33 posts • joined Wednesday 6th June 2007 18:18 GMT
I was actually surprised, T-Mobile did actually issue an update in the four months I've had the G1. Doesn't mean they'll also issue *this* update, but it at least leaves the possibility.
And in case anyone is wondering why the G1 and not the iPhone, it's simple economics to me: the G1 is cheaper than the iPhone. Being linux-based also has a certain geek-factor to it, even if it might ultimately mean nothing.
To be fair...
...new jet orders are typically placed months in advance of delivery. It is entirely likely that the original order was placed before any of this current financial crisis started, and they would likely have had to pay a penalty if the order was cancelled this far into production.
It's unfortunate on the timing of these jets being delivered, since business jets do actually serve a legitimate purpose. Which isn't to say that there aren't corporations abusing their spending power at the top, but we shouldn't be too quick to judge either.
I'm an MSFS person (have been using it since version 3 and nearly every version since), but I have tried X-Plane. On paper, its aerodynamics engine is a more accurate and precise engine than MSFS, but in practice it still comes down to how well the particular aircraft is modelled in the particular flight sim. Comparing the default X-plane planes to the default MSFS planes, the X-plane ones tend to win. However, many of the add-on planes for MSFS significantly improve the realism vs the default MSFS planes, and even the default X-Plane planes.
The problem for X-Plane, IMO, has been that there just aren't as many high-quality payware (or even freeware) add-on aircraft for it. I've also considered the virtual cockpits in X-Plane to be inferior to MSFS's too (and I'm sure that can be corrected in any high-quality add-on). I would like to switch to X-Plane, but until the above two issues are rectified, it's just not an alternative. Maybe with MS effectively killing FS, I'll be switching to X-Plane. But until then, it's just something different, but not necessarily better.
"once lit there is no off, there is no throttle either
Solid fuel is either on - full burn, or off"
I could be mistaken, but I thought they were supposed to change it so [somehow] the solid booster can be shut off in some way. Still no way to throttle it, though.
And what is different about this skirt design vs the one used on the Apollo rockets? Haven't they already messed with pyrotechnically separating different sections? Or is it the vibration of the solid boosters that requires a stronger design...
Vista and Linux
@Anonymous Coward Posted Monday 2nd February 2009 11:49 GMT
That's all well and good, but as Thought About IT put it, people use applications, not operating systems. I work as a Unix admin at my day job, and run linux on my work desktop, so I know rather a fair bit about it. But try as I might (and I have tried hard), I just can't shake Windows from my life at home. None of the games I play are even supported for Mac, let alone Linux. And there are also some programs I use that they simply don't make for linux--not even close. So until OS X and Linux make more headway into the general market, for some people Windows is just a very necessary evil.
To be fair, I only used the last Vista Beta, but it was quite noticeably slower than XP was. And at the time, the hardware I was using was still ahead of the curve. The thing that got me was UAC (*horrible* nagware "security") and poor video driver support. And the Aero Glass interface was a pig that didn't actually offer anything useful over XP (though it _did_ look snazzy). Everything about it ran slower than XP. I've read that SP1 fixes many things, but besides DirectX 10 support, it still doesn't offer me anything that I can't get in XP.
I sure hope that's what they mean. Leaving a gaping security hole like that almost makes it worse than the "security" in XP.
"Airbus planes float!".
It also just happens that it wasn't the first *attempted* water landing of any plane, and the US Air flight had some specific factors in its favour. One of them being, it wasn't landing in open ocean like all of the previous water landings I can recall. They also had the benefit of knowing how *not* to do a water landing. (Not that I'm saying they didn't do a remarkable job under pressure)
And about the A380 not needing any human to fly it... Not quite true. Someone still needs to program the computer to tell the plane what to do, and not knowing how to do it properly means crashing is highly likely. Just think about the Air France flight 296 crash (among others) where the pilots improperly used the plane's automatic systems. Besides, even Boeing aircraft can auto-land.
Boeing. Airbus. Neither are necessarily superior manufacturers, though the two *do* operate with very different design theories, and mismanaging either is no better or worse than the other.
It boggles the mind...
...how so many completely vague patent applications get accepted. Someone could practically come up with a patent as "Device that separates two objects of different sizes while still allowing objects to flow between", which would cover the lowly toilet seat...
Meh at another "monopoly" born
Not that I was a big fan of CC, but at least they provided *some* competition to Best Buy. There are no Frys on the east coast, and Wal-Muck hardly counts. Just another case where a monopoly was born because it was the only remaining competitor in the market. Meh.
(Though if this provides a push for Frys to also set up shop on the east coast, that would be nice)
Too bad his 'chute deployed
It's idiot morons like these that give a bad name to general aviation. To pull a stunt like that after 9/11, you know some loser politician is going to use that as an excuse to make flying worse for everyone. I only wish his parachute failed to deploy when he jumped out.
