How about we compare the candidates in terms of how they will address the topic (war on encryption)... rather than what scumbag criminal a-holes they are?
Not that I mind politics. I'm fine with discussing it. Just I once was told not to mix it with sex or religion or techdirt.
When you turn off all security on your private FOIA-defying server and don't use encryption and Russian and Chinese state-sponsored players browse through your data...
...and you are against encryption because security.
Yeah - you're right. I took a cursory look at it before but now that you've pointed out the page I looked at the total numbers.
Descent+initial approach+final approach=35%. That's more than landing (24%), cruise (13%), or takeoff+initial climb+climb (20%).
And it's PDF p.21 internal doc p.20 :)
Ehud P.S. I don't think it's an ad hominem unless I was attacking you... which I wasn't. However, in the spirit of peace I apologize for any offense I gave :)
I'm sorry, I'm sure you meant to say something meaningful. Unfortunately in the process it became meaningless.
> because
What's the phrase before the "because"... you know, the one you're explaining. "Because" is used to explain something given a question. What was the question?
> their legislature Whose legislature?
> is yet Has yet
> to become aware of "to become aware" is to gain consciousness. I think you mean "to be aware."
> of the invention of the railroad The railroad was not an invention. It was a series of upgrades from the carriage, to the horseless carriage, to a horseless carriage with special "roadways" to the railroad.
Please do add detail. This may prove to be fascinating.
We all have been stuck in traffic, wished we could turn on our antigrav/wings/rotors/magic and fly above the crowd. If there were flying cars that leaves the simple question of why the people ahead of you didn't do just that, which leads to the question I addressed in my original post:
"Would I love to see a vehicle that "if things got frustrating I could just pick up and fly"... sure... but that makes no sense... because if you can "just pick up and fly" why would you use the road in the first place?"
...meaning if that if your car can fly, why the heck would you drive somewhere far enough to possibly be in a traffic jam? You wouldn't. Instead you'd PLAN to fly there and then land and drive to where you want to go... which is why I ended with:
"Far better to build a plane that can legally drive on the highway."
Still... I'm a fan of science fiction because we can ignore the physics and ignore the regulatory world and the law-enforcement and insurance constraints and focus on a better world.
I'm with everyone on this thread who said Jetsons, Rosie, or Rastro!
That is a common misnomer. Most accidents do NOT occur during takeoff and landing. They occur during the descent from cruise. Fascinating study review at http://www.theglobalist.com/when-do-planes-crash/.
However, powerplant failure at any phase of flight can be dangerous. It *MUST NOT* be fatal (or more correctly it should be designed survivable). Given the choice of high and fast or slow and low the latter is definitionally less safe.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably dead no matter what you're flying
All excellent points except you don't get to 'define' light aircraft as unpressurized. I appreciate that's what you're suggesting the OP meant, and I agree with the concept.
You do get some fuel savings by leaning the air/fuel mixture no matter how "low" the altitude you climb to... but it's not significant until -- as you pointed out -- the atmosphere is at a fraction of its density at sea-level so the fuel savings are comparable.
Still, fuel savings is not top of the list of goals here, and that presupposes normally-aspirated combustion engines. Since we're talking science-FICTION here we can also presuppose a future fuel with a greater energy density than gasoline -- only nuclear has that now -- and the ability to safely and efficiently use it.
Re: Re: Re: Probably dead no matter what you're flying
Lol, no, most of that is wrong.
>The higher the attitude the less the air,
The higher the altitude above sea level the less DENSE the air is. There's not less air. It's also exponential so you have to go REALLY high to make a difference. No such altitudes are discussed here.
>and the easier it is to travel at speed.
I don't know what "easier" or "at speed" means.
>Therefore light aircraft are limited
What is a "light aircraft"? The FAA has a class called Light Sport Aircraft" but that's different. Why do you think that aerodynamics ONLY limit "light" aircraft? Please use big words when making up facts.
>in altitude by the necessity for the occupants to breathe,
Breathing (for humans) occurs just fine and requires no special oxygen in FAA certificated flights at altitudes of 12,000ft and below. That's for all aircraft, "light"[sic] and otherwise.
>lower speeds due to air resistance
Junior-high physics fails again. At the speeds discussed there's no noticeable change in air resistance depending on altitude.
>and friction heating of the aircraft.
