Posts by imanidiot 4421 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Mar 2012
The stupid thing is that Panda's even have all the digestive system traits of a carnivore, and they could likely do very well on a diet with meat. They simply refuse to eat anything other than bamboo. Since they're too stupid to live, I vote we just let them die out.
Really? I am running win10 pro, and after running some extra privacy enhancing tweaks, I get no advertising, only the occasional update (long release schedule, so not the "latest and brokenest") and near as I can tell no telemetry actually getting out to Redmond.
"the company that has my best interests at heart"
Really? What company would that be then? The company that keeps showing they are incompetent when it comes to board design? The company that keeps denying they buggered something up until most people affected have already thrown their device out or paid for very expensive repairs before opening a warranty program? The company that does everything they can to make sure you can't get genuine spare parts? The company that denies it's possible to recover data from even water damaged devices (When shown repeatedly it IS possible)? The company that would rather tell you repairs will cost more than what you originally paid for something than invest in some proper training and troubleshooting to find the fault in a 5 cent component?
That company?
Yeah, good luck with that. I'll stick with my ultra cheap Android with the clear assumption the company doesn't give a rats ass about me or my device and the hundreds of other companies that provide spares for it so I can repair it myself. I can literally buy 10 of the phones I have now for the price of one high end iPhone. And an Apple device would provide me NO benefit whatsoever.
The link between the secure flight controls and navigation network (third network in the article) and the flight crew and maintenance network (second network) will be needed for things like engine management data too. Things like engine and FADEC system parameters are very important data for the maintenance crews working on the craft between flights. I agree the first network could be fully airgapped from the second and third layer, however that public facing network is probably still running things that the maintenance network wants to know about. (Things like the in-flight entertainment system might not seem important, but play a vital role for both airline image and keeping the cattle calm during the flight)
shutdown -h now for a second time: Mag editor fires parting shot at proprietary software
The thing is, can you actually, when promted "cold", write all those important things down? The devil is in the details and it's quite often difficult to remember those small things that seem insignificant that matter. On top of that it's often not single things or singular experiences that make the greybeard valuable. It's the whole stack of all the things they know that lets them make connections between all the disparate facts, events and errors thats leads to that lightbulb moment. That is not something that can be replaced by a wiki page.
As an engineer I WANT a company dealing with either old or existing tech to have a good flock of greybeards around. They're the actual encyclopedia of the company. They're the ones that have stored all the lessons in a way that can never be recorded. Even I as a 30-something year old have already gathered knowledge that I don't even know I have. There's so much that you learn along the way that never shows up in a "lessons learned" list (if your company even lets you have the time to make those). A company existing mainly of overenthusiastic 20 year olds? They better be selling something truly revolutionary or extremely cheap (with the understanding support from them will be effectively 0) for me to want to deal with them.
It was wrapped up in red tape. I doubt it has been unwrapped since, and the passing of Lester Haines probably set things back even further. There were some comments that the remaining team was trying to move things forward at the time, but we haven't heard anything since.
The problem is that the decision NOT to buy spares is always made when the kit is first installed, spares are plentiful and the number of processes running on it are not too bloated, so cost of downtime isn't too great. So a beancounter looks at the numbers and veto's having spares because "the cost outweighs the benefit".
Give it a few years and all those processes have grown in importance and a few got added. Meanwhile the manufacturer has come up with new shiny, shiny kit and the spares for your stuff now have to come from the "long term support center" at triple the cost and four times the delivery time. Downtime is now absolutely killing and guaranteed to be 4 times as long, but since the beancounters originally calculated you don't need spares, you can't have spares.
The spike created a shockwave and it was positioned such that this shockwave was JUST inside the lip of the engine. Too far back and the airflow entered the engine too fast, causing damage, too far forward and the engine was starved of air and stopped producing any thrust at all in an instant (Called an unstart, these could apparently be very violent in the SR71 and A12). The compression of the air by this shockwave did the majority of the compression and most of the high pressure air was bled from midway through the compressor stage of the engine and injected directly into the afterburner through bypass doors. It mixed with the hot exhaust of the engine and provided a lot of extra thrust. (What percentage seems to still be classified because I find a lot of different values from "the majority", to "about half").
While I agree it would be beneficial to be able to import the old models, if you've ever tried to work with .air files describing the flight behaviour of the aircraft you'll know it's a pain. By the time of FS2004 and FSX even MS/Aces Studios couldn't quite figure out what each parameter was supposed to do and how it interacted with the simulator framework (As witnessed by the abysmal flight characteristics of the default 747 for instance).
