That's not exactly a flying car I never said it was - what I was saying is that conventional aviation is competitive on that score. I doubt that flying cars ever will be.
9th commandment? "Thou shalt not bear false witness."
I would contend that accusing someone of violating the ninth commandment, when what they are actually supposed to have doen is violated copyright, is actually itself a violation of the ninth commandment!
Well, at least the atheists tend to make better movies.
I don't see where that comes from.
Firstly - over the last 2000 years a large proportion of the best culture has Christian origins.
Secondly I doubt that "atheists" is justifiable I think "people of all religious opinions and none" trying to make a good film rather than push a message might be nearer the mark.
For a bad atheist film consider the 1925 film "Cross and Mauser" described here
Reality is that if you self consciously try to make a "Christian" film - or an "atheist" film then it will probably be rubbish.
That's where the big slaughterhouses of history are. Until Lenin came along, followed by Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot and proved that Atheism could do it so much better!
but my understanding is that it's a ridiculous collection of easily debunked internet arguments, with paper thin non-believer characters written simply to deliver the trite message of the movie's climax with no regard for actual human behaviour or logic.
When you say "understanding" I think you mean "expectation based on my own preconceived predjudices".
Of course you might be right - but you don't know and you should allow the possibility of a good film with a positive Christian message - eg The Scarlet and the Black
"It has been said that Christianity started in Israel, then was taken to Greece and turned into a philosophy. Then it was taken to Rome where it was made into an institution. Later, it was taken to Europe where it became a culture, and then it was brought to America where it was made into a business enterprise".
I find the term homophobia to be offensive for the following reason.
A phobia is an irrational fear, not under the control of who has it.
Using the word homophobia as a term of abuse - which is what it effectively has become is offensive to people who suffer from phobias in the same way that use of the word "spastic" in a derogatory way (which was common in the 60's and 70's) is abusive of people with cerebal palsy.
I very much doubt however that that was what was in the head of the facebook censor.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably dead no matter what you're flying
last para should read
Light (unpressurised) aircraft are limited to lower altitudes than airliners (10000ft vs 30000ft) and hence are unable to take advantage of the greater fuel economy and/or higher speed that is possible at greater altitudes.
No - the real obstacle to flyign cars is simply this:
What on earth id the point?
Suppose you have an aircraft that can take off from a footprint roughly the same as its own size (eg a helicopter). In that case the "car" part of the equation is redundant.
OK - so now suppose that you have an aircraft that requires an airfield to take off - in that case you might think that the ability to drive on the road has some point BUT the relative inefficiency of the device as an aircraft AND as a car would nmean that it would always be beaten by the combination of an aircraft and a car (or even two cars) - which is always likely to be cheaper and better.
Now if what you mean is not a single device that can do both functions - but rather an aircraft that has a cost of ownership (including operator training) comparable to a car then that is a much more sensible goal - but I suspect that is also a difficult proposition.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably dead no matter what you're flying
Hmm - I don't think you are exactly right either.
Firstly higher altitudes DO reduce fuel burn at a given speed - although engine performance is adversely affected.
Otherwise commercial flights would stick to low level - whereas in fact the longer your flight the higher it is likely to be. There is a trade off between fuel used to reach a high altitude and fuel burn whilst cruising.
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. Define light aircraft as "unpressurised" and - yes light aircraft ARE limited.
Flying at 12000 ft without pressurisation is possible but not comfortable. Commercial flights maintain the pressure at the equivalent of 8000ft or lower.
The sweet spot for efficiency seems to be in the region of 30000ft (air density has more than halved at that height).
So what I think he was trying to say is this:
Light (unpressurised) aircraft are limited to lower altitudes than airliners (30000ft) and hence are unable to take advantage of the greater fuel economy and/or higher speed that is possible at greater altitudes.
i can't imagine a scenario where the fuel requirement for a car flight would be equal to or less than a comparable drive.
Put 600 people in a large aircraft and we are already there (more or less). Fuel per passenger is already lower than it would be if they each drove the journey individually
Re: The victims are what matter. You? You're just Some Asshole
I can't help but think that if the news adopted that change then there would be notably less events like this, People have been saying that for years - but in this case it doesn't apply.
1. The argument assumes an obscure cause that needs to be highlighted. Islam hasn't been that for nearly 1400 years
2.These particular terrorists don't care about publicity in Western media - they care about the 72 virgins and following the orders of their prophet.
3.Even if we don't publicise this there are others who will.
4. Terrorism in the west isn't the problem - it is a pinprick. The real problem is thesituation of the minority religious communities in muslim countries (mostly but not exclusively indigenous, Eastern Christians who are quite unrelated to western colonialism). These are facing annihilation and we are standing by and watching - and in some cases we are actually arming the people that are persecuting them!
