The answer might be in the translation in the second link at the foot of the article?
> Button (おしり) --> Water spray to clean your bum
> Button (ムーブ) --> Have the spray move in a forward and backwards manner
715 posts • joined 23 Jun 2009
The answer might be in the translation in the second link at the foot of the article?
> Button (おしり) --> Water spray to clean your bum
> Button (ムーブ) --> Have the spray move in a forward and backwards manner
> Except pilots have a seperate oxygen supply for just such an eventuallity and besides, none of those would have caused the plane to do an almost 180 degree course reversal in stages over a period of a couple of hours
Please, read the link about the Helios flight - you'd be amazed at how badly people function with low-level hypoxia. I've been there, and it is extremely strange - despite acknowledging the symptoms, my reaction was a shrug, "oh well," and carry on with what I was doing - no remedial action.
Oxygen deprivation isn't an on/off switch. Let's say, for example, that cabin pressurisation failed for whatever reason, and the pilots were using their oxygen, but didn't realise they were suffering hypoxia. Maybe the bottles were low, maybe there was a leak, maybe they just weren't using it correctly if at all. Or maybe there was a slow enough depressurisation that they just didn't react correctly, and took a long period to decline to unconsciousness. Re-routing would be a perfectly believable action. Who knows what was going through their heads.
Maybe these scenarios seem unlikely, but something very unlikely has happened - so the explanation is also bound to be pretty unlikely.
I still agree that a deliberate act seems likely, perhaps more so than the scenario above, but unfounded statements of one explanation being the "only" logical one are simply wrong. As above, it is a tragedy the plane won't be found, primarily for the families of those involved but also for the lack of ability to learn from the accident and, potentially, to prevent a repeat.
> The only logical explanation
Or oxygen deprivation, or decompression, or poisoning of the cabin air, all of which could be caused by mechanical faults, sabotage, terrorism etc.
I would rule out terrorism as nobody has claimed it (thus defeating the point of terrorism). Pilot suicide (whether or not the captain of the plane was in charge) seems quite likely, but so does failure of the cabin air system - see also Helios Flight 522 for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522
Short answer is there is currently not really any really good explanation, which was one good reason to want to find the wreckage.
@ Eric Olson
The interesting thing about Republican voters, who put Trump in power, but don't know that repealing Obamacare will leave them without insurance (they're insured through ACA after all - totally different thing) is the reaction of the rest of the world to the harm that these people will suffer.
It goes like this:
The harm Trump will do to the rest of the world, and the 50% of America that resembles a 1st world country, is everyone's concern, and the duty of every sane person to stand up against. But the self-defeating, uneducated, mouth breathing, racist rednecks? Never mind. Let them get their benefits cut, the insurance stopped, and their jobs exported, that's what they've voted for.
Yeah, I'm not sure I get that.
Internet access too patchy to type answers, so he did a live streamed video instead? Eh?
I'm firmly in the pro-Snowden, pro-Assange camp (check my comment history if you don't believe me) but to some extent, the end always does justify the means, or debase it. Leaking private info for the sake of it seems pointless. Leaking it to hold the rich & powerful to account seems like a great idea.
So, if the end result of leaking a few unimportant emails is that Wikileaks has been played by the Russian government to help get
David Brent Donald Trump into power, then they can rot in hell for the damage they have done.
> So, likewise, a good, open eyed, mug shot might be enough to be able to get an iris scan ?
I paid for the "check and send" passport application service. The guy (aged 60+, thick glasses, dusty shelves with poor lighting) squinted at the 1" passport photo, and asked me if it had been taken in "a proper booth". When I said no, he tried to knock back my application, as "they need to scan your iris off the photo, so if it's not taken in a proper booth, it may not be good enough."
Also known as the "I'm clever because I know something, but I'm not telling you what" comment.
Really adds to the discussion.
> Google effectively abandoning their self driving car effort
I must have missed that. Wikipedia makes it sound alive and well, do you have a link to something more... interesting?
> What a good idea. Remind me again why we can't do that?
What can't you do? Deport foreign nationals convicted of certain crimes? Deny entry to foreign nationals who have previously been convicted of certain crimes? Maintain a list of foreign nationals who aren't welcome in your country?
Must suck living wherever you do. Here in the UK we can do all those things, of course, as any decent country can.
