely pure, and completely naked. The court was shocked at the indecency of such creatures, but Gulliver argued that it was only the evil in our human hearts that made nudity "indecent". Likewise, I maintain that were it not for the fact that we are *still* trying to crucify our old (sinful) natures then our state in the Garden would also be "very good." Notice I don't say anything about anyone at all seeing men naked. That's because no one wants to see men naked:)
Regarding the lion and the lamb lying down together...yes, they SHOULD. Do you think Isaiah was prophesying about things that had already come to pass when he wrote those passages, or about things that were to come? How can it be a prophesy if it had already happened? And if it was to come, but has already come, then when did it happen? Neither of those makes sense, so it has to be something that is still to come, if you believe Isaiah. In that case, saying "that no longer applies to the world" can't be accurate theology. I would say, rather, that it does not YET apply to the world. In exactly the same way, it is not YET appropriate for us all to run around naked, due to the evil nature that we still battle in our own hearts, but I maintain that it
I didn't say the claims weren't outlandish -- just that the reasons he used to "debunk" them didn't hold water. FWIW, I am not only an aviation enthusiast, I am a flight instructor as well. I don't claim to be an aeronautical engineer, but I do have more than just a layman's understanding of aerodynamics.
Regarding efficiency, that depends upon what you are measuring. When providing propulsion (as on a modern jet airliner engine, where up to 80% of the thrust is provided by a fan turned by a turbine in the jet engine), a ducted fan becomes more efficient at high subsonic speeds than a conventional propeller...which is, of course, why jet airliners use fanjet engines rather than turboprop engines (which is a jet engine turning a conventional propeller blade, for example, as used by the de Haviland Twin Otter or Beechcraft King Air series). At supersonic speeds, a pure jet engine becomes more efficient than a ducted fan, even though a pure jet is horribly inefficient at low speeds and low altitudes. However, for pure lifting power, you are correct -- the long, slow turning blade of a conventional helicopter becomes more efficient because air speed (vertical velocity) is very low and therefore, the drag from a large rotor disk is insignificant. When you mentioned ground effect, you touched upon what makes a ducted fan more efficient than an equivalently sized propeller turning at the same RPM. An airfoil loses lift and creates drag due to the vortices that form at the tips of the airfoil. Consequently, a long (span), skinny (chord) wing will produce more lift and less drag than a short (span, again), fat (chord, again) wing, all other things being equal (angle of attack, airfoil cross section, wing area, airspeed and density, etc.). By putting a shroud around the propeller, you effectively block the "wing-tip" vortices, and make the airfoil act as if it has a longer span than it actually has.
Regarding lift vs. thrust for a conventional aircraft, you are again correct. It is possible for an airplane with a thrust to weight ratio of less than one (i.e., the aircraft weighs more than the thrust its engine and propeller can provide) to fly. My airplane, an experimental with a 53h.p. Rotax engine, is a great example. However, there are propeller airplanes that achieve thrust to weight ratios better than parity, for example, the Extra 300. IIRC, it has a composite, three-blade propeller with an 80 inch diameter, coupled to a 300 h.p. engine. That gives it double the horsepower of the hover bike, but it also weighs about three times as much. Certainly the large diameter prop helps it achieve the thrust it needs to climb vertically. However, the hover bike has two propellers to generate thrust. Granted, two propeller disks with radius 'r' will only have half the area of a single propeller with radius 2 x r (since area is pi x r x r). So how does the thrust of the hover bike compare with that of an Extra 300 climbing vertically? <shrug> I don't know...TFA doesn't give enough information to say, but I'd guess that the thrust to weight ratios are roughly similar (thrust of the hover bike is probably well less than half that of the Extra 300, but weight is roughly one third that of the Extra).
Basically, I think the hover bike is a cool concept. I doubt it will reach the speed/altitude performance figures quoted in TFA, but if the designer is persistent enough, I think it could fly...and it would be a hoot, even if it was incredibly inefficient.
I had to take a polygraph for a job once (it was a Federal job that required a security clearance). It took three tries, even though I was telling the truth (I have not EVER used illegal drugs, then or since, other than a couple of drinks when I was under age -- and that was only illegal because of my age *and* I told them about that). The problem was, for as long as I can remember, I've always used various breathing and relaxation techniques to, well, relax. That caused unusual spikes and dips on the polygraph test, which caused the administrator to think I was trying to hide something. Once I figured out that 1) they were intentionally trying to create stress in the test environment, and that 2) they were picking up the wild variations between when I would start to feel any anxiety and when I would start to try to calm myself down, I figured out what I needed to do to pass: build up the stress instead of trying to keep myself calm. Once the stress level was raised, it was easy to keep it relatively constant throughout the test.
