Partly right -- but there are not yet defined weight limits and such for UAVs. If you are flying a UAV as a hobby, then it is allowed. If you receive any payment, then it is no longer allowed (under a strict interpretation of current regulations). New categories defining weight limitations and such are currently being drafted by the FAA -- should be published in 6-9months.

Yeah, the FAA has a system in place to introduce new UAVs in a legal fashion. Unfortunately, the current system requires that every new UAV go through this process. My company has been on the waiting list for ~2 years to have our UAV made legal. They specifically told us that they will only certify 4 UAVs per year, and they will give priority to "established" companies. Basically, Boeing or Northrup Grumman can get their UAVs certified, but a startup company has no chance.

New regulations are just around the corner -- it will establish rules like, "if the vehicles weighs X lbs and has an engine smaller than Y, then you can fly in Class G airspace". It will create defined categories, so it won't be necessary to certify on a per vehicle basis anymore.

No, the focus has been on helicopters because airplane autopilots are a done problem. Most commercial airline flights can go from takeoff to touchdown without human intervention -- human pilots are pretty much the backup system these days. Not true for helicopters. The Bell 429 has an autopilot -- it smooths out inputs and cancels wind gusts and such, but it can't take full control. And I think Sikorsky might have something similar, but in general helicopters don't have autopilots. B/c it's a freaking hard problem, and there's still a lot of research going into it.

There are no existing laws or regulations that allow UAVs to fly in US airspace. There are, however, specific exemptions for hobby aircraft -- the essential difference under the current regulations is hobby vs commercial. A hobby UAV is allowed, but a commercial UAV is not allowed.

My company designs small UAV helicopters and flight control computers -- technically, we break the law every time we have a flight test. Luckily, the FAA are under a mandate to develop draft regulations in the next 6-9 months that specifically describe categories for allowable UAV flight in the US (and since their funding is dependent on this requirement, you can expect to see new laws very soon). We flew at a recent FAA demo where they were taking notes to draft the new regulations, so the ball is rolling.

I got used to bike commuting when my trip was only 6 miles and I had shower facilities available at work. So it was easy to ride a bike to and from work.

Now my commute is 18 miles and I have no shower facilities available. Its just not practical to ride to work anymore. Instead of giving up bike commuting entirely, now I take the bus to work with my bike on the front and ride the bicycle back home at the end of the day.

Currently reading "Code Complete" on the bus in the mornings -- better use of time than merely sitting in traffic.

Ever wonder why there are 5 rings on the Olympic flag? There's one ring for each continent: Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania, and America.

In the USA we're taught that there are seven continents -- but in some other countries they teach that there are five continents. So your concept of "North America" might not be as universal as you believe.

I'm pretty sure that "American" is universally understood to be someone from any country in America.

would mod you up if i had points....

I'm really surprised I had to go this far down the page to find any mention of orpie. best console-based calc i've ever used -- somehow having the stack visible lets rpn make more sense.

*sigh* - Show me some long term data, not cherry picked ranges. For example, when the five-year running average slopes down, it starts to become interesting. (the five year slope is pretty flat currently, so it could go either way next year)

Here's the same data source for 1979 through 2008. It's apparent that it has not been cooling for the last six years. At best you could claim 2 years, but that is not enough to claim a trend when you're talking about global climate.

Here's a comparison of satellite temperatures and direct surface measurements. All of the data agree that there is an overall warming trend, they merely disagree on the extent of the warming.

Let me be clear - I am not claiming that this is a doomsday scenario. My only point is that the data does not support the claim that we are in a cooling trend.

The raw data is also available if you are that suspicious. They correct for things like time of day -- it doesn't make sense to compare 9am samples directly against 12noon samples now does it?

Good, b/c UAH data also shows a global warming trend, too. It just shows a bit less warming than does the nasa data. Both data sets agree that the overall trend is still warming (not cooling, as was asserted above)

Who gets to decide what level is alarming? See, I don't need to use qualifiers. On average, the measured temperature is getting warmer. Simple - no qualifiers needed. If the observed amount of warming is significant or not is an entirely different matter, I am merely pointing out that it is incorrect to state that there is a cooling trend.

You should learn to read graphs better. As you mentioned, the lowest value is 0.1 C -- which indicates warming. Any positive value indicates warming, any negative value indicates cooling. There are only positive values on that entire graph. The downward trend from 2002 in that graph only means that things are warming less rapidly than before. "Warming less rapidly" is still warming, not cooling (you might notice that I even mentioned that in my post).

The other graph is for one specific altitude layer. That's why I presented graphs depicting multiple altitudes, latitudes, hemispheres etc. If you are talking about a trend then you need more than one data point.

What are you talking about? I said nothing about predictions. Please don't confuse global warming with Global Warming - the former is merely a description of observed data while the latter is pretty much a religion. My point is quite simple: on average, the measured temperature around the world is increasing. To say otherwise is inconsistent with the observed data. Every dataset that I've examined is consistent in this (if you have seen other large data sets that contradict this, please refer them to me, I would like to see them).

Is that so?

The truth is that 2008 is the coolest year since 2000. Every year from 2001 to 2007 was warmer than 2008. Creatively spun, one can make it sound like things have been cooling since 2000. But in reality, the trend is still warming with merely one data point (this year) below the upward slope.

Needs citation.
Global Temperature Land Ocean Index? -- Increasing
Global Temperature (meteorological stations)? -- Increasing.
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands? -- Slight dip for low latitudes, but mostly increasing
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Hemispheres? -- You guessed, it, increasing.
Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change? -- All positive (thus, increasing)
Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States? -- Shocking! - also increasing!
Seasonal Mean Temperature Change? -- Don't let the dip fool you, just means it is warming less rapidly

Perhaps you heard that 2008 is the coolest year since 2000? Well that's true. 2008 has the coolest temperatures of the past 8 years. But guess what? It's the 9th warmest year on record (since 1880). I'd wait for a few more data points before claiming a global cooling trend.

Indeed.