Many of the add-ons (especially the more extensive ones) were broken between the original FS series as well and required a lot of rework often requiring repurchasing. I don't think this would stop uptake of the new version if it offered enough of an upgrade to do so.
A better (and more real world units based) flight model could go a long way towards that.
If MS wants this to be a succes the it'll have to be:
- As easy to expand as the original. I don't agree with the author that it has to work with the old ESP framework as anyone who worked with it will know it was clunky to say the least but it can improve on this with actual documentation (Free and openly available) and use of real world units instead of weird scalars that affected 3 different aspects of a model at the same time (an not mutually exclusive of course).
- Run offline without requiring an internet connection
- Provide "good enough" flight physics out of the box. No-one into serious simming ever accused the MS flight models of being accurate, but that's where point number one, add-ons, comes back in.
- Provide the same scenery wise: Good enough elevation data, some detailed large airports around the world, the full Jeppesen database reproduced procedurally (not super accurately, leave that to the community and industry)
- Priced attractively enough for the general public (80 Euros max for a single not-for-profit license) and for businesses (Offer cheaper single seat, single user commercial licenses and the like)
"In real life what causes most crashes are not pilot error but mechanical and system failures."
uhhhmm, No. The root cause is rarely mechanical or systems failure. Every single country that keeps statistics and does investigations finds that while mechanical and systems failures are often contributing factors the main killer for aircrews/pilots is "Loss of situational awareness". Focus on problem solving the system failure (even if it's not critical) leads to loss of awareness and pilots stop doing the important job of flying the aircraft.
To be fair, even the Harrier couldn't operate from unprepared ground. It needed a sturdy pad too and yes, even the harrier did a lot of damage to the ground. It was just much more limited than with the F-35B. The standard flightdecks of carriers designed to handle the blast of conventional afterburner jet engines could handle the Harriers output for a limited time. The F-35 is just too much.
The harrier was lighter and spread the output of the engine over 4 nozzles instead of 2 big ones. The engine design also meant the exhaust was cooler for the Pegasus than it is for the F135.
Maximum output of the Pegasus 106kN, output of the F135 in hover mode 181 kN. That's close to 8 metric tons of extra force in a hotter, more focused bundle.
When is a the news/history value of a "deep fake" video large enough that it should stay up? The very fact POTUS tweeted about it, and the discussion it caused would be reason to keep a video like the one of Pelosi up. At the very best it could include a short pre-roll warning it has been identified as a deep-fake.
The second thing is that having a censoring mechanism like this creates a giant risk of actual censoring happening. If a REAL video is claimed to be fake by politicians, can they keep it out of the media attention simply by virtue of claiming it's a deep fake? It creates an opening that shouldn't exist imho. If the politicians want people to be able to judge real from fake and judge news for themselves, maybe they should adres the educational system and create actual critical citizens who can think for themselves. Of course no politician actually dares do that.
Separate question, if a video actually IS fake but good enough to fool almost anyone, how are FaceGoogTube supposed to identify it as fake?
This CPGgrey video explains quite clearly why FPTP is a terrible voting system doomed to become a 2 party system.
I have no doubt many of these incidents are just fuckups. "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately ascribed to stupidity". However, a fuckup this large requires either a special kind of stupid or malice and the latter starts being the more believable explanation. Generally though I have a hard time believing the problems caused by China or Russia are all (or partly) caused by malicious effort, and all the incidents coming from the US are entirely and purely accidental. I don't believe for a second the TLA's wouldn't use this sort of attack. --> Is that a Blackhawk I hear approaching?
"you should just thank the U.S. for what we did today (with our close Allies) to make even posting here possible."
A: You can fuck right off. Anybody that uses that argument deserves a swift kick in the balls because it is NEVER someone that actually had ANY involvement in that war. I'm thankful for the veterans that actually did fight in the European and Pacific theaters. The nation and especially it's citizens don't just get to claim special status or "gratitude" after the fact. The US did the right thing back then. It did a lot of stupid, irresponsible shit after that (Cold war, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Irak to name but a few).
B: "EVERY Country should negotiate FAIR and BALANCED trade agreement", yes, yes they should. And that INCLUDES the US. Look at the history of trade negotiations worldwide and you'll find the US doesn't really like actually doing those sorts of deals.
I can't help but think that blasting a battery with high energy X-ray photons isn't exactly going to help in the damage department either. No doubt fast charging is bad for batteries, but how exactly is that new knowledge? I thought that was pretty much "known". This might go to explain the WHY though but it's not news that it's happening imho.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