I may not be exactly thrilled by the FBI doing those things, but quite frankly IMHO*, what you publish publicly on-line and what meetings you publicly attend IRL aren't going to trigger the "reasonablness" provision of the 4th Amendment, no. That's kind of what "public" means. Should the FBI be required to get a warrant before reading your private e-mails or private Facebook (as an example) posts? Yes*. But if you post something in a public forum (for example, here on/.), all bets are off.
*These are my "interested layman" opinions. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a lawyer, and since I am therefore unqualified to provide it, this is NOT legal advice. Use this information at your own peril.
You have "Unconstitutional" confused for "Inconvenient".
According to the summary and TFA, and the USAG, the changes are still constitutional. You may disagree with USAG, but you should doubt that the SCOTUS will.
It may not be common, but it does happen. There are two nuggets in this particular link. First, Alberto Gonzales claimed that the Constitution does not guarantee the right of habeas corpus -- just that, IF you already have the right, it can't be denied to you. Anyone familiar with the Constitution will understand that Gonzales' interpretation of the Constitution WRT habeas corpus is simply asinine. Second, in the linked article, Dean states that the Supreme Court has, in fact, rebuffed Gonzales' notion that the Constitution does not guarantee the right of habeas corpus (which, in all truth, I was not aware of until reading the article). I'm not saying that SCOTUS will always get it right when the AG gets it wrong, but sometimes SCOTUS does act as an effective brake on an otherwise out-of-control executive branch, fortunately. In this case, however, I'm not entirely sure I would count on SCOTUS to reign in the FBI. To my non-lawyer mind, some of these look sufficiently grey to possibly not trigger the "reasonableness" clause of the 4th Amendment (for example, searching through your trash, since, IIRC, there is precedent that once you put your trash on the curb, it's not an invasion of your privacy to search through it).
BTW, these are all things that the agents can do, physically, at any time, and any abuse of that ability is still unconstitutional. It's just that now they don't have to go through red tape to get legitimate actions approved administratively. It wasn't a matter of getting a warrant before, and it isn't now. So it allows lower-level cops to abuse your rights, instead of requiring an executive decision to abuse your rights, if anyone's going to use these tools illegally.
Except during a really short timeframe during takeoff and landing, perhaps a combination of common sense and FAR 91.119? Yeah, I suppose 91.119 d might give you an out, but if you aren't worried about cruising around at an altitude that's high enough to kill you and low enough that you can't deploy a parachute, that's your call, I guess.
And, btw, anyone care to speculate what the power-off stall speed of a direct-lift non-autorotating rotary wing aircraft might be?
My answer would be either NaN or null. 1) It has no wings, just the ducted fans, so the only airfoil that could stall would be the propellers. 2) If the power is off, the props aren't providing any appreciable lift (since it doesn't auto-rotate). 3) Therefore, the concept of "power-off stall speed" doesn't really apply.
If the power is off, you're making like a brick until/unless you deploy the ballistic recovery chute.
Helicopters have a similar problem. For given combinations of altitude and forward velocity, they can't auto-rotate. Consequently, helicopter pilots attempt to minimize the amount of time they spend transitioning from lift-off to forward flight in order to minimize the amount of time they spend in a flight condition where an engine failure is catastrophic. With regards to the hoverbike...get your butt UP as fast as you can.
anyone with even the most remote fucking grasp of physics and flight should be comfortable debunking his claims as a complete lie.
From your comments below, I take it you aren't one of those people. Here goes:
most commercial helicopters stall out at anything greater than 8000ft; most of the ones flying around my city stick to around 600-800 ft ceilings..
Those two statements have little, if anything, to do with each other. Helicopters generally stick to low (sub 1,000 ft) altitudes for a couple of reasons -- namely, there's usually little reason to fly higher since it takes more fuel to climb and the jobs for which they are often used tend to require low altitude flight -- not because they are incapable of flying higher. Also, the ceiling for a helicopter is dependent upon its forward velocity through the air. The faster the helicopter flies -- to a point -- the more lift the rotor blades create, and therefore, the higher it can fly, so be careful not to confuse the hovering ceiling with the service ceiling in cruise flight. They are not the same thing.
