Posts by eldakka

Windows 11: What we like and don't like about Microsoft's operating system so far

Re: Bells and broken whistle

If you weren't an enthusiast why would you do it?

Maybe because you are complaining about them not taking your views, your work practices, your needs into account in the design of windows, thus you should signup to the mechanism they have put in place to solicit those views?

If you don't provide your views, how the hell are they going to know what they are? Mind reading? Magic?

How about you participate in providing your feedback instead of whining that they aren't taking account of your views that you aren't sharing with them?

You * could* mortgage your home and buy a racehorse - you'd have to be very enthusiastic about horse racing to consider actually doing it though.

You could. And if you just sat there complaing about not being able to win any horse races because you don't own a horse to put in the races, and you've taken absolutely zero steps - beyong complaining about it - to obtain a racehorse, I'd submit the opinion that you have nothing to complain about because you haven't done what's necessary (mortgaged your house if that's the only way you could do it) to get said racehorse.

Re: Bells and broken whistle

> And WHY?, GOD, Oh WHY?, do *THEY* keep calling *THAT* "interface"... **MODERN** ???

It's modern like modern art is.

That is, it's a pile of twisted, rusting metal gathered from the dumpster and welded together randomly, with some buckets of paint thrown at it, some kids allowed to run their hands through the wet paint, and then some dogs allowed to defecate on it, before it's put in display the nearest public space after the local council paid a few million dollars for it as a roosting place for pigeons.

Re: Bells and broken whistle

To what extent are their wishes, feelings, use cases, preferences and expectations of an OS the same as those of a harassed school teacher, an architects clerk, a bank official, a GP, a chef, a......well for want of a better phrase - real people?

My supposition is that people who use "insider builds" are enthusiasts and techies. And the only reason for getting their opinion would be to run a mile in the opposite direction.

Anyone can join the insider build program. It's not restricted to techies and enthusiasts. There's no IT exam you have to sit before they allow you to join.

If you are one of those aforementioned harassed school teachers or bank officials or any other profession, you are welcome to sign up to the insider program to have your voice heard in those earlier stages. In fact, that is the whole point of the insider program. The Windows Insider Program

What is the Windows Insider Program?

The Windows Insider Program is a community of millions of Windows' biggest fans who get to be the first to see what's next. Windows Insiders run previews of the platform, called Windows Insider Preview Builds, then give feedback and engage directly with our engineers to help shape the future of Windows.

Register for free to join the program and our community of millions of Windows Insiders today.

If you don't choose to take up the mechanisms provided to enable your voice to be heard, how's that Microsoft's fault?

I'm not a MS fanboy, I'm not in the insider program, I begrudgingly upgraded to Windows 8/10 when windows 7 became unsustainable for my use case (games, DX12), and I have no plans of upgrading to windows 11 for at least the next 2 years, if not longer, and I cheered on the anti-trust trial of the 90's against them. But fair's fair, they provide a mechanism for you to provide feedback and participate, if you don't paticipate, how can you blame them?

Re: CPU Requirements

The CPU requirements aren't "requirements", it would more accurately be read as "validated CPUs". That is, MS has run windows 11 on those CPUs and positively confirmed that it works to some acceptable (to them) standard, and thus 'warrants' that it will run on those CPUs (assuming other requirements, RAM for example, are met).

Re: Bells and broken whistle

> To be fair, it's barely a beta, probably closer to an alpha build.

Considering it's due for release this year with OEM systems availability for purchase this year, I sure hope it's way more than an alpha build. Realistically it's late-beta (beta 2 or 3) at least with release less than 5 months away.

Snail mail would be a fool-proof way to inform patients about plans to slurp GP data, but UK govt won't commit

Snail mail would be a fool-proof way to inform patients about plans to slurp GP data

I can hear Boris Johnson now: "Challenge accepted!"

Watchdog slaps down Three's claims to be building the UK's 'fastest 5G network' – again

Re: Dear Goverment.

As long as I'm paid as a director, with the same golden parachutes, then I could make myself available for such a gig.

Hundreds of irate UK Parliamentary staffers sue IPSA over 2017 salary spreadsheet publication snafu

It's employers who started the trend of making it socially unacceptable to talk about how much we make. Employers don't want staff sharing how much they are paid with each other, because it makes it easier for employers in wage negotiations if no-one knows how much others are getting paid for the same job.

If a new employee is onboarded at a higher rate than employees who have been doing the same job for years are on, then they might demand a payrise to bring them up to the level new staff are being hired at. But that would cost money for the employer.

Employees bargaining position is weakened if they don't know how much others doing the same job, or less skilled work, or more skilled work, are being paid. It's pretty hard to know how much your job is worth, how much you should be asking for, how much you could negotiate, if you have no information on what rates others are getting.

