Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pentagon Clears Flying-Car Project For Takeoff

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the check-with-doc-brown dept.

The Military 90

unassimilatible writes "DARPA has announced a 'Personal Air Vehicle Technology' project. It will 'ultimately lead to a working prototype of a military-suitable flying car — a two- or four-passenger vehicle that can "drive on roads" one minute and take off like a helicopter the next. The hybrid machine would be perfect for "urban scouting," casualty evacuation and commando-delivery missions, the agency believes.' Wired has the summary of the project." Maybe they'll take inspiration from Terrafugia's "drivable airplane."

cancel ×

90 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25767127)

A couple weeks ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I had to take a piss. As I entered the john, Barack Obama -- the messiah himself -- came out of one of the booths. I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was busy and in any case I was sure the secret service wouldn't even let me shake his hand.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated, hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still warm from his sturdy ass. I found not only the smell but the shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat, stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd -- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as his cock -- or at least as I imagined it!

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd always been a liberal democrat and had been on the Obama train since last year. Of course I'd had fantasies of meeting him, sucking his cock and balls, not to mention sucking his asshole clean, but I never imagined I would have the chance. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of Barack Obama, the chosen one.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it smelled.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big half nigger cock, beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily, sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My only regret was that Barack Obama wasn't there to see my loyalty and wash it down with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with the rich bitterness of shit. It's even better than listening to an Obama speech!

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six orgasms in the process.

I often think of Barack Obama dropping solid gold out of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could, and at least once did, bring to a grateful democrat.

holy crap! (-1, Offtopic)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767129)

Does this mean I'll be able to get a cold rum and coke in hell when I get there? or will I have to wear a parka and not worry about the ice in the drinks?

Where's my jetpack? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25767131)

This reminds me of a book I was flipping through earlier this evening at a local bookstore, Daniel Wilson's Where's My Jetpack? [amazon.com] , a "A Guide to the Amazing Science Fiction Future That Never Arrived". Popular Mechanics has been promising that a flying car is right around the corner for half a century now. It's not here, and I've given up all hope.

Great! (1)

zoom-ping (905112) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767183)

So DARPA finally hired a crazy German scientist with a foot fetish?

Re:Great! (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25767263)

It's amazing what weirdo's with a bunch of money can do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules [wikipedia.org]
This one will probably turn out to be as useful but at least someone is trying!!! Too bad it's with my money this time.

Re:Great! (1)

shnull (1359843) | more than 5 years ago | (#25814769)

Yea, wouldn't you just stop working til you get a tax form that says : 'spend my money here and ... here' ?

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25771195)

For those who don't get the parent, it's a reference to a short film by Kevin Smith [youtube.com] .

Damnit mods, throw your hat over the wall!

Auto Industry Bailout (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767203)

Perhaps this why the White House is so resistant to bailing out the Auto Industry.

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (1, Redundant)

ITEric (1392795) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767285)

Perhaps this why the White House is so resistant to bailing out the Auto Industry.

I'm not sure I follow you on that...if the design is worked out, tests well, and is approved, eventually they will need someone with the manufacturing infrastructure and know-how to build them. The auto industry would be a likely candidate. After all, they're not exactly making a ton of money cranking out SUVs lately, and their skilled labor will need the work!

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (1, Interesting)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768223)

or how about this: keep the factories, keep the workers, keep the engineers, and keep the rest of the manufacturing infrastructure, but get rid of the CEOs, VPs & board members and their multi-million-dollar-per-year pensions & severance packages. you can also do away with most of the upper management along with the marketing, advertising, and sales departments.

just because the manufacturing infrastructure is useful doesn't mean the corporate baggage is. they're the reason why the domestic auto industry even needs a bailout right now. they're also the ones who've got to keep their lush salaries and corporate benefits while factories are shut down and workers laid off.

just because a business dies doesn't mean the skilled labor and infrastructure suddenly evaporates. you could nationalize the companies and just keep the factories and main workforce, or you could just let other (perhaps smaller) companies buy up bits and pieces of the defunct company. there are many alternatives to a government bailout, which basically removes all accountability for poor business practices, decisions, and corporate policies.

if they fuck up so badly that they need a bail out, just let someone else have a shot at running the domestic auto industry, preferably some newcomers who will break up the current oligopoly and lower the barriers to entry. this way you have greater diversity of car manufacturers, which means greater selection of choices for consumers. and an industry comprised of lots of smaller companies competing equally instead of being dominated by 3-4 big companies is also more conducive of technological innovation and original thinking.

it would serve the interest of the public much more if, rather than handing the Big Three free money, the federal government instead gave the money to smaller more technologically innovative companies like Tesla Motors and let them take over the manufacturing infrastructure not being used by Ford, Chrysler, and GM. if anything, government subsidies should be given to the new underdogs that are bringing innovation and reviving the domestic auto industry, not the monolithic reactionary Big Three auto makers that have been dragging the industry down.

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (1)

joto (134244) | more than 5 years ago | (#25770299)

So how is corporate welfare for small innovative companies any different than corporate welfare for big traditional companies? If Tesla motors suddenly was handed the "manufacturing infrastructure" of "Ford, Chrysler, and GM", they would, in order to be able to manage it, need to incorporate the management structure of Ford, Chrysler and GM too. Which would mean that the plan failed.

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (1)

Kabuthunk (972557) | more than 5 years ago | (#25771055)

I don't care what company you are or what business you're in, managers don't need to be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars while the rest of the business has to lay off thousands of workers in order to pay them.

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769783)

For mil use it's probably better to farm these out to the companies that build the tanks and planes the army uses instead of getting a manufacturer who's only experienced with civilian requirements.

