Now that would be interesting... The US has too much debt, so they just declare papers worth half of that debt 'counterfeit'? "No, sorry, we won't pay for those, they are fake... In other news, 6 trillion dollars of US debt have never been collected!"
Yes, it's too bad they didn't fight the suit. All they had to do is show a copy of that Zynga letter that was basically saying that, in the cutthroat business of mobile apps, copying other people's apps was the norm and you should just learn to live with it and stop whining. That's basically them giving anyone permission to do the same, right? My defense would consist of a cover page, a copy of the recent article comparing one of Zyga's games to the original, and a copy of Zynga's response letter. Nothing else, no hundreds of pages of quotes from laws, just those two articles. Case closed.
Would a human pilot have done any better with his sensors and position data jammed?
Yes, a human pilot with sensors and position data jammed would still know how to fly out of enemy territory. He could find north by simply looking where the sun is, for example. He might have trouble finding his base, but he sure as hell would be able to get out of enemy territory.
Look at the 2009 Air France crash, the pilots ignored the warnings by the computer and did just the opposite of what they warnings told them and crashed the plane.
They had to take control because the autopilot had disengaged. Without pilots, the plane might have continued flying until it ran out of fuel and then crashed. With different pilots, similar events have been correctly handled on numerous occasions. Also, the information available to the pilots was ambiguous. In fact, at some point the stall warning stopped and then started again each time they (correctly!) tried to push the nose forward, giving them the impression they were doing something wrong.
Yes, they should never have put the plane into a stall by pulling back on the stick, but no, they were not doing "the opposite of what the warnings told them".
If it's on a battlefield far away from the US... 'fraid so. The worst part is probably the publicity if someone can prove they were not terrorists or enemy combattants. But they'll still prefer that over losing a pilot and his plane which is much more expensive than a drone. Please do note I am simply describing their point of view, not mine.
"1200" is the transponder code for VFR aircraft (VFR = flying visually) that have not had a specific code assigned to them. Their transponder is working, and is actively transmitting "1200". Transponder codes are 4 digit octal codes between 0000 and 7777. Some of them have a special meaning (for example, 7700 means emergency, 1200 means VFR). So "all those 1200's on a scope" do have transponders.
Some civilian radars do indeed have primary radar as well, as a backup, but they only use it when they need it. It usually cannot measure altitude, is less precise, and has trouble with smaller composite aircraft (like, say... drones). And a great many civilian radar stations simply don't even have it, relying on the military in the rare cases where they do need it. Certainly in Europe.
You mean like the one that crashed in Iran? How many drones versus commercial aircraft in the sky, and how many crashes? Even if you could completely remote control a large aircraft, there would be so many points of failure: the communication link (digital datalinks break all the time, ask any airline pilot), the system to actually control the plane and its systems,... Oh, and how hard would it be for a terrorist to broadcast a jamming signal on the same frequency? I won't even get into the subject of hacking the systems, now that would be fun!
There are two kinds of "radar" for ATC: Primary radar sends out a signal and listens for reflections, often picking up flocks of birds and even clutter from ground objects like windmills while not being able to detect many smaller objects. Secondary radar relies on transponders: it sends out signals and puts a blip on the screen for every coded reply it gets from aircraft transponders. It is much more precise, which is why ATC pretty much exclusively uses secondary radar. Things without a transponder do NOT show up on their screen. If there is ever an emergency requirement to locate some flying object without a transponder, they usually have to contact the military who still use primary radar.
You are quite correct that aircraft are required to have transponders in most controlled airspace. I just hope this applies to unmanned drones as well, and the people operating those drones keep them out of controlled airspace. But what if they are doing surveillance on someone close to an airport? ("close" meaning 20 miles or so). How do they coordinate with ATC? I personally have no idea, but I hope they are in contact somehow.
So far I haven't had any fellow pilots fail on me, but I can't begin to count the number of failures of navigation systems, autopilots, etcetera that I've experienced. The automation does usually work much more precisely than humans, but it lacks common sense and sometimes just completely fails. That's when things get interesting for us pilots. The industry is not even close to beginning to consider getting rid of pilots or even going down to a single pilot in airliners. Except the military with their drones which, guess what, do crash frequently. For them, the benefits outweigh the cost of losing the occasional piece of equipment.
That's because most automation failures are corrected by pilots. Electronic components fail regularly, which is usually no big deal as long as there are humans to fix things and fly manually if necessary. If every autopilot failure would result in a crash, there would be multiple crashes every day.
I hope these things are at least carrying transponders so they even make a blip on the radar at all. Without a transponder they'll be invisible to ATC and also won't trigger TCAS avoidance manoeuvers from aircraft. I don't know what altitude those things fly at, and whether or not there is any contact between the operators and air traffic controllers, but I hope they'll at least try to keep some kind of separation with normal aircraft.
