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.
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.
The key here is that the ***DATA*** on the magnetic stripe on the card is not obvious to the onlooker. It is not "in plain sight." I admit to using the wallet analogy to make it even more obvious how much they had to "reach" to get the ***DATA***.
So what if I have 50 cards rubber-banded sitting on my car seat. At the very best you can see the front of one card and the back of another. You can't see the other 98 sides nor the stuff imprinted on them and you CERTAINLY can't *see* the ***DATA*** on the magstrip.
I do believe the requirement for a warrant is palpable.
When you REACH into my pocket, PULL out my wallet, OPEN that wallet, EXTRACT the credit card, and ANALYZE it for hidden DATA that is a violation of my 4th Amendment rights.
"It's safe to say no card issuer is going to let end users alter the coding on their cards. It either matches the info on front or it's not a legitimate credit card. "
I'm going to respectfully disagree. It doesn't matter what you think the card-issuer is "going to let end-users" do. I get to copy magstripes as I see fit on my card. You may argue that the card is the property of the issuer. Yup. I'm allowed to mark on it, disfigure numbers, cut it up, etc. I'm also allowed to demagnetize it if I leave it on a loudspeaker, and that's not unlawful either. Writing a new mag stripe is just the same.
As legitimate examples of lawfull use there are times when I don't want to "flash" my platinum card. However, I can encode its data onto the magnetic strip of my crappy Southwest Airlines credit card. Sure, the information doesn't match. However, it's still my card and I can swipe it and if I were stupid get cash advances on it.
That's the simple example. Sometimes my business lets me have a card or a friend will lend me a car and their credit card to go purchase something. In that case the card doesn't even bear my name but I am legally authorized to use it. Should I copy THAT magnetic strip onto my Southwest Airlines card IT TOO would be legal for me to possess and use.
The courts both erred in failing to address the plain-language meaning of the 4th Amendment. Is it a "search" to reach into my pocket, pull out my wallet, open it, extract a card, and put it in a card-reader? I believe the answer to all those is yes.
The DATA on the magnetic strip on my card is *NOT* in plain-view, does *NOT* create any exigent circumstance, and is in *NO WAY* indicative of anything in and of itself. This is a fishing expedition hunting deep into where the unknown is.
I argue a warrant is DEFINITELY required, and one that indicates with SPECIFICITY what is to be examined and why.
Comments on Scott Greenfield's blog about this topic suggest that the ERAD device will definitely take all your prepaid debit money. They say that bank-cards with PINs will require you "giving" law enforcement your PIN for them to drain the account. They also say that the credit transaction will be disputed and reversed.
I know we're hearing the tip of the iceberg here (sorry to mix metaphors) but thanks for the head's up. The more this odious abuse of due process is given the light of day the less this practice will be treated as lawful... or allowed. (Note I didn't say "tolerated").
You have entirely missed the entire thread and its point. You do, however, get oints for being an idiot shil, so feel free to put that in your pipe and smoke it.
On all other points you're awarded zero points, and we're all stupider for having read your idiot post... and you are an idiot. Bless your soul you delusional idiotic moron. Bless it to death. AN untimely and painful one.
When one begins to think of Copyrights as "intellectual property" then one can certainly think that the "taking" of the "thing" is theft.
Copyright infringement, an entirely different beast than either larceny or conversion, is what one can consider while thinking of Copyright as a right (I know, literal, right?)
There is a growing menace funded by the vultures that fund companies to "create" more such `imaginary property', to register it, and thus, because these vultures value companies higher when they do that... and they sell to others of their ilk... they create a self-sustaining economy rewarding those who create this imaginary property.
The US Patent Office does its job to collect dollars and awards these patents to any dog with a bone of a different bite mark. The same is true of how the courts address the mythical "copyright owner" and immediately conflate it with "artist starving on the street, his music stolen by others." The truth of copyright assignment being ANOTHER such pseudo-economy that benefits only the rich is lost on them.
Trademark abuse... not so much, but then yesterday Techdirt covered a ManU coach whose name is trademarked by someone else. You'd think if not used in commerce in the same industry to deceive customers it wouldn't matter, but the trademark maximalists have struck there too.
The only remaining part of IP that has yet to be commercialized is trade-secrets, and that is definitionally unable to be commercialized... (because, you know, it's a secret) but I can't wait for the day that some clever POS lawyer figures out a way to not-disclose-but-disclose and commercialize and there will be a rush to 'register' (or otherwise get VC 'credit') for trade secrets.
Sadly Congress is owned by the people with the money, who are the ones pushing these pseudo-economies where they create imaginary property and reward themselves for it. The concepts that Copyrights were meant to ensure have long fallen to the darkside of "rewarding the artist" (er... backer who bought the rights.)
Do you ever wonder if the frogs inside the pot KNOW the water temperature is getting warm? Because we do. And we're kinda talking amongst ourselves, but we don't have the power of the men with the b̶u̶r̶n̶e̶r̶ ̶k̶n̶o̶b̶ lobbying power of Copyright maximalists.
The NSA has several layers of review of FOIA requests and plausive responses. At each layer the default is to either ignore it for a long time, say no, or return with blacked-out information.
That this passed EACH AND EVERY ONE of those layers without a delay... without blacking out... and without a refusal (or a GLOMAR) is pretty much clear indication that this Mad Hatter tea party is no primer... is no guide... it's just a crazy-ass acid trip into broken Greek mythology.
"Frankly, all the talk about how the counterclaims have sunk the settlement seem like wishful thinking from a group of folks who just hate the idea of Axanar."
The "group of folks who just hate the idea of Axanar" are part of (or paid by) the group of folks that believe ratcheting i̶n̶t̶e̶l̶l̶e̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶ imaginary property; they believe that elements that can be copyrighted create concepts that can be copyrighted; they believe that through endless litigation like this case they can extend these non-rights until they are absolute and inviolable.
Those of us who've spent years working with lawyers know that at the end of the day it is the _client_ that makes the decisions. That's why Donald Trump's lawyer does stupid things; it's why the lawyers here have to file a clever and strongly-worded reply to the complaint... and add counterclaims as appropriate.
Thank you for the update. It will be a refreshing nod to not extending copyright concepts if Axanar is able to produce the movie... and the lawsuit is settled.
E P.S. I would never expect it to be "dropped" nor "dismissed" because no company with half a desire to protect its "IP" would want to set that precedent...