The police should have rebuilt their house to a better standard than before and taken them on an all expenses paid holiday whilst the job was done. In the meantime they should have paid the man's employer to hire a temporary worker to keep his job "warm" while he was away. Since he was absolutely not at faiult here and they were totally responsible and have the resources to do this it would only have been fair. His insurer should not have been involved.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...the US military is deeply involved in this practice
Many people who met Saddam Hussain found him charming and affable.
Saddam set up his own murderous regime - Assad inherited it (reluctantly) from his father because his elder brother died. But for that he would probably now be working as an eye doctor in London. He is not the driving force behind the repressive regime he fronts. However any regime holding power in Syria pretty much has to be murderous to survive. Assad's regime has its power base in the Alawite minority. If the regime falls then it is pretty much certain that they will be wiped out. When you are fighting for your life you do desperate things.
Oh, and in Russia there are still people who think Joseph Stalin was a lovely Guy!
Yep - and I met one of them last time I visited in 2013. He seemed so out of place there now.
I also saw a group of them protesting in a shopping centre in St Petersburg. They looked pathetic! There were about a dozen of them at best. By contrast a queue of people waiting to get into the Kazan Cathedral where Patriarch Kyril was visiting with the cross of St Andrew stretched around the block and about another mile down the road.
Re: Haystacks, Needles, Needles, Needles, Cash and Mind Games
The problem here is the tribal nature of UK politics.
Both the Tories and Labour voted for this - hence the huge majority.
Just about everyone else (ie every MP who has any pretence of independent thought) voted against.
WS Gilbert had it right:
When in that House M. P.’s divide, If they’ve a brain and cerebellum, too, They’ve got to leave that brain outside, And vote just as their leaders tell ’em to.
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Re: Re: Re:
I never said it was - what I was saying is that conventional aviation is competitive on that score. I doubt that flying cars ever will be.
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Re: Re: Re: Altitude + Airspeed = Safety
According to the statistics here
http://www.1001crash.com/index-page-statistique-lg-2-numpage-3.html
61% of accidents occur during takeof and initial climb or final approach and landing.
The descent from cruise accounts for only 11%.
On the post: Screenwriters Accuse Christian Movie Studio Of 9th Commandment Violations Over General Script Ideas
Re: WTF?
"Thou shalt not bear false witness."
I would contend that accusing someone of violating the ninth commandment, when what they are actually supposed to have doen is violated copyright, is actually itself a violation of the ninth commandment!
On the post: Screenwriters Accuse Christian Movie Studio Of 9th Commandment Violations Over General Script Ideas
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't see where that comes from.
Firstly - over the last 2000 years a large proportion of the best culture has Christian origins.
Secondly I doubt that "atheists" is justifiable I think "people of all religious opinions and none" trying to make a good film rather than push a message might be nearer the mark.
For a bad atheist film consider the 1925 film "Cross and Mauser" described here
Reality is that if you self consciously try to make a "Christian" film - or an "atheist" film then it will probably be rubbish.
On the post: Screenwriters Accuse Christian Movie Studio Of 9th Commandment Violations Over General Script Ideas
Re: Re:
On the post: Screenwriters Accuse Christian Movie Studio Of 9th Commandment Violations Over General Script Ideas
Re: Re: God's Not Dead is actually really good
When you say "understanding" I think you mean "expectation based on my own preconceived predjudices".
Of course you might be right - but you don't know and you should allow the possibility of a good film with a positive Christian message - eg The Scarlet and the Black
On the post: Screenwriters Accuse Christian Movie Studio Of 9th Commandment Violations Over General Script Ideas
Re: Re: Re: There is something copyright can't do...
See this page http://www.christian-restoration.com/Studies/copyright.htm
"It has been said that Christianity started in Israel, then was taken to Greece and turned into a philosophy. Then it was taken to Rome where it was made into an institution. Later, it was taken to Europe where it became a culture, and then it was brought to America where it was made into a business enterprise".
- 'Let me tell you a story' Tony Campolo
On the post: Facebook Still Deleting Non-Offensive Posts For Being Offensive
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Non-Offensive?
A phobia is an irrational fear, not under the control of who has it.
Using the word homophobia as a term of abuse - which is what it effectively has become is offensive to people who suffer from phobias in the same way that use of the word "spastic" in a derogatory way (which was common in the 60's and 70's) is abusive of people with cerebal palsy.
I very much doubt however that that was what was in the head of the facebook censor.
On the post: Disinformation Works: House Rejects Plan To Stop Backdoor Surveillance Searches Following Devin Nunes Lies
Re: FUD is a tool we need.
I can think of a few that would.... a kitten however...
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably dead no matter what you're flying
Light (unpressurised) aircraft are limited to lower altitudes than airliners (10000ft vs 30000ft) and hence are unable to take advantage of the greater fuel economy and/or higher speed that is possible at greater altitudes.
