trump (convicted felon, defamer, insurrectionist, contemnor, and rapist - $537M)

[AndyinPA]

I know it's nice to get a break on this thread once in a while, but thread jacked!

[neonzx]

I know it's nice to get a break on this thread once in a while, but thread jacked!

Only sorta jacked. tfg wants flying cars. We are discussing the logistics and feasibility of such a plan.

[pipistrelle]

I know it's nice to get a break on this thread once in a while, but thread jacked!

Only sorta jacked. tfg wants flying cars. We are discussing the logistics and feasibility of such a plan.

He wants them, so no need to discuss. Unfeasible for that reason alone.

[p0rtia]

I will further deconstruct to say he _says_ he wants them.

IOW, he said some words that were designed to provide an illusion for a few minutes.

Whether or not those words are ever said again depends on how much traction they get with the idiot class.

There's no there there.

There's more there here than there.

There.

[pipistrelle]

I will further deconstruct to say he _says_ he wants them.

IOW, he said some words that were designed to provide an illusion for a few minutes.

Whether or not those words are ever said again depends on how much traction they get with the idiot class.

There's no there there.

There's more there here than there.

There.

Yep.

[Suranis]

Remember when he started boasting to his crowds on his victory tour in 2017 that "drain the swamp" was just a slogan that got a great reaction from the crowds and that showed how brilliant he was for saying it? He shut up when he realised that admitting that just a slogan was getting a very bad reaction from his crowds.

4:06 here Trevor Noah shows him saying it, after Trump says that "lock her up" played great with the crowd.

[Reddog]

He was talking about a “quantum leap “. I realize how a lot of people interpret it. I can’t help but consider it an oxymoron. A leap implies a large movement to get past obstacles, or move further than normal. A quantum is defined as “ the smallest discrete unit of a phenomenon.”

Sorry for the nitpicking hijack.

[sugar magnolia]

I will further deconstruct to say he _says_ he wants them.

IOW, he said some words that were designed to provide an illusion for a few minutes.

Whether or not those words are ever said again depends on how much traction they get with the idiot class.

There's no there there.

There's more there here than there.

There.

Hear, hear.

[Volkonski]

TorontoStar News
@torontostar@botsin.space
CW: mention of Trump SHOW MORE



A more typical example-

TorontoStar News
@torontostar@botsin.space
CW: mention of death SHOW MORE

[much ado]

Those links don't work for me.

[neeneko]

I hear up to four types of helicopters:
Hospital
Military
Rescue
News

All sparingly. Most common is the hospital.

Sounds about right. Even news or police choppers, both pretty small, can be pretty loud and with nothing to block the noise wow can it add up if there is more than one covering something.

[Phoenix520]

I live near a small plane airport that is the base for two fire-fighting helicopter companies and the sheriff’s helicopters. When they fly over my house they coming in low and slow. We’ve had more than one house shaker.

[Suranis]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlyon/ ... 4c6e721159

The Jetson One Is Part Flying Sports Car And Part Drone

Tipping the scales at 190 lbs, the one seater, fully electric Jetson ONE has a flight time of 20 minutes and is being manufactured under FAA rules so owners do not need a pilot's license.

Jetson.jpg (77.11 KiB) Viewed 789 times

Dickheads in speedboats II - Now you're not safe out of the water.

[keith]

But, but...Back to the Future and Jetsons.

And The Jensen's cars were horrendously polluting.

[Volkonski]

Those links don't work for me.

https://botsin.space/@torontostar/109972213470920226

https://botsin.space/@torontostar/109972331151630033

[RVInit]

The so called Freedom Cities are going to be created on federal lands. This reminds me of the plan to build golf resorts on Florida's State Parks until those plans leaked and it caused an uproar all across the state. If you don't live in Florida you may never have heard about this. It happened right after Rick Scott was elected Governor. The idea was that State parks had to be self supporting and golf resorts would bring more people and money. Of course, it would have destroyed the ecosystems in those parks, and saving those ecosystems is the main reason for the existence of those parks. The assholes who wanted to do this tried to keep it under wraps and were hoping that contracts would be signed and the state obligated to allow the construction of the golf courses before anyone could stop it. When it leaked out all the rats who were involved denied it so strongly that they essentially had to give up on the idea completely because of the uproar and how forcefully they denied any such plans.