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (2, Insightful)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767303)

Yeah, it couldn't possibly be that bailing out the auto-industry is a really stupid idea. Granted, that didn't stop them from being gung-ho about the Wall St. bailout, but at least they're limiting their stupidity a little bit. Just because they fucked up in one case doesn't mean we should throw up our arms and insist they be stupid all around.

But if you have a good reason why the auto industry should be able to take my money without earning it, I'd love to hear it.

Even the "They provide jobs" argument is ridiculous, because they provide jobs building products nobody wants to buy.

Also funny how it's the Democrats pushing for the auto bailout, but its the Republicans who are always accused of being in cahoots with corporations.

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (0, Offtopic)

onkelonkel (560274) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767451)

The Republicans wan't to bail out their Corporate Overlords, the Democrats want to bail out Union voters. They both want to do it with your money. Choose wisely.

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767873)

It's not so much the jobs they're providing (though GM does employ a small country worth of people), but all the people who live off pensions from them. Company goes down, the pensions disappear, and guess who is now paying more social security to all those people.

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (1)

sleigher (961421) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768247)

That is a good point but with the bailout we are paying it anyways. So we can either pay now(bailout), or pay later(Social Security or other Gov. support). Either way we are gonna pay. I think a bigger problem is not that the auto industry goes down, but all the industries that the auto industry does business with will be hurt. It has the potential to stretch way beyond those union voters and corporate overlords.

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769789)

I think the hope is that after a one-time payment the industry gets back on its feet and pays the rest of the cost itself (while also generating tax revenue that would eventually make up for the bailout) instead of having the tax payer pay for it until the pensioners are dead.

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768363)

Pensions have been dished off to the unions already, and are (IIRC) federally-backed anyway.

Social Security payouts have nothing to do with pension income - they are the same regardless.

Fact is, the downfall of GM means depression conditions for a while in the Midwest. Since many (most?) of GM's suppliers would go belly-up as well, and because those same suppliers handle Ford an Chrysler, you'd see Chrysler and maybe Ford bite the dust, too. I think GM should be bailed out, but we taxpayers should get a large stake in it.

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (1)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768537)

You know you can invest in GM using your own money, right? You'll even get a stake in it proportional to what you invest.

I don't want a stake in GM, and I don't think you, or anybody else, should be able to force me into helping you buy one.

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25770327)

We simply disagree. I think that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and while I'd prefer to stick with a purely market-based economy I won't be dogmatic in a crisis situation. Ideology has to make way for pragmatism sometimes.

The bailout is going to happen no matter what - there are too many interested parties. My "ownership stake" comment was meant to blunt the impact to taxpayers, not as an argument for nationalizing the industry.

Anyway, the fact is that GM is on the right path, but no business can plan for all the hits that they took at once. I think that the taxpayers will come out ahead in the long term if the bailout is structured correctly.

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (0)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773237)

I think that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and while I'd prefer to stick with a purely market-based economy I won't be dogmatic in a crisis situation.

And I completely disagree with you. Your opinion isn't inherently more worthy than mine. You don't get to violate people's rights simply because *you* think it would be best.

There's nothing stopping you from investing your money in GM. There's nothing stopping you from convincing other people to invest in GM. But you have no right to violate people's rights and *force* them into giving their money to GM. Hell, if we're going to violate people's rights, why don't we just force GM employees to work for free? Problem solved! They won't mind because they'll understand it's best for everybody, right?

Further, you've failed to show that your premise even holds. I'm not convinced GM staying in business would be best for the majority. Who even gets to decide that?

Ideology has to make way for pragmatism sometimes.

Gee, nice of you to compromise on violating other people's rights.

I think that the taxpayers will come out ahead in the long term if the bailout is structured correctly.

And what gives you that idea? The taxpayers in the USSR, Cuba, North Korea and East Germany seemed to get screwed in the long term. I'm curious why you think we'll be better off.

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773575)

And I completely disagree with you. Your opinion isn't inherently more worthy than mine. You don't get to violate people's rights simply because *you* think it would be best.

Yes, I do. We live in a democratic republic. You can work on changing that if you'd like, but for now the majority certainly can deprive you of property if they get the itch.

Who even gets to decide that?

I presume this is rhetorical?

Gee, nice of you to compromise on violating other people's rights.

Wasn't me - I don't know who gets credit for inventing taxes, but it was a long time ago.

And what gives you that idea? The taxpayers in the USSR, Cuba, North Korea and East Germany seemed to get screwed in the long term. I'm curious why you think we'll be better off.

You know what else the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, and East Germany had in common? Authoritarian rule. Are you really saying that their socialist policies were the major problems with those countries?

And, by the way, you left China off of that list... I wonder why?

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (0)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773685)

Yes, I do. We live in a democratic republic. You can work on changing that if you'd like, but for now the majority certainly can deprive you of property if they get the itch.

For hundreds of years the majority of people thought slavery was okay, too. That doesn't make it right.

Wasn't me - I don't know who gets credit for inventing taxes, but it was a long time ago.

Well, no point trying to fix it now! It was somebody else's idea! It must be okay!

And, by the way, you left China off of that list... I wonder why?

I left it off because I thought four examples were enough. You really want us to become more like China?

Authoritarian governments go hand in hand with socialist/communist economic systems because taking away property rights means taking away freedom. It's only a matter of time before one turns into the other. And yes, taking my money and giving it to GM because you think they need it more is a violation of my property rights.

And what about my plan on making GM employees work for free? If you're going to advocate slavery you might as well make it explicit.