The CH-47 Chinook twin rotor helicopter is used by the USAF to rescue climbers on Mount Denali (McKinley) in AK.
Uhhh...no, it's not. The Air National Guard based at Kulis in Anchorage flies Sikorsky Pavehawks (militarized S-70s) and the Army at Ft. Rich flies the Blackhawk -- basically the same airframe as the Pavehawk, but outfitted differently. In Talkeetna, AK (where most climbers fly out of to reach Denali), there is a highly modified helicopter nicknamed the "Denali Lama". IIRC, it's an Aerospatiale -- but it's definitely NOT a CH-47. In fact, I'm not aware of anyone regularly flying a CH-47 in Alaska; at least I don't see them in Anchorage very often.
the highest altitude helicopter currently in existence is the AS350. A pilot named Didier Delsalle of France landed it on the summit of Mount
Everest (8,850 meters) in 2005...and the record is entirely speculative/disputed.
finally, A blackhawk military helicopter with a 1700 horsepower engine still only goes ~190 kias.
And your point is? A Cessna 206 does 140 knots (the article doesn't say on what engine, but 206s typically have either a Continental O-470 at ~235 h.p. or a Lycoming O-520 at ~300 h.p.), but the amateur-built AR-5 will do180 kts on 65 h.p. Let's see...the AR-5 has 1/5 the power and roughly 1.5 times the speed. Clearly you can't correlate h.p. to max speed on different airframes. In fact, there's a lot that determines how fast a given amount of power will propel an aircraft, for example, the drag from the rotor disk and how much of that engine power goes into lifting the aircraft. Your 1700 h.p. Blackhawk has a max take-off weight of 23,500 pounds, giving a power to weight ratio of 0.07 hp/pound. Since the designer of the hover bike is shooting to classify this aircraft as an ultralight in the U.S., that means he's limited to an empty weight of 254 pounds.
TFA says two parachutes on the "airfarme" (sic -- I would presume the mean "airframe") and an optional parachute for the pilot. So you would have the "option" of removing yourself from the vehicle, but theoretically shouldn't need to. If you have an engine failure as well as a failure in two ballistic recovery chutes AND both the main and reserve chute that you are wearing, you are having a Seriously Bad Day.
Well...if it's like two of the three bikes I've owned, you switch to the reserve tank and hope the carburetor float bowl refills before you hit the ground. The third bike has a fuel gauge, which does wonders for preventing you from running out of gas.
Any hint of normal human sexuality should be crushed immediately and the person in question must be publicly humiliated. The Bible tells us that our only source of pleasure should be giving money to churches and praying on bloody knees.
[Citation Needed]
I know you are just pointing out the hypocrisy of American culture which pushes sex in advertisements and media, but then publicly scorns any and every public figure who allows the fact that they aren't complete asexual prudes to become common knowledge. You're right about that. However, you are mistaking the way Western culture -- particularly American culture -- has interpreted the Bible with what it really says. Anyone who thinks that the Bible teaches that sex is always evil should really try reading it sometime. I'd recommend starting with Song of Solomon and also 1 Corinthians 7:3-4. In Genesis 1:28, God is reported to have said to people, "Be fruitful and multiply." Any idea how they were supposed to do that without sex? Then, Genesis 2:25 says that "They were naked and NOT ashamed(!)"
'Kay...convict them, then release them immediately on probation. But make absolutely sure that everyone involved in the decision-making process is required to register as a convicted sex offender.
1) A lot of the problem with radiation is long-term effects. Will exposure to radiation released in Fukushima increase deaths due to cancer in the next 20 or 30 years? Unfortunately, we'll have to wait 20 or 30 years to find out. Furthermore, will there be genetic disorders in the children, grandchildren, etc. of people who were near Fukushima in the next several generations? That will take even longer to determine, so saying "Show us deaths and / or injuries" right now is kind of disingenuous.
2) Ignoring the probability that a lot of the damage won't even show up for another couple of decades or so, it's still rather difficult to quantify that. Considering that people aren't lab rats, and therefore, you can't eliminate all other factors, how do you prove what are long-term effects due to radiation leakage from the power plant and what are things that would have happened anyway?
3) Since there were concerns that some of the radioactive isotopes leaked into the ocean, and a lot of small villages in the area subsist on fishing, there are a lot of villages in the area that could quite possibly die -- even if the people living there don't. That's hardly inconsequential and writing off the accident as being "not that bad" because no one died (yet) despite the enormous cost to the residents of the area is more than just a little callous, don't you think?