> If all the staff that are so upset just resign on mass the resulting mess will force the hands of the governments involved
I was thinking this too, but then, maybe it wouldn't work? Maybe the EPO would just kind of, stop functioning. National bodies would pick up the slack, and the situation would resolve in a few years when his contract ended anyway.
>There are other ways, but I believe most are illegal...
Sadly we don't have what Emperor Trump referred to as "the second amendment folks" over on this side of the pond.
Even more sadly, it appears they may not be as active on the Left of the pond as Trump himself was previously hoping, either.
> 30th June 2018 apparently, at least according to Wikipedia.
Oh well, I guess we've only got another year and a half of laughing at him from over here.
Unless his contract is extended again, of course.
The article mentions two ways - end of contract, and agreement of all 38 member states.
For the former, what date is this currently set to? I assume it is a fair bit in the future (or not even set).
So to the second, what is stopping that happening? He's French, and they don't seem to like him. You don't normally call your high-level diplomats a "disgrace to [their] country" if they are in the good books. So assuming they back dumping him, wouldn't the other 37 be persuadable?
I work in aerospace, where an incident of this size would normally lead to grounding of all similar aircraft, and very likely a large loss of life.
I suspect this is where the regulators' usual approach conflicts with SpaceX's approach. Any accident of this size that a regulator would previously have seen would have killed lots of people (or at very least, endangered lots of lives), and the companies responsible would see it as a massive incident, unforeseen, and a threat to their company's future.
They're simply not used to dealing with a company like SpaceX which can shrug off a loss like this, and in fact pretty much expects the occasional one. To SpaceX, "we'll fly again next week" may seem like a reasonable approach, but to any regulators, it is very, very far from their usual comfort zone.
That's just... not true. Categorically, massively, profoundly wrong.
The satellite destroyed in September's RUD was $200M. Several orders out from your "few £100billion" estimate. The cost of the vehicle / launch is normally similar to, or may exceed, the cost of the payload.
SpaceX's entire reason for reuse is that everything you just said is wrong. Why should the fixed costs outweigh the cost of building new vehicles for every use? Would you apply the same argument to aeroplanes? Cars? No?
Let's break down your argument. Manpower. If by that you mean SpaceX engineers, they cost lots for the design of a product, but recurring costs drop after the first few flights. If you mean manufacture, guess what - the less you build, the fewer builders you need.
Supply and support - again, build fewer things, you need to buy fewer components.
Facilities - which takes a larger factory - one which can build a new vehicle every few weeks, or one which can refurbish vehicles in a similar timespan? I'll give you a hint - it's the former.
Cooling, lighting, land etc - see facilities.
Solution without problem, becomes problem.
More at 11.
The transactions are in the opposite direction. What that means is that the difference is worth more than the value they expect to get from the scrap.
If I sell my car to the scrappy for £100, and he's expecting to make £500 selling parts, you'd have to offer him at least £400 to buy the car off him.
Who knows how much profit the Turkish yard is expecting to turn, but presumably it is significantly more than the £2M they are paying for it.
Hah, there I was assuming you were talking about the Reg linking to that hate-rag. I was going to agree with you, and all. Oh well.
...Much of what America is currently famous for (high quality, fast innovation in the high-tech market, leading to virtually all large internet-based companies being US based) is now being sidelined in favour of what the rest of the world can do just as well and cheaper (low-tech manufacturing).
I get that these internet firms aren't the boost for the US economy that their size would imply, but sidelining them will simply encourage them to move elsewhere. Isn't bringing them in to the fold more productive?
I'm trying to sit back and enjoy the ride, but I just struggle to see how that will pay off for anybody (Trump, the rust belt, the trailer dwellers...).
This is already in use in any flight controllers running the Arducopter (or similar) software, such as APM and Pixhawk, called the "EKF" or Extended Kalman Filter. Essentially it takes inputs from multiple sources (1 or more of the following: IMUs, more GPS, barometer, compass...), assigns a "trustworthiness" rating to each one based on how far it said the machine was from the previous estimate, then uses that info to estimate where it is now. It works incredibly well.
It should also be able to cope with hardware failures, but my experience says a bug in the code means it can't - it appears to assign a minimum trustworthiness, which is still a long way above the deserved "0" rating. Which can lead to some interesting maneuvers.
