Posts by imanidiot 4422 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Mar 2012
This. There are too many safeguards in many cases. Yes, this was a case of blatant bullshitting and fraud, on the other hand for VC's it should always be a case of buyer beware. They claim millions of euros of turnover, but not where they are getting that. A VC working in that field should be able to contact some clients and see if ANYONE is actually using Theranos. Why are they protected from being idiots if they are clearly being idiots.
How long will it be before an aircraft crash is blamed on docs getting mangled by being moved from MS Office formats to Google Docs format, or becoming simply inaccesible.
I get the faint feeling with all the bullshit happening that the airbus Manglement that took this decision doesn't truly realize what it means for all those in the organisation. And especially for the (mandatory) archiving of data on anything and everything they do in the aviation world.
"in a face-plantingly foolish test involving fuelling and firing up the engines while the payload was attached."
That's not foolish, it's well reasoned and thought out. The reason the payload is already attached for a test fire is also well explained on several websites. I'm not even going to bother explain here.
That abort option exists for the manned Dragon but not on cargo Dragon, the capsule would have survived if they had had a command in the system to deploy the chutes. The failure in this case was a pretty low energy one, compared to the energetic RUDs that have occurred on other launch vehicles, which is why the payload survived. If the rocket had actually exploded iso crumpling like it did the payload would have been destroyed right there.
I too bought the Lego Saturn V set (Plus 2 spares that will remain in their cellophane and unopened in my attic for the next 10 to 20 years or so. To either be given as gifts or sold of for profit) I plan on building the LUT too for the set I'm building for myself, just have to gather the funds and then parts to actually buy all the bricks.
@John Brown, since ICBMs with warheads containing explosives exist and plentiful research has been done on full orbital and fractional orbital weapons systems (that stay in space for extended duration) I think there is plenty of research on the matter. I doubt ANY of it is publicly available though.
@dr. Syntax,
As said by Not Spartacus, the thing spent over 2 years circling the earth under control before communications were lost. Probably China was testing the longevity and reliability of it's control and comms systems, but it's still a very long time to allow something of this size to keep orbiting without some plans in place to get it back onto the planet in a somewhat predictable fashion.
It seems these investment funds only look at hype. The problem is that hype is never a good indicator as to what is and isn't a good product, and as more investments happen because of hype, the hype builds and more investments are made. And since so many investments are being made there must be something to this hype right? So more hype!
===> Another example of all hype and no substance ==>
1. It can be easily manufactured, it only takes water and energy to create it.
Lots of energy, like, lots and lots and lots of energy. It's not exactly an efficient process. If at all possible storing the energy directly as electricity in a bettery and using it to drive an electric motor is much more efficient.
2. Emissions from an ammonia car are only water vapor and nitrogen.
Unless ammonia gets spilled. Then things can get nasty. Ammonia is fairly mild as irritants go but i'd still like to have to encounter 40 liters of spilled ammonia after a crash. Spilled gas stinks a bit, spilled ammonia will quickly stop you breathing.
3. Energy density is good (half that of gasoline).
In other words Energy density isn't that great.
Like many of the proposed alternatives to gas, ammonia has a few rather big drawbacks and risks attached to it. I see it as having more potential than hydrogen, but that's not saying much.
@the oncoming scorn,
The trick in those situations is not to immediately fix it but to cryptically point to some rumour that weaks springs have caused similar issues in equipment at other sites. Then spend some time pottering about "I don't know exactly what to do about it. Order new springs?" Then after the mandatory coffee break propose the rubber band trick. Just git'er done in this situation is a rookie mistake.
I'm not normally a fan of TED talks, but this one hits the right points for me: Jason Fried | Why work doesn't happen at work
He makes the point that there are 2 things that destroy productivity in the workplace. The M&Ms, Meetings and Managers. Because a meeting is a bunch of people sitting in a room not getting any work done, and a managers job is to keep people from doing their jobs so they can explain to him whether or not they are doing their jobs. He makes some other good points about workplace environmental conditions for effectively getting something done.