Perhaps you're thinking of the SR-71 and Mach-3. For normal aircraft there's no factor of friction heating of the aircraft [airframe] based on airspeed.
When an aircraft loses power the way in which it survives is that it glides (fixed-wing) or autorotates (helicopter) to the ground.
This process consumes "stores of energy" such as altitude (gravity) and airspeed. (In a helicopter we also store energy in the rotor speed).
You can trade airspeed for altitude, altitude for airspeed, and either for distance to a safe landing spot.
When the power failure hits the more stored energy you have the more options you have as to "where to go". A commercial jetliner at 33,000ft traveling at Mach 0.82 can glide for 150km (93m). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadstick_landing
Being low and slow are recipes for "nowhere to go" in the event of a power failure because there is not enough "energy" in a low altitude to convert to airspeed before hitting the ground. Similarly if you're going slow there's no way to convert that to distance to get to a safe place.
Disclosure: I'm a current FAA-certificated commercial helicopter pilot.
Dreams of flying are awesome, and dreams of flying cars are great, but the regulatory reality will prevent these from *ever* flying at least in the United States.
A. Reliability and Technology 1. "Drones" and UAS devices don't have the failsafes to allow safe landing (for human passengers) in the event of a failure. All commercially-certificated aircraft *must* demonstrate power-off landing.
2. In order to provide those failsafes, "Drones" and UAS devices would have redundant systems making them too heavy to functionally lift humans and carry them anywhere.
B. Regulations 3. The FAA has control of the air from the ground up. (Yes, there are those who claim it's from 8' up, those who claim 58' up, those who claim 400' up but recent rulings support the "anything from the top of ground or structure on up"). The FAA jealously regulates its airspace -- to the point they don't want to allow military UAVs unless the pilot flying the UAV is a)FAA-certificated (which military pilots are not), and b)Is in radio contact with the appropriate air-traffic control coordinator. In other words, only a pilot can fly one and only while keeping in contact with ATC.
4. All aircraft within the national airspace system (NAS) have to be not only certificated by the FAA but also registered. These add *substantial* fees to what would otherwise be "A car".
C. Exisitng Industries Won't Allow it 5. Law-enforcement has a very big hard-on for the driver being responsible for the equipment. Thus there will never be a self-driving car... not will there ever be a car that can fly away from a road-block.
6. Insurance companies enjoy taking hard-earned money to gamble that you WON'T ever use your policy. Governmental regulations requiring the purchase of insurance provides them a captive audience of clients all of whom also gamble they WON'T ever use that policy. (Not to worry, if the policy gets used, the rates go sky high for at least three years...) That's just to insure a vehicle that at most can cause minor damage. When you put that same mass in the air, (F=ma and all that), its potential for damage is exponentially higher... and so, btw, is the cost of aircraft insurance. (At least for the helicopters we fly)
Would I love to see a vehicle that "if things got frustrating I could just pick up and fly"... sure... but that makes no sense... because if you can "just pick up and fly" why would you use the road in the first place?
Far better to build a plane that can legally drive on the highway.
Yes while you're eager to give YOUR rights away, allow me to point out that the police -- looking at a pile of credit cards -- have NO WAY OF KNOWING before scanning them who the "identified person in the data" is.
That means not only do they NOT have anyone's permission to search the data, but that this "owner" thing you claim has nothing to do with the "identified person in the data".
Even if you are that person who has said "Hey I'm John Doe and I give police everywhere permission to look in everyone's pockets for my credit card" this is not that and you can't provide police that privilege.
Sorry, Johnny, but your false "I'm the owner and I allow police to search other people's magstripes" logic doesn't in any way make sense NOR trump the need for a SEARCH WARRANT.
On the post: Hillary Clinton's Tech Policy Plan Includes Some Empty Broadband Promises And A Continued War On Encryption
Re: Re: Encryption control is essentially the digital equivalent of gun control.
Cars kill more people than "guns" (you meant firearms, you anti-gun nazi, right, but you couldn't be bothered to use your words).
> Tool have constructive uses
Just like cars.
>weapons
Wait now it's weapons. First you said "guns". You probably meant firearms. Now it's weapons. No worries, anti-gun nazi, cars are weapons.
>Weapons are purely destructive
Like a scythe?
LOL
Stop mixing metaphors. You don't make sense.