Just because the US government failed to take action against a monopoly that it's own failed economic policies allowed, doesn't mean they should now cry foul and go with a non-US-sourced aircraft just to spite Boeing.
Besides, what's one monopoly to another? Sure, Airbus Industries may be a consortium, but besides Boeing and Airbus, who else is there? I really don't think the US would go with a Russian-sourced aircraft, considering our relations with them aren't exactly that great right now. That sort of makes the options: a) go with a US-sourced monopoly, b) go with a European-sourced monopoly. It seems given the current economic situation, it would be better to try and prop up the local economy before worrying about if that money will be supporting a monopoly or not.
Stop the insanity
European-sourced aerial tankers, European-sourced Marine One, and now they're thinking of a European-sourced Air Force One? Why, exactly? Seems to me that the US Presidential and Armed Services should, I dunno, source their various mobile units from the US itself. It's not like we'd exactly be saving money, with at least a good portion of the money going to places outside the US. How can they justify sending even more money outside the US when the incoming administration is talking about creating jobs and stimulating the economy?
It was a bad idea to buy a foreign-sourced helicopter for Marine One, and it's and even worse idea to buy a foreign-sourced Air Force One. What kind of message does *that* say? "Here comes the President. Except he doesn't like flying in aircraft made in his own country. Yet somehow he wants to convince the world how great the US is"...
Charging takes time
Yes, petrol cars run out of their "power source" just as easily as 'leccy cars. The big difference being, it's only a matter of minutes to fully "recharge" a petrol car vs hours for a 'leccy car. Until electric cars can be fully recharged as quickly (or even nearly as quickly) as petrol cars, they will never really see the light of even moderate production rates.
Mine's the one with a can of petrol in it.
If you're too stupid to be swinging the Wii remote around like a mad [wo]man, you deserve for your TVs to be broken. I have a Wii, and don't even use the stupid strap, because once you realize that the motion sensor works better with smaller movements than large movements, you're no more likely to have it flying toward the screen than with any other control input.
In the BA report, the findings indicated the the 777's engine control system properly commanded a thrust increase, so if it was a computer glitch, it would have been in the individual engine's computer. Having both engines have the same bug seems just as implausible. The recent cavitation they found in the fuel lines does suggest it could have been ice crystals. Interesting that it happened with the same Rolls-Royce engine model, though.
In case anyone is wondering
This happened about over Wyoming (lat 44.55, long -105.33), when they started the descent from FL390 to FL310.
Mention an apple product in a comparo, and you're sure to get one side or the other up in flames.
I own the original iPod mini and it has served me well. This was after owning a couple other mp3 players and realizing none of them at the time stood up to the iPod. Since then, the non-apple mp3 players have improved tremendously in quality (though there are still quite a number of them that are junk too). Would I still get an iPod/iTouch today? Me personally, I probably would, but that doesn't mean everyone should.
There's no doubt that the iPods are overpriced if you're just looking for a good quality mp3 music player. One could argue that the iPod/iTouch should be rated #1, but it will probably never be able to be rated #1 when price is a factor.
Sure, this article actually had information about the crash as opposed to all the other so-called news sources, but I fail to see the IT connection.
Does seem a bit odd that he'd lose one engine and then the other shortly afterwards. Usually fuel is the cause of that, unless he flew near a flock of birds. But I suppose the Heathrow 777 crash proves it could be something than the obvious.
"turning such a tight circle at supersonic speeds? what about stress on the airframe and pilot?!"
To be fair, the radius would be rather large, so I don't think the turning at supersonic speeds itself would be bad for the airframe, any more than a typical supersonic turn would be.
That being said, there is such a thing as "manuevering speed" for aircraft. The first thing anyone is told who accidentally (or purposely) penetrates a thunderstorm is to slow to (or below) maneuvering speed so that the turbulence won't tear the plane apart. I don't know much about the design of fighter jets, but I would think that even they would be susceptible to being torn apart due to turbulence flying at supersonic speeds in a hurricane.
And on an unrelated note, I notice some commenters mention "tornado". A hurricane/cyclone is not the same as a tornado.
This whole thing is rather dodgy. Never mind why the shirt and $1005 were found together, why wasn't it found *right* next to the wreckage? And who goes around with that much cash anyway, unless it's for questionable goods. At least the membership cards and stuff I can see, since I carry similar stuff in my wallet (minus 10 $100 bills).
And since no one else has done it, mine's the Nautica fleece with $1005 in the pockets.
Could it be?
That consumers simply don't want to deal with the DRM crippleware that comes with BluRay disks? And that the players are still too expensive, considering most people would be perfectly happy with the quality of upconverting DVD players (or even regular DVD players)?
Count me out of "upgrading" to a BD player, at least until the prices come down to commodity level.
Did I hear [read] that right?
"now idiots world-wide are spreading FUD of their own about MS's first well-written software product, Vista."