Just don't bother showing up to those pointless meetings. If asked about it answer a pointed: "So what question did I need to anwer? I have some time now, let's get it sorted" If it's none, just tell them you'll be there next time. (and ofcourse you won't).
Disassembly and reverse engineering is why many western companies nowadays don't even bother selling to any asian customers.
They're so shameless about ripping off any company they'll happily take somebody (anybody, doesn't know if they have any knowledge about the product), give them a camera and a return plane ticket to some western trade show (with a single overnight hotel stay if they're lucky, none if not) and tell them to photograph anything interesting. And these people will photograph ANYTHING. One of our sister companies produces coaches (busses) and they regularly have people at trade shows spending hours coming back again and again photographing even the tiniest insignificant details of the wiring in the bagage compartment. They have at times simply locked them in there just to be rid of them for a while.
This. Patent law is pretty clear and can provide plentyful payout and compensation in case of infringement. The problem is nowadays, an individual or small company simply can't afford to take on a large multinational corporation. They'll have spend more money on their lawyers just reading up on the case than you can afford to spend on the entire process.
That is just too much screen for my needs, with a barely passable resolution. I like having screen real estate, but having multiple monitors works just fine. The legs of that thing intruding into the desk so much would also annoy the heck out of me. I like having my desk free so I can clutter it with other (but moveable) stuff.
Well dûh.
The Reg seems to have a dislike to being nice to any corporation, let alone one that has so far shown they are very good at peddling bullshit. Their patents seem to hint at some actual product development happening, but their timelines and what they've shown so far point to it being either a steaming pile or not ready for release by a long shot.
Here (Nokia?) maps is dreadful.
Really? I VASTLY prefer Here WeGo for navigation over Googlies Maps. The offline maps bit is a huge selling point and it is vastly less likely to send me on pointless detours because they are 1 meter and theoretically 2 seconds shorter (but slower in reality).
Mostly I'm still waiting for the crypto fad to implode so the price of GPU's comes down to reasonable values and the RAM producers to stop trying to shaft me and get me some RAM for a decent price instead of gouging me for 3 times what I would have paid for the same stuff only 2 years ago.
I'm in the market to upgrade my gaming/CAD/home-office system, but still balking at the amount of currency I'd have to plonk down currently.
Like the US? Where they are applying rules that are from what I've seen more strict than what is being proposed by EASA?
Again, there aren't that many restrictions in this Opinion that aren't already in law in most places in the EU!
Our hobby isn't mainstream now, and it bloody well shouldn't be. The problems seen now are exactly BECAUSE people are not thinking about what they are doing and just bumbling into it. Going back to RC being a hobby for people who bother learning at least some basic stuff isn't a bad thing!
And on top of all this, think about how your local politicians comment about drones and safety and how they would be likely to implement these rules. People should realize for all the whinging they are doing that most likely these rules are MUCH milder than the UK (or Dutch, or French, or German) politicians would come up with on their own.
They're not. READ THE BLOODY OPINION. It's only 42 pages, half of which can be skimmed over relatively fast because they are uninteresting to the average civilian.
And it's ALREADY restricted. With good bloody reason. There are plenty of irresponsible drone flyers out there, sooner or later someone is going to get hurt. These rules are intended to make people THINK before they fly. They are NOT that draconian.
Also, when the UK joined EASA (which is distinct from the EU) it pretty much enacted in law that anything EASA decided would become local law. The democratic process followed is the normal voting proces for the UK. The country voted in the politicians that decided to enact the EASA rules.
Read the EASA rules. They clearly state uninvolved persons. Which means if your son is actively watching and enjoying it, he's involved and you can fly closer. These rules are clearly intended to avoid accidentally braining some unsuspecting sod from behind with a drone. And to be honest I am all for that.
It does actually say that. The the bits in the <blockquotes> are a direct copy-paste from the EASA document.
In my experience so far the EASA boards involved in GA and "small" aviation aren't actually the enemy. Many of them share our enthusiasm for all things flying and a lot of EASA regulations are actually not that bad. Some of it is even good. There's some shitty stuff in there, and some rather incomprehensible stuff, but there's also a lot of good regulations too. Often also more clearly worded and better explained than national laws currently in force.
