advertisers know that they can ignore the bottom 16 bits and the rest is basically fixed by your ISP and not CG-NAT'd or anything
5778 posts • joined 7 Dec 2007
advertisers know that they can ignore the bottom 16 bits and the rest is basically fixed by your ISP and not CG-NAT'd or anything
<blockquiote>File sharing is copyright infringement, a civil matter</blockquiote>
That depends on your jurisdiction.
In the UK, for example, Section 107 of CDPA88 makes copyright infringement a criminal offence if it's performed in a commercial situation.
We have some crap laws...
I present Hersheys kisses
I'd rather you didn't...
But the computer /is/ my friend.
It isn't. It's plotting against you. It told me so...
So I think the bit your missing is understanding what it is they are trading - shares and bonds are ways of injecting cash into a company, which allow the company to invest in new projects that they otherwise wouldn't have the capital for.
That's long-term investors, and it's a good thing that we have a few of them left.
What does it benefit a company for a trader to own some stock for a fraction of a second, creaming off a profit by exploiting moment-to-moment fluctuations in the share price?
It could be the spouse with a sudden medical condition you're worried about
If it's a genuine medical emergency, pretty much all aircraft are fitted with radio that will work at any stage of the flight that a phone will.
If it's not sufficiently important to use the aircraft radio systems - it's probably not a real emergency after all...
Not only am I a techie, but a (student) private pilot
The *only* downside of getting your licence is the kicking you give yourself for not having done it ten years earlier :-)
I think if you did the math, solar energy at ANY altitude [vs the weight of the panels to collect it] would be a net LOSS if you tried to implement it on an aircraft.
You'll note that I said it was the "most viable" idea, not that it had any merit :-)
There have been solar-only aircraft. It can work if the plane is designed for that sort of flight. But getting any passengers aboard is, AFAIK, non-viable, as is getting a choice in where/when you fly...
so why paraffin? makes no sense.
Because that's what aviation jet engines typically burn...
I'm pretty sure they do not plan to power the aircraft by solar power.
Solar would actually be the most viable idea here - once above cloud, there really is quite a bit of sun to be had. But you'd still need fuel for below-cloud operations - including all the usual reserves for emergencies, and you'd be force to operate daylight-only. Airlines won't like that...
Fuel makes up a huge part of airplane operating costs, so if a hybrid can improve consumption by even 10-20% that's a big win.
Not necessarily. Batteries are always heavy, so the more you carry, the less revenue-earning cargo gets airborne. It's no use trimming your fuel costs by 10% if you carry 30% fewer passengers as a result.
The numbers I did the other day came out at 4.3TJ in a 787's tanks. Think about the batteries you'd need to save 10% of that - 430GJ. That's a lot of battery; the large Tesla pack holds 85KWh, which equates to 300MJ. So you nominally need 1400 of those to save 10% fuel - in practice, rather less, since a heat engine cannot be 100% efficient. But I doubt you'd get the effect with fewer than 500 packs - and they're 544Kg each. That's 272t of the carrying capacity taken up in batteries; the 787-9 only has 126t to start with...
Competing with hydrocarbon fuels really is rather difficult.
 That's an efficiency of 35% for the jet engine - that strikes me as reasonable, but I don't have figures to hand to back it up.
I think we underestimate their capacity for appreciation of Properly Funny Stuff!
It's often said that the Germans have no sense of humour.
I put some lighting systems into a shop in Berlin a few months back; whoever designed the cabling system there had a particularly dry and wicked one...
Probably a lot easier with that flat-4 engine that it would have been with the original rotary
Perhaps. The O-320 still generates a load of gyroscopic movement as you manoeuvre...
What it will be is much simpler to get serviced; the Lycoming is quite an old engine, but there are thousands of them in daily use.
a set of plans that tells you how to build the things you need in order to build the end-product you want!
It used to be fairly commonplace - I've got some pages from Practical Mechanics from the early twentieth century which tell you how to build the "White Monoplane". It looks like a fun piece of kit to fly :-)
It's only comparatively recently that we've got into the "it's far too difficult for your little noggin" attitude...
Just give me a Linux Desktop with the look and feel of OSX 10.6.8 (peak OSX) and I'll be a happy chappy.
There used to be a KDE project called Baghira that allowed you to make your desktop look like various versions of OSX.
I don't know if it's still usable - I stopped using it many years ago.
produces issues with both connecting flights and noise/pollution (aka Not in My Back Yard).
I went to visit a gliding site a couple of weeks back. They only run winch launches - no aerotow.