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777107)

For hundreds of years the majority of people thought slavery was okay, too. That doesn't make it right.

So are you claiming that a democratic republic is like slavery? Or were you just using it as an example of a moral wrong that has nevertheless existed for a long time. If the latter, than I won't dispute it - though I have to point out that it's kind of wasting our time to say something so obvious.

Well, no point trying to fix it now! It was somebody else's idea! It must be okay!

I wasn't trying to make that argument, and I suspect you know that. You seemed to be saying that I was "compromising" by going along with taxation and that somehow compromising is a bad thing. It's not. Taxation is a compromise that has been happening for pretty much the entire existence of humanity - or at least since agriculture made protection of land important to our survival. Taxation can be abused such that the subjects are in virtual slavery. It can also be used for the common good, like defense. Not everything is so black and white.

You really want us to become more like China?

Certainly not, but it is an example that runs counter to your point. The people in China suffer primarily through political oppression - not as a result of taxation. In fact, their model is currently quite successful - though nothing can be said of the long-term.

Authoritarian governments go hand in hand with socialist/communist economic systems

That's true, but that doesn't extrapolate to socialism inevitably leading to authoritarian rule. Most of Western Europe is socialist, but not authoritarian - and has been for 50 or 60 years.

And yes, taking my money and giving it to GM because you think they need it more is a violation of my property rights.

Yup. You can keep restating this and I'll keep agreeing. My argument is that it is warranted, not that I'm taking away your rights - which to me is blatantly obvious. The important thing is that there be an inclusive democratic process when taking people's property rights away.

And yes, I'd like to see the democratic process revised somewhat - something like instant runoff voting to protect minority interests better.

And what about my plan on making GM employees work for free?

Rhetorical?

If you're going to advocate slavery you might as well make it explicit.

I don't advocate forced labor. However, I do advocate forcibly taking people's property for the common good (most people just say "taxes", btw). There is a difference, even if you disagree with both.

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (1)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778577)

So are you claiming that a democratic republic is like slavery? Or were you just using it as an example of a moral wrong that has nevertheless existed for a long time. If the latter, than I won't dispute it - though I have to point out that it's kind of wasting our time to say something so obvious.

I was using it as an example where "the majority" was clearly in the wrong.

I wasn't trying to make that argument, and I suspect you know that. You seemed to be saying that I was "compromising" by going along with taxation and that somehow compromising is a bad thing. It's not. Taxation is a compromise that has been happening for pretty much the entire existence of humanity - or at least since agriculture made protection of land important to our survival. Taxation can be abused such that the subjects are in virtual slavery. It can also be used for the common good, like defense. Not everything is so black and white.

But that is the argument you were making. "We've always done this, so it must be okay." And by saying "not everything is so black and white", you're admitting that one option is better than the other, and then saying we should still do a little of both anyway. That doesn't make any sense. Why do both when we know one option is better?

Also, I'm not saying we should get rid of taxes. I don't mind paying taxes for some stuff, like defense, police and the courts. What I'm not okay with is redistributing the money to other people and claiming they just need it more than I do. Why should I have to suffer so that some other people can supposedly be better off? How can you claim you're doing it for the "common good" when your plan involves knowingly making some people worse off?

Yup. You can keep restating this and I'll keep agreeing. My argument is that it is warranted, not that I'm taking away your rights - which to me is blatantly obvious. The important thing is that there be an inclusive democratic process when taking people's property rights away.

And my argument is that taking away people's rights is never warranted, no matter what process is behind it.

Rhetorical?

No, it wasn't. If anybody is going to pay the price for GM screwing up, why not the GM employees who screwed up?

I don't advocate forced labor.

Yes you do. You want GM to get the output of other people's labor, by force and against their will. Sounds like forced labor to me.

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25779215)

I was using it as an example where "the majority" was clearly in the wrong.

You're example has a flaw - a nation with slavery cannot be called a democracy. There were more blacks than whites in Mississippi at the time of the US Civil War, yet only the whites got to vote. That's not democracy - even majority rule was not applied.

Anyway, I'd never argue that democracy is perfect. Simple majority rule will always leave under-represented groups feeling disenfranchised and won't work long term. But personally I'd rather be at the mercy of the majority than a single fickle ruler or ruling class.

"We've always done this, so it must be okay."

That isn't my argument at all, and I have either failed in my writing or you in your reading. I'm justifying taxes on their own merits, and simply pointing out that they are not in the least bit controversial.

Why do both when we know one option is better?

Because there's an ideal to work towards, and then there's what you do when cold, hard reality kicks you in the face. For example: Thou shalt not kill. Good ideal, terribly complicated in practice.

Also, I'm not saying we should get rid of taxes. I don't mind paying taxes for some stuff, like defense, police and the courts.

So you'll compromise your ideals and deprive money of their property for your own priorities?

I guess we're back to deciding on what priorities are worthy of tax money and which aren't.

And my argument is that taking away people's rights is never warranted, no matter what process is behind it.

I thought you just said you don't mind paying taxes for some stuff?

No, it wasn't. If anybody is going to pay the price for GM screwing up, why not the GM employees who screwed up?

A good argument, and one that I would agree with under normal circumstances. However, the failure of GM at this point would most likely throw much of the midwest into depression. The few billion it would take to save GM - even if just for a short time - is minor compared to the amount we'd have to spend on social benefits. And I'd even argue that the money loaned to GM would be profitable for the government.

Yes you do. You want GM to get the output of other people's labor, by force and against their will. Sounds like forced labor to me.

No, that's tax. Forced labor is, well, forcing someone to perform labor. You can call it a subtle difference if you want, but they aren't the same thing.