Most of what EASA is proposing as far as airspace restrictions here is ALREADY illegal in most countries. BVLOS specifically is ALREADY illegal in most countries including Britain, see: http://www.caa.co.uk/Consumers/Unmanned-aircraft/Recreational-drones/Recreational-drone-flights/
Article 94 small unmanned aircraft, paragraph 3:
(3) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must maintain direct, unaided visual contact with the aircraft sufficient to monitor its flight path in relation to other aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the purpose of avoiding collisions.
Then the comment:
"El Reg predicts that any BVLOS ban will be effectively ignored until it becomes convenient to enforce it against particular people, or categories of people – which is the foundation of a bad law."
I really don't get what you are trying to imply here? Who are these "particular people or categories of people" you are alluding to?
The problem in general is that enforcing BVLOS banns is practically impossible. Unless you happen to catch someone with their goggle on, or manage to track a drone to it's landing zone and apprehend the person flying it, there's nothing lawmakers can do.
This Opinion really isn't that bad. As far as EASA Opinions go it's actually quite readable and understandable (in direct opposition to some of the drivel they've written before about the new ATO regulations for instance)
Most relevant to most people will be the following passages:
It was decided to further subdivide operations in the ‘open’ category into three subcategories to allow different types of operations without the need for an authorisation. The subcategories were defined according to the risks posed to persons and objects on the ground, keeping in mind that the operations would all be below 120 m in height and far from aerodromes. These subcategories are:(Opinion No 01/2018, page 8)- A1: flights over people but not over open-air assemblies of persons;
- A2: flights close to people, while keeping a safe distance from them;
- A3: flights far from people.
And a little bit further on:
Model aircraft are within the scope of this Opinion since, pursuant to the definition of a UA in the new Basic Regulation, a model aircraft is a UA. It is, however, recognised that activities conducted within model aircraft clubs and associations have good safety records due to their high levels of organisation, their procedures and their safety culture.For this reason, the proposed regulation allows competent authorities to issue an operational authorisation to model aircraft clubs and associations, in which they may define deviations from it.
In addition, this proposal offers two other possibilities to model aircraft pilots who do not intend to
join a model aircraft club or association. They may:
- operate in specific zones designated by MSs, in which MSs can alleviate the requirements of the
rules proposed in this Opinion; or
- operate in subcategory A3 of the ‘open’ category.
Operations in subcategory A3 may be conducted with privately built UAS, or UAS in class C3 or C4. This last class was specifically developed to address model aircraft available on the market, imposing a minimum set of technical requirements and focusing mainly on providing the remote pilot with operational instructions issued by the UAS manufacturer, as well as on raising the remote pilot’s awareness of the EU regulations through consumer information. This approach will create a negligible additional burden for UAS manufacturers. All model aircraft in use before the date of entry into force of this proposed regulation will also be able to be operated afterwards, still using one of the three options explained above (i.e. to be member of a model aircraft club or association, to operate in designated areas, or to follow the operational limitations for subcategory A3), without the need for any modification to the model aircraft.
In other words, keep it in sight (already law) and don't fly near built up areas, over crowds or where you could reasonably endanger uninvolved people (further explanation in the Opinion, 2.4.3.2. , page 18) which should just be f(*îng common sense.
Again, the rules proposed are pretty clear, and don't go way above and beyond what is already law in most EU countries. My main gripe would be with the limitations they are imposing on control electronics and where they draw the line between stabilisation/auto-hover features and "autonomous operation"/autopilot. NOT with the airspace restrictions that our esteemed Reg hack seems to be focused on.
See the link posted earlier to the photos of a glider that hit a drone in the Netherlands: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=200703
A hit with a mid size consumer drone was enough to split and delaminate the winglet on a modern glider (and thats one of the stronger and less vulnerable parts of the wing on a modern carbon fiber composite aircraft). A hit on an older wooden wing is going to be much more damaging. The torsion box formed by the leading edge is only about 3 to 4mm thick plywood. The nose of the fuselage no more than 2 usually. Imagine wat a Phantom quad is going to do when slammed into something like that at 80 km/h+.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
