Yes, of course the attitude can affect the altitude. I never said otherwise. I was responding to someone who misread "attitude" as "altitude" and claimed that I was wrong because change in altitude is not related to gees felt inside the aircraft. Which is true. But change in attitude is directly related to gees felt inside the aircraft.
Whenever you â" in response to an assertion, that you hold certain opinion on a matter â" deny expressing an opinion, there is almost always a great opportunity to express one way or another for clarity. Skipping that opportunity is usually a sign of either a desire to muddle up the discussion or not wanting to confirm, that the initial assertion was, in fact, accurate. Your hinting at being afraid of some sort of persecution on yourself is quite laughable too.
The matter is simply not relevant to the discussion, and I'm withholding my opinion on it to prove that point. That you continue to insist that this is some kind of "great opportunity" to state it just goes to show that you're a total nutbar. Making a big deal about somebody's failure to express a "politically correct" opinion when discussing something tangential to that opinion is almost always the prelude to an ad hominem attack meant to distract from the original discussion.
As for my sig, I'm just happy to see that it's doing its job.
Yeah, there's a "Quote Parent" button which automatically inserts the parents with quote tags around it. Quote and blockquote show up on the full site as an indented section with a gray bar running down the left side. If there's no visual indicator for them in text mode then that's a real problem!
The general rule of these things is, "Save your own ass, and the passengers will follow."
Emergencies are no time for finesse. Do what you need to save your own ass, and by extension the airplane. If you can recover gently then that's great, but you should never even begin to think about such a move unless you're absolutely certain that there is no danger.
And just a note, as far as I understand it even "flicking off the autopilot" is unnecessary. Autopilots are either weak enough to be overridden by the pilot, or will automatically disengage when the controls are moved (like a car's cruise control disengages when you press the break). In fact this latter design is responsible for at least one fatal accident, where in the controls were pushed and disengaged the autopilot without the (terribly incompetent) pilots noticing until it was far too late. If the autopilot begins to misbehave then the pilot can simply start doing what he needs to do with the controls and the autopilot will get out of the way.
Attitude, not altitude. How fast a plane accelerates vertically is, to at least a first order approximation, directly related to how fast its attitude changes and to the square of how fast it's moving forward.
But would demand be higher, lower, or the same if piracy were somehow eliminated?
That is hard to say. My guess from what I know (and I realize this is just a guess) is that demand would still be going down even in the absence of piracy. That is to say, while piracy may be responsible for some losses, the industry would still be hurting even if it were not happening.
In any case, I think that the debate is irrelevant. You can no more stop your products from being pirated than you can stop your buildings from being rained on. If your roof leaks then you must fix the roof, not stop the rain. Likewise, businesses which are built on selling copyrighted material must come to terms with piracy and figure out ways to make money despite it. This is not really a good thing for us (I make my money in this area too!) but there's simply no way to make it stop.
"Flamebait" and "Troll" are just code words for "I'm a stupid moderator and I don't like what you say". Maybe I should make that my sig....
I think moderators should not be anonymous. When you click the score of a post, show not only the moderations applied but who applied each one. That would probably all but eliminate this kind of abuse.
Yet, somehow, I see neither ACLU nor yourself complaining about these outrages â" and I suspect, you actually celebrated (along with most Slashdotters) the one requiring MediaSentry to have a private investigator (!) license to run whois and traceroute...
Once again, please confine your criticism toward me to things which I have actually said. Do not assume my position on anything.
Well, that depends on what that hypothetical political party is advocating and known for. For example, if repeated trespassing (as was the case with Max Obuszewski and pals [michaelmoore.com]) is part of that party's action plan, then suspecting all its members of trespassing is quite reasonable.
Ah, guilt by association, I love it.
Try this on for size: both the Republican Party and Democratic Party favor, or at least favored for a long time, that the illegal and immoral imprisonment of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay. Therefore all members of those two parties should be held under the deepest suspicion of kidnapping, false imprisonment, and torture.
You just missed a great opportunity to state, for the record, whether or not you actually have a problem with Osama bin Laden being on the list of suspected terrorists... I wonder, why you chose not to state your opinion... Khmm...
What kind of "great opportunity" was this? Please elucidate. My idea of a "great opportunity" is something like being able to effortlessly get a risk-free return of 10% on my money. Something like an offer to fly in somebody's private airplane for free. The opportunity to meet someone in person I've always admired. Getting set of Japanese twins to have sex with me.
So please explain how the opportunity to state whether I have a problem with Osama bin Laden being on an abusive government list is a "great opportunity". Because I just to don't see it. I don't have to prove my political chops to anyone, and making an anonymous post to a techie web site about how I think the government should handle a particular terrorist does not appear to be a "great opportunity" to me in any conceivable way. For some reason you think it is, so please explain why.
Actually, basic economics will tell you that the quantity of something which is obtained for free has no bearing on the demand for a product. "Demand" means the shape of the whole curve, and that curve necessarily spikes far upward at the point where price reaches zero. That people download like crazy for free tells you absolutely nothing about what they would be doing if they had no choice but to pay money.
