What are you talking about?
What are you talking about?
So that would mean that with an investment in research maybe you could make it viable. In fact you would actually have to expect that it would become more cost effective with the normal manufacturing economies of scale and the vast improvement in materials science. That just leaves the question of getting past environmental hurdles. That will require
So in a multi billion dollar industry maybe it deserves some investment looking at the problem. Hence this story...
So you get the price down so it costs 2.5 times as much per hour to operate the airframe and it would then be a MAJOR competitor. At 1/2 the flight time 2.5X hourly cost would mean increasing the cost to 125% which would be very attractive.
Conceivably flying at a higher altitude would reduce fuel consumption which is an obvious savings. It also could give the opportunity to fly over much more severe weather which could reduce costs caused by flight delays and cancellations. If you can't fly then you aren't paying for the plane...
The single most dreaded thing about travel is the uncomfortable time it takes wasted in a cramped tube full of people. There are a number of questions of profitability and what naught in this thread to support the idea of "no demand" but those arguments have nothing to do with demand. They are simply reflections on one specific airliner program. If you need to fly from New York to Paris and you get to the counter and they ask you, "Would you like to be on the plane for 7-1/2 hours or for 4 hours?" which are you going to answer? If the price was pretty close you will chose 4 hours.
That is the definition of "demand".
From the magnetic north pole go magnetically south a mile, west a mile, and then north a mile and you end up at the point you started. (Unless the pole moved while you were traveling.)
I really fail to see any possible connection, or why that would be germane to the subject of the original article.
Everyone who has enough technical know how to plug a disc into a player knows that pirating movies is illegal and the "entertainment" companies are pounding the message in a very unentertaining manner down the throats of what they know are paying customers. If an industry is this stupid there really isn't much hope for them.
An "April Fools Day" joke should not be something overtly ridiculous. It should be something that misdirects in a clever and misleading way.
- Try something like the "dihydrogen monoxide ban gets on the Aliso Viejo city council's agenda" joke or something similar.
- Another more practical example for everyone is to grab each employee where you work as they arrive and have them call in sick. After a few minutes the management should be frantic.
Listing plot lines from popular sci fi stories as news articles fails so badly on all fronts except for topping the "lame meter". Come on guys. Try something CLEVER! (Oh, and something that is funny would be nice too.)
When they are out on a shoot I would expect a quality hot meal for the camera men and the grips let alone your star presenter!
Your analysis is insightful. Your attempt at a solution is problematical.
How to solve this? (If it is even remotely possible...) Demand that children are COMPETENT in critical thinking and understand that the underlying principles of this country are about taking the RISK OF LIBERTY, that government DOES NOT SOLVE PROBLEMS, and to take personal responsibility for things around them.
Problem is, who makes the tests? What is competency? Who gets to define it? Do you really think you could get a set of wingnuts in a room to actually agree about something?
I can't think of anything about education that isn't problematic. There is nothing about our education system that isn't problematic. It is a hierarchy of rolling disaster. (The first thing is to fire 1/2 of the administration. Education is WAY too expensive because we have more people "administrating" instead of sitting in a classroom in front of students.)
Testing is always a problem but you have to have some basis for finding out if the efforts of education are effective. Otherwise you have headed into the new-age nonsense of pandering to children.
There are specific techniques for creating good test questions. You simply look at the responses to individual questions and see if they statistically differentiate between students with a higher and lower level of comprehension of the subject matter. If a question doesn't tend to distinguish between a higher level student and a lower level student then it is a bad question and should be discarded. A test can then be effectively designed with a range of questions that tend to differentiate between the different levels of A, B, C, etc... students. And the number of these questions is designed to generate the grade dispersal you require.
As far as dealing with the "wingnut" issue, that is where the drastic reduction of administration comes to bear. Having the number of people in positions of administrative authority that we do we automatically end up with that many people applying "power". All of this action without being in front of a classroom is insane and we are paying $$$ for it.
We currently have a system where instruction is simply targeted directly at standardized tests. No "teacher" thought up this stupidity. It came from administrators that look at children and see how many $$$ a day of funding they provide and the results of standardized tests control that funding. "Stupid by law..."
I can tell you a very simple test for an understanding of the underlying principles of this country and competent critical thinking: Someone should be able to effectively argue a position that they adamantly do not agree with, and they should demand that someone else should have the right to speak a view that they personally find objectionable.
I agree with you about the personal responsibility bit. I disagree with the categorical shout about solving problems, because all it takes is one (1) instance to disprove the opinion.
The shout comes from the simple fact that the job done by federal (and most state) government(s) is so bad as to be laughable. If you had a teenage child that had the same fiscal responsibility and ability to dance around the truth as the government you would ground them for life.
As far as implementing the "universal competency of critical thinking"... I said no such thing and I don't think any sane person would think it is possible. You might as well pass a law making an above average IQ mandatory. It serves no purpose. (Hey! Let's pass a law making pi equal to 3! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... )
But you can expose people to the concept and process of thinking for themselves and lay out a framework for intelligent, skeptical analysis of ideas and the life around them. With the internet spewing stupidity at a higher rate then accurate, intelligent information we need to offer people the tools to deal with the bright, shiny bullshit that is waiting to inundate them.