> EU law on it, start looking at Guarantees and returns.
Yes, that provides a 2 year warranty on all products bought. I know it well, and have used to to return/replace faulty goods. There is absolutely no way it provides for free repairs to a 4 year old computer, so either a) the product was under an Apple warranty or b) Apple acted above and beyond their legal duty.
Assuming it was b), she did well, but that is absolutely not Apple's usual course of action.
Hmm. What was the reason they did it for free? Had she bought an extended warranty?
My 2011 imac screen failed after 23 months. I had the 2 year extended warranty. Without that, it would have cost about £450 for the repair, despite it being clearly a faulty product. I was less than impressed - since that was the third repair within the 2 year period, and since their products are getting less and less useful*, I won't be rushing back.
* I just did a mid-life upgrade by doubling the RAM and adding an SSD along side the original HDD - things that the more recent Apple products don't let you do.
This reminds me of the ritual I like to call the "How the hell do I open the petrol cap on this hire car?" forecourt dance.
Agreed. The issue here was miscommunication - the woman obviously didn't know much about computers, but she did know how to turn one off and on again - she just didn't understand what she was being asked to do. I suspect a simplification of language could have saved our hero 30 minutes of free time.
That said, sacking her for being a dingbat would seem like a sensible solution too - after all if she's this challenged at one thing, she's probably this challenged at many others too.
> So yes, going from 150 to 200 is very significant in energy terms
That's the speed of the aeroplane, not the metal strip. While the certainly might be related, let's not pretend to understand the physics of a complex accident with a smarmy 2 line armchair calculation on an internet forum.
> Would the rear of the cabin suffer from more noise at mach 2.2 if the aircraft is flying faster than the sound shockwaves it is creating?
The internal air is going at roughly the same speed as the passengers and engines, as is the airframe. Engine noise could reach the passengers just fine through those routes.
Passengers seated on the wing may have trouble hearing the tail engine, though.
>"...build intelligent – and secure – roads, bridges... "
Oh, I thought Chris Christie had been sacked? Shame, he know a thing or two about clever management of bridges.
Does anyone here use Firefox as a daily driver on Android? How does it compare to Chrome? I used it a few years ago when I first got a smartphone, but it was clunky and badly integrated at the time.Chrome "just works" now.
Sadly, this won't help - the Daily Mail and similar shit-filled gutter-dwelling hate rags will still count as "News" and be allowed through.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons for a company to be sending large numbers of emails. Maybe they are a specialist email-list handling business? Maybe they are paypal? Maybe they are handling the next US census? Who knows.
They could, of course, be sending spam, but then they would be unlikely to be complaining in this way, wouldn't they?
The trouble is that comparison doesn't work.
Solar gives "free" access to a large amount of energy. Let's say about 1kW / sq m hits the ground for 10 hours per day. So, if you can harvest 15% of that, you've got 1.5 kWh of freely available energy.
"Harvesting" footfall is not free, and it is a tiny amount of energy. It is simply very, very inefficiently making people put more work into walking, so that you can get a tiny bit of energy out of them. Now, think of the numbers. A person walking probably uses something like 300 W. Let's assume we can increase that by 10% without pissing them off too much, then let's assume we can harvest that additional 10% at about 25% efficiency (hint - it will be nothing like this). So, each person is going to generate about 7 Watts, for the few minutes they are on it (so, maybe 0.01 kWh per person per day once it's installed, assuming 5 minutes of walking).
My house uses, on average, about 2 kW of electricity through the winter. My car outputs something like 30 kW average while I'm driving, which I do for about an hour a day. So between just those two I'm using something like 80 kWh of energy per day, or about 8,000 times as much energy as this pavement would generate.
> now there will be a real-life example of the tech.
I was in an airport that had this recently (I think it was Lyon or Heathrow, can't remember which). There was a short corridor with some colourful LEDs on the walls, a big sign announcing what was going on, and the floor was squishy and slightly annoying to walk on, a bit like wet sand.
Also, the normal, overhead fluorescent lights still illuminated the area.
So, in order to solve an occasional problem, you want to destroy the ease and speed with which email can be used, and break the workflow with multiple pop-ups, radio buttons, text input...
Maybe running a trial or two (ideally outside the basement) will rapidly show you why this is a stupid idea.