The guy told me they'd experimented with the idea of running aerotow - and the noise complaints started before the first powered aircraft (on its way in for the day) had come anywhere near the airfield...
The function of the wing is to generate lift from the air flow over it. The amount of lift you need is related to the weight of the airplane.
To achieve more lift for the same airspeed, you need to raise the nose slightly to increase the Angle of Attack. This gives you more lift at the cost of an increased drag coefficient
Yes you are stupid
Nice to see the standard of debate is so high.
that's assuming no other opposing forces once you have attained said velocity
And that's exactly the point. Drag is everything. All that energy in the tanks is there to overcome drag. Your KE figure is entirely irrelevant; it is somewhere around 0.1% of the energy required for the flight, which is why my initial post mentioned that it was irrelevant. Drag is everything - have I said that? Drag is everything. That's where al the energy goes, and that's why I mentioned the drag equation in my first post. You keep harping on about KE, and now even you seem to have realised that it is irrelevant.
hey shall we throw in drag per second then add gravitational downforce per second
Now you're just making stuff up. Look at the units of what you've just attempted to throw in the air, and it should be obvious even to you that that is nonsensical.
It's the opposing KE force applied to the equation.
No, it isn't. There is a square term in there - as there are many square terms in mathematics. But if it were related to the KE of the aircraft, it would have the mass of the aircraft in there as well. You might notice that it does not.
You are quoting total available fuel energy, try realising all that energy at once, you'll have might big fucking bang
And now you are confusing energy with power. I thought you were a chemist and thermodynamicist?
By the way what is the difference between velocity and speed, a very important concept ?
How is it relevant in this context? You're just throwing irrelevancies around now in the hope of having something stick. Your earlier posts were indicative ofd someone who'd not properly thought through what he was posting. Now you're just into nonsense territory.
WTF ? I've already done it for you as proof.
And yet you still haven't addressed how that energy is so much less than the energy required for flight. Even if we take your worst-case figure for an aircraft doing over 1000mph, you're still a rounding error in the energy required for flight. Yet you cling to this attitude that even 28GJ is somehow of any significance whatsoever to the flight; it simply isn't.
Now stop bullshitting you know what you are talking about.
Yeah, pot, kettle, ....
Do you not understand simple physics ?
One of us doesn't.
KE = ((119,950)/2) * (502*502) = 15.11GJ
Even if you could do that - which you can't - that's still a very, v ery long way short of the energy required for a flight. 101,000Kg of Jet A-1 at 42.8MJ/Kg is over 4.3TJ. Your maths is still three orders of magnitude out.
I don't know where you get:
"The KE of a 787 at MTOW and at max cruising speed - a situation you'll never actually achieve - is less than 5.7GJ. "
Simple mathematics. MTOW of a 787 is between 228t and 254t, depending on variant. Max cruise speed is 511kt. Even you can work out the KE from those numbers.
And yet surprisingly close to your nominal figure of 3.78GJ. And both numbers are so very, very different from the 4.3TJ in the wings.
So now perhaps you'd like to address that discrepancy, rather than just throw around meaningless numbers? You've got three orders of magnitude to account for.
No I'm a Chemist, thermodynamics is par for the course.
But you're still going to argue subjects over which you have no knowledge. Is that also par for the course?
why does fuel consumption increase with payload ?
There are a number of factors, none of which are similar to the crap you've been touting so far.
The KE of a 787 at MTOW and at max cruising speed - a situation you'll never actually achieve - is less than 5.7GJ. With Jet A-1 quoted at a minimum of 42.8MJ/Kg, that's the energy of less than 133Kg of fuel - or less than 450Kg if you assume a 30% engine efficiency. The same 787 has a fuel capacity of over 101,000Kg - almost 3 orders of magnitude higher than the amount required to propel the aircraft to the KE that you claimed was the dominant factor in fuel use. So either Boeing are massively over-specifying their fuel needs, or - just perhaps, just putting this out there - you might be completely wrong when discussing topics you clearly know nothing about.
Oh yes it is, the faster you go you need to square your input energy even before you start to account for drag and gravity. Basic thermodynamics.
Not a pilot, are you? Drag is everything.
Where do you think that equation (D = CdρV2A/2) is derived from ?
It's the drag equation - which you'd know if you understood aerodynamics in any meaningful fashion. And it doesn't come from anything to do with kinetic energy, as you'd know if you'd read the very first link Google gives for the aerodynamic drag equation.