E
On the post: Hillary Clinton's Tech Policy Plan Includes Some Empty Broadband Promises And A Continued War On Encryption
Politics
Not that I mind politics. I'm fine with discussing it. Just I once was told not to mix it with sex or religion or techdirt.
*goes to have religious sex*
E
On the post: Hillary Clinton's Tech Policy Plan Includes Some Empty Broadband Promises And A Continued War On Encryption
Irony
...and you are against encryption because security.
On the post: Emails Show Hillary Clinton's Email Server Was A Massive Security Headache, Set Up To Route Around FOIA Requests
Re: ummm
Because an organization that disseminates topical information SHOULD engage in censorship and prior restraint?
Would you feelz the same way if it HURT Trump?
I disagree with your thesis and hope that news and analysis experts continue to do news and analysis.
Ehud
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Insightful? Not so much.
> Writing as a pilot who lost his ticket for taking out a few harmless runway lights.
NTSB case linkie please? I'm curious as to the circumstances and would like to learn more to avoid doing the same.
Thank you!
Ehud
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Descent fatal accidents 35%. Takeoff 20%. Cruise 13%.
Descent+initial approach+final approach=35%. That's more than landing (24%), cruise (13%), or takeoff+initial climb+climb (20%).
And it's PDF p.21 internal doc p.20 :)
Ehud
P.S. I don't think it's an ad hominem unless I was attacking you... which I wasn't. However, in the spirit of peace I apologize for any offense I gave :)
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Re: Re: Stuck in Traffic
- they require a pilot's certificate -
Nothing magical there...
E
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Altitude + Airspeed = Safety
Stick to verified facts. It's safer.
E
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Re: Americans want flying cars
> because
What's the phrase before the "because"... you know, the one you're explaining. "Because" is used to explain something given a question. What was the question?
> their legislature
Whose legislature?
> is yet
Has yet
> to become aware of
"to become aware" is to gain consciousness.
I think you mean "to be aware."
> of the invention of the railroad
The railroad was not an invention. It was a series of upgrades from the carriage, to the horseless carriage, to a horseless carriage with special "roadways" to the railroad.
Please do add detail. This may prove to be fascinating.
E
On the post: Highly-Dubious Spiritualist Making Highly-Dubious Claims Loses Highly-Dubious Defamation Lawsuit Against Critic
Re:
On the post: Highly-Dubious Spiritualist Making Highly-Dubious Claims Loses Highly-Dubious Defamation Lawsuit Against Critic
The Judge called it...
E
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Stuck in Traffic
"Would I love to see a vehicle that "if things got frustrating I could just pick up and fly"... sure... but that makes no sense... because if you can "just pick up and fly" why would you use the road in the first place?"
...meaning if that if your car can fly, why the heck would you drive somewhere far enough to possibly be in a traffic jam? You wouldn't. Instead you'd PLAN to fly there and then land and drive to where you want to go... which is why I ended with:
"Far better to build a plane that can legally drive on the highway."
Still... I'm a fan of science fiction because we can ignore the physics and ignore the regulatory world and the law-enforcement and insurance constraints and focus on a better world.
I'm with everyone on this thread who said Jetsons, Rosie, or Rastro!
E
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the hard part
If you live you'll lose your pilot's certificate ;)
E
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Re: Re: Altitude + Airspeed = Safety
However, powerplant failure at any phase of flight can be dangerous. It *MUST NOT* be fatal (or more correctly it should be designed survivable). Given the choice of high and fast or slow and low the latter is definitionally less safe.
Best regards
E
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably dead no matter what you're flying
My apologies if I came across negatively. English is not my first language.
Ehud
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably dead no matter what you're flying
You do get some fuel savings by leaning the air/fuel mixture no matter how "low" the altitude you climb to... but it's not significant until -- as you pointed out -- the atmosphere is at a fraction of its density at sea-level so the fuel savings are comparable.
Still, fuel savings is not top of the list of goals here, and that presupposes normally-aspirated combustion engines. Since we're talking science-FICTION here we can also presuppose a future fuel with a greater energy density than gasoline -- only nuclear has that now -- and the ability to safely and efficiently use it.
E
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Re: Re: Re: Probably dead no matter what you're flying
>The higher the attitude the less the air,
The higher the altitude above sea level the less DENSE the air is. There's not less air. It's also exponential so you have to go REALLY high to make a difference. No such altitudes are discussed here.