Sea level rise from global warming is expected to flood some densely populated areas.
Yeah, that's a drag, no doubt about it. But...
Increased temperatures will make some currently hospitable areas inhospitable, and turn land presently viable for agriculture worthless.
Well, yeah...but if temps rise, then wouldn't some presently inhospitable areas become hospitable, too? Wouldn't some land that presently is *not* viable for agriculture become more so? I would expect agriculture to just shift a bit farther north (in the northern hemisphere; south in the southern hemisphere) to compensate for increased temperatures.
Nor do I believe that you have a good reason why these companies wouldn't just pass off the costs to consumers, as they do with any other sales tax.
Because if I, as an Internet-savvy consumer, go to the web site of company X (located in California), get to the check-out portion of the web site and see sales tax added to my purchase, I will quickly bail out of the order, go to the web site of company Y (NOT located in California) and purchase my products there. I highly doubt I would be alone in doing this, and consequently, company X will soon face an unpleasant reality: relocate to a state that doesn't make such asinine rules or lose their business to company Y.
Back in my days working the abuse desk at an ISP, ZoneAlarm was the bane of my existence. The problem with ZoneAlarm is that it would freak out about EVERYTHING unless it was configured by someone who actually had a clue...but no one who actually had a clue would use ZoneAlarm, since much better products (like Sygate, IIRC) were available. We had customers write to complain that they were being hacked by the ISP DNS servers, mail servers, 127.0.0.1 (yes, I actually had someone write in to ask us to take action against the user who was trying to hack him from 127.0.0.1...sigh), etc., etc., ad nauseum.
IMHO, ZoneAlarm was scareware: "See what we are protecting you from?!?! It's a good thing we're installed...in fact, why don't you upgrade to Pro?"
The bus-tapping module he added to the machine lets him read the full contents of the Z80 logic board's memory, allowing him to store high scores for posterity as well as add an Ethernet interface. The device should work on any Z80-based machine...
You mean I can get my old Sinclair ZX81 (which used a Z80 logic board, IIRC) on-line?!?! Sweet!
No one who's had any clue about network and OS security has ever said "Linux is immune to malware." In fact, what us Penguins have said is that it's impossible to stop a truly dedicated admin-level user from shooting himself in the foot if he's determined to do so. However, Linux's security model does a really good job of limiting the scope of the damage done by a user installing malware. Unless you are root (or equivalent) on a Linux box, *your* account will be all that's compromised. You won't hose the entire box because you stupidly installed malware. You won't even turn up a service on a port < 1024 because only root can do that.
The Android malware that's cropped up lately does NOT disprove any of the assertions above, because they are all essentially affecting a single user account. Granted, on Android, there IS only a single user account (which is one of my gripes about the OS, since on my tablet for example, I'd like to be able to set up different user accounts for me, my wife and my daughter, so we could all use the device without screwing up each other's settings, apps, etc.). Such a poor implementation of user accounts, IMHO, goes a long ways towards negating some of the advantages of Linux. <shrug>
Slashdot Mirror
According to Christian theology, that no longer applies to the world.
The problem with saying something like that is that Christians, as a whole, are a lot like /. as a whole: there is no such thing. Here on /., there are liberals, libertarians and conservatives. There are atheists, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Islamics, and pagans. There are Windows fanboys, Mac fanboys, and Linux fanboys. Likewise, saying that "Christians believe ${theology}" is an oversimplification.
And Genesis 2:25 was in the Garden of Eden, and prior to the original sin/fall of man. It is followed by Genesis 3:7 [biblegateway.com]: "At that moment their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves."
