Sustainable Aircraft Fuel
Its tough to make airplanes run off electricity, so there are various plans to make liquid fuels from renewable sources. Airbus talks about it here...
158 posts • joined 31 Jul 2007
"But VMs are already a well-understood, mature, technology for almost everything other than delivering easily iterated applications." Therefore containers aren't mature, QED.
Honestly I haven't studied containers at all, but I'd understood that the container interface isn't perfectly stable between versions and not identical across different implementations.
Isn't a container pretty much like a servlet? Why don't vendors just sell their products as a WAR file? Probably because there are always outside dependencies?
VM's are reliable, for me that's the winning feature.
This sounds like the eternal vi-emacs argument.
Personally I'm vi - simple, available everywhere. Like VMs.
One thing I particularly don't like about containers is the relative lack of storage or persistence.
However nothing I'm working on needs me to do the cost-benifit analysis. VMs let anyone administer the solution, its a known quantity, good enough for me.
So Ethanol or biodiesel? Zero carbon impact, ethanol burns very cleanly.
In France many supermarket petrol pumps offer E85, 80% ethanol, for about half the price of normal S95.
And yet I think there are currently no carmakers selling cars that can run on E85 without modifications.
5 minutes ago I got a request about an application not working. Admittedly its a first install for a new client, but all the same...
The error message says ...
No X11 DISPLAY variable was set, but this program performed an operation which requires it.
I do lots of crazy projects in perl that often involve parsing data coming from mainframes. I've taken to dumping everything into SQLite3 and then working it out from there.
Its incredibly fast, and SQLite is everywhere.
Frankly between Excel and SQLite, I know which binary format will be more future-proof.
Airbus planes except the A350 and A380 do have a wheel for manual pitch trim. Check out this article..
The Airbus software will give up and hand control to the pilot when it can't figure out what's happening. I'm honestly not sure if that's reassuring or scary.
In the next big war, all the aircraft carriers, AWACS and aerial refuelling tankers will be out of action at the end of the first day. GPS will be inoperative, and battlefield wireless communications will be jammed.
Compare that to all the shiny stuff the militaries want...
Just this morming I uploaded a document to salesforce to attach it to a case, and I marveled at the % completion information Somethng like "69.123456789%", if not more digits.
A few years ago I took a photo of a price in the supermarket saying the price per kilo was 123.666666666667 euros.
I entirely agree with the proposition that the seniors in a company can find space in their homes to work from home comfortably.
When I was a junior I lived in a small apartment in Paris that was badly insulated, and I had a good lunch subsidised by the company.
So today if I was going to buy or rent I'd need an extra space for a real desk. 1 room appartments the world over will become unsellable.
There will be many unforseen impacts.
Personally I'm gaining weight, not loosing it. I used to cycle to work and eat tiny lunches...
Some years ago, an internal FBI memo was released saying that if evidence came from illegal telephone monitoring it would be a good idea to downplay that aspect of the investigation by documenting alternative sources for the information. Anonymous tip-offs increased mightily.
However I can't find an article about it. It was before Snowden.
Regularly there are articles, including on The Register, about miraculous new investigation tools that on the face of it couldn't possibly work, I always assume they're being pushed as an alternative source of information to hide the use of classified (and therefore illegal) information.
Airbus has a "Airbus U.S. Manufacturing Facility" in Mobile Alabama, where they produce A320 family planes since 2016.
I believe that Northrop Grumman has a big hand in the Boeing fighter programs, so they could probably take over Boeing Defense. But I agree, the US fighters are in a dire situation between obselescence and disfunction, both causeing increased costs and lower availability. They should probably look to replace their older F-16s with the Gripen.
Airlines pay a deposit when they order, but they have a loan arrangment to cover the total cost of the plane when they receive it. So taking possession of the airplane is cash-flow positive - they get their deposit back, basically. Which for certain airlines is a very important consideration...
Supprt means "we'll take the call".
Maintained means "we can provide a correction"
I support lots of products where the developpers no longer want to compile the source.
My clients understand what box they're in, but they're still paying the yearly tithe to be able to call me.
The US pours all its money into offensive weapons like aircraft and carriers, meanwhile Russia pours lots of money into missiles. Turkey bought the S-400 because its way more effective and way cheaper than anything the US has.
Missiles are defensive. Aircraft can be defensive or offensive. Therefore the US is scarier than Russia, amirite ?
Thanks for the upvote!
I am consistently amazed at what fighter aircraft manufacturers will say! I have never seen one admit to a restriction or a liability. Sometimes they do leave in a kicker to stay honest, like "... when we get the budget".