>and the easier it is to travel at speed.
I don't know what "easier" or "at speed" means.
>Therefore light aircraft are limited
What is a "light aircraft"? The FAA has a class called Light Sport Aircraft" but that's different. Why do you think that aerodynamics ONLY limit "light" aircraft? Please use big words when making up facts.
>in altitude by the necessity for the occupants to breathe,
Breathing (for humans) occurs just fine and requires no special oxygen in FAA certificated flights at altitudes of 12,000ft and below. That's for all aircraft, "light"[sic] and otherwise.
>lower speeds due to air resistance
Junior-high physics fails again. At the speeds discussed there's no noticeable change in air resistance depending on altitude.
>and friction heating of the aircraft.
Perhaps you're thinking of the SR-71 and Mach-3. For normal aircraft there's no factor of friction heating of the aircraft [airframe] based on airspeed.
>It is due to physics and physiology.
"it is"
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Altitude + Airspeed = Safety
This process consumes "stores of energy" such as altitude (gravity) and airspeed. (In a helicopter we also store energy in the rotor speed).
You can trade airspeed for altitude, altitude for airspeed, and either for distance to a safe landing spot.
When the power failure hits the more stored energy you have the more options you have as to "where to go". A commercial jetliner at 33,000ft traveling at Mach 0.82 can glide for 150km (93m). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadstick_landing
Being low and slow are recipes for "nowhere to go" in the event of a power failure because there is not enough "energy" in a low altitude to convert to airspeed before hitting the ground. Similarly if you're going slow there's no way to convert that to distance to get to a safe place.
E
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Never.
Dreams of flying are awesome, and dreams of flying cars are great, but the regulatory reality will prevent these from *ever* flying at least in the United States.
A. Reliability and Technology
1. "Drones" and UAS devices don't have the failsafes to allow safe landing (for human passengers) in the event of a failure. All commercially-certificated aircraft *must* demonstrate power-off landing.
2. In order to provide those failsafes, "Drones" and UAS devices would have redundant systems making them too heavy to functionally lift humans and carry them anywhere.
B. Regulations
3. The FAA has control of the air from the ground up. (Yes, there are those who claim it's from 8' up, those who claim 58' up, those who claim 400' up but recent rulings support the "anything from the top of ground or structure on up"). The FAA jealously regulates its airspace -- to the point they don't want to allow military UAVs unless the pilot flying the UAV is a)FAA-certificated (which military pilots are not), and b)Is in radio contact with the appropriate air-traffic control coordinator. In other words, only a pilot can fly one and only while keeping in contact with ATC.
4. All aircraft within the national airspace system (NAS) have to be not only certificated by the FAA but also registered. These add *substantial* fees to what would otherwise be "A car".
C. Exisitng Industries Won't Allow it
5. Law-enforcement has a very big hard-on for the driver being responsible for the equipment. Thus there will never be a self-driving car... not will there ever be a car that can fly away from a road-block.
6. Insurance companies enjoy taking hard-earned money to gamble that you WON'T ever use your policy. Governmental regulations requiring the purchase of insurance provides them a captive audience of clients all of whom also gamble they WON'T ever use that policy. (Not to worry, if the policy gets used, the rates go sky high for at least three years...) That's just to insure a vehicle that at most can cause minor damage. When you put that same mass in the air, (F=ma and all that), its potential for damage is exponentially higher... and so, btw, is the cost of aircraft insurance. (At least for the helicopters we fly)
Would I love to see a vehicle that "if things got frustrating I could just pick up and fly"... sure... but that makes no sense... because if you can "just pick up and fly" why would you use the road in the first place?
Far better to build a plane that can legally drive on the highway.
Ehud Gavron
Tucson AZ
FAA CPL-H
On the post: Appeals Court: No Expectation Of Privacy In Credit Card Magnetic Strips
Re:
That means not only do they NOT have anyone's permission to search the data, but that this "owner" thing you claim has nothing to do with the "identified person in the data".
Even if you are that person who has said "Hey I'm John Doe and I give police everywhere permission to look in everyone's pockets for my credit card" this is not that and you can't provide police that privilege.
Sorry, Johnny, but your false "I'm the owner and I allow police to search other people's magstripes" logic doesn't in any way make sense NOR trump the need for a SEARCH WARRANT.
E
Next >>