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Re: Altitude + Airspeed = Safety
Lower takeoff and landing speeds do however (all other things being equal) make things safer duering those flight phases.
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Re: Re: Missing the hard part
No - the real obstacle to flying cars is simply this:
What on earth is the point?
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Re: Missing the hard part
What on earth id the point?
Suppose you have an aircraft that can take off from a footprint roughly the same as its own size (eg a helicopter). In that case the "car" part of the equation is redundant.
OK - so now suppose that you have an aircraft that requires an airfield to take off - in that case you might think that the ability to drive on the road has some point BUT the relative inefficiency of the device as an aircraft AND as a car would nmean that it would always be beaten by the combination of an aircraft and a car (or even two cars) - which is always likely to be cheaper and better.
Now if what you mean is not a single device that can do both functions - but rather an aircraft that has a cost of ownership (including operator training) comparable to a car then that is a much more sensible goal - but I suspect that is also a difficult proposition.
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably dead no matter what you're flying
Firstly higher altitudes DO reduce fuel burn at a given speed - although engine performance is adversely affected.
Otherwise commercial flights would stick to low level - whereas in fact the longer your flight the higher it is likely to be. There is a trade off between fuel used to reach a high altitude and fuel burn whilst cruising.
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.
Define light aircraft as "unpressurised" and - yes light aircraft ARE limited.
Flying at 12000 ft without pressurisation is possible but not comfortable. Commercial flights maintain the pressure at the equivalent of 8000ft or lower.
The sweet spot for efficiency seems to be in the region of 30000ft (air density has more than halved at that height).
So what I think he was trying to say is this:
Light (unpressurised) aircraft are limited to lower altitudes than airliners (30000ft) and hence are unable to take advantage of the greater fuel economy and/or higher speed that is possible at greater altitudes.
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Re: How about jetpacks instead?
On the post: Will We Ever Really Get Flying Cars?
Re:
Put 600 people in a large aircraft and we are already there (more or less). Fuel per passenger is already lower than it would be if they each drove the journey individually
On the post: Both Trump And Clinton Suggest Expanding Mass Surveillance, Bogus Watch Lists After Attack In Orlando
Re: The victims are what matter. You? You're just Some Asshole
People have been saying that for years - but in this case it doesn't apply.
1. The argument assumes an obscure cause that needs to be highlighted. Islam hasn't been that for nearly 1400 years
2.These particular terrorists don't care about publicity in Western media - they care about the 72 virgins and following the orders of their prophet.
3.Even if we don't publicise this there are others who will.
4. Terrorism in the west isn't the problem - it is a pinprick. The real problem is thesituation of the minority religious communities in muslim countries (mostly but not exclusively indigenous, Eastern Christians who are quite unrelated to western colonialism). These are facing annihilation and we are standing by and watching - and in some cases we are actually arming the people that are persecuting them!
On the post: Homeowner Sues Police After Pursuit Of Shoplifter Leaves Him With No Home To Own
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The police should have rebuilt their house to a better standard than before and taken them on an all expenses paid holiday whilst the job was done. In the meantime they should have paid the man's employer to hire a temporary worker to keep his job "warm" while he was away. Since he was absolutely not at faiult here and they were totally responsible and have the resources to do this it would only have been fair. His insurer should not have been involved.
On the post: Putin's Internet Trolls Mercilessly Smear Finnish Reporter Simply For Pointing Them Out
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...the US military is deeply involved in this practice
Saddam set up his own murderous regime - Assad inherited it (reluctantly) from his father because his elder brother died. But for that he would probably now be working as an eye doctor in London. He is not the driving force behind the repressive regime he fronts. However any regime holding power in Syria pretty much has to be murderous to survive. Assad's regime has its power base in the Alawite minority. If the regime falls then it is pretty much certain that they will be wiped out. When you are fighting for your life you do desperate things.
Oh, and in Russia there are still people who think Joseph Stalin was a lovely Guy!
Yep - and I met one of them last time I visited in 2013. He seemed so out of place there now.
I also saw a group of them protesting in a shopping centre in St Petersburg. They looked pathetic! There were about a dozen of them at best. By contrast a queue of people waiting to get into the Kazan Cathedral where Patriarch Kyril was visiting with the cross of St Andrew stretched around the block and about another mile down the road.
On the post: UK Parliament Ignores Concerns; Moves Snooper's Charter Forward
Re: Haystacks, Needles, Needles, Needles, Cash and Mind Games
Both the Tories and Labour voted for this - hence the huge majority.
Just about everyone else (ie every MP who has any pretence of independent thought) voted against.
WS Gilbert had it right:
When in that House M. P.’s divide,
If they’ve a brain and cerebellum, too,
They’ve got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell ’em to.
See http://www.bartleby.com/380/poem/596.html
Next >>