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (1)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25781807)

You're example has a flaw - a nation with slavery cannot be called a democracy. There were more blacks than whites in Mississippi at the time of the US Civil War, yet only the whites got to vote. That's not democracy - even majority rule was not applied.

That directly contradicts history. There's no point arguing with you if you're going to flat out deny reality. The majority of people in the US were in favor of slavery. It doesn't matter what the situation in the south was.

Anyway, I'd never argue that democracy is perfect. Simple majority rule will always leave under-represented groups feeling disenfranchised and won't work long term. But personally I'd rather be at the mercy of the majority than a single fickle ruler or ruling class.

And I'm saying you shouldn't have to be at the mercy of anybody. There are rights that can not be taken away. Haven't you read the Declaration of Independence?

That isn't my argument at all, and I have either failed in my writing or you in your reading. I'm justifying taxes on their own merits, and simply pointing out that they are not in the least bit controversial.

You're trying to justify taxes on the grounds that they've always existed. That's what I'm getting out of it, at least.

I'll also point out that taxes *are* controversial. Look at the last election, for example. One of the major differences between the candidates were their tax plans.

Because there's an ideal to work towards, and then there's what you do when cold, hard reality kicks you in the face. For example: Thou shalt not kill. Good ideal, terribly complicated in practice.

If an ideal wouldn't work, then it's not an ideal. And by the way, that example is terrible. I don't know anybody who has a hard time not killing people.

So you'll compromise your ideals and deprive money of their property for your own priorities?

I guess we're back to deciding on what priorities are worthy of tax money and which aren't.

I thought you just said you don't mind paying taxes for some stuff?

Okay, I admit that was poorly phrased. I don't think we should have to pay taxes for those things either. But just because we already do, doesn't mean we should say "Fuck it, we use tax money for some stuff, let's just use it for everything." To use your ultra-lame "Thou shalt not kill" example, it's like saying "Well, we've killed a couple people , we might as well go for genocide." It doesn't make sense.

A good argument, and one that I would agree with under normal circumstances. However, the failure of GM at this point would most likely throw much of the midwest into depression. The few billion it would take to save GM - even if just for a short time - is minor compared to the amount we'd have to spend on social benefits. And I'd even argue that the money loaned to GM would be profitable for the government.

How do you come up with this shit? How are we not in "normal circumstances"? Companies go out of business every day.

My idea is to make the GM employees work for free, right now. According to your logic, under these supposedly "special circumstances," they should be more than happy to sacrifice their pay checks, because they'll be directly preventing a depression in the midwest. Instead of taking money from people who aren't involved, take the money directly from the employees. GM wouldn't "need" the loan if they didn't have to pay their employees.

And how do you figure the money given to GM will be profitable to the government? If that were true, banks would be standing in line to loan them money. Banks love making huge, profitable loans when they know for sure it'll be paid back. Hell, that's exactly what the banks need right now. Know why they're not volunteering? Because there's not a chance in hell they would get the money back.

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25782011)

That directly contradicts history. There's no point arguing with you if you're going to flat out deny reality. The majority of people in the US were in favor of slavery. It doesn't matter what the situation in the south was.

The majority of WHITE people were in favor with slavery. Blacks weren't even allowed to vote, so the country was clearly not a "democracy" by any modern definition of the word. If blacks could vote, I can assure you that slavery would not have existed - at least not in states where most of the population was black!

Unless you are arguing that South Africa was a democracy under apartheid?

Haven't you read the Declaration of Independence?

And have you read the Constitution? Many of the same men that wrote the Declaration wrote the Constitution - and those same men gave the government the right to tax.

You're trying to justify taxes on the grounds that they've always existed. That's what I'm getting out of it, at least.

Did you read what you quoted? LOL! I'll try again. I am not arguing that taxes are right because they existed a long time ago. I'm arguing that they are fine because they make sense right now, and on their own merits. As an ADDITIONAL point, I was trying to show just how uncontroversial they are - I mean, even YOU seem to like them for your own purposes.

I'll also point out that taxes *are* controversial.

Taxes are NOT controversial in terms of their existence. HOW to tax is all that is argued, not whether or not we should tax at all.

If an ideal wouldn't work, then it's not an ideal.

!!!

Whether something would work or not is not part of the definition of an ideal. Democracy is an ideal, is it not? Where has perfect democracy ever been practiced? Communism? Socialism? All of these "ism" words are ideals, and none of them have been implemented ideally on a large scale. It's great to work towards an ideal, but if you think you'll get there you are being quite naive.

And by the way, that example is terrible. I don't know anybody who has a hard time not killing people.

I can't believe that you think pacifism is not an ideal, and that you don't know any of the millions of veterans who had quite the hard time dealing with war. But since you don't like "thou shalt not kill", how about "shall not covet thy neighbor's wife"? Are you going to argue that you don't know anyone who has not been unfaithful to their wife/girlfriend? Does the fact that some people cheat and that monogamy is ultimately impossible to achieve 100% make it a less of an ideal?

But just because we already do, doesn't mean we should say "Fuck it, we use tax money for some stuff, let's just use it for everything."

If I thought like that, I'd be an idiot. However, I would say, "Hey, we already use tax money for this stuff over here... what makes it more deserving of tax money than this stuff over here?" You can't just take people's money to run your own pet programs and then cry foul when they want to do the same thing.

How are we not in "normal circumstances"? Companies go out of business every day.