Yes, I was stretching a bit to use Genesis 2:25 in my point above, but I maintain that I wasn't stretching that much. What, according to Genesis, did God say when He finished creation, including His two naked-as-a-jaybird human beings? "It was very good." And if creation, including the two naked people, was "very good" why did it suddenly become not-so-very-good in Genesis 3:7, as you point out? Here's my $0.02 -- please feel free to disagree, but this is my opinion: At the fall, sin entered into the world. Prior to that, it was good that Adam and Eve were naked. Why? Well, let me answer that by asking you another question: what is the problem with nudity now? I maintain that when women see other women naked, they compare themselves to the other women, giving rise to jealousy, envy, pride, insecurity...it depends upon the individual women involved, but the point is, they begin judging each other. Uh-oh. What did Jesus and James (among others) say about judging others? When men, on the other hand, see women naked, it gives rise to lust, and Jesus had a few things to say about that, too. Have you ever read "Gulliver's Travels"? Not just the scene in Lilliput that is often found in childrens' books, but the entire, unabridged book? There's a scene where Gulliver is in the court room, describing a group of intelligent creatures (horse-like, IIRC) that were completely pure, and completely naked. The court was shocked at the indecency of such creatures, but Gulliver argued that it was only the evil in our human hearts that made nudity "indecent". Likewise, I maintain that were it not for the fact that we are *still* trying to crucify our old (sinful) natures then our state in the Garden would also be "very good." Notice I don't say anything about anyone at all seeing men naked. That's because no one wants to see men naked :)
Regarding the lion and the lamb lying down together...yes, they SHOULD. Do you think Isaiah was prophesying about things that had already come to pass when he wrote those passages, or about things that were to come? How can it be a prophesy if it had already happened? And if it was to come, but has already come, then when did it happen? Neither of those makes sense, so it has to be something that is still to come, if you believe Isaiah. In that case, saying "that no longer applies to the world" can't be accurate theology. I would say, rather, that it does not YET apply to the world. In exactly the same way, it is not YET appropriate for us all to run around naked, due to the evil nature that we still battle in our own hearts, but I maintain that it
I didn't say the claims weren't outlandish -- just that the reasons he used to "debunk" them didn't hold water. FWIW, I am not only an aviation enthusiast, I am a flight instructor as well. I don't claim to be an aeronautical engineer, but I do have more than just a layman's understanding of aerodynamics.
Regarding efficiency, that depends upon what you are measuring. When providing propulsion (as on a modern jet airliner engine, where up to 80% of the thrust is provided by a fan turned by a turbine in the jet engine), a ducted fan becomes more efficient at high subsonic speeds than a conventional propeller...which is, of course, why jet airliners use fanjet engines rather than turboprop engines (which is a jet engine turning a conventional propeller blade, for example, as used by the de Haviland Twin Otter or Beechcraft King Air series). At supersonic speeds, a pure jet engine becomes more efficient than a ducted fan, even though a pure jet is horribly inefficient at low speeds and low altitudes. However, for pure lifting power, you are correct -- the long, slow turning blade of a conventional helicopter becomes more efficient because air speed (vertical velocity) is very low and therefore, the drag from a large rotor disk is insignificant. When you mentioned ground effect, you touched upon what makes a ducted fan more efficient than an equivalently sized propeller turning at the same RPM. An airfoil loses lift and creates drag due to the vortices that form at the tips of the airfoil. Consequently, a long (span), skinny (chord) wing will produce more lift and less drag than a short (span, again), fat (chord, again) wing, all other things being equal (angle of attack, airfoil cross section, wing area, airspeed and density, etc.). By putting a shroud around the propeller, you effectively block the "wing-tip" vortices, and make the airfoil act as if it has a longer span than it actually has.
Regarding lift vs. thrust for a conventional aircraft, you are again correct. It is possible for an airplane with a thrust to weight ratio of less than one (i.e., the aircraft weighs more than the thrust its engine and propeller can provide) to fly. My airplane, an experimental with a 53h.p. Rotax engine, is a great example. However, there are propeller airplanes that achieve thrust to weight ratios better than parity, for example, the Extra 300. IIRC, it has a composite, three-blade propeller with an 80 inch diameter, coupled to a 300 h.p. engine. That gives it double the horsepower of the hover bike, but it also weighs about three times as much. Certainly the large diameter prop helps it achieve the thrust it needs to climb vertically. However, the hover bike has two propellers to generate thrust. Granted, two propeller disks with radius 'r' will only have half the area of a single propeller with radius 2 x r (since area is pi x r x r). So how does the thrust of the hover bike compare with that of an Extra 300 climbing vertically? <shrug> I don't know...TFA doesn't give enough information to say, but I'd guess that the thrust to weight ratios are roughly similar (thrust of the hover bike is probably well less than half that of the Extra 300, but weight is roughly one third that of the Extra).
Basically, I think the hover bike is a cool concept. I doubt it will reach the speed/altitude performance figures quoted in TFA, but if the designer is persistent enough, I think it could fly...and it would be a hoot, even if it was incredibly inefficient.