I must not have woken up fully, but it looks like the quote above said that Vista is actually a well-written software product.
Besides that fact that Vista's default GUI is so overly bloated and useless, it's also much slower than XP. I dual-booted XP and Vista on my new (well, it was new at the time) PC with near-high-end hardware, and XP was at least 20% faster *just sitting still*. Never mind how much slower games were under Vista than XP, and since I built the machine for playing games, that sort of defeats the purpose.
Why I fly myself
It's looking more and more appealing to eventually get my jet rating, so I can just fly myself. Commercial airline security is getting silly, but the TSA hasn't yet caught on to imposing the same restrictions to general aviation. And GA is the one thing that isn't yet ruined here in the US.
"A normal private pilot can't acquire or keep up the instrument flying skills that would allow operations in bad weather or heavily-used airspace."
And what supporting evidence do you have for that? It is *entirely* possible and likely that a "normal" private pilot will acquire an instrument rating, at least in the US. It does take a bit of work to get it and to remain current, but there's nothing extraordinary about it. And even without an instrument rating, normal private pilots can still fly in heavily-used airspace; it just requires talking a bit more than usual over the radio.
Perhaps by "private pilot", you meant "sport pilot"?
DVD + resolution + DRM + $$$ = BD
Sure, BD offers better resolution that DVD or even upscaled DVD, but it's definitely not worth the much larger price premium. That, in addition to the cripple-ware DRM seals the deal for me in not having any desire to get BD. Maybe when it comes down to commodity-level pricing around what a current decent DVD player costs.
I watch a lot of engineering disaster videos (especially relating to air disasters), and everything the AAIB is doing is consistent with all post-accident/disaster investigations. I fully expected that this accident would take a while to solve, and a good thing too. I don't want them to rush to a conclusion without fully exploring every avenue.
And regarding the comment about the manufacturer testing the pumps; Boeing did not produce the fuel pumps. And not only did they not produce it, they also likely didn't even _design_ it. Boeing--and for that matter, Airbus--simply provide performance requirements for most parts to manufacturers, and pick the one that best matches their requirements for the cost.
The fact that the investigation has so far shown that it doesn't initially look to be a problem with the flight crew, engines, or EEC means this could go on for quite a while.
More 2 hour rule
"a plane cannot be more than two hours away from an airport that can handle it. (that is why you can't fly direct across the atlantic, and go up towards greenland etc, or down passed the azores to get to the states"
The original poster was referring to ETOPS120 in this case. The 777 is actually capable of being certified as ETOPS180. All this in short means that the engines are well over-designed for dual-engine operations, and there should be plenty of thrust available on just one engine.
And regarding the path that they fly, not only do they stick to known oceanic routes to stay in contact with ATC facilities, it is also to take into account great circle routes. A straight line is the shortest path between two locations, unless you're talking about across a sphere. In this case, the shortest path is actually a slight arc.
Still prefer full-overridable autopilots
As much as I'd hate to admit it, it is sounding more plausible that it was a software glitch that caused this. Even so, I still think some piece of information is missing as I find it hard to believe that the instrumentation would also go out, as was supposedly mentioned by one of the pilots. Not that I'm trying to take credit away from them safely putting the bird on the ground, but some things just don't add up.
I'd still prefer to fly on a jet that allows the pilots to fully override what the autopilot systems think should happen. Sometimes, it takes flying outside of the usual flight envelope to ensure a safe landing.
It seems the consensus with this study is that it was poorly done, but it does sort of touch on another related issue of "global dimming".
It's a rather interesting topic, and one which was afforded an interesting opportunity for study shortly after all US planes were grounded on 9/11. Ironically, the very industrial emissions we put out that are apparently contributing to global climate change are also in some ways partially protecting us from the full effect. If that's the case, and climate models aren't taking that into account, it would explain why the models show the temperature as rising faster than it is in reality.
Certainly some truth to this
Hmm, I looked at the latest updates to the "naked short selling" article, and found some interesting stuff. Is "JzG" a new account for "JayJG"?
16:46, 7 December 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) protected Naked short selling (Bagley meme in Register [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 16:46, December 21, 2007 (UTC)))
# (cur) (last) 16:43, 7 December 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) m (22,213 bytes) (Reverted edits by 126.96.36.199 (talk) to last version by Mantanmoreland) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 16:23, 7 December 2007 188.8.131.52 (Talk) (24,148 bytes) (Undid revision 176362538 by Mantanmoreland (talk)) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 13:53, 7 December 2007 Mantanmoreland (Talk | contribs) (22,213 bytes) (undo)
Don't care, as long as you remain the same
Personally, I don't care, though it seems to make sense to use .com as the root. Still, .co.uk seems to sound better than .com; less corporate, perhaps.
Even coming from an American, I think the following comment sums up my opinion best:
"(PS if you decide to use dot com, then why not use us.theregister.com *as well as* uk.theregister.com? Many big companies already use this system)"