Are you kidding me? This is not "every day". This is the largest financial crisis that this country has seen in - depending on the government's actions - 20 to 80 years. If we are lucky and the government acts in a way that is not brain dead, we will have a 1987-magnitude recession. One of the ways to get a 1987 rather than a 1929 is to do things like bail out failed companies in which the failure would cause an even steeper recession. Bailing out GM 2 years ago would have been unthinkable, but right now it would mean perhaps a million lost jobs in a time where there aren't any places for those lost jobs to go.

My idea is to make the GM employees work for free, right now.

Good luck with that. They'll all quit.

According to your logic, under these supposedly "special circumstances," they should be more than happy to sacrifice their pay checks, because they'll be directly preventing a depression in the midwest.

How would workers with no pay prevent depression? They wouldn't be able to pay mortgages or even buy burgers... how would a bunch of homeless people prop up the local economy?

GM wouldn't "need" the loan if they didn't have to pay their employees.

Really? So they don't pay anything for materials or to service debts? They don't pay local taxes? Interesting. And I'd love to see where their income comes from when the workers stop coming in to build cars.

And how do you figure the money given to GM will be profitable to the government?

There's historical precedent. When the government bailed out Chrysler, it worked and Chrysler paid back the loan. The government made money.

If that were true, banks would be standing in line to loan them money.

Have you paid any attention to the news? Banks won't make low-risk loans to each other right now, let alone give billions to GM for their multi-year turnaround. Banks are hoarding cash, both to stay alive in the kind of bank runs that killed Wall Street and so that when the dust settles they can snatch up all the bargain-priced competitors.

Know why they're not volunteering? Because there's not a chance in hell they would get the money back.

I don't want this to sound like a flame, but I really don't know a nice way to say that you just don't have the background to discuss this subject. I'm not going to pretend to be a God of money, but you really don't have a basic grasp on finance.

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (1)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25782095)

If I thought like that, I'd be an idiot. However, I would say, "Hey, we already use tax money for this stuff over here... what makes it more deserving of tax money than this stuff over here?" You can't just take people's money to run your own pet programs and then cry foul when they want to do the same thing.

LOL! Convenient you snipped out the part where I corrected myself on that. But now you're just putting words in my mouth, so I'm not even going to bother. Enjoy your communism!

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25784365)

LOL! Convenient you snipped out the part where I corrected myself on that.

You did no such thing. I just re-read. Here's the pertinent section that I was responding to:

Okay, I admit that was poorly phrased. I don't think we should have to pay taxes for those things either. But just because we already do, doesn't mean we should say "Fuck it, we use tax money for some stuff, let's just use it for everything." To use your ultra-lame "Thou shalt not kill" example, it's like saying "Well, we've killed a couple people , we might as well go for genocide." It doesn't make sense.

At no point in the rest of your post do you correct yourself on this paragraph.

But now you're just putting words in my mouth,

I apologize if I did that - it was inadvertant. Would you mind pointing out the offending passage?

Enjoy your communism!

We were discussing socialism, actually. Communism is the whole Marx/Lennon thing with the proletariat and the bourgeois. Smart men, but I think they were wrong. Just like anarchists, they ultimately don't seem to understand human nature. You should look up anarchy, by the way. Your position flits between classical liberalism and anarchy.

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (2, Interesting)

Nodamnnicknamesavial (1095665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767963)

"Also funny how it's the Democrats pushing for the auto bailout, but its the Republicans who are always accused of being in cahoots with corporations. "

There are two reasons your snide remark is wrong.

1. The auto makers provide benefits (pensions, health care) to many many current and former employees (which is part of why they're currently screwed). So this is essentially about protecting the people who rely on the companies, not the companies themselves.
2. Auto-maker empoyees are the epitome of "middle america", as is the focus for the democrats. Wall street is bankers and traders etc, which is hardly the man on the floor - the traditional focus of the republicans is "other rich people".

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (1)

RM6f9 (825298) | more than 5 years ago | (#25774459)

With the automakers, as with the financial institutions, the vast majority of retirement expense dollars go to the upper-level management types - I feel no need to see my tax dollars funding golden parachutes when my own silk needs mending.

Re:Auto Industry Bailout (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768027)

Maybe a better bailout would be to give the public big rebates when they buy cars.

Here in Australia they are just about to throw the public large sums of money, in the order of $1000/child, to 'stimulate the economy'. I guess the idea is that we'll all go and buy plasma TV's with it...

We have 4 kids, and sure could use the money, but I really think that there would be better ways of stimulate the economy... big rebates on locally imported goods or something.

I suspect a good deal of the money will be spent on gambling, cigarettes, and alcohol, all of which are highly taxed, so the government will probably see most of the money back again pretty quickly anyway.

I really don't think they thought it through.

How far does it have to fly? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25767221)

With enough explosives altitude won't be a problem but distance and landing may be an issue.

Re:How far does it have to fly? (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767399)

With enough explosives altitude won't be a problem but distance and landing may be an issue.

In the arena currently, there are enough explosive devices in place to do that for the current heavy, flightless vehicles. I thus presume the ability to convert to flight may be to evade these same explosives.

Hopefully the enemy doesn't respond with thin metal clothesline technology.

Re: How far does it have to fly? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25767431)

With enough explosives altitude won't be a problem but distance and landing may be an issue.

George: If we do happen to step on a mine, Sir, what do we do?
Edmund: Normal procedure, Lieutenant, is to jump 200 feet in the air and scatter oneself over a wide area.

Dream on. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25767231)

The world will never have a flying car for the general public.

Most of you fuckers shouldnt even be allowed to drive on the roads.