United, Mesa airlines order 200 electric 19-seater planes for short-hop flights

> International travellers are rarely on the "short hop" range, especially in the USA.

You seem to be assuming the start and end-points of the travel are the international airports in the source/destination country.

Most of the time, people travel from home to the outbound international airport, which could be a few hundred kilometers, then from the inbound international airport to the final destination, which could bea few hundred kilometers away. Therefore using an aircraft such as the ES-19 could step in for those non-international legs.

I've had trips that have had 2 additional flights each inbound and outbound from the international airports, for a total of 5 air-legs, 1 international and 4 relatively short (all under 400km) domestic. Tiny local airport (uncontrolled airspace, no local air control at all) to a larger regional airport onto the international airport, with the same (in reverse) at the other end.

Re: 250 mile range/19 passengers

> the security check-in faff

The level of faff depends on the specific countries regulations (YMMV) and the size of the airport. e.g. International airports tend to have more faff and bigger queues to get through security. Smaller regional airports tend to have less faff and smaller queues. At my local regional airport, having to wait more than a couple minutes in a queue is unusual, and don't have to take off shoes/belts/etc. unless they trigger the metal detector. The longest I've taken to get through was 10 minutes, and that was because a couple of large flights were boarding soon (150 passengers each) so there was a last minute rush, and I was also randomly selected for the bomb-residue test which added a couple minutes to bring it up to about 10 total.

Re: 250 mile range/19 passengers

According to Heat Aerospaces' FAQ:

What’s a typical route that the ES-19 will fly in 2026?

Our early adopter market will be very short flights where there is high demand. This will include island-hopping and flying over mountainous terrain, where the flight distance is significantly less than the road routes available.

What are typical early routes in the US?

Examples of routes include Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD) to Purdue University Airport (LAF), which is 191 km, and San Francisco International Airport (SFO) to Modesto City-County Airport (MOD), which is 120 km.

What are typical routes in the Nordic countries?

Typical routes in the Nordic countries include Stockholm-Visby, Bergen-Stavanger, Skellefteå-Vaasa, Trondheim-Östersund, and Gothenburg-Copenhagen, as well as all domestic flights on Iceland and Greenland.

What are typical routes in the rest of the world?

We have seen large interest for domestic flights in Canada, New Zealand, the British Isles, and the Alps, but also from countries like Indonesia, a country of 17,000 islands that has undergone a four-fold increase in domestic air travel in the last decade.

Re: 250 mile range/19 passengers

According to Heat Aerospaces' FAQ:

What about reserves?

Reserve, alternate, and contingency energy (fuel) requirements vary by geographical region, and by the type of operation being flown (VFR, IFR, etc). In addition, for short range operations, there are procedures for reduced contingency fuel, and for no alternate depending on the specific route.

However, as a general rule, a significant portion of the available energy on an electric aircraft needs to be reserved for missed approaches, adverse weather conditions, etc. Therefore, our early focus will be very short routes. This is not a problem – the unit economics of electric aircraft will be better the shorter the route, as the recharge times will be shorter, the battery wear will be less, and more departures can be made in a day.

Re: I wonder

> On another topic - refuelling. Do the ground crew come out with a pair of giant caterpillar clips? 20 minute turnrounds won't get that much power back in.

20-minutes seems a bit short. A major route from my city airport uses dash-8's (in addition to larger aircraft) as the flight route is ~300km. The turnaround time for the dash-8 200, which has a capacity of 36 passengers, is more like 40-60 minutes, once you allow for unloading of baggage/cargo/passengers and then loading baggage/cargo/passengers, plus the inevitable passenger who hasn't boarded yet and holds it up for 5 or 10 minutes while they are found.

According to Heat Aerospaces' FAQ, it's 40 minutes for an 'average mission' which I don't see defined:

What is the charge time?

Charge time is largely dependent on the available charging infrastructure but with the recommended charging, we can charge an ES-19 in less than 40 minutes for an average mission.

What are the power requirements per charger?

We recommend an optimal charging power of 1MW per aircraft, to achieve the customer desired turnaround time.

Do electric aircraft require expensive ground infrastructure?

We estimate the cost per charger for the ES-19 to be around $500k. A significant part of this infrastructure could be dual-purpose supporting the ground transportation and service vehicles.

Annoyed US regulator warns it might knock SpaceX's shiny new Texas tower down

Re: The most feared words you can hear

> The FAA have an 'interesting' view of where their authority stretches to

I would suspect that the FAAs mandate covers manufacturing facilities for covered vehicles as well. e.g aircraft manufacturing plants.