A warning stating that the email you are about to send will go to X users (where X > a predefined number, probably about 100) would be useful, and is already widely implemented (eg where I currently work). As is a limit on who can email large lists.
Everything else you suggest is just... ridiculous and nonsense. It's not possible to tell if an address is for a single person or a list. I could set up my gmail address to forward to 10,000 people - how will your lotus notes client know that, when you send an email to an exchange server across the road?
Interestingly the computation time is not included for human solvers - they get to examine the cube beforehand, and work out what they are going to do. So the 4.9 second record is simply for executing a series of pre-worked-out moves, with a few (very short) calibration stops along the route.
"Oh, look here, I've got a sonar sensor! Crap, a laser rangefinder too! What am I going to do with these?"
> or at least cover over the bits where the crims can go or open windows.
> Put a rain shield over the outside exercise area leaving the sides (which are fenced) open.
A large net seems to be a sensible solution - still allow open air access (which is essential to health & wealfare, and hence the core aim of a prison) without letting packages be dropped in. Might be an eyesore but it would probably solve this problem completely.
> OR employ signal jamming on phones and drones.
> Finally, I'm sure that BAE Systems could design an interceptor for a few billion.
Actually harder than it sounds. I've got a drone which cost <£1000, it has no geofencing, it runs open source hardware and software, and it can run fully autonomous flight plans with no radio communication except a GPS receiver, can lift around 1kg and fly around 5 km without issue. Set it up in Google Maps, turn off all radios, and away it goes. I suppose a GPS jammer would confuse it, but I can't see the use of them in urban environments going down very well.
> Failing that build the next generation of lag hotels underground. I hear there are a good few redundant coal mines up for sale.
Why not Mars?
> If all they can come up with it to ask nicely for the GPS's to stop them overflying then they can't really be serious about stopping the flow of drugs, phones and even guns into prisons.
I think this is the real thing. Phones in prisons - genuinely, why not? Payphones cost several pounds per minute to use, meaning people without access to a mobile are pretty much cut off from their loved ones and their home life. Even for minor crimes, this leads to pretty horrendous outcomes and lack of rehabilitation. So, it seems like mobiles for non nefarious uses are sort of tolerated. The solution would be phones in cells, on which the lines can be monitored, for which the cost of use to the prisoner is reasonable.
Drugs? Again, so long as they are not promoting further crime inside, there has been a defacto tolerance of their existence in prisons. There is less of a clear cut reason why this should be the case, but there hasn't been any serious attempt to stamp them out.
> The scope for criminality is just massive with these things, is it inevitable that they will be banned?
See also: Cars, houses, metal bars, fire, sharp rocks, etc.
There's actually a really interesting thing going on here, called the Eurion constellation. Printers / scanners etc don't recognise the whole note, just that one pattern, and a very large number of currency notes include it in a repetitive background image. So, it was fairly easy to get all major manufacturers to include a simple search algorithm to include it.
As you say, cheap unbranded kit no doubt does not include controls, which will be the same with drones. But with printer's it's been successful as, to print decent forgeries, you need a good printer. To lob drugs into a prison you don't need the latest top-of-the-market off-the-shelf drone - any old Chinese import will do the job, or roll your own.
> replace the chip containing the zones ? Hack into the drone's innards and erase said zones ? Create an entire new OS that simply disregards that information ?
None of this is necessary. You'll note the article said the majority of drones on the market. So, let's say 80% of new drones from next year (including all from DJI) won't fly over prisons.
Guess what? The other 20% of off-the-shelf drones don't have geofencing. And neither do any of the DIY built ones.
> Flying a drone into a prison with GPS disabled is quite a palaver, and should reduce some of the currently trivially-easy resupply flights.
I think you've completely missed the point. GPS fencing can be turned off, without disabling GPS.
Also, many quadcopters are available without fencing of any sort, and even then it's pretty trivial to roll your own using components for a few hundred quid with full control over the firmware.
Finally, the situation you're describing is nonsense - if they actually wanted to hit a window (which they don't - they drop in pre-arranged areas), they would simply fit an FPV camera, which they presumably have anyway. It costs <£100 to get a camera, transmitter, receiver and goggles, then you get your man to flash a torch to show you where to go, and you go there.