Will 80 mph do? (5, Informative)

jmichaelg (148257) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767237)

Here's a real flying car [timesonline.co.uk] . At 80mph, it doesn't have the airspeed that DARPA is looking for but it does hit all the other check items and supposedly it's easy to fly.

Re:Will 80 mph do? (1, Insightful)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767295)

I love that thing...

It's interesting that nobody thought of this (a parawing car) before, considering the big bucks honest companies like Terrafugia and shysters like Moller have spent in the last few years.

The downside is that it's LOUD as heck, since it uses the fan for propulsion while on the ground. So it wouldn't do for something where stealthiness is a requirement. But for survivability, I'd bet on a ripstop nylon wing over steel spars and aluminum ribs any day

Re:Will 80 mph do? (4, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767385)

The downside is that it's LOUD as heck, since it uses the fan for propulsion while on the ground.

Apparently not:

"The fan's static when you're driving around," says Cardozo. "The engineering challenge was getting a really reliable system that will switch power between wheels or fan."

That is by far the coolest flying car I've ever seen. It takes off at only 35 MPH, would be relatively cheap, and looks like it would have great off-road mobility in car mode. Only problem is I couldn't find it on youtube, so I hope it's in the new Bond movie :)

Re:Will 80 mph do? (2, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767433)

The downside is that it's LOUD as heck, since it uses the fan for propulsion while on the ground.

From the times article:

âoeThe fan's static when you're driving around,â says Cardozo. âoeThe engineering challenge was getting a really reliable system that will switch power between wheels or fan.â

Re:Will 80 mph do? (2, Interesting)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767535)

It's interesting that nobody thought of this (a parawing car) before

I'm surprised he's not also adapting it to airboats [wikipedia.org] as used in Florida and Louisiana. Though I guess he gets more press coverage for "flying car" than "sea plane".

Re:Will 80 mph do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25767613)

According to the article the fan is disengage while on the ground.

Re:Will 80 mph do? (3, Informative)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769105)

Except that you won't catch me flying a para-car, the disadvantages are many.

PLUS:
~) it's cheap; fairly easy to implement.

MINUS:
~) Parawings have a tendency to fold when you turn too sharply.
~) It does poorly in windy conditions.
~) Slow, inefficient, high drag.
~) Tendency to "rip".
~) Takeoff is difficult.
~) An in-flight rainstorm is a once-in-a-lifetime experience, by definition.
~) Poor handling in engine-out / emergency circumstances.

I'll pass, thanks! Even as a VFR pilot, I've flown in rain many times, and at 150 MPH, it happens surprisingly quickly... I can only imagine what the power-fail glide slope is on something like this. (7:1 for a Piston Cessna, as high as 20:1 for jets, often as poor as 2:1 for an ultralight/paraglider - you sink like a STONE when the power goes out!)

I hear NASA refers to it as (1)

crovira (10242) | more than 5 years ago | (#25772381)

assuming the aerodynamics of a brick.

In any case, you're lucky if its a landing you can walk away from.

Re:Will 80 mph do? (1)

ockegheim (808089) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767573)

If the traffic's at a crawl, 80mph looks pretty good.

Re:Will 80 mph do? (3, Insightful)

narcberry (1328009) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767705)

Hard to evacuate soldiers in a one-person dune buggy that needs to take off horizontally with a 'shute that tangles on street rubble and powerlines.

Re:Will 80 mph do? (3, Funny)

narcberry (1328009) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767941)

Oh, but I still want one.

Re:Will 80 mph do? (1)

mavi_yelken (801565) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769951)

You didn't even RTFA. Here I past the relevant passage:

FROM ROAD TO AIR IN THE SKYCAR

The driver unpacks the parafoil wing from the boot and manually deploys it from the rear of the car. He switches the transmission from road mode, which drives the wheels, to flight mode, which powers the rear fan

The fan's thrust pushes the car forward, providing lift for the wing as the car reaches 35mph - takeoff speed. Once airborne, pedals in the footwell steer the Skycar by pulling cables that change the wing's shape

The Skycar has a flying range of about 180 miles. If the wing is damaged or collapses, the pilot can fire a roof-mounted emergency parachute that allows the car to float safely back to earth

Re:Will 80 mph do? (1)

narcberry (1328009) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773113)

What part of that meets the pentagon's checklist?

Re:Will 80 mph do? (1)

alxkit (941262) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769371)

will DARPA be interested when it gets to 85mph and travels in time?

Hmm (0, Flamebait)

arazor (55656) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767291)

I suspect these are just last minute approvals by the Bush DoD. Most likely as soon as Obama takes over this and other last minute Bush projects will be terminated. This kind of stuff is just routine politics.

Re:Hmm (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767349)

Don't be silly. This is far too small a project to interest the White House.

Re:Hmm (1)

arazor (55656) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768099)

I hope you are correct. I saw it more a long the lines like General Petraus's recent promotion that will probably end on Jan 20 and so forth.

Terrafugia? I don't think so. (1)

mschuyler (197441) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767325)

"Maybe they'll take inspiration from Terrafugia's "drivable airplane."

I don't think so. With Terrafugia you have to drag your wings behind you and put the thing together when you want to take off, complete with standard runway. It takes a few minutes to transition from a land vehicle to an airplane. These guys are talking about instant transition. One second you're driving on the ground and the next you are airborne.

Re:Terrafugia? I don't think so. (2, Informative)

wjsteele (255130) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768399)

Drag your wings behind you??? Have you even looked at their prototype?

Before you start making stupid comments, check your facts. The Terrafugia folds it's wings vertically. They are folded electrically, so you don't have to even get out of the car. In fact, you land at an airport and before you even get off the taxi-way, the wings are folded.