If an integration facility is considered part of the manufacturing pipeline then it would be under FAA regulation also.

India bans Mastercard from signing up new customers

Re: Irony of ironies

Irony of ironies

Indian's tata company owns infosys Uganda's number one provider of core bank solutions. They produce an app called finnacle.

Uganda has a law that all customer banking data must be stored within 5 miles of the central bank. That is why all banks that work in the country open a branch in the capital city.

I'm not sure how 1 country enforcing it's laws, India, which pertains to data on its citizens, when another country isn't enforcing its laws, Uganda, is in any way ironic. India is under no obligation to enforce a foreign goverments laws, only its own.

Pentagon scraps $10bn JEDI winner-takes-all cloud contract

Re: The Pentagon

> You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.

While I understand the sentiment wrt the goverment, in the context of this article, that quote would be better applied to the cloud providers:

PHB: "Let's do a request for tender for cloud services, send it to the usual big cloud providers"

BOFH: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious."

Arm chief hits out at 'ill-informed speculation' over proposed Nvidia buyout

He went on: "Nvidia will not siphon investment away from the UK. Instead, it will invest in the expansion of Arm's Cambridge HQ and build a world-class AI research facility. The combination of Arm's technology with Nvidia's deep expertise in AI will make the UK the leader in research, innovation and scientific discovery for decades to come."

...

"We'll invest with Nvidia to create new markets, not displace customers in existing ones," said Segars. "This transaction opens up access to even more innovation that the entire semiconductor industry can harness."

Excellent. When can we expect Nvidia to sign the perpetual, binding contract that has defined, large, penalties - civial and criminal - attached to it to enforce these obligations?

Audacity is a poster child for what can be achieved with open-source software

> If the majority are happy to have free software (paid for, perhaps, by invasion of privacy), how to software developers who want to write quality software, free of influence, get paid?

Write software that people are willing to pay for?

No different than any other market, if you can't produce a product that people are wiling to pay for, that isn't enough better than other competing products such that people will pay for it, that's your problem.

You, robo-car maker, any serious accidents, I want to know about them, stat – US watchdog

Re: collisions with pedestrians or bicycles

> That's an odd category to include as vulnerable...

Tractors travel at a crawl, relative to normal road speeds, when forced to use roads, such as moving from one field to another, or work site to another. They are not designed to travel on roads as a normal environment, so do not have many of the normal safety features other vehicles would have. They are not very maneuverable, have tires designed for working in soft fields rather than properly treaded for road use, bad visibility, could be extra-wide, etc. Of course different models have different sets of capabilities, but we are probably talking the lowest-common-denominator situation.

Re: collisions with pedestrians or bicycles

> Did they leave a gap there for scooters?

No.

Appendix C, clause 1C (p.13), emphasis mine :

C. the crash results in any individual being transported to a hospital for medical treatment, a fatality, a vehicle tow-away, or an air bag deployment or involves a vulnerable road user; and

Definitions, 19 (p.9):

19. “Vulnerable Road User” means and includes any person who is not an occupant of a motor vehicle with more than three wheels. This definition includes, but is not limited to, pedestrians, persons traveling in wheelchairs, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and riders or occupants of other transport vehicles that are not motor vehicles, such as all-terrain vehicles and tractors.

IBM's 18-month company-wide email system migration has been a disaster, sources say

> Of course nothing is amiss. The phone is, still, working.

Until the email issues cause a network packet-storm, taking the desktop VoIP-phones offline ...

Re: Bean counters?

> Thing is Betamax was/is way better than VHS

Perhaps in your personal opinion (warning, youtube video) Why Sony's Beta Videotape System Failed--and failed hard (Part 1)

Hubble telescope in another tight spot: Between astrophysicists sparring over a 'dark matter deficient' galaxy

Re: Forgive my ignorance but...

> And that's precisely the intellectual (I'm no astrophysicist!) problem I have with it: It looks like a simplistic way to make contradictions go away: Expected 5 but it's actually 8? No problem, add a cheat factor of 3. Expected 7 but it's actually 9? No problem, add a cheat factor of 2. Now why is it "3" there and only "2" here? Well, simply because we needed 3 there and 2 here!

But using your fudge factor analogy, what we have with DM isn't what you have written. It's more like:

Expected 5 but it's actually 8? sure, add a fudge factor of 3. Now in another observation, we expected 19, but got 22, so we need a fudge factor of 3 to make it work. In this other observation we expected 42 but got 45, so we ned a fudge factor of 3. In yet another observation we got -11 when we were expecting -14, so using a fudge factor of 3 works.

So we have multiple different situations, using the same underlying theories, that all work fine when the same fudge factor, 3, is used. And we have a consistent (but not proven) explanation of where that 3 came from and why it only seems to matter in those specific cases, but not in others.