TLDR I don't think you're very familiar with the subject!
> I don't know about you but my salary is quite a bit more than £700 a year.
Does your company really employ one person for every computer in use?
What about the computers used by the people looking after the computers. Do they get a person too?
Can I take the person with me when I travel?
Do they sit beside me at my desk? Do I need to make them tea too? If I take the laptop home, do I need to provide them with board and lodging?
Oh actually scrub that, it seems we have about 1 person per 1,000 computers in the company (wild stab-in-the-dark guess), so at a salary of, I dunno, £30k, that means each computer costs about £30/year to support, assuming they're doing nothing else.
To your other points, I am a mid-level manager in an aerospace engineering company. I travel reasonably regularly. This would not suit me. It would also not suit any of the people in my department, nor would it suit the higher ups. It certainly wouldn't suit the execs and directors. As you already pointed out, an office licence is negligable spare change compared to my wages and. Since this is about portable equipment, the average costs of flights & accommodation on most trips probably far exceed the cost of a brand new laptop with all the MS licencing costs, which as I've noted are already dwarfed by the annual cost of licencing this... empty shell thing.
So, who is it aimed at? I'm not denying it would be useful if it could run a real OS, didn't cost as much as a real computer per year to licence, and wasn't crippled to a limited number of hours. But as it is? Useless.
So it costs nearly £700 / year to use, with a limit on hours you're allowed to use it which many execs will hit in a week or maybe 2.
To replace a laptop, which probably costs about £700, and/or a tablet, which probably costs similar.
Oh, and it doesn't run standard Windows software, and there's not much software available for it. Want to edit an image using gimp? Want to monitor a manufacturing process? Want to check your kid's baby monitor? Tough.
Prediction: crash and burn.
I'll tell you what. I'd rather have my phone in my pocket (for phone things and light reading), and a tablet and / or laptop in a bag (for real work and / or presentations, videos etc). Rather than a phone and a laptop shell thing which can't do anything by itself and costs as much to rent for a few hours per month as a real laptop costs to own.
Oh, so the kit can also stop cleaners unplugging servers, road diggers cutting cables, and office busy bodies tidying up nests of wires?
> Maybe they just don't want to be associated with what is a pretty dismal...
...so far so good...
...Oh. Here I was expecting the next word to be "Game."
> I really see no reason for this article other than to unveil Yet Another Linux Distro.
The point of the article was very clearly laid out - considering it's an old, and fairly well known, linux distro, it is perhaps surprising that there are very few reviews of it.
The conclusion is that this is logical, because there is really nothing to review.
It's actually quite an interesting situation. I suppose the automotive equivalent is trying to review a home-built car in the same way as a Ford Focus or BMW 318. It's just... not really possible, as you can build it out of whatever you want. So the only noteworthy thing is the tool kit which is supplied, which the article talks about (the rolling update philosophy, the lack of patches, and the involved install process).
As in all types of engineering, it's astonishing how much it's possible to learn from a good failure. And the better the failure, the more interesting / fun it is!
(Differentiation between "interesting" and "fun" is largely determined by whether there were lives lost during the failure. Therefore this one is very firmly on the "fun" side).
I agree. I reckon this is the same level of vulnerability as a keyboard which can, after all, be used to input malicious code as strings.
What if the string I want to discuss is something like Robert'); DROP TABLE Students; -- ? There is nothing inherently wrong with storing that string, as I assume the Reg is about to competently demonstrate when I press the Submit button.
It's 5 years since I last bought a PC for home use. And things have changed over that period almost beyond recognition.
When we bought it, it lived in the living room, and it spent hours in use every day. We used it for any internet streaming, TV catchup, or internet music / radio stations, playing music at parties, for reading websites, news, social media, for blogging, for electronics / firmware hobby stuff, and for video editing.
Now it lives in the study, and although the electronics and video editing still need a real PC, the rest are done with phones, a tablet, various chromecast devices etc.
In short, the actual tasks for which it is used have been cut by probably 80%, leaving only the heavy lifting tasks that other, more convenient devices (which we didn't have when we bought it) can't do.
On top of that, it still does all those tasks fine. So there is no pressing need to upgrade it, unlike phones which are still rapidly improving (and getting dropped).
We will replace it if/when it stops working, but before that there is probably no need.