BTW... I just chatted with Carl the other day and they are getting ready to start flight testing. They're just waiting for their final signoff for their airworthy certificate. They've have driven it up to 70 mph so far.

Bill

its almost 2009 (2, Funny)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767363)

Where is my flying.. errr. ummm..

Oooo shiny object to the left.

Re:its almost 2009 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25768441)

That tired old saw has finally rusted. ABOUT FSCKING TIME!

Autogyro (1)

Unending (1164935) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767371)

What about an autogyro?
Relatively few moving parts, has good STOL capabilities and easily compacted if the blades can be folded.

Re:Autogyro (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767459)

What about an autogyro? Relatively few moving parts, has good STOL capabilities and easily compacted if the blades can be folded.

Built properly it might be worth while but if you do that you may as well build a helicopter. The advantage of the autogyro is that you can build half a helicopter on the cheap and live with the risk of it falling apart in mid air.

Re:Autogyro (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25767601)

I would say it doesn't look too hard to make a 4 seater out of this one: http://www.sparkdesign.nl/en/news/PALV?page=2

Re:Autogyro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25768019)

Loosing the tail rotor and transmission is a HUGE improvement in reliability and reduction of weight. Loosing the swash plate on the rotor is also a huge improvement maintenancewise. In other words, if you don't need VTOL, an autogyro is a big improvement over a helicopter

John

Re:Autogyro (1)

thethibs (882667) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768129)

You definitely don't want a loose tail rotor. Some loose tail, on the other hand...

Re:Autogyro (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25767623)

Sounds [youtube.com] like [youtube.com] super [roanoke.com] awesome [apn.co.nz] fun [youtube.com] .
Wonder [bbc.co.uk] why [thewest.com.au] no-one [abc.net.au] has [toledoblade.com] thought [news.com.au] of [scotsman.com] that [iol.co.za] before? [estcourt.co.za]

Re:Autogyro (1)

holywarrior21c (933929) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767817)

I am so hungry and i would eat any kind of gyro right now!!

Re:Autogyro (1)

WolfWithoutAClause (162946) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768435)

Cartercopter [cartercopters.com] .

Much faster than a helicopter, twice as efficient as a helicopter. Takes off/lands in a postage stamp.

ELROY (1)

CHRONOSS2008 (1226498) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767423)

/jetsons tunes here

I was thinking the Team America theme song (1)

VampireByte (447578) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767593)

Will it have a "valmorphanize" button?

For fuck's sake (1)

Alien Being (18488) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767443)

Just let us go back to 1950. 2050 is too damned scary.

Re:For fuck's sake (1)

f0dder (570496) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767877)

commies & nukes are so much more pleasant. In the 50's the environment was much more polluted especially in the rust belt. People have it so much better now. But you wouldn't know it from the internets.

No one on Moller yet? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767507)

So, every few years I take a look at www.moller.com and see what's up. For the past 10 years (maybe longer), they've been 2 years away from delivering a product. It looks great. Has stats that aren't bad at all. It just doesn't exist. Hopefully Moller is less of a kook than he sounds like, and he'll enter this, get more funding, and finish off the car he's had 10,000 years in the making. I'd buy one.

Re:No one on Moller yet? (3, Interesting)

Egotistical Rant (42993) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768855)

I remember reading about Moller's Skycar in Popular Science when I was a kid...about 30 years ago. It's a pretty well-documented fraud now.

pipe dream (1)

swell (195815) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767629)

Forgive me, I didn't follow the links.

When I see 'DARPA', 'will ultimately lead to', 'prototype', 'would be perfect for', etc; I just sigh and consider the last few seconds to be a lost part of my life.

I've been reading since the early '50s about the imminent personal flying craft and similar wonders in such august publications as PopSci, Popular Mechanics, etc. I grow weary.

Flat screens, too... (3, Interesting)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768035)

I've been reading since the early '50s about the imminent personal flying craft and similar wonders in such august publications as PopSci, Popular Mechanics, etc. I grow weary.

Yeah.

But I've also been reading about flat TV screens for as long, too. (They had a cute one back then: Neon switches, crosspoint matrix, electroluminescent elements at the crosspoints for scan, then transparent conductor, opaque light-controlled-resistor, and another layer of electroluminescent matterial for the screen light source. Plastic "circuit board" so you could wrap it around a pencil.)

It took 'em half a century to get (several types of) TV quality flat screens. And they're all STILL more expensive than CRTs. (Maybe now that the LCD price fixing conspiracy is broken that will FINALLY change.)

Ditto "dynabook". Ditto microscopic robots - some circulating in the blood stream - for microsurgery and/or immune system assist against diseases. Ditto cloned replacement teeth. Ditto age-retarding-or-reversing drugs.

A lot of stuff is FINALLY STARTING to happen. But I've been waiting a LONG time for it. And at this rate maybe I'll get to see prototypes of some of it by the time I retire, but still won't get the benefit of playing with the toys. B-(

Comment scores (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25767693)

Wow, there's only one comment higher than Score:3 so far? That's pretty rare for slashdot. :/

Personally, I hope this flying car technology gets some major public attention, and some big corporations start mass-producing them. A big problem with that is there'd have to be some way for the cops to pull people over - it wouldn't really be practical to land whenever you see the flashing lights behind you...

A good idea who's time has come (1)

digitaltraveller (167469) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767701)

Personal automated air transport should not be that tough.

All the components that are required to build a pilotless VTOL aircract are readily available. For example:

  • 2 seater Bell or McDonnell Douglas helicopter with a NOTAR [wikipedia.org] system.
  • Multiple redundant parachutes. Both vehicular and personal
  • GPS. Use it to fly the damn thing. Yes Im serious! If it loses signal, it can just go set down on the nearest flat bit of ground. I just don't see the software being really that big of a deal to write.

