|
Alphecca is a member of "the lunatic fringe of the US right" --Guardian (UK) 6/26/06 *******************
Email me at:
gunnut -at- alphecca -dot- com Check it out:
My Latest Blatherings...
Do We Need "Assault Weapons?" DC Congressional Seat Tied To Gun Rights Go Stats Installed Grass Roots & Gun Rights Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes. . . Gun Control Bills Advancing Bye-Bye SiteMeter Gun Rights in Texas KS Bill Would Overrule City Gun Laws Some Good News More on Alphecca and IE 7 More on Giuliani on Gun Control Bloomberg Pushes Pelosi on Gun Control NY: Now it's Bullet Control Trouble Reading Alphecca With IE7? Hit Job on Gun Rights Lawyer WaPo & Guns: A Good Question SCOTUS Review of DC Circuit Could Sidestep Central Issue George Will Warns Dems on Gun Control Meanwhile in Knife-Free Scotland. . . Dell Computer Support Howler of the Day Friday Bear Blogging Idiot of the Day on Gun Rights MO: Bill To Prevent Gun Confiscations Advances Proximity Laws Against Guns? No Slippery Slope? Stuck in Massachusetts Please Welcome... NY: Gov. Spitzer to Promote Hunting?
Care to comment?
Take your best shot:
Note: Comments close-down on posts after seven days.
Yes, I coined the term
"stupid-fucking-computer" Alphecca gets noticed! Check out these GLOWING REVIEWS I've just made up:
|
August 28, 2004The Unfriendly SkiesLiving in a rural area, and especially the past week spent at a remote camp, I get to appreciate the quiet of the sky. No, or precious few planes to annoy me with their sound and vision. At night, and without the light-pollution of urban areas, nothing but bright stars. NASA and Boeing would like to change all of that. From Red Nova News:
These vehicles will never be necessary if our country takes the proper steps to build mass-transit to the point where THAT'S appealing. Furthermore, such Jetson Cars would only increase the US dependence on oil since I imagine such vehicles will use quite a lot. Is that really what we want? I really don't look forward to the day (and fortunately I probably won't be around for it) when rich folks clog the skies with their Jetson Cars day and night. And as the cars become more popular, what happens to any hopes of enjoying the night time quiet, maybe amateur astronomy, or the daytime vistas of mountains, lakes, expanses... What happens to those quiet moments of hunting or fishing when we start having these flying SUVs screaming all about as the wealthy now find it easy to get to their vacation homes? And lastly, how much harder will it be to keep our borders secure if anyone can just "hop" over? And when these Jetson Cars crash, who pays for the burning wreckage that falls on our homes and property? Who will enforce "traffic laws" up there? Aren't urban skies noisy and crowded enough now? Maybe I'm just an old fuddy-duddy but this is the kind of progress I can do without. Comments
These vehicles will never be necessary if our country takes the proper steps to build mass-transit to the point where THAT'S appealing. Guess again, Jeff. Mass transit is only cost-effective when you have a.. umm, ehhh, [what's that word I'm looking for? OK, here it is--] mass of people all wanting to go from the same Point A to same point B at the same time. Posted by: Kirk Parker at August 29, 2004 11:48 PMI empathize with your desire for peace and quiet, but stunting development of advanced aircraft is not the answer. It has exactly the opposite effect: it keeps old air-cooled piston engine technology in the skies. As far as "jetson cars", as you call them, are concerned, they would be advanced enough that they wouldn't require the piloting skills today's general aviation aircraft require. Technologies ranging from WAAS to the FAA's Capstone to NASA's "free flight" AGATE program are geared toward making flying more useful. These aircraft would be far quieter. And for what it's worth, a general aviation airport is demonstrably quieter than a typical city street. This is not to be confused with a major air carrier airport, where jets depart every minute all day long. Those do create congestion and noise. Most GA airports have only a few operations per day, and the ones on approach are silent. The departures generate some noise, but except in specific cases (Bonanzas, C185s, and other planes with the prop turning < 2700 rpm), the dB exposures are quite low, even right on the field. If you support general aviation, you're supporting the development of Q-tip propellers, high compression engines (the prop turns slower), hush kits, and other things that make the environment quieter. Regarding our dependence on oil, a properly designed modern aircraft is going to be more fuel efficient than any SUV. Diamond Aircraft just developed a new twin engine turbo diesel, the DA-42, that uses 2.7 gallons of fuel per hour per engine. 5.2 gallons to go 160 nautical miles (184 statute miles), which translates to 35.4 mpg. Show me an SUV -- better yet, show me ANY ground based vehicle -- that can go 184 miles per hour while getting 35.4 mpg. General aviation is vital to the country's economy and security. See http://www.gaservingamerica.com/ --Ron Posted by: Ron at August 31, 2004 02:29 AMthe comment input form disappears. Your comments are welcome. You don't need to enter a URL and you don't need a "valid" email address, either. Note though that MT Blacklist is installed to flag suspiciously spam-like strings. Unfortunately, because of the bastard spammers, the strings "google.com" and "yahoo.com" (even in your email address) are currently banned as well. So are strings such as "cialis" (a common spam) which rules out words such as "socialism". Try putting a hyphan in a word like that. By Golly, you're reading an archived post. Click Here to head to the main page and read current stuff...Into science fiction? Check out my group blog novel, Colony: Alchibah. See the reader's guide there for first-timer tips. |