Trump is just giving it all away up front because he simply doesn't have the discipline to keep his freaking mouth shut. This is why when Putin sent someone to Trump tower to feel him out for engaging in actual agreements about how to get him elected, he had to resort to just helping quietly in the background when the first thing Trump did was open hiss mouth at the next rally and promise that "next week" we will be putting out something ig about Hillary. Putin never gave him that information about Hillary because for goodness' sake, he realized Trump can't be trusted to keep his idiot mouth shut.

[Phoenix520]

Golf courses consume enormous amounts of water to stay green.
Maybe not so much in Florida where it rains often, but the runoff is pretty toxic with chemicals and fertilizer.

[Kendra]

Trump didn’t like Sarah saying she isn’t ready to endorse for president. He doesn’t ask for endorsements, he threatens people who won’t. Which is what this is.

Trump is now trying to get his cronies in the GA legislature to remove the Fulton DA before she indicts him.

[Gregg]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlyon/ ... 4c6e721159

The Jetson One Is Part Flying Sports Car And Part Drone

Tipping the scales at 190 lbs, the one seater, fully electric Jetson ONE has a flight time of 20 minutes and is being manufactured under FAA rules so owners do not need a pilot's license.

Jetson.jpg

Dickheads in speedboats II - Now you're not safe out of the water.

Flying Mopeds.

[somerset]

Off Topic

Exactly how much energy would that be, Prof Mousie?

Show your work and your references

Well, it is for a start, intuitively obvious that a multi-modal vehicle designed for 'the average Joe', VTOL capability, helicopter manoeuvrability, safety up the kazoo, is going to be heavy and an energy goblin.

But don't take my word for it - here's my work and references...

More at the link, but the title carries the important message
FOTW #1042, August 13, 2018: In 2017 Nearly 60% of All Vehicle Trips Were Less than Six Miles

Here is why the above is the important point.
Advantages and disadvantages of flying cars

Although VTOLs are very efficient once in the air, the take-off and climb phase of the journey requires large amounts of energy. This means that for short trips the benefits in terms of energy use and emissions are much lower.

Researchers at the University of Michigan found that for any trips less than 35km in length, it actually requires less energy to drive a car without any passengers the same distance.

This was an important finding because many people (and companies) see electric flying cars as a solution to transportation within our cities, for journeys like the typical commute which averages around 17km. But this research shows that although VTOLs are promising over longer distances due to their efficiency in cruise phase, these short journeys could actually lead to even higher emissions than existing transportation options.

These are some good articles. Thanks.

The UofM paper referenced in the second article provides the basis of the efficiency conclusion, as well as a lot more very good data. And if you read the entire paper, it also points out that VTOLs are useful for shorter commutes, just not as efficient. And more germane to our current argument, it shows that "flying cars" are quite possible. From the paper:

We present the first detailed sustainability assessment of VTOL flying cars. Although VTOLs are faced with economic, regulatory, and safety challenges, we determine that they may have a niche role in a sustainable mobility system. From the results of our assessment, four key insights for VTOL development can be drawn.

First, due to the significantly higher burdens associated with fewer passengers on-board, operators would have to ensure VTOLs fly at near-full capacities for them to outperform conventional ground-based vehicles. This might be a plausible scenario for two reasons. Current airline service providers already operate with similarly high utilization targets. Also, given the significant time savings of VTOLs over cars, passengers may be motivated to share rides with others to reduce higher costs expected of VTOL trips. While ridesharing in ground-based cars, passengers often have to tradeoff cost for travel time. This is not expected to be the case with VTOLs, with time-saving benefits being potentially important for their adoption. It should be noted here that single-occupant ground-based vehicles also have negative sustainability implications compared with fully loaded cars that combine passenger trips.

Related work by Uber7 and Ullman et al.6 support the key takeaways from our study. Uber7 estimates a VTOL energy intensity of about 0.48 kWh km−1 at 241 kph for an 80 km trip. No detailed breakdown of the VTOL energy modeling is provided. Under these conditions and assuming four occupants, the VTOL operational energy intensity yielded by our model is 0.43 kWh km−1 (about 10% lower). Further, the Ullman et al.6 model of VTOL range and energy consumption was reproduced according to the physics-based relationships stated in the study. Using Ullman et al.6 model and input assumptions, the VTOL operational energy intensity is 0.57 kWh km−1 for a 1360 kg VTOL at 241 kph for a 100 km trip. Using our baseline input assumptions instead, Ullman’s model produces an energy intensity of 0.37 kWh km−1 (about 35% lower), which is the same as the output from our model for a fully loaded VTOL. Despite these studies reporting higher energy intensities, the comparison with ground-based vehicles still remains promising. Using the 2020 US average grid mix, Uber’s 0.48 kWh km−1 and Ullman’s 0.57 kWh km−1 translate to GHG emissions of 0.09 and 0.10 kg-CO2e PKT−1, respectively (for three passengers on a 100 km trip). These compare favorably to the 0.07 and 0.13 kg-CO2e PKT−1 results for the BEV and ICEV, respectively.