I had to take a polygraph for a job once (it was a Federal job that required a security clearance). It took three tries, even though I was telling the truth (I have not EVER used illegal drugs, then or since, other than a couple of drinks when I was under age -- and that was only illegal because of my age *and* I told them about that). The problem was, for as long as I can remember, I've always used various breathing and relaxation techniques to, well, relax. That caused unusual spikes and dips on the polygraph test, which caused the administrator to think I was trying to hide something. Once I figured out that 1) they were intentionally trying to create stress in the test environment, and that 2) they were picking up the wild variations between when I would start to feel any anxiety and when I would start to try to calm myself down, I figured out what I needed to do to pass: build up the stress instead of trying to keep myself calm. Once the stress level was raised, it was easy to keep it relatively constant throughout the test.
I may not be exactly thrilled by the FBI doing those things, but quite frankly IMHO*, what you publish publicly on-line and what meetings you publicly attend IRL aren't going to trigger the "reasonablness" provision of the 4th Amendment, no. That's kind of what "public" means. Should the FBI be required to get a warrant before reading your private e-mails or private Facebook (as an example) posts? Yes*. But if you post something in a public forum (for example, here on /.), all bets are off.
*These are my "interested layman" opinions. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a lawyer, and since I am therefore unqualified to provide it, this is NOT legal advice. Use this information at your own peril.
You have "Unconstitutional" confused for "Inconvenient".
According to the summary and TFA, and the USAG, the changes are still constitutional. You may disagree with USAG, but you should doubt that the SCOTUS will.
It may not be common, but it does happen. There are two nuggets in this particular link. First, Alberto Gonzales claimed that the Constitution does not guarantee the right of habeas corpus -- just that, IF you already have the right, it can't be denied to you. Anyone familiar with the Constitution will understand that Gonzales' interpretation of the Constitution WRT habeas corpus is simply asinine. Second, in the linked article, Dean states that the Supreme Court has, in fact, rebuffed Gonzales' notion that the Constitution does not guarantee the right of habeas corpus (which, in all truth, I was not aware of until reading the article). I'm not saying that SCOTUS will always get it right when the AG gets it wrong, but sometimes SCOTUS does act as an effective brake on an otherwise out-of-control executive branch, fortunately. In this case, however, I'm not entirely sure I would count on SCOTUS to reign in the FBI. To my non-lawyer mind, some of these look sufficiently grey to possibly not trigger the "reasonableness" clause of the 4th Amendment (for example, searching through your trash, since, IIRC, there is precedent that once you put your trash on the curb, it's not an invasion of your privacy to search through it).
BTW, these are all things that the agents can do, physically, at any time, and any abuse of that ability is still unconstitutional. It's just that now they don't have to go through red tape to get legitimate actions approved administratively. It wasn't a matter of getting a warrant before, and it isn't now. So it allows lower-level cops to abuse your rights, instead of requiring an executive decision to abuse your rights, if anyone's going to use these tools illegally.
Except during a really short timeframe during takeoff and landing, perhaps a combination of common sense and FAR 91.119? Yeah, I suppose 91.119 d might give you an out, but if you aren't worried about cruising around at an altitude that's high enough to kill you and low enough that you can't deploy a parachute, that's your call, I guess.
Yeah, if you open all of them together. I would presume you would have the ability to jettison one so that you could deploy the other, though.
And, btw, anyone care to speculate what the power-off stall speed of a direct-lift non-autorotating rotary wing aircraft might be?
My answer would be either NaN or null. 1) It has no wings, just the ducted fans, so the only airfoil that could stall would be the propellers. 2) If the power is off, the props aren't providing any appreciable lift (since it doesn't auto-rotate). 3) Therefore, the concept of "power-off stall speed" doesn't really apply.
If the power is off, you're making like a brick until/unless you deploy the ballistic recovery chute.
Helicopters have a similar problem. For given combinations of altitude and forward velocity, they can't auto-rotate. Consequently, helicopter pilots attempt to minimize the amount of time they spend transitioning from lift-off to forward flight in order to minimize the amount of time they spend in a flight condition where an engine failure is catastrophic. With regards to the hoverbike...get your butt UP as fast as you can.
What is this guys hoping this thing will fly on, hopes and prayers?
According to TFA (I know, I know...what was I thinking?), with gyroscopes.
anyone with even the most remote fucking grasp of physics and flight should be comfortable debunking his claims as a complete lie.
From your comments below, I take it you aren't one of those people. Here goes:
most commercial helicopters stall out at anything greater than 8000ft; most of the ones flying around my city stick to around 600-800 ft ceilings..
