And The Final Answer Is:

Many of you wrote in to answer this one, Shannon from dvdempire was the first to get it right, most people got it wrong but don’t feel bad there are pilots who still don’t believe the answer even wen it is explained to them.

Some of you, like DirtyBob hedged your bets and guessed both ways but oddly on both explanations were, wrong.

The most basic exlpanation as to why the plane can lift off and fly is that the jet, or prop on the plane is acting with the air mass that the plane occupies, not with the ground, air over the wings will cause the lift necessary for flight. The only force opposing that flight, other than gravity of course, is only the friction of the wheels on the ground, which is negligible. The ground speed of the airplane has no relation to its ability to take off…the airspeed does.

Technically the conveyor could be moving in the opposing direction at twice or more the speed of the wheels and the plane will still fly

For more detailed info you can go to google and google the terms airplane flight conveyor belt that will take you to numerous discussions this past week over this brain teaser

Dr. Brett Rockman Has Granted Me An Interview:

And he is a real doctor, look for it in the coming days, it should be good.

The FSC Wins A Battle But Is Losing The War:

Despite everyone painting yesterdays 10th circuit ruling as a “major victory” for most of us it is not.

The court agreed with the prior courts ruling on secondary producers and has exempted them from 2257 for the time being, yes that is a victory for AVN and others who purchase content. But the court was duty bound to rule this way because it had ruled that way in the past (Sundance case)

The court also exempted cam show operators from having to keep archives of all the footage

On the big points, the FSC got handed their collective asses

The court ruled that the 2257 requirements were not an undue burden on primary producers and did not shift the burden of proof from the accusor to the accused. It also ruled that 2257 record keeping was not an invasion of privacy nor did it violate any protections from identity theft.

On the point that the regulation did not actually do anything to accomplish it’s goal of keeping under aged performers out of porn, the court ruled in fact that it did accomplish this goal and therefor is valid.

If you are a secondary producer or a website who buys content, as opposed to creating your own, sit back and have a drink, for the time being you are clear. If you produce your own content virtually all of 2257 still applies to you.