A single explanation, DM, makes General Realtivity work at large scales (and explains other things as well). All other alternatives offered to date required X, and Y, and Z and, in some cases, also needed DM to work (MOND theories that worked great for galaxy rotation curves didn't work for galaxy clusters, but if you added DM - or something analogous to DM - to them, they also worked for galaxy clusters).

Is it 'simpler' to toss out all these underlying theories that have been developed and refined over deacdes, that work in every other situation except these other half dozen, with new theories that require several new (also unproven) things, or is it simpler to say "we've missed some constant of nature that is 3, that if we add to all of our different equations and situations makes them all work, and doesn't stop the existing situation where they worked already from working"?

Re: Well, Quite Frankly...

> While we'll make good use of the James Web scope, building three Hubble class scopes and putting two of them in Saturn's Lagrange points and the other 180 degrees out in Saturn's orbit would be of greater use.

No, absolutely not at all. They are very different things, different capabilities. In no way, shape or form can Hubble replace what JWST can do, it just isn't designed to do the same job.

For starters, JWST has 6-times the light-collecting power of Hubble. Therefore you'd need to launch six Hubbles.

Secondly, the location of Hubble, Earth orbit, Saturn, wherever (assuming you aren't putting it in orbit around other stars entirely that is) is irrelevant for Hubble's instruments.

Thirdly, JWST operates at different light wavelengths (0.6–28.5μm) than Hubble (well, apart from a small overlap, 0.115-2.4μm across 3 different instruments), infrared, therefore it can 'see' further back in time - even ignoring the difference in light-collecting power - than Hubble, because the light from the early universe has been red-shifted outside Hubble's (and normal human vision's) capability to detect. So even if Hubble was up-scaled to the same 6.5m diameter, or JWST was down-scaled to Hubble's 2.4m, JWST would still 'see' light that Hubble just isn't capable of seeing, the 'old' light of the early universe. It is for this reason that JWST is in the L2, for 'cooling' of its instruments so it can see in infrared. Since Hubble can't see in the infrared, it doesn't need the cooling requirements of JWST, and it is for those cooling requirements - being able to keep the same side, the sunshield side, always pointing at the sun - of putting it in the L2, which doesn't apply to Hubble.

Re: Candid question

Being a faint dwarf galaxy means it is very hard to see since it is tiny and, well, faint. That would preclude many - perhaps all? - ground observatories from being able to see it.

However, using more observable galaxies as a calibration for Hubble's camera should help determine the accuracy of Hubble's camera. But I think this has been done, as the team who are saying there is little or no DM in it say (according to this article) that they have accounted for that problem.

Re: Forgive my ignorance but...

So much nicer, really, if you can come up with some modified gravity theory: this won't be as pretty as GR because it will necessarily have more parameters (GR is arguably the unique theory with only one parameter), but perhaps only a few. And it's nice because you can then try and fit that theory to the observed rotation curves.

And people do that, and so fat their theories fail to match the data unless they start throwing in absurd numbers of parameters. So dark matter, unsatisfactory as everyone finds it, is the only idea really left standing at this point.

And, of course, as I've commented elsewhere, if it really is the case that DF2 has no dark matter this is a huge bit of evidence that dark matter is in fact the right answer, because gravity should work the same for all galaxies.

Beyond that, most of the promising MOdified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) theories were all blown out of the water with the LIGO detection of merging neutron stars in 2019? I think it was.

Most MOND theories modify the speed of gravity, such that it doesn't propogate at the speed of light. Doing this modifies many of the results of gravitational equations, in effect changing the strength of gravity at different distances, thus explaining the different galaxy rotation curves and so on. Without this factor, a different propogation rate for gravity, most of these theories fail entirely.

When LIGO detected the gravitational waves of the neutron star merger, optical (including radio - x-ray, gamma-ray, etc.) observatories also detected the light of that collision. The light and gravitational waves arrived within 2 or 3 seconds of each other over a distance of hundreds of millions of lightyears. The light was a tad slower because light - unlike gravitational waves - can be slowed, warped and scattered by intervening objects, such as the expanding shell of matter resulting from the merging of the neutron stars whch the light had to emerge from first (same as how light generated in the heart of our sun takes a million years to escape to the surface). Based on this merger, light and gravity do travel at the same speed. Therefore all those MOND theories became so much toilet-paper, as the key pillar they relied on - Einstein was wrong about the speed of gravity - collapsed.

So while Dark Matter might not be a very ... satisfying ... theory, with the collapse of the most promising alternatives - MONDs - it is the only 'fleshed-out' one left standing at the moment.