Those two statements have little, if anything, to do with each other. Helicopters generally stick to low (sub 1,000 ft) altitudes for a couple of reasons -- namely, there's usually little reason to fly higher since it takes more fuel to climb and the jobs for which they are often used tend to require low altitude flight -- not because they are incapable of flying higher. Also, the ceiling for a helicopter is dependent upon its forward velocity through the air. The faster the helicopter flies -- to a point -- the more lift the rotor blades create, and therefore, the higher it can fly, so be careful not to confuse the hovering ceiling with the service ceiling in cruise flight. They are not the same thing.
The CH-47 Chinook twin rotor helicopter is used by the USAF to rescue climbers on Mount Denali (McKinley) in AK.
Uhhh...no, it's not. The Air National Guard based at Kulis in Anchorage flies Sikorsky Pavehawks (militarized S-70s) and the Army at Ft. Rich flies the Blackhawk -- basically the same airframe as the Pavehawk, but outfitted differently. In Talkeetna, AK (where most climbers fly out of to reach Denali), there is a highly modified helicopter nicknamed the "Denali Lama". IIRC, it's an Aerospatiale -- but it's definitely NOT a CH-47. In fact, I'm not aware of anyone regularly flying a CH-47 in Alaska; at least I don't see them in Anchorage very often.
the highest altitude helicopter currently in existence is the AS350. A pilot named Didier Delsalle of France landed it on the summit of Mount Everest (8,850 meters) in 2005...and the record is entirely speculative/disputed.
...which is 29,035 feet -- three times the altitude this guy claims for his hover bike. While it may be a disputed record, there are plenty of verified accounts of helicopters landing and taking off well above 10,000 feet in mountain rescues (including Air Force Rescue 470, in which my brother-in-law was the PIC and for which, he won the MacKay Trophy).
finally, A blackhawk military helicopter with a 1700 horsepower engine still only goes ~190 kias.
And your point is? A Cessna 206 does 140 knots (the article doesn't say on what engine, but 206s typically have either a Continental O-470 at ~235 h.p. or a Lycoming O-520 at ~300 h.p.), but the amateur-built AR-5 will do 180 kts on 65 h.p. Let's see...the AR-5 has 1/5 the power and roughly 1.5 times the speed. Clearly you can't correlate h.p. to max speed on different airframes. In fact, there's a lot that determines how fast a given amount of power will propel an aircraft, for example, the drag from the rotor disk and how much of that engine power goes into lifting the aircraft. Your 1700 h.p. Blackhawk has a max take-off weight of 23,500 pounds, giving a power to weight ratio of 0.07 hp/pound. Since the designer of the hover bike is shooting to classify this aircraft as an ultralight in the U.S., that means he's limited to an empty weight of 254 pounds.
TFA says two parachutes on the "airfarme" (sic -- I would presume the mean "airframe") and an optional parachute for the pilot. So you would have the "option" of removing yourself from the vehicle, but theoretically shouldn't need to. If you have an engine failure as well as a failure in two ballistic recovery chutes AND both the main and reserve chute that you are wearing, you are having a Seriously Bad Day.
From TFA: "Malloy also says he plans to have the whole system controlled by gyros..." The wording could be a little clearer, but there it is.
Well...if it's like two of the three bikes I've owned, you switch to the reserve tank and hope the carburetor float bowl refills before you hit the ground. The third bike has a fuel gauge, which does wonders for preventing you from running out of gas.
Any hint of normal human sexuality should be crushed immediately and the person in question must be publicly humiliated. The Bible tells us that our only source of pleasure should be giving money to churches and praying on bloody knees.
[Citation Needed]
." Any idea how they were supposed to do that without sex? Then, Genesis 2:25 says that "They were naked and NOT ashamed(!)"
I know you are just pointing out the hypocrisy of American culture which pushes sex in advertisements and media, but then publicly scorns any and every public figure who allows the fact that they aren't complete asexual prudes to become common knowledge. You're right about that. However, you are mistaking the way Western culture -- particularly American culture -- has interpreted the Bible with what it really says. Anyone who thinks that the Bible teaches that sex is always evil should really try reading it sometime. I'd recommend starting with Song of Solomon and also 1 Corinthians 7:3-4. In Genesis 1:28, God is reported to have said to people, "Be fruitful and multiply
'Kay...convict them, then release them immediately on probation. But make absolutely sure that everyone involved in the decision-making process is required to register as a convicted sex offender.
