No, if the system is convinced that the airplane is stalling, it will push the nose down and there's nothing the pilots can do to stop it except reaching onto the overhead panel and switching off certain flight control computers to downgrade the flight control law (which is kind of hard to do while you're fighting negative g-forces, and certainly never trained at all).
What you are missing is the advanced computer vision techniques that are discovered cannot be used in the air, because everything is fucking blue. On the road, computer vision techniques can used to identify objects (which is covered to some extent in ai-class.com).
Actually, the blue bits are not dangerous, it's safe to fly towards them. Anything that's NOT blue is what you have to watch out for. So that should actually make the software's task easier. That being said, airplanes don't currently base their autoflight systems on vision because the old technology based on sensors works pretty well and is more accurate than looking out the window. Even when we're doing a visual approach, we'll normally still set up the instrument landing system if it's available and use it to double-check our glide path, giving more weight to its indications than to our gut feeling of being high or low from looking out the window.
Also we have the added advantage of using GPS when driving on road (I am not sure what is the airborne equivalent of GPS)
The airborne equivalent is called... GPS. It was used in airplanes long before it started being used in cars. But for landing airplanes it's not quite accurate enough yet. A GPS approach will only take you down to a height of about 400 feet for a manual landing from there on. Only ILS (and then, only Category 3 ILS) allows fully automatic landings.
Bugs are never fixed forever. Someone may come around fixing some other bug and re-enabling the old one, wouldn't be the first time, I've even done it myself.
Except that the designers of the software didn't take all possible situations into account. For example, any Fly By Wire Airbus will automatically pitch up if speed increases too far above the maximum airspeed, even when flown manually. This may be a good idea when the airplane is diving (the most likely cause for overspeed), but not when it's straight and level with other traffic immediately above! This has already made several Airbus planes in heavy turbulence suddenly start to climb violently due to a sudden change in airspeed or temperature and overriding the pilot's MANUAL inputs while he's trying to avoid flying into other traffic! That's insane, and it's only one of many reasons why I can't wait to get off the Airbus fleet onto a more sensibly designed plane. (I'm currently an A320 pilot).
Why was this modded "Troll"? For crying out loud, the Troll option is not equivalent to "Disagree". Even if you don't agree with him, that's no reason to call him a troll. If I had mod points, I would mod him back up immediately. There's absolutely nothing trollish about his post.
As far as I know, supernova only fuse elements, they don't do fission. The only way to get more hydrogen in a natural way is probably waiting for elements to decay by themselves. Maybe if the supernova makes heavy, unstable elements, those will fall apart and give you some hydrogen back. But apart from that, if I am not mistaken, supernovas only make heavier elements.
That's a very logical explanation. And maybe the solar wind could have something to do with it too, because that would also be proportional to surface area.
But surely accelleration in a gravitational field does not depend on your mass? The force of gravity is proportional to your mass, so the accelleration is the same! Any object with any mass will, given the same starting position and velocity, leave the planet or sun with exactly the same speed. Shedding mass will only work if you shed it in the direction opposite to the direction you want to accellerate in. Simply "losing weight" does nothing to change your orbit.
No, that's definitely not how it works. For a small object passing close to a massive object, if no other forces like friction or electric forces exist, and disregarging relativistic effects, the exit velocity will be exactly equal to the approach velocity. The sum of potential and kinetic energy remains the same: as it loses potential energy in the gravitational field by coming closer, it will speed up and it will lose this speed again when going back up in the gravitational field. The decelleration while going away is exactly the same as the accelleration on the way in. Any extra speed would have to be caused by some sort of magnetic effects or solar wind. The most likely reason seems to be one that someone else has pointed out elsewhere in this thread: the comet gets smaller, so the ratio between surface area and mass gets larger (mass being proportional to radius^3 and surface area only to radius^2), so the push from the solar wind will be stronger on the way out. Gravitational accelleration will be the same though, no matter what the mass is.
Also, I don't think the spin of the sun would have any effect apart from a very, very tiny relativistic frame dragging effect. So that's not it either, I would think.
Slingshot manoeuvers work quite differently: they work by approaching a planet from a different direction and leaving it in the same direction as the planet is moving in. The exit velocity relative to the planet is the same as the approach velocity, but since you are leaving in the same direction the planet is moving in, you are basically adding its speed to your own. The ideal example would be approaching a planet in the opposite direction of its trajectory and turning around it 180 degrees to leave in the same direction it's going in. This would add twice the planet's speed to your own. A less ideal but more realistic example is approaching perpendicularly and leaving in the direction of the orbit, adding only once the planet's speed to your own. But in the case of the sun, which we would consider pretty much stationary in our solar system, you wouldn't gain anything.
But that "rocket engine" would work in opposite ways on arrival and departure, either slowing it down or speeding it up (not sure) when it's coming in and doing the exact opposite when it's emerging again. So that would not give it a net extra energy. Or am I missing something?
That's weird, in the other video of the comet emerging from the sun, it seemed to be dragging its tail behind it. I was wondering exactly the same thing as catmistake.