If there isn't much traffic, for example at night, it may be safer to drive faster because
1. You are more concentrated and therefore less likely to fall asleep.
2. You are on the road for a shorter amount of time and therefore less likely to fall asleep
Given that a large number of accidents at night is caused by exactly that, people falling asleep, I wouldn't be surprised if those insurance companies would at some point notice that they ought to give discounts to faster drivers, not slower ones. At least for certain times of the night and early morning when traffic density is low.
Maybe that's because low mileage drivers are less experienced so that, per mile, they have a higher risk of accidents. Maybe it won't even out exactly, but the difference may be smaller than you think.
Anyway, that being said, I know at least one company that does give a discount if you travel less than a certain distance per year
At least, when you know there's no camera, the choice will be clear. The light turns yellow, it might get red before you get to it, but if you brake hard, your insurance premium will go up. So go for it!
Yes, that would be great, after a few years they might realise that people who are speeding, braking hard, and making sharp turns all the time actually have less accidents, and I'll get a discount!
What if you design a safe that auto-destructs the contents if someone tries to tamper with it? Like the cases for transporting money that burn or dye the contents if opened incorrectly?
Of course, like I said, only the heat from the sun trapped by the atmosphere will result in a slight increase in mass. Burning fuel by itself does not, since burning reduces the mass of the fuel: leftover solids and gases from the fuel will weigh very, very slightly less, the difference in mass (bonding energy, which counts as mass too) being transformed into heat which "weighs" the same.
It's not quite as brain damaged as you might think. Relativity says that energy and mass are equivalent (E=mc^2), and this really does mean that warm objects are slightly heavier than otherwise identical cold objects. But 160 tonnes is a lot of energy, so I have my doubts there.
Well, warming may not make things more massive according to classical physics, but in the Theory of Relativity, all energy counts as mass. E=mc^2, it goes both ways. Warm objects are very, very slightly heavier than otherwise identical cold objects. So if our atmosphere traps the heat of the sun, that will result in a slight increase in mass. Although I doubt even a few degrees of warming will make a 160 ton difference. c^2 is a pretty big factor.
They "stole" plenty of ideas, and Steve Jobs wasn't even ashamed to admit it. "Good artists copy, great artists steal". Then again, they usually did something very creative with the ideas they had stolen, which is not something you can accuse Zynga of.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually misread that as "Google Seeks To Patent Antenna Farm In Iowa"
Now that would be interesting... The US has too much debt, so they just declare papers worth half of that debt 'counterfeit'? "No, sorry, we won't pay for those, they are fake... In other news, 6 trillion dollars of US debt have never been collected!"
YES! This plan sounds like Planned obsolescence to me..In five years,your computer's case starts to fall apart.
Yes, and if you complain, you'll get a terse reply saying "don't put it into the sun, then".
Yes, it's too bad they didn't fight the suit. All they had to do is show a copy of that Zynga letter that was basically saying that, in the cutthroat business of mobile apps, copying other people's apps was the norm and you should just learn to live with it and stop whining. That's basically them giving anyone permission to do the same, right? My defense would consist of a cover page, a copy of the recent article comparing one of Zyga's games to the original, and a copy of Zynga's response letter. Nothing else, no hundreds of pages of quotes from laws, just those two articles. Case closed.
Would a human pilot have done any better with his sensors and position data jammed?
Yes, a human pilot with sensors and position data jammed would still know how to fly out of enemy territory. He could find north by simply looking where the sun is, for example. He might have trouble finding his base, but he sure as hell would be able to get out of enemy territory.
Look at the 2009 Air France crash, the pilots ignored the warnings by the computer and did just the opposite of what they warnings told them and crashed the plane.
They had to take control because the autopilot had disengaged. Without pilots, the plane might have continued flying until it ran out of fuel and then crashed. With different pilots, similar events have been correctly handled on numerous occasions. Also, the information available to the pilots was ambiguous. In fact, at some point the stall warning stopped and then started again each time they (correctly!) tried to push the nose forward, giving them the impression they were doing something wrong.
Yes, they should never have put the plane into a stall by pulling back on the stick, but no, they were not doing "the opposite of what the warnings told them".
If it's on a battlefield far away from the US... 'fraid so. The worst part is probably the publicity if someone can prove they were not terrorists or enemy combattants. But they'll still prefer that over losing a pilot and his plane which is much more expensive than a drone. Please do note I am simply describing their point of view, not mine.
"1200" is the transponder code for VFR aircraft (VFR = flying visually) that have not had a specific code assigned to them. Their transponder is working, and is actively transmitting "1200". Transponder codes are 4 digit octal codes between 0000 and 7777. Some of them have a special meaning (for example, 7700 means emergency, 1200 means VFR). So "all those 1200's on a scope" do have transponders.
Some civilian radars do indeed have primary radar as well, as a backup, but they only use it when they need it. It usually cannot measure altitude, is less precise, and has trouble with smaller composite aircraft (like, say... drones). And a great many civilian radar stations simply don't even have it, relying on the military in the rare cases where they do need it. Certainly in Europe.