Considering how many people are displaced in Japan right now, I'd have to say the NIMBY types have a good argument...
1) A lot of the problem with radiation is long-term effects. Will exposure to radiation released in Fukushima increase deaths due to cancer in the next 20 or 30 years? Unfortunately, we'll have to wait 20 or 30 years to find out. Furthermore, will there be genetic disorders in the children, grandchildren, etc. of people who were near Fukushima in the next several generations? That will take even longer to determine, so saying "Show us deaths and / or injuries" right now is kind of disingenuous.
2) Ignoring the probability that a lot of the damage won't even show up for another couple of decades or so, it's still rather difficult to quantify that. Considering that people aren't lab rats, and therefore, you can't eliminate all other factors, how do you prove what are long-term effects due to radiation leakage from the power plant and what are things that would have happened anyway?
3) Since there were concerns that some of the radioactive isotopes leaked into the ocean, and a lot of small villages in the area subsist on fishing, there are a lot of villages in the area that could quite possibly die -- even if the people living there don't. That's hardly inconsequential and writing off the accident as being "not that bad" because no one died (yet) despite the enormous cost to the residents of the area is more than just a little callous, don't you think?
Sea level rise from global warming is expected to flood some densely populated areas.
Yeah, that's a drag, no doubt about it. But...
Increased temperatures will make some currently hospitable areas inhospitable, and turn land presently viable for agriculture worthless.
Well, yeah...but if temps rise, then wouldn't some presently inhospitable areas become hospitable, too? Wouldn't some land that presently is *not* viable for agriculture become more so? I would expect agriculture to just shift a bit farther north (in the northern hemisphere; south in the southern hemisphere) to compensate for increased temperatures.
Yeah, but you see...we Yanks left Europe over 200 years ago specifically because we didn't *want* to be like you :)
Okay, that was a cheap shot (sorry) but while there is a lot in Europe that's pretty cool, an almost 20% sales tax certainly isn't one of them.
Nor do I believe that you have a good reason why these companies wouldn't just pass off the costs to consumers, as they do with any other sales tax.
Because if I, as an Internet-savvy consumer, go to the web site of company X (located in California), get to the check-out portion of the web site and see sales tax added to my purchase, I will quickly bail out of the order, go to the web site of company Y (NOT located in California) and purchase my products there. I highly doubt I would be alone in doing this, and consequently, company X will soon face an unpleasant reality: relocate to a state that doesn't make such asinine rules or lose their business to company Y.
Back in my days working the abuse desk at an ISP, ZoneAlarm was the bane of my existence. The problem with ZoneAlarm is that it would freak out about EVERYTHING unless it was configured by someone who actually had a clue...but no one who actually had a clue would use ZoneAlarm, since much better products (like Sygate, IIRC) were available. We had customers write to complain that they were being hacked by the ISP DNS servers, mail servers, 127.0.0.1 (yes, I actually had someone write in to ask us to take action against the user who was trying to hack him from 127.0.0.1...sigh), etc., etc., ad nauseum.
IMHO, ZoneAlarm was scareware: "See what we are protecting you from?!?! It's a good thing we're installed...in fact, why don't you upgrade to Pro?"
that's awesome :)
The bus-tapping module he added to the machine lets him read the full contents of the Z80 logic board's memory, allowing him to store high scores for posterity as well as add an Ethernet interface. The device should work on any Z80-based machine...
You mean I can get my old Sinclair ZX81 (which used a Z80 logic board, IIRC) on-line?!?! Sweet!
At risk of feeding the troll, here goes:
No one who's had any clue about network and OS security has ever said "Linux is immune to malware." In fact, what us Penguins have said is that it's impossible to stop a truly dedicated admin-level user from shooting himself in the foot if he's determined to do so. However, Linux's security model does a really good job of limiting the scope of the damage done by a user installing malware. Unless you are root (or equivalent) on a Linux box, *your* account will be all that's compromised. You won't hose the entire box because you stupidly installed malware. You won't even turn up a service on a port < 1024 because only root can do that.
The Android malware that's cropped up lately does NOT disprove any of the assertions above, because they are all essentially affecting a single user account. Granted, on Android, there IS only a single user account (which is one of my gripes about the OS, since on my tablet for example, I'd like to be able to set up different user accounts for me, my wife and my daughter, so we could all use the device without screwing up each other's settings, apps, etc.). Such a poor implementation of user accounts, IMHO, goes a long ways towards negating some of the advantages of Linux. <shrug>