This doesn't mean DM is right, it's the "rightest" we have at the moment. Cosmologists are looking for alternatives, because some are becoming unhappy with the lack of progress in finding DM candidates - WIMPs etc., but those alternatives still don't hold a candle to DM right now.

Microsoft releases Windows 11 Insider Preview, attempts to defend labyrinth of hardware requirements

> Well if you're talking about AMD, actually not that many really, even going back to Zen 1.

Right, which is why recent CPUs are being tested. They've got Zen+ and newer on the support list, they just haven't gone back to Zen 1. That's where they've drawn the line, newer than Zen 1. But if you include Intel CPUs, and ARM64 ones, even back to Zen 1+ (2018ish) is hundreds of different SKUs across AMD and Intel.

For AMD, that's 16 desktop CPUs (Ryzen 3 1200 -> Threadripper 2990WX), 18 desktop APUs (from Athlon Pro 300GE to Ryzen 5 Pro 3400G), and 14 mobile CPUs (Ryzen 3 3300U to Ryzen 7 3780U). Thats 48 CPUs for one generation from one vendor. Intel would have had even more. Spread that across 3 generations over that period, and you are talking hundreds of SKUs to test.

Could they have gone back to Zen 1? Sure. But then they'd have had to do the equivalent Intel generation as well. And why only Zen 1? Why not complain that they aren't testing 2011 Bulldozer/Sandy Bridge CPUs?

All of those systems/CPUs they haven't tested with Windows 11 are perfectly happy on 10, and will be for at least the remaining 4 years of Microsoft's WIn10 support window, by which time all of those systems will be over 8 years old.

> if it's a first-gen Ryzen CPU then it's not currently on the supported list for reasons Microsoft have so far not elaborated on.

Well, being on the supported list means they have actually tested it. How many combinations of the thousands of CPU SKUs, hundreds of chipset SKUs released in the last decade do you think Microsoft should test? How many years back? 3, 5, 10, 20?

Windows 10 still has 4 more years of support, therefore Microsoft probably chose its CPU test set from a combination of age, quantity (number of tests they want to do), likliehood of ever running windows 11 - 6 year old CPU running windows 10 has 4 more years of support, making it a 10 year old CPU by the time windows 10 support runs out, how many people are likely to need to install windows 11 on a 10 year old CPU, certainly greater than zero, but enough to justify spending millions of dollars on testing 5 years, 6 years , 7 years or older CPUs?

At some point they have to draw the line of how far back - taking into account 4 more years of windows 10 support for systems they don't certify for 11 - they will go back and test.

Not to mention that the current support list is the current support list. It would surprise me if that list doesn't grow over time as they get around to - or allow other parties to certify, e.g. Dell - other systems.

> MS - not everyone can afford to replace their main boards , and all associated stuff such as CPU's RAM, etc

> I can afford a suitable TPM chip, but those have rocketed in price, and we do need a tool, that checks your system, and point you in the right direction, regarding a suitable TPM, for a particular system.

You don't need a TPM chip. Why? Because there is no compelling reason to upgrade to Windows 11 within the next 4 years.

Windows 10 is supported until 2025.

Most computers sold in the last 3 years (more like 4, but being safe) that aren't the absolute bottom-rung models, have built-in chipset/firmware-based TPM functionality that satisfies the TPM requirement, once you've gone into the UEFI and switched it on that is (most systems seem to have it defaulted to off/disabled).

Sure, in 2025, if you haven't already replaced incompatible computers that will be more than 7 years old by then, you then might need to go find a TPM module. But you have 4 more years to make that decision.

Re: Silicon Valley's post pandemic recovery plan

> So there we have it: the tech cartel pulls together its excessive and unaccountable might to tell the world that it WILL buy new hardware and new software to replace something that, for most users, ain't broke.

But no-one, not even Miscrosoft, is forcing anyone to upgrade to Windows 11. Windows 10 still has at least 4 more years of support, till 2025. If your current computer can't handle windows 11, then it is probably more than 3 years old, which means with the 4 more years of win10 support means it'll be at least 7 years old - if not older if it is more than 3 years old already - by the time you might need windows 11, assuming Microsoft doesn't offer security updates after that four-year support window closes in 2025.

AFAIK, there is nothing compelling in windows 11 that 'hurts' if you don't have it. Windows 10 had DX12 if you are a gamer, which wasn't going to be in Windows 8, but again, that mattered really only to gamers. I haven't seen anything, yet, as marginally compelling as going to win10 for DX12 that would prompt a windows 11 upgrade.

Apart from some business/professional cases (e.g. you work with windows so are expected to have Win11), the only reason to upgrade existing systems to Win11 would be for a "keeping up with the Jonses"-type situation. You want the latest, grooviest thing, not that you need it, not that it makes any practical sense to upgrade to it.