You mean like the one that crashed in Iran? How many drones versus commercial aircraft in the sky, and how many crashes? Even if you could completely remote control a large aircraft, there would be so many points of failure: the communication link (digital datalinks break all the time, ask any airline pilot), the system to actually control the plane and its systems,... Oh, and how hard would it be for a terrorist to broadcast a jamming signal on the same frequency? I won't even get into the subject of hacking the systems, now that would be fun!
Yes, but it's a lot more fun if you don't own them!
There are two kinds of "radar" for ATC: Primary radar sends out a signal and listens for reflections, often picking up flocks of birds and even clutter from ground objects like windmills while not being able to detect many smaller objects. Secondary radar relies on transponders: it sends out signals and puts a blip on the screen for every coded reply it gets from aircraft transponders. It is much more precise, which is why ATC pretty much exclusively uses secondary radar. Things without a transponder do NOT show up on their screen. If there is ever an emergency requirement to locate some flying object without a transponder, they usually have to contact the military who still use primary radar.
You are quite correct that aircraft are required to have transponders in most controlled airspace. I just hope this applies to unmanned drones as well, and the people operating those drones keep them out of controlled airspace. But what if they are doing surveillance on someone close to an airport? ("close" meaning 20 miles or so). How do they coordinate with ATC? I personally have no idea, but I hope they are in contact somehow.
So far I haven't had any fellow pilots fail on me, but I can't begin to count the number of failures of navigation systems, autopilots, etcetera that I've experienced. The automation does usually work much more precisely than humans, but it lacks common sense and sometimes just completely fails. That's when things get interesting for us pilots. The industry is not even close to beginning to consider getting rid of pilots or even going down to a single pilot in airliners. Except the military with their drones which, guess what, do crash frequently. For them, the benefits outweigh the cost of losing the occasional piece of equipment.
That's because most automation failures are corrected by pilots. Electronic components fail regularly, which is usually no big deal as long as there are humans to fix things and fly manually if necessary. If every autopilot failure would result in a crash, there would be multiple crashes every day.
Hey, if we can hack them for our own use, DO want!
Until the automation fails and the plane crashes into a residential area.
I hope these things are at least carrying transponders so they even make a blip on the radar at all. Without a transponder they'll be invisible to ATC and also won't trigger TCAS avoidance manoeuvers from aircraft. I don't know what altitude those things fly at, and whether or not there is any contact between the operators and air traffic controllers, but I hope they'll at least try to keep some kind of separation with normal aircraft.
If there isn't much traffic, for example at night, it may be safer to drive faster because
1. You are more concentrated and therefore less likely to fall asleep.
2. You are on the road for a shorter amount of time and therefore less likely to fall asleep
Given that a large number of accidents at night is caused by exactly that, people falling asleep, I wouldn't be surprised if those insurance companies would at some point notice that they ought to give discounts to faster drivers, not slower ones. At least for certain times of the night and early morning when traffic density is low.
Maybe that's because low mileage drivers are less experienced so that, per mile, they have a higher risk of accidents. Maybe it won't even out exactly, but the difference may be smaller than you think.
Anyway, that being said, I know at least one company that does give a discount if you travel less than a certain distance per year
At least, when you know there's no camera, the choice will be clear. The light turns yellow, it might get red before you get to it, but if you brake hard, your insurance premium will go up. So go for it!
Yes, that would be great, after a few years they might realise that people who are speeding, braking hard, and making sharp turns all the time actually have less accidents, and I'll get a discount!
What if you design a safe that auto-destructs the contents if someone tries to tamper with it? Like the cases for transporting money that burn or dye the contents if opened incorrectly?
They can't keep you from going to work, but you may have to go without wearing jeans. Or any other garment that has crossed a state line.
Of course, like I said, only the heat from the sun trapped by the atmosphere will result in a slight increase in mass. Burning fuel by itself does not, since burning reduces the mass of the fuel: leftover solids and gases from the fuel will weigh very, very slightly less, the difference in mass (bonding energy, which counts as mass too) being transformed into heat which "weighs" the same.
It's not quite as brain damaged as you might think. Relativity says that energy and mass are equivalent (E=mc^2), and this really does mean that warm objects are slightly heavier than otherwise identical cold objects. But 160 tonnes is a lot of energy, so I have my doubts there.
Well, warming may not make things more massive according to classical physics, but in the Theory of Relativity, all energy counts as mass. E=mc^2, it goes both ways. Warm objects are very, very slightly heavier than otherwise identical cold objects. So if our atmosphere traps the heat of the sun, that will result in a slight increase in mass. Although I doubt even a few degrees of warming will make a 160 ton difference. c^2 is a pretty big factor.
They "stole" plenty of ideas, and Steve Jobs wasn't even ashamed to admit it. "Good artists copy, great artists steal". Then again, they usually did something very creative with the ideas they had stolen, which is not something you can accuse Zynga of.