But wasn't it in some sort of orbit around the sun before? Where did it pick up the extra energy to get away from the sun, then? If anything, I would have expected its orbit to shrink.
And before that, it was saying "What's this thing coming towards me very fast? So big and fat and round, I think I'll call it... Sun. That's a good name - Sun! I wonder if it will be friends with me"
Yes, but aren't they half notes? Depends who you ask. Some people consider them to be notes like the others (C# is a note), others say that B and C are notes, and C# is in between two notes. There's no one answer. Google "notes in an octave" and you'll find both answers. Frankly, I don't care. It's just a bad question.
Well, they did specify "Western music" but even then there are many answers depending on the definition of "note". There may be either 7, 8 or 12 notes depending on the scale, whether you count both end notes or not, and whether you count only the full notes or the half notes as well. The most common answer I found using Google (wikipedia, answers.com,...) seems to be 7 so it should definitely not be counted as wrong. But it's not really correct either, depending on which definition you use and how pedantic you are. It's simply an unsuitable question for this kind of test. They agreed with me and took it out of the test.
Which is funny because they are actually based in Ireland.
Not that it matters that much: if you don't know the answers, you just reply 50% and this will actually improve your score. In fact, you might even say it gives a disadvantage to Americans!
Yes, especially because apparently Safari users came out on top above FireFox and others. Monopoly software? Not that I consider Apple to be a monopoly, but I would give it a higher "percentage" than FireFox.
Well, I've seen worse. It does contain some questionable questions ("There are 7 notes in an octave" is supposedly false, "Norway is the land of the midnight sun" is supposedly true even though the explanation then says that Norway is just one of several countries that bear the title, "Gout is known as the Royal Disease" is supposedly false, note the inconsistency between the Norway and Gout questions) but I e-mailed them and they immediately changed at least one of the questions. Very friendly people, and they confirm the test is still being worked on. They even thanked me for my input with a voucher for the expert test.
As long as they only include uncontestable questions, I think this idea is actually pretty good and I would expect the results to be a lot more accurate than most other personality tests (which are usually complete rubbish).
But the biggest question is: why has it taken so long for them to be hacked? I suppose nobody suspected that they would be that stupid, so nobody bothered to even try?
Talk about hiding information in plain view...
Slashdot Mirror
No, if the system is convinced that the airplane is stalling, it will push the nose down and there's nothing the pilots can do to stop it except reaching onto the overhead panel and switching off certain flight control computers to downgrade the flight control law (which is kind of hard to do while you're fighting negative g-forces, and certainly never trained at all).
What you are missing is the advanced computer vision techniques that are discovered cannot be used in the air, because everything is fucking blue. On the road, computer vision techniques can used to identify objects (which is covered to some extent in ai-class.com).
Actually, the blue bits are not dangerous, it's safe to fly towards them. Anything that's NOT blue is what you have to watch out for. So that should actually make the software's task easier. That being said, airplanes don't currently base their autoflight systems on vision because the old technology based on sensors works pretty well and is more accurate than looking out the window. Even when we're doing a visual approach, we'll normally still set up the instrument landing system if it's available and use it to double-check our glide path, giving more weight to its indications than to our gut feeling of being high or low from looking out the window.
Also we have the added advantage of using GPS when driving on road (I am not sure what is the airborne equivalent of GPS)
The airborne equivalent is called... GPS. It was used in airplanes long before it started being used in cars. But for landing airplanes it's not quite accurate enough yet. A GPS approach will only take you down to a height of about 400 feet for a manual landing from there on. Only ILS (and then, only Category 3 ILS) allows fully automatic landings.
In the same way that not all nuclear reactors are chernobyl, not all planes are the Airbus a330.
As an Airbus pilot, I absolutely love that comparison :-)
Bugs are never fixed forever. Someone may come around fixing some other bug and re-enabling the old one, wouldn't be the first time, I've even done it myself.
Except that the designers of the software didn't take all possible situations into account. For example, any Fly By Wire Airbus will automatically pitch up if speed increases too far above the maximum airspeed, even when flown manually. This may be a good idea when the airplane is diving (the most likely cause for overspeed), but not when it's straight and level with other traffic immediately above! This has already made several Airbus planes in heavy turbulence suddenly start to climb violently due to a sudden change in airspeed or temperature and overriding the pilot's MANUAL inputs while he's trying to avoid flying into other traffic! That's insane, and it's only one of many reasons why I can't wait to get off the Airbus fleet onto a more sensibly designed plane. (I'm currently an A320 pilot).
Why was this modded "Troll"? For crying out loud, the Troll option is not equivalent to "Disagree". Even if you don't agree with him, that's no reason to call him a troll. If I had mod points, I would mod him back up immediately. There's absolutely nothing trollish about his post.
As far as I know, supernova only fuse elements, they don't do fission. The only way to get more hydrogen in a natural way is probably waiting for elements to decay by themselves. Maybe if the supernova makes heavy, unstable elements, those will fall apart and give you some hydrogen back. But apart from that, if I am not mistaken, supernovas only make heavier elements.