If the cost could be brought below 400K upfront and <20K annually to run. I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

BTW Moller [moller.com] is a charlatan, and convicted fraudster. I have alot of venom for conmen like this who set back social progress by displacing R&D money from real inventors. How has that jerk not been stripped of his UC-Davis associate professorship?

Nothing new. Bigger challenge is there. (1)

holywarrior21c (933929) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767807)

I believe the flying vehicle itself is neat idea, no doubt about that. But it is another variation for airplane and helicopter and flying car is being researched by many organizations already. and must bigger challenge is not the car itself. DARPA should consider focusing its research on building infrastructure for personal flying vehicle for the mass. that means that, if necessary, all the vehicle should run autonomously and controlled and monitored solely by central computer system, much alike commercial airplanes. Flying vehicles are out there. Just yet, we don't have ,first, infrastructure(road, central system), safety standards for the vehicle and effective and cheap mass driving(piloting) education. I believe we already have a lot of it for the commercial airplanes. but challeges are still there. flying a flying machine is difficult so that it should be far more easier to fly than what we have today and at least everything should be automatic. That means computer should fly t. but in order to do that we need very very accurate Geo-positioning System mixed with some vision recognzing system when it flies through cities. or in the city, where there are tall buildings and obstacles, human can fly it themselves for safety. In the big cities like newyork, i think flying is not safe at all.but it should work great in less crowded cities with few skycrapers. For the small scale, military operation, flying vehicle would be effective if it is cheap and safe.

Mr Fusion Home Energy Reactor - DARPA patent#29549 (1)

fortapocalypse (1231686) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767931)

The secret is the Mr Fusion Home Energy Reactor! Just throw some banana skins and beer cans into it and you're off!

DARPA Mission (1)

thethibs (882667) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768087)

DARPA's mission is to prevent technological surprise for the United States and to create technological surprise for its adversaries.

Short, simple, unambiguous. If there were awards for objective statements, this would get one. Would that all my projects were so well defined!

Not getting my hopes up (2, Insightful)

Thirdsin (1046626) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768595)

If they still can't produce a practical jetpack with extended flying time, i see this... not taking off!

use vtol/helicopter (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25768867)

why not just vtol or a helicopter on wheels? the propellers could fold up or down as needed or the vtol could face forward for thrust but put wheels on the vehicle.

Oh boy, another way to burn fossil fuels. (1)

tinrobot (314936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769027)

Why exactly do we need to spend government money on flying cars that will most likely burn a lot more fuel than our current gas guzzlers? Because some dork in the defense department thinks the 1950's are still cool?

Put the money into something more practical for this century - like developing an electric car that's affordable and doesn't suck.

Re:Oh boy, another way to burn fossil fuels. (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773431)

Why exactly do we need to spend government money on flying cars that will most likely burn a lot more fuel than our current gas guzzlers?

I learned to fly in a Cessna 172, a four-seat airplane built in 1976. (It's typical for airplanes to be quite old - they just fix them forever since new ones are so expensive) Despite its age, it travels about 120 MPH and burns about 9 GPH doing it. When you factor in an average 20% reduction in actual travel distance (because you fly straight from origin to destination, rather than along whatever twisty highway that happens to be available, and you find that you get a rather respectable 15 MPG or so.

No, this doesn't directly compare to a Prius, but for a plane built in 1976 that flies and travels an average speed more than twice what you can expect from your car, it's really quite respectable.

More modern planes (typically, experimental class) can do almost twice as well, despite there being very little funding for research in building efficient small airplanes. For example, there's theRutan-based Cozy Mk IV [wikipedia.org] that runs the same engine (and thus, the same 9 GPH burn rate) as the venerable Cessna but flies almost twice as fast, (190 knots vs 105 knots) at much higher altitudes.

There are safety benefits - it's actually rather difficult to stall a canard, for example, although this may be offset by the fact that actual crashes are more likely to be fatal.

Now, with massive research, cars can now reach 40 MPG, while personal aircraft approach 30, with 1/100 the research funding. Gas guzzlers indead - I'd say they're doing quite well!

But wait: there's more!

The 9 GPH figure above is quoted at "cruise speed", about about 80% power. Basically, it's the fastest that you can fly the plane over long distances without prematurely burning out the engine - not a particularly fuel-efficient setting. Cut the fuel burn-rate back, to maybe 60% power, and you'll find a nice range increase (as much as 25%!) with the resulting fuel efficiency improvement. The Cessna slows from 105 Knots to 90 Knots or so, and the Cozy Mark IV slows from 190 Knots to 160 or so - about 175 miles per hour.

Suddenly, the 4-seat Canard Cozy is holding its own rather well against a late-model Hybrid in fuel efficiency, while traveling at 3x the speed!

ABOUT DAMN TIME! (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769555)

ibid.

I hate SBIRS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25771127)

You develop some great new gadget in Phase I, and then in Phase II, if you succeed, you have to turn over your invention to one of the big contracting companies like Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman, who act like they did all the work and attach their names to the gadget.

In the future... (1)

master_p (608214) | more than 5 years ago | (#25772257)

...terrorists will apply for driving licenses, not aircraft ones!!!

Pentagon Clears Flying-Car Project For Takeoff (1)

BorgCopyeditor (590345) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773247)

Pentagon Clears Flying-Car Project For Takeoff

Why not "Flying-Car Project Starts to Gain Real Traction at Pentagon"?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?