Re: None for me, thanks

> There is so much hardware that is now useless but still works fine. If the developing world could buy those machines second hand and still have them able to be used albeit much more slowly, the world would be a much better place.

This is already a thing and has been for decades. If you ever go to a computer auction and wondering who is snapping up those pallets of 50 5-year old computers, switches, routers and so on, it's businesses that are doing exactly that - shipping them off to 3rd-world countries to be used in schools, government offices, private businesses, and so on. They don't need the most recent version of windows, or the most modern version of Adobe Photoshop, etc.

US Navy starts an earthquake to see how its newest carrier withstands combat conditions

I think this test extended the US Militaries assault on Molluscs.

It was a smokescreen for an attack on another part of the mollusc family, cephalopods. A very specific cephalopod, the Kraken.

Re: That truck video is Awesome!

> I wonder why no one else is trying out putting a bit of a ramp at the end instead just a flat deck?

Generally speaking it's a choice between catapult-assisted or ramp.

Ramps are used for STOVL-type aircraft, that can vector thrust downwards on takeoff as they traverse the ramp, balancing on their downwards thrust as they accelerate until forward motion (well, airspeed) allows the wings to generate lift.

Using catapults, non-STOVL aircraft, such as E2-Hawkeye, Viking cargo planes, can be launched that are not STOVL-capable. All their lift comes from air flowing over the wings, as opposed to downwards thrust (for takeoff).

Also, think of the forces on the landing gear of an aircraft being dragged by a catapult that then hits a ramp, thus changing the force directions and so on on the gear. It'd tear the landing gear off unless it was made so heavy as to be impractical.

If you wanted to mix catapults and ramps, you'd have to do it on different take-off 'lanes' (runways?)

So, on something like the Gerald R. Ford that has four catapults for launching, you could replace a catapult (or 2) with a ramp, but then you'd lose a catapult take-off spot to a ramp. ALthough I guess you could use moveable ramps, that could move out of the way, or flatten, when using a catapult, but that'd add huge cost and complexity for no added benefit, because a catapult - once you've taken the time and expense to develop and install one - can be used for launching both conventional (non-STOVL-type aircraft, F-18s, E2, etc.) and STOVL (F-35B, Harrier, etc.) aircraft. However, a ramp can only be used for STOVL-type aircraft. Therefore replacing a catapult with a ramp doesn't gain you anything, as it reduces the variety of aircraft that can be flown from that takeoff path.

By their nature, STOVL-type aircraft have to be lighter aircraft, which means limited weapons payload or range, or both. A catapult-launched F-35C has both increased fuel load (i.e. more range) and an increased payload (i.e. more weapons) than a ramp-launched STOVL F-35B.

Using a ramp, and sticking to STOVL aircraft, saves you the expense of developing and installing a catapult, and the maintainence of a "moving parts" catapult, at the sacrifice of reduced aircraft variety that can be used. But if you have already gone to the time and expense to develop and install a catapult, using a ramp (on the same vessel) is a backwards step.

USA's efforts to stop relying on Russian-built rocket engines derailed by issues with Blue Origin's BE-4

Re: Capitlaism

> They use the Russian engines because they're cheaper

No. They were at the time of initial selection 20 years ago the only currently in production engine that could meet the performance criteria. There just was no other practical option in production, there weren't even any on the drawing board let alone under active development.

Final guidance on Schrems II ruling: Data from EU could be held up if a third country lets authorities access it

Re: How long has this been going on?

> How long has this been going on?

> It never ceases to amaze me how tectonically slow the wheels of the EU move. And all the while, businesses are openly breaking the law on the grounds of “no guidance”.

According to the sidebar to the article, Privacy Shield was struck down approximately one year ago. Therefore it as taken about 1 year to provide this guidance.

Open standard but not open access: Schematron author complains about ISO paywall

Re: Free the standards

> Of course you don't have to read them, but you do have to have a paid for copy of each standard filed in your quality management system somewhere - the ISO standard says so.

I couldn't afford that one, so wasn't aware of that.

Japan assembles superteam of aircraft component manufacturers to build supersonic passenger plane

Re: The richer rich got their own planes

> One huge benefit is that you often fly into smaller "executive" airports that can be much closer to your ultimate destination. While you wait to board, the flight centers often have free beverages and snacks for you including freshly made cookies depending on the facility. You can also order in and have a very nice meal.

