One could argue that papers are the disease. It was a good medium, but with today's communication technology, something better needs to arise. The need to "publish to exist" in academia has gotten to the point that it promotes sub-standard work and hinders advancement of knowledge.
The wormhole was perfect, except the travel bit bugged me. They use the 2d analog with paper. The second you pass through the hole in one location you emerge from the hole in the other location. In the third dimension, as they touch the sphere near Saturn they would be leaving the surface of the sphere on the other side. From their point of view they should be about to hit the 'ball' then all of a suddenly then are travelling away from the surface of another ball. Instead they had this tunnel thingy.
> However, in 1962 John A. Wheeler and Robert W. Fuller published a paper showing that this type of wormhole is unstable if it connects two parts of the same universe, and that it will pinch off too quickly for light (or any particle moving slower than light) that falls in from one exterior region to make it to the other exterior region.
Yea I was thinking about that, say a straw. A cylinder to us in the 3d world but in the 2d world one would just see themselves stuck in a circle for awhile. So to up a dimension a 4d whole in a 3d world would I guess appear to us to be a stuck in a sphere? Maybe that is what the movie tried to show, but it still looked like they were travelling in a tube.
Exactly correct. There is no way a missing window would bring down the plane, especially the back window, unless by some freak accident the patch damaged a control surface on the tail by breaking free. One can think of an almost limitless list of more likely hypotheses.
So if we say, stop with the corn infatuation and plant forests we would at lease give ourselves some breathing room to figure things out for a half century?
Willing to relocate: Depends where, not an urban individual
Technologies: Geo-spatial analysis work with Python, and a decent amateur at everything else. Regularly use Python, R, PostGIS, occasionally dabble in web-apps.
It seems like their operation would fall in the exact same legal situation as Angel flights, or Pilot's for Paws, or Lighthawk. None of which seem to have common-purpose. Now these organizations seem to ignore compensation issues, but there are cases where logging hours alone was deemed compensation so it is arguable that compensation does occur irregardless of monetary transactions. I can't help but notice though that these organizations often require 500 or 1000 hours of their volunteer pilots, which could likely make many of them CPL holders already.
I fly PnP somewhat regularly and have done Angel Flights in the past. There is no compensation at play for those flights, making them perfectly legal Part 91 operations. I pay, out of pocket, 100% of the costs of those flights.
The FAA has conclusively ruled (first in 1993) that the ability of a pilot, who is paying 100% of the costs of the flight, to claim a charitable deduction for those costs is NOT compensation.
Flight time that you paid 100% of the costs to do is never a problem in terms of a compensation concern for a private pilot.
As you probably know, the FAA interprets “compensation” as meaning the receipt of anything of value. However, the FAA Chief Counsel’s office has clarified the issue of charitable deductions in a number of interpretations. Specifically, it has stated that “since Congress has provided for the tax
deductibility of some costs of charitable
acts, the FAA will not treat charitable
deductions of such costs, standing alone,
as constituting ‘compensation or hire’ for the purpose
of enforcing [the Federal Aviation Regulations].”
(Note: This interpretation is specifically addressed
in FAA Order 8900.1 (Volume 4, Chapter 5, Section
1, paragraph 4-922) which also states that “inspectors
should not treat the tax deductibility of costs as
constituting ‘compensation or hire’ when flights are
conducted for humanitarian purposes.”)
It would be hard to argue that Flytenow's operations fall into the category of "conducted for humanitarian purposes", plus the fact that money is changing hands, so this situation isn't at all like AngelFlight, PnP, Dove Flights (Citation Special Olympics airlift), etc. in the eyes of the FAA.