The more energy (i.e. mass) you have in the fuel tanks only makes matters worse as you have both an increased gravitational down force and more energy required to reach your cruising speed.
That's important for a rocket. Not nearly so much for an aircraft
Please don't throw equations around until you fully understand them.
Far be it from me to accuse anyone here of hypocrisy, but seriously - you clearly don't fly, so you might want to give some credit to those that do...
Ye cannae change the laws of physics, an inescapable equation - K.E. = 1/2 m v2
That equation is irrelevant to the discussion at hand: the actual KE doesn't matter, as there is plenty of energy stored in the fuel tanks.
What matters is
D = CdρV2A/2.
What I am wishing for is something that shortens the time I have to spend in a cramped space with bad air and smelly fellow passengers that share the same armrest
Many people have said the same - but when the airlines tested that market, what they found is that people actually choose the cramped and smelly flight over the more expensive one that is both faster and more comfortable.
TL;DR: people choose the cheap flights, and that means cramped.
Can't see Amber Rudd going past the second round in a high-minded debate with anyone let alone Sir TBL
I can't imagine her faring well against a stuffed iguana, for that matter...
You give the company way too much credit. They didn't really have a strategy at all
I was working at an IBM Systems Centre when the PS/2 launched. We had to go to customers to tell them how wonderful this MCA thing was - without having any knowledge of whether or not it was any better than ISA.
And that was a shame, really - MCA *was* better. But no-one found out until it was way too late. And the Model/30 didn't have MCA anyway...
The big assumption of course is that GCHQ have to be at least as good at keeping their private key secret as Alice and Bob are
No - you've made two assumptions :-
The first of these we know to be false straight off the bat - look at the CIA and NSA leaks to show how they actually aren't all that good at keeping secrets. And it gets worse once you need international cooperation - because that means giving all the keys to the Russians, the Syrians, the Iranians, the North Koreans, etc. Failure to do so would mean you don't get their cooperation - and guess where all the traffic goes instead.
The second is a fundamental flaw in that it requires the bad guys to play by the rules in order to catch them - so Bob sends a message to Alice that says "Attack at Dawn", whereas GCHQ gets one that says "Mary had a little lamb". Bob *swears* both messages have the same content.
So what we're left with is a system that is fundamentally less secure for everyone and no use whatsoever for catching bad guys.
Maybe if more people were willing to engage directly rather than moaning about it to others who already agree with them, then just maybe we'd get politicians to say something slightly more sensible.
Have you tried engaging with MPs?
Anything that requires a second's thought will be ignored, palmed off with a letter written by an office junior about how wonderful some idea of their own is that sounds almost like it might be pertinent to your question as long as you don't actually read any of the words...
Been there. Got sick of the T-shirt.
'We’ve developed the video (below)
I don't dare click. It's a rickroll, isn't it?
This is a common misconception - agile doesn't mean "no design" or "no planning", you should be doing that regardless of the size of your project.
This. A thousand times, this.
The trouble, I reckon, is that people fail to read sufficiently accurately; the Agile Manifesto says:
we have come to value ... Working software over comprehensive documentation
That's an entirely reasonable position, IMO - it is better to ship something that works and is not fully documented than to ship something with plenty of documentation that doesn't work. But countless groups have decided to interpret the above as "we don't need no steenking documentation", and have included all facets of project planning in the above.
The wood made them quite stealthy, too.
Whereas a metal aircraft would generally be torn apart when hit by cannon fire, the Mosquito would generally survive, as long as nothing important was hit. Many aircraft came home with gaping holes in the fuselage...
 Like the pilot...
I don't know if it works in the Win10 mail client
It doesn't :-(
Jaws tells it's users NOT to use the built in Win10 mail client
I think that's good advice anyway.
I've spent years trying to get people to look at the headers of any suspicious mail; it gives real insight into who is telling which lies, and makes email security so much easier. And so Microsoft have shipped their default client with no way to see the headers.
I have to use Win10 at work. I've switched to using Thunderbird for my mail, but it really isn't much cop. I'm actually thinking about running Squirrelmail in one of my Linux VMs...
 Unless anyone here knows differently - I'm all ears.
 At least I tried. It turns out that Win10 still reads your emails even if you're not running the mail client. I've now deleted that account entirely - let's see if it's really gone...
Now that is an IT director !!!!
It's a very simple thing to do - but yes, probably exceptional for most people of Director level.
however the tits are the teats on the udder of a dead cow lying on its back
Or, indeed, on any one of us after a particularly fine Friday Night out...
