The did mount it and move it in any direction to see if it worked. It did. Per the results. Also eliminated magnetic interference, microwave heating of the chamber to produce ions from the lining, thermal effects, and anything else they could think of. Ain't their first rodeo. There may be something no one thought of, and they are aware of that. They are well aware also that messing this up would ruin them. We are reacting to unpublished experimental results, aren't we?

People are listening to other people lose their shit, and then losing their shit, leading to even more shit losing. Sort of like the cold fusion meltdown, or the idiocy surrounding the "failure" of Biosphere 2. No one listens to the actual experimenters - they just jump into the echo chamber. Like high school, really, if you consider high school as a true representation of how humans interact when the brakes are off. Scarey that scientists act like kids jumping the nerd in the locker room.

Indeed, and the next step is to crank up the power and see what it spits out. If they get past the margins of error in a BIG way, then people will sit up and take notice. This (not yet published?) experiment will give impetus to the next step.

EM drive is accelerating virtual particles, not warping space. The Cannae drive is hypothesized to warp space. Two *different subjects*, and we're confusing them into one.

People are confusing two drives undergoing testing, the EMDrive, which is hypothesized to work on virtual particle acceleration, and the Cannae drive, which the inventor hypothesizes is a warp drive.

The scientists involved are well aware of the need for controls, and are eliminating the factors as you indicate. When they are done, they will publish.
New science is not always required if something odd is noticed. Sometimes it comes down to a loophole no one thought of before. Even a loophole that never existed in the universe until bags of carbon, water and minerals twiddled things around a bit. Interferometric telescopy, for instance; when I was a wee sprite, they were talking about the impossibility of super large mirrors to observe planets around other stars. Then someone said, why not put two scopes far from each other and combine the images? No new physics, just a tweak. Gravitational lensing is another; took advantage of a loophole.

They were being cagey, not releasing details about their experiment, instead of publishing as scientists ought to. They were hoping for a big payday. I spoke too soon about patents, and tried to roll it back.

The requirements are dynamic. If this doesn't work, they'll morph it into something that does work. This is a process without end.

Reactionary was the word we used to describe this sort of behavior.

A man doesn't need anything but his hands, feet, eyes, and a gun to kill blasphemers. Surveillance is irrelevant. They're making the same damned mistake we did, confusing power and the all-seeing eye with safety. They'll use this to round up Muslims, same as the US does. Innocence or guilt is irrelevant. They'll go into holes for life or get blown up real good.

The questions remains: who will protect us from the people spying on us? The people behind the spy eyes will change over time. The may even become the people who want to shoot you for blasphemy. Ever think of that? In Saudi Arabia, the all-seeing eye will be on the lookout for women driving cars. In North Korea, they'll be looking out for anyone they damned well want to kill. In South America, for anyone challenging the wealthy's control. In America, straight up they're looking for anyone who dares challenge corporate power - no more draconian surveillance was used here than when Occupy managed to gain some attention. The US managed an unprecedented surveillance and pre-crime arrest sweep during Occupy, showing what secret surveillance was really good for: control of the status quo,.

Oh well, freedom was nice while it lasted.

What this does, more to the point, is put millions of people out of work, and ruin the Teamsters union as a side effect.

This was never about self-driving cars. This was always about wiping out an entire employment sector and piping even more profit up to the top. And yes, that is a bad thing.

So a free market is bad when everybody is able to invest, but is good when a chosen few are able to invest?

http://www.reddit.com/r/Futuro...
We've a few things wrong in these threads. Two different (three, really) drives, two inventors. Interesting summation.

The inventor had the hypothesis before he had the device, so it isn't a True Scottman drift. He hypothesized, he wrote about it, he formed a company to own it (that being how science works now). A few brave people tested it, and it seems to work. Each successive test excludes the factors that could have invalidated the previous tests, and now NASA has a group on it. And, it seems to produce a thrust. Okay, interesting.

We'll all be sad, should it come to nothing, but at this point the inventor has a hypothesis to cover the effect, described a machine to produce the effect, and now we have machines that seem to produce the effect. I've read his hypothesis, and damn, I don't have that kind of math or science and never will. But, you know, if he described an angel-making machine, and someone built the machine and made an angel, at some point you have to look at the damned angel flapping away in front of you.