That's a very logical explanation. And maybe the solar wind could have something to do with it too, because that would also be proportional to surface area.
But surely accelleration in a gravitational field does not depend on your mass? The force of gravity is proportional to your mass, so the accelleration is the same! Any object with any mass will, given the same starting position and velocity, leave the planet or sun with exactly the same speed. Shedding mass will only work if you shed it in the direction opposite to the direction you want to accellerate in. Simply "losing weight" does nothing to change your orbit.
No, that's definitely not how it works. For a small object passing close to a massive object, if no other forces like friction or electric forces exist, and disregarging relativistic effects, the exit velocity will be exactly equal to the approach velocity. The sum of potential and kinetic energy remains the same: as it loses potential energy in the gravitational field by coming closer, it will speed up and it will lose this speed again when going back up in the gravitational field. The decelleration while going away is exactly the same as the accelleration on the way in. Any extra speed would have to be caused by some sort of magnetic effects or solar wind. The most likely reason seems to be one that someone else has pointed out elsewhere in this thread: the comet gets smaller, so the ratio between surface area and mass gets larger (mass being proportional to radius^3 and surface area only to radius^2), so the push from the solar wind will be stronger on the way out. Gravitational accelleration will be the same though, no matter what the mass is.
Also, I don't think the spin of the sun would have any effect apart from a very, very tiny relativistic frame dragging effect. So that's not it either, I would think.
Slingshot manoeuvers work quite differently: they work by approaching a planet from a different direction and leaving it in the same direction as the planet is moving in. The exit velocity relative to the planet is the same as the approach velocity, but since you are leaving in the same direction the planet is moving in, you are basically adding its speed to your own. The ideal example would be approaching a planet in the opposite direction of its trajectory and turning around it 180 degrees to leave in the same direction it's going in. This would add twice the planet's speed to your own. A less ideal but more realistic example is approaching perpendicularly and leaving in the direction of the orbit, adding only once the planet's speed to your own. But in the case of the sun, which we would consider pretty much stationary in our solar system, you wouldn't gain anything.
I wasn't entirely serious, but thanks for checking ;-)
But that "rocket engine" would work in opposite ways on arrival and departure, either slowing it down or speeding it up (not sure) when it's coming in and doing the exact opposite when it's emerging again. So that would not give it a net extra energy. Or am I missing something?
That's weird, in the other video of the comet emerging from the sun, it seemed to be dragging its tail behind it. I was wondering exactly the same thing as catmistake.
But wasn't it in some sort of orbit around the sun before? Where did it pick up the extra energy to get away from the sun, then? If anything, I would have expected its orbit to shrink.
Which explains why it didn't evaporate. Time contraction!
And before that, it was saying "What's this thing coming towards me very fast? So big and fat and round, I think I'll call it... Sun. That's a good name - Sun! I wonder if it will be friends with me"
The first is the only one that's also a programming language?
Yes, but aren't they half notes? Depends who you ask. Some people consider them to be notes like the others (C# is a note), others say that B and C are notes, and C# is in between two notes. There's no one answer. Google "notes in an octave" and you'll find both answers. Frankly, I don't care. It's just a bad question.
Well, they did specify "Western music" but even then there are many answers depending on the definition of "note". There may be either 7, 8 or 12 notes depending on the scale, whether you count both end notes or not, and whether you count only the full notes or the half notes as well. The most common answer I found using Google (wikipedia, answers.com,...) seems to be 7 so it should definitely not be counted as wrong. But it's not really correct either, depending on which definition you use and how pedantic you are. It's simply an unsuitable question for this kind of test. They agreed with me and took it out of the test.
In fact, they changed all three of the questions and thanked me for helping them out.
Which is funny because they are actually based in Ireland. Not that it matters that much: if you don't know the answers, you just reply 50% and this will actually improve your score. In fact, you might even say it gives a disadvantage to Americans!
Yes, especially because apparently Safari users came out on top above FireFox and others. Monopoly software? Not that I consider Apple to be a monopoly, but I would give it a higher "percentage" than FireFox.
Well, I've seen worse. It does contain some questionable questions ("There are 7 notes in an octave" is supposedly false, "Norway is the land of the midnight sun" is supposedly true even though the explanation then says that Norway is just one of several countries that bear the title, "Gout is known as the Royal Disease" is supposedly false, note the inconsistency between the Norway and Gout questions) but I e-mailed them and they immediately changed at least one of the questions. Very friendly people, and they confirm the test is still being worked on. They even thanked me for my input with a voucher for the expert test.
As long as they only include uncontestable questions, I think this idea is actually pretty good and I would expect the results to be a lot more accurate than most other personality tests (which are usually complete rubbish).
But the biggest question is: why has it taken so long for them to be hacked? I suppose nobody suspected that they would be that stupid, so nobody bothered to even try? Talk about hiding information in plain view...
I wonder how much of Windows Vista was outsourced...