Other benefits of these smaller airports, no security queues. Not to mention, you don't have to be there on time because, well, the plane will wait for you, so you can turn up 30 minutes late if your massage hasn't finished yet. The only chedule the airplane has to keep is your schedule, at least while it is still within your share of the time-share. Oh, and possibly airport curfews, if you dealy your flight too long it may not be allowed to land at the destination airport (or even takeoff) if you delayed it outside curfews.

> A plane that can only fly supersonic over the ocean will not reduce practical travel times for most routes.

> There's London or Paris to New York like the Concorde, but what else?

How about Vancouver/Seattle/San Francisco/Los Angeles/Santiago/Honolulu to Tokyo/Seoul/Shanghai/Beijing/Hong Kong/Taipei/Bangkok/Singapore/Manila/Jakarta/Sydney/Melbourne/Auckland/Dubai?

The Atlantic isn't the only Ocean.

Re: Still convinced that there's no commercial market, but good luck anyway.

> The richer rich got their own planes.

Or in the case of a couple of them, their own rockets which they may soon to able to use for point-to-point transport.

New York congressman puts forward federal right-to-repair bill

Re: Coming soon

> Coming soon

> You won't be able to purchase a device at any price, only lease.

It's already here. Look at the IoT tat that 2 years after purchase just ceases working because the vendor has shut down the 'cloud' service it has to phone-home to on a daily basis to work for no other reason than becuse they can (well, to make more money).

Poltergeist attack could leave autonomous vehicles blind to obstacles – or haunt them with new ones

Re: Simpler DoS attacks possible

> Equally simple, is to use a laser pointer to confuse the lidar.

That is unlikley to work as lidar, unlike laser pointers, tend to work in the non-visible part of the spectrum.

Laser pointers are meant to project a visible dot of light so they can be, you know, used to point out things to other people. That's what they are for.

Since lidar are designed to send out thousands (if not millions) of beams of light per second, and to operate around dozens/hundreds of other such units doing the same thing, using visible light would be problematic, don't you think? On top of that, there is often a lot of subtle frequency modulation and other techniques in the light sent out, such that a lidar can filter out light coming from other lidar units and only process light it emitted.

Early prototypes may have had this problem, but actual in-use production units don't.

That isn't to say someone couldn't build a device designed to emit light on the same wavelengh and moduation as in-service lidar. But this would be a targeted attack using special-purpose harware. As first (assuming you don't have the blueprints, source code, random keys used) you'd have to intercept the light form a target lidar unit, work out the modulation that one is using, and then be able to send that same signal back. Like intercepting a car-key fob, or RFID security tags, and so on. Doable, but not a random mass-attack.

Re: Automation

> Firmly of the belief that licenses should require retests every few years.

I agree with this, certainly at least with respect to the 'written' portion, as road regulations change over time, and people usually don't go off reading acts of parliament to see what rules have changed.

For example, recently (well, about 7 years ago now) road rules changed here to allow motorcycle 'filtering', which had for decades been illegal. Filtering is the ability to, during slow-moving 'congestion' traffic (less than 25kph), to ride between lanes of traffic, and/or to 'filter' at traffic lights past the stopped vehicles to move up to the lights themselves, to the front of the queue. There are many additional requirements for this that I won't go into (not past heavy vehicles for example). The point is that I availed myself of these 'new' regulations and moved to the front of the queue stopped at traffic-lights, and some middle-aged wanker abused me and was going on about how it was illegal lane-splitting, and tried to run me off the road, being totally oblivious to the new rules. And I still find that now, that many are oblivious to these changes.

Therefore after that event, I think that every 10 years, on the 20/30/40th year etc, one should have to re-sit a written test that covers the basics plus specifically points out any changed road-rules that have come into force during the previous decade.

> No self driving vehicle needs to reach perfection, it needs to beat the average human.

The average human driver is shit, using that as the baseline is unconscionable. It'd make the roads more dangerous as while it might 'bring up' the level of those drivers who are below average, it is also going to 'pull down' those drivers who are above average down to that average level (since the self-driving will be doing the driving). Thus overall making the roads (IMO) no safer, and perhaps more dangerous, than now.

Such a system is responsible for human (and others, musn't forget the aliens who live amongst us, oh yeah, and the animals) lives, and as such, before giving a machine that level of responsibility, where there is no human in the loop to make the actual decisions, to take the responsibility, it needs to be far, far better than an "average human".

For a self-driving (level 5) system to be certified - IMHO - it needs to be at least as good as the 80th-percentile of professional drivers (that is, it is better than 80% of professional drivers), one might even argue as good as mid-level racing drivers (i.e. not F1/Indycar level, but above go-cart). None of this averaging across a whole population shit.

Roger Waters tells Facebook CEO to Zuck off after 'huge' song rights request

> I think most people would be hard-pressed to spend that much money every day for the rest of their life.

