Is there a lift vs drag problem that precludes making a glider with such a heavy payload? It might not be as simple as bigger wings to support the heavier weight.
fizzle
joined 11 months ago
LOL.
"ErRrR pOiNt tO Me iN yOuR..,."
Let me spell it out for you.
The achievement being reported is that the plane performed a 30 minute flight. The implied details being that it took off, flew around in circles, and landed again at the same air port.
The distance the plane traveled is not the achievement and it's not relevant.
Sorry boss. You missed my point. Cars can't fly so it's not really a comparison.
Yeah that's it. It's not a matter of "catching on", it's a matter of better battery tech emerging which is more affordable.
Personally I think high speed rail is a better bet. All the tech already exists and the weight of the batteries is less problematic.
Literally the first sentence:
The first flight of the largest battery-electric aircraft to take to the skies lasted nearly half an hour while costing just $5 of electricity.
Can your Porsche 914 fly for half an hour on $5 of fuel ?
I don't really think that's the intention.
The world is being raped and burned by these assholes. If the only thing I can do is to contribute to being a momentary irritant to one of them then so be it.
Yeah but it's a legal liability problem.
Food isn't instantly poisonous as of the best by date, but producers will have insurance that covers them for medical costs if someone gets sick from their food.
Obviously, that insurer is not going to cover them if the stuff is sold (or distributed) after the best by date has expired.
Suppose your local grocery store starts a "best by" program and gives out the free food which is out of date. Some customer eats a free bread role which is a tiny bit stale but otherwise satisfying... and then eats a dead pigeon the find on the side of the road.
You can probably see the problem.
In my jurisdiction I think that's only partially true.
Firstly, it's also true here that the outcome needs to be "in the best interest of the child", and that's critical.
However, it's not only cases where the child's parents have had a relationship breakdown, but is applicable to cases where the child's parents are estranged from the grandparents:
Sometimes grandparents are prevented from having a relationship with their grandchildren. This can happen where the relationship with their own child has broken down (but the parents’ relationship remains intact), or where the parents have separated and one parent refuses to let them see their grandchildren. Grandparents do not have an automatic right to have a relationship with a grandchild. However, grandparents, and anyone who has an ongoing relationship with the child, or any other person who can show that they are concerned with the care, welfare or development of a child (including grandparents) can apply to the court for parenting orders.
https://www.legalaid.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/inline-files/Grandparents_family_law.PDF
So it's not a law that would regularly enable grandparents to corrupt children against the wishes of the child's parents.
Additionally, I suspect that parenting orders may be able to require supervised access, or restrict them from participating in religious ceremonies and that kind of thing.
I think that's how it breaks down here in West Aus.
ooh. Yeah ok of course. Is that a real thing ?
edit:
ok it is a real thing. I'm a parent. I'd never wondered about this because my relationship with my parents is ok. I mean they're nutty conservatives but they're smart enough not to say anything about it.
Setting aside cases of abuse and neglect. It's kind of weird to think that someone other than myself and my partner can have a say in who my child has to spend time with.
I think it would be an up-hill battle for my parents in my jurisdiction for example. I think they would need to establish that it's in the child's best interest to have a meaningful relationship with them, and they might struggle to do that.
I'm curious to know what they think parents should do next.
I'm certain it does not involve challenging your own preconceptions.
I can replace this rusted post but before I do I have questions!
This is the context:
This construction is about 30 years old. I live in a coastal city so there's plenty of salt in the rain. The ground level was level with the place it's rusted through completely. However, it was probably painted down to that level and no further. My assumption is that it's galvanised steel, but only because that's what's commonly used for this type of construction.
Firstly I just want to confirm that this is likely to be caused simply by being in the ground for 30 years. It's possible that in the past there was water ingress through the screw holes in the roof panels. I had someone replace those fixtures 4 years ago, so those seals are new.
My second question is, am I supposed to use some sort of footing to avoid the same thing happening again in another 20 years ? Should it be in some kind of stirrup like this or are these only for timber:
My third question is, the current top plate / bracket is custom made with welded parts. I don't have a welder nor any experience with that. Should I expect to find a purpose built standard top plate from wherever I buy the post? I could use 3x right angle brackets but that just doesn't feel like the right approach. Presently it looks like this:
Thanks!
view more: next ›
LOL.
Sure but like any company acquiring any resource you want the best available for the least input.
Just keep writing cover letters kid.