Anyway, the Typhoon engine air intakes look "difficult" to make stealthy. They're rectangular. And I don't remember anyone saying that they have an "S-bend" to hide the turbine blades from direct radar illumination. On the other hand, in the Rafale backstory there is a phase when Saudi Arabia asked for "low radar cross section". That happened just as they were going from prototype to final design. The story goes that the final aircraft looks just like the prototype, but that "nothing is the same". Dassault markets the Rafale as a "Discrete Omnirole supersonic fighter". Discrete as opposed to being "Oh my Holy God" obvious.
Typhoon gets the message out about using RAM (radar absorbing materials) but doesn't really directly say anything about their cross section. Rhere's no official published radar cross section info from any the respective manufacturers.
The F-35 says its "really good" form in front - not so much from the back and sides. The Rafale has a huge flat tail that's probably easy to pick up from the side. Your milage may vary...
Dassaut were producing "delta wing" fighter jets since a long time. The company building Typhoon was created from scratch. Typhoon and Rafale have a similar "delta canard" design. Which final design is probably the best?
Have you noticed any design faults on the Typhoon?
First the canards are so far forward that the pilot's view of the ground is blocked. OK for air-to-air, which was the Typhoon's original target.
Then the wheels fold up laterally into the wings, making it more difficult to put extra tanks and heavy weapons close to the centerline - on the Typhoon they're all mounted wayyy forward. The wheels on the Rafale fold up longitudinally.
The great one is how the Typhoon sales people have always criticized the Rafale for being designed to do everything from the beginning, whereas the Typhoon was specialized for air-to-air. But now they've stopped saying that because they're trying to compete as a multirole fighter
You're right, and there's even an abomination of a project called the "Sea Typhoon". They actually drew a diagram with an arrestor hook. And thrust vectoring engines, always good to add something they can drop later on... If anyone can bear it, I found it here..
I seem to recall The Register doing an article on that. The UK govt was "just asking for a friend" if they could share desk space with other fighters, like F18 or Rafale... The question coincided with a love-in between the UK and French militaries. BAE panicked, thinking the F35 contract was at risk, and used the UDP party line - Ulster says "NO" !
Or they're embarrassed about how much they cost to produce and maintain. They have great aerodynamics and best-of-class stealth, but terrible avionics.
The Eurofighter is easily a better airplane than the F22, but it like a lighthouse on radar unfortunately.
Either way, neither a F22 nor a Eurofighter will ever take off from an aircraft carrier, way too big.
The F-35 prices are still a bit fictive, I won't put my money on the F-35A actually being useably produced for less than $100M. The F-16 "total cost of ownership" prices can be reliably forecast (although not by me).
However for a carrier aircraft, India is looking at either the F-18 or the Rafale, so best choose one of them.
In france my son's school has a subscription to a dedicated school information service. So I get emails from them in the app, with a notification going to my email address. I can see my son's timetable and all his marks, with the class min/max/average.
As far as I know all the secondary schools have a similar system. I think there are 3 or 4 companies offering equivalent services.
Yes, in a shooting war, the AWACS, the Tankers, and the Aircraft Carriers will all be smoke after the first 36 hours. Still, an aircraft carrier without airborne early warning is a sitting duck. Aircraft carriers can easily be spotted by satellites with enough precision to launch missiles against them.
Kick in the balls is right! Well that's going to accelerate CPU development in China, the Chinese government isn't going to take this lying down!
I suspect this is a watershed moment, where the whole Chinese population will decide that the Americans are ruthless and untrustworthy.
The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour because the US was denying it access to oil (as one theory goes). This decision really feels similar. Eventually the US will find itself isolated, they're pissing off so many countries. But before that many dangerous things can happen....
Snowden's data dump showed that the NSA likes intercepting shipments to some clients to install backdoors.
I would say this flay perfectly fits their modus operandi. I'm not saying they encouraged cisco to set things up like this, but I'd be surprised if they hadn't already found this situation...
No, its clear that the pilots in the second crash tried to do what Boeing said. However Boeing gave incomplete information to the pilots. Once the MACS is "stuck", there are incredible forces acting on the control surfaces. So the "manual trim" procedure is basically impossible.
In the old, old days the Boeing flight manual gave a real procedure on how to recover the airplane, but it has been airbrushed from history. Expect it to come back in the court cases...
And yet in the history of Airbus its happened that 2 sensors failed at the same time and with the same incorrect readings. Its just extremely unlightly. Read this for background
You'd think so, but actually lighthouses are just general navigation beacons.
You get big powerful ones that you can spot from far away as you approach the coast from the sea, these tell you basically which part of the coast you're approaching. Then you might get a smaller lighthouse to signal the clear water channel to approach a port. Any dangers they warn about are basically irrelevant to a boat of less than a ton.
Also many lighthouses don't illuminate 360 degrees. If only because then the local villagers can't sleep, but also to only cover a particular danger or channel. So even if it was working its feasible that it wasn't identifiable in the fog.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021