Challenge Accepted!

I assume you'll supply the 1.3m/month?

Realizing this is getting out of hand, Coq mulls new name for programming language

Re: There are two hard problems in Computer Science

> Still better than "Commander of United Nations Taskforce". (which was a real thing in Gibraltar I think)

In the late 80's/early 90's in Australia, there was a rash of elevating Colleges of Advanced Educations into Universities. One such was the CCAE - Canberra College of Advanced Education, but it became a University, variously called Canberra University or University of Canberra (UC). This resulted in the netball team for what was previously the CCAE becoming, very briefly, the Canberra University Netall Team, before being mysteriously renamed the University of Canberra Netball Team.

Firefox 89: Can this redesign stem browser's decline?

Re: Please, Firefox, just go away already!

> Why don't you tell me in detail what part of my comment shows that I fail to read your comment or fail to comprehend what you wrote so our conversation would also benefit the others?

How about when you wrote this in the post previous:

> And as a result, you believe that MS took all resources away from browser development because of the pressure from Firefox, not Chrome.

Not only is it a blatantly false to say that @PassiveSmoking said that, your conclusion that it was because of Chrome that "MS took all resources away from browser development" is nonsensical.

IE 6, released in 2001, won the browser wars against Netscape, Mozilla (still a fairly new browser only at version 0.9 at this time) Opera and a few minor 'niche' browsers. Neither Firefox or Chrome even existed at this time, the latter wasn't released until 7 years after these events, and 4 years after Firefox 1.0.

Because of this overwhelming victory, MS abandoned all serious development of IE for the best part of a decade, with IE 7.0, which wasn't really a big update, more of a "we've got to release something new after 5 years of squat to compete against upstart Firefox", released 5 years after IE6 was released.

Firefox 1.0 was released late 2004 (it's initial 0.1 'Phoenix' version in late 2002).

IE7 two years later in 2006, as a response to Firefox's increasing market share.

It was the 'hotting up' of Firefox that helped prompt MS to start browser development again, with IE7 being a rushed release not long after restarting browser development.

Safari came along during this window, middle of 2003 for its 1.0 release. However, at that time, even 100% of Apple users using it just meant a tiny market share, as this was before the iPhone-led resurgence of Apple's computer and before smarphones were widely available.

Chrome's initial 0.2 release was nearly two years later, Q3 2008, with it's "1.0" release a few months later, Dec 2008.

Re: Please, Firefox, just go away already!

> and use a host file to block ad servers where possible

It's probably easier to run a dockerified Pi-Hole locally on your computer, that way you get their updated blocklists with updates and don't have to maintain your own hosts file - assuming you trust the list-creators that is.

Re: Please, Firefox, just go away already!

> Now and for the last few years JS speeds has been very good. And that is one of the key factors of the web: how fast is the JS engine. Makes a huge difference especially in complex webapps.

Complex webapps can burn in fiery hell.

If your requirement is "complex", write an actual app that runs directly on the underlying OS (Windows, Linux, MacOS, etc.) after being downloaded and installed.

Re: Stats

> (only available to install manually on Chrome's website)

What, you mean Google's search page (google.com, google.<country code>) doesn't popup an unmissable "Switch to Chrome, click here to install"-type link when you do a Google search from a non-Chrome browser? And it's not like 90%+ of people on the internet use Google search so would see such a popup if it did occur, is it?

Oh wait, yes it does and yes that many people do use Google.

So you don't have 'to go to' Chrome's website, Google will shove it down your throat helpfully popup the link for you (well, ok, maybe not you if you don't use Google, but the other 90% of the world who does) everytime you do a Google search .

Re: (cringe)

From a personal perspective, I love being able to customize stuff. I've spent days setting up Xwindows environments to how i like it. Since I am in IT, that's fine, as I tend to break stuf, but then tend to fix it myself after a bit (or a lot) of research into it.

From a technical support perspective, however, too much customization is problematic.

Customer: "How do I open a local file in my browser"

Support: "In the top-left corner, click on the file menu, then ..."

Customer: "I don't have a file menu in the top left corner."

Support: "Oh, you must of moved it, find where you moved your file menu to and click it ..."

Customer: "I don't have a file menu at all, I renamed all the menus, maybe it's this one I called stuff? Could it be under that one? Or maybe you mean this other one I called spot?"

Support: "*facepalm*"

Also, from a code-base supportability perspective it can be problematic. It requires more code to implement such features. More code == more bugs. And could get broken on every major upgrade, the config file could get blatted, or registry keys corrupted or set back to defaults after the upgrade, or whatever.

For software aimed at a general userbase, it's just not worth the support headaches and code supportability problems extensive customization capabilities introduces.