Our analysis provides an important first basis for assessing and guiding use-phase VTOL sustainability. Given the dynamic nature of rapid developments in the flying car space, VTOL deployment could emerge differently from our defined base case. This may alter our findings in unpredictable ways. Further, future work should consider the total vehicle cycle burdens for these aircraft, once there is more clarity on material selection, manufacturing processes, design, and disposal. Finally, despite certain sustainability benefits of VTOLs, their feasibility as a future transportation option depends on advances beyond those of a technical nature, including regulation, consumer, and societal acceptance of aerial transport in urban areas.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09426-0
(Yeah, it's kinda dry )

As for safety, I expect these "aerial taxis" will ultimately be remotely driven (aka, the aerial equivalent of Level 5 autonomous driving). If we can get 3051 unmanned drones to do this in 2020:



I think we can reasonably expect we'll have sufficient expertise to safely fly aerial taxis in 2033.

(added offtopic because we're getting pretty close triggering a greenie )

[keith]

The UofM paper referenced in the second article provides the basis of the efficiency conclusion, as well as a lot more very good data. And if you read the entire paper, it also points out that VTOLs are useful for shorter commutes, just not as efficient. And more germane to our current argument, it shows that "flying cars" are quite possible.

Whether flying cars are possible is NOT germane to the current discussion. Flying cars have been built (and flown and driven) since the 1950's. Of course they are possible.

What IS germane to the discussion is whether or not they are practical for large scale deployments. The articles I linked did not claim they were impossible and neither did I. They DID show, however, that they were impractical and not energy effective for short trips.

60% of anticipated flying car trips would be less than 6 miles (9.65kilometers) and a VTOL flying car would need a trip length of at least 25 kilometres to be energy equivalent to a land car.

[somerset]

The UofM paper referenced in the second article provides the basis of the efficiency conclusion, as well as a lot more very good data. And if you read the entire paper, it also points out that VTOLs are useful for shorter commutes, just not as efficient. And more germane to our current argument, it shows that "flying cars" are quite possible.

Whether flying cars are possible is NOT germane to the current discussion. Flying cars have been built (and flown and driven) since the 1950's. Of course they are possible.

What IS germane to the discussion is whether or not they are practical for large scale deployments. The articles I linked did not claim they were impossible and neither did I. They DID show, however, that they were impractical and not energy effective for short trips.

60% of anticipated flying car trips would be less than 6 miles (9.65kilometers) and a VTOL flying car would need a trip length of at least 25 kilometres to be energy equivalent to a land car.

I think we can disagree on what the articles, and especially the UofM study, concluded. I didn't take away that flying cars are impractical. Only that they aren't as energy *efficient* for short trips as land based cars. If energy efficiency were the only metric here, we'd all be driving electric cars And there are other aspects, especially time, that I think make the current trade-off worthwhile.

Again, from the UofM paper:

Also, given the significant time savings of VTOLs over cars, passengers may be motivated to share rides with others to reduce higher costs expected of VTOL trips. While ridesharing in ground-based cars, passengers often have to tradeoff cost for travel time. This is not expected to be the case with VTOLs, with time-saving benefits being potentially important for their adoption. It should be noted here that single-occupant ground-based vehicles also have negative sustainability implications compared with fully loaded cars that combine passenger trips.

[keith]

But, but...Back to the Future and Jetsons.

And The Jensen's cars were horrendously polluting.

I mean, just LOOK at the pollution coming out of that thing - it blowing smoke rings!

[somerset]

I will further deconstruct to say he _says_ he wants them.

IOW, he said some words that were designed to provide an illusion for a few minutes.

Whether or not those words are ever said again depends on how much traction they get with the idiot class.

There's no there there.

There's more there here than there.

There.

Gotta agree

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Portia's deconstruction could be placed in a quantum physics thread!