There actually are people today who don't believe we put men on the moon and you think over a hundred years ago that there weren't people or even scientists who thought "If God wanted man to fly..."???
Rick C.
IIUC, which I might not, the thinking of the time was that birds have large wing muscles and not a lot of the rest of them, whereas we have relatively puny arm muscles. Of course wings could always be pedalled...
NT
What does that have to do with my question?
I asked about heavier-then-air flight, not human-powered flight.
The human output in W/kg is quite poor, so is the output from a horse or early steam engines. Have you seen many steam powered planes ?
Only after decades of internal combustion engine development, the power output in W/kg was sufficient to maintain sustained flight.
Most people with any sense are sceptical of clicking on tinyurl links from random sources. With a full URL, we know where we are going and can see the details.
Tinyurl is for when you are sending links in a way that needs people to type them or where space is limited - SMS's, twitter, that kind of thing. There are no advantages in using them in a Usenet post - only disadvantages (unless you count obfuscation as an advantage).
However, John /should/ learn to use angle quotes around links so the work regardless of line breaks:
snipped-for-privacy@downunder.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Sounds even more stupid than a drill powered bicycle. I guess the guy sees the second spot on that totem pole as a good thing.
I sim'ed a plane design in MS FS that had so much lift that merely releasing the brake and cracking the throttle had it airborne at a few miles an hour.
David Brown wrote in news:pnaeb1$5t7$1@dont- email.me:
Do you have citations where tiny url has passed a malignant site on to a user?
I have no idea if Tiny URL does any checking of links or sites for malware, scams, or other such unpleasantness. But there is certainly nothing to stop such obfuscated url abbreviations from being links to sites that a given reader might not want to visit. That could be "not suitable for work" sites, sites with tracking, sites that are such complete rubbish or propaganda that you don't want to visit them, or anything else you don't want to view or don't want in your history, your cookies, or noted by facebook, advertisers, and other monitoring sites.
A full URL is safer and more informative, and thus should be used in most cases.
Cursitor Doom does use tiny url's to hide the fact that he's mostly citing ZeroHedge and Russia Today, and John Larkin similarly seems to obscure the fact that he mostly cites Anthony Watts denialist website when he's talking about climate change.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Rick C.
The link works fine in Agent.
It's a good book, but /chronic-whiners/ and /google-groupers/ probably wouldn't like it.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
The cited book discusses that a lot. Many scientists and newspapers thought manned powered flight was impossible well after the Wright plane flew. The Langley/Smithsonian test was an official, scientific, establishment disaster that cost over 10x what the Wrights spent.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Human-powered planes do work, and could have been built in 1900. If anyone had believed it to be possible.
Heck, a good neon sign shop could have built a laser in 1920.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Both of which are still better than and an order of magnitude more intelligent than a /Larkin-Tardo/
What were your SAT scores? Just asking.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
John Larkin is as dim as Dan. SAT scores are like IQ test results - cheap and standardised and correlate tolerably well with university undergraduate performance, but a much worse indicator of real-world intelligence.
Presumably John Larkin had respectable SAT scores, but he still can't detect when he is being suckered by denialist lies about anthropogenic climate change.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
When I entered the Navy in 1978, my AFEES scores placed me in the 89th percentile of all military entrants. That is essentially an SAT exam. A bit more comprehensive even. It was good enough to go in headed for the nuke program. My scientific American subsription was back when they actually had numerous good articles in them... Oh that's right... you put them down too... And I wasn't putting down the Space Shuttle Program then or now either.
The link looked fine in Thunderbird too. But that is not the point.
Put angle brackets around your URL's, and they will /continue/ to work fine - no matter what newsreaders different people have, or how it is quoted, re-formatted, re-wrapped as it gets passed along.
It is a simple convention, well-supported by Usenet clients and email clients, and it is a good idea to learn the habit.
It might well be a good book. Certainly the story of powered heavier-than-air flight is an interesting one - full of successes and failures, and lots of misconceptions. And as is often the case, people attribute some great skill or genius to the lucky folks who end up with the credit for the invention, on the assumption that they were smarter than all their predecessors. That is, of course, nonsense. History is always far kinder to the victors than it should be.
Why do you keep repeating things that everyone knows? If they did not adsorb the information , they are not likely to do any better the next time.
You are pretty dim yourself. If you say something is a much worse indicator , you should say what is the better indicator.
Dan, Earth
ap and standardised and correlate tolerably well with university undergradu ate performance, but a much worse indicator of real-world intelligence.
sorb the information , they are not likely to do any better the next time.
It's not the same crowd from one time to the next.
And it does give me a chance to point out that you have missed the point - again.
You seem to think that your having a high IQ score means that you are cleve r, which doesn't happen to be the case.
You do seem to think that it's worth your while to claim that I am dim, but it's not a widely shared point of view. Insults have to be at least faintl y credible before they are worth posting, but you seem to be too dim to hav e realised this.
he better indicator.
There's no good single indicator of intelligence.
A dictionary definition is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills".
Getting a university degree and being apply the knowledge acquired usefully enough to get and keep a job sets one hurdle. Getting a higher degree and applying the knowledge acquired (mostly on how to acquire knowledge specifi c to a particular task) is probably a higher hurdle.
Both tests are pretty time-consuming, and most of us know people who have f aked their way through them.
etect when he is being suckered by denialist lies about anthropogenic clima te change.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.