You can guesstimate the amount of pollution in atmosphere by timing how long a new keyboard lasts before bad keys show up
Years ago, I worked in IT support for a Regional Health Authority. Back then, you were allowed to smoke in many offices.
It was readily apparent which ones, too - all you had to do was look at the rate of failure of terminals. Keyboards and CRTs both suffer in smoke-filled rooms...
AC because nuclear
Errrr - I've got some bad news for you...
The F35's spec is far better than any Harrier
...But not as good as the p.1154, the Harrier's successor.
We abandoned that in 1965. That was probably a mistake, as it happens.
The wasp factory, song of stone, whit, the crow road or the business are all good first choices for the none SF books
The Wasp Factory is a marvellous book. Quite shocking in places.
I hated Song of Stone with a passion...
There's enough boilerplate cruft on here already, without automating it...
citation please - i dont doubt you at all, i would like the reference!
Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 prohibits sending "a message or other matter that is grossly offensive". I'm sure it could be manhandled into being used to prosecute someone being quite sweary.
It runs the risk of being laughed out of court, mind you...
I don't think I've ever met a bad programmer from France.
I've worked for two French companies. I can introduce you to a vast number of bad French programmers...
Looks very C-worthy
Words fail me...
No, it takes more energy to fly the same distance, all else being equal. If a ground car has to take a long, windy route and constantly gets stuck in traffic, while the flying one can do a direct route with no delays, it's no longer cut and dried.
Any flying car that's actually usable in real cities will necessarily have to be some sort of STOVL aircraft. That takes *vastly* more power than a runway takeoff - which is why our old aircraft carriers were fitted with ski-jumps for the Harriers.
You have to have a particularly contrived scenario to make STOVL flight more energy-efficient than surface transport.
Flying gives you effectively unlimited extra space to use - just divide the atmosphere into 10m altitude bands and you quickly have tens or hundreds of times more capacity
And you also have carnage. Minimum separation distances are 5 miles horizontally and 1000 feet vertically, although this can be reduced to 3 miles under certain conditions. And you need separation even if your aircraft are under automatic control - as most aircraft are these days - because you need manoeuvring room in the event of some sort of problem.
Aircraft crashing in mid-air during a flight is almost unheard of; even the most dangerous near misses usually involve planes only being with a few hundred metres of each other
That's true today - but wasn't so before aviation authorities got the idea of minumum separation properly established; you only have to go back to 1956 to see what happens when minima can be ignored; that one cost 28 lives, and led to sweeping (and necessary) changes in aviation procedures.
There are plenty of real problems flying cars have, most of which come down to safety. Limited flying space causing congestion just as bad as on current roads is absolutely not one of them.
Spend some time around light aircraft and you'll come to understand just how wrong is that assertion...
All internal GE machines had addresses in their assigned 3/8 network but none of them could be externally visible
Ericsson has the same policy.
They could have switched their internal machines from 3/8 to 10/8 and handed back the entire class A network for reuse.
The trouble is, that's not free. There's a chunk of work to do the change, mae sure every machine actually has moved, test it all, sort out anything that doesn't work. That's potentially quite a bit of outlay for a large company - and the return on it is absolutely nothing at all. Thus there is no motivation to do the job...
Do a minimal CentOS 7 install, disable SELinux
SELinux can be a bti daunting, but it is exceptionally useful. Disabling it is usually a mistake.
Perhaps I should write an article for ElReg...
Companies that give their managers offices that cut them off from their people are also asking for trouble
I used to work for a boss whom I considered to be remarkable - he never appeared to do a damn thing, but every one of us in the team knew exactly what was going on, all the time. Light-touch management at its very best.
Then he got an office away from the ret of us, and I realised that we were just hearing all his phone calls; he really was doing nothing...
But since you can't have that kind of guarantee
Well done. You completely missed the point.
What I'm saying is that it is the probability of detection that deters, not the size of the penalty. I'm well aware that you can't make that guarantee in real life, it was merely a way of showing that a small penalty is perfectly effective if that probability is high enough.
Also deterrents don't work (alas)
Detterents work fine. It's just that harsh penalties are no deterrent; you need effective detection for that.
If the penalty for drug-dealing was one month per conviction, but you were *guaranteed* to get caught every time, then one month would be sufficient; the only people who would even consider dealing were those for whom the profit on a single deal is worth the time in prison. And that means wholesalers might sell to wholesalers, but there would be no retail trade...
systemd-free Devuan Linux hits version 1.0.0
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017