If he did something illegal, arrest and charge him.
He (William Ayers) did, does not deny it, and remains proud and remorseless — he can not be charged because of an earlier prosecutorial misconduct.
So then we've done the most we can under the law.
We can not continue prosecuting him for fear of encouraging more such misconduct, but he ought to be treated as a pariah with the utmost disdain and suspicion. (Along with those, who chose to associate with him, of course.)
Well, I strongly disagree with treating him as a pariah. But more importantly, that is not a government function, and they should have no say over such a thing.
You do not get to come up with an arbitrary third category of "didn't break the law but I still don't like him" and then persecute people in that category.
What persecution are you talking about? People are simply added to a list — a list of those, who can be denied things by the government, that it can already deny to anyone. The (Executive) government's ability to deny basic things like travel (even driving is a privilege, not a right — that's why you need a license), or fixing a toilet (licensed plumbers only) is an awful thing. And the list itself is troublesome, as it lists suspects, rather than convicts.
I'm sorry, you're wrong. Travel is a right. You can't list drivers licenses as a counterexample, because drivers licenses are about driving cars, not traveling by car. I can travel by car without a license, simply by having someone else drive. The same goes for busses or trains or planes. And regardless of their ability to deny these things to anyone, placing someone on a special list because of something they've done, but doing so outside the due process of the law, and then changing how they are treated based on their presence on that list is persecution.
For example, let's say your local police had a list of people who they pulled over for lengthy traffic stops every time they saw those people driving at 1MPH over the speed limit. Then let's say that they placed people on this list any time they saw someone who, say, supported whatever political party they don't like. Even though pulling people over for lengthy traffic stops any time they exceed the speed limit is entirely within their rights, this still counts as persecution.
But these are different stories. If you don't have a problem with Osama bin Laden being on the list (he was not convicted either, was he?) then you should not have a problem with anyone else being there.
Please do not put words in my mouth. Unless I actually said somewhere that I don't have a problem with Osama bin Laden being on the list, do not assume that this is the case.
If an aggressive maneuver is required in flight then it is, pretty much by definition, required immediately. No manufacturer is going to require a pilot to take an extra step to explicitly override limits in that kind of situation. Fly-by-wire limits either come in the form of soft limits, like increasing stick forces or shaking, or in the form of absolute hard limits which simply cannot by bypassed at all, which Airbus is rather fond of and which make a lot of pilots really wary of their equipment.
A 747 certainly can push over fast enough to get negative gees in the cabin. It has nothing to do with a nose-dive and everything to do with how fast the plane's attitude changes. All you'd have to do is go negative enough to lift people in the air, then back to positive and they'll fall down.
Presidential TFRs close off the entire airspace, and every airport contained, within 30 miles. They also appear and move without warning, making it tricky at best to avoid them, and the guys in charge are not happy when you violate their invisible unannounced moving circle.
Sure, it's not as bad a disruption as when a President gets killed. On the other hand, it happens way more often. I honestly think that we ought to lighten up on the restrictions here and just accept that being President is a dangerous job.
What I meant to say was that you don't get to create such a legal category. Such an action is unconscionable by all the principles that western law is based on.
Satellites are pretty constrained in their orbits. They're going to pass over the US at certain times no matter what. While they're passing over the US, they probably can't help with the search for Mr. bin Laden. As such, how do you think that these resources could instead go towards finding him?
That said, considering the present-day prominence (and a comfortable life of a tenured professor) of an anti-war protester turned terrorist [nytimes.com] (to this day unrepentant), the Maryland cops' action is not that unconscious...
Yes it is. If he did something illegal, arrest and charge him. If he didn't, then he should be considered on an equal footing to every other innocent man. You do not get to come up with an arbitrary third category of "didn't break the law but I still don't like him" and then persecute people in that category.
I never watch TV news, listen to news radio, or read newspapers. My internet news comes largely from international sources. Despite all of that, I still think Ron Paul is a nutbar and would not even think about voting for him.
When you get that far, you need to realize that it is, in fact, a problem with the person himself, not some vast conspiracy.
Closing off entire airports and entire sections of the country to all air traffic is "only a few things"? Google "Presidential TFR" and see just how un-disruptive Presidential movements are.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, of course the attitude can affect the altitude. I never said otherwise. I was responding to someone who misread "attitude" as "altitude" and claimed that I was wrong because change in altitude is not related to gees felt inside the aircraft. Which is true. But change in attitude is directly related to gees felt inside the aircraft.
Well please keep up your complaining, on both counts.
Whenever you â" in response to an assertion, that you hold certain opinion on a matter â" deny expressing an opinion, there is almost always a great opportunity to express one way or another for clarity. Skipping that opportunity is usually a sign of either a desire to muddle up the discussion or not wanting to confirm, that the initial assertion was, in fact, accurate. Your hinting at being afraid of some sort of persecution on yourself is quite laughable too.
The matter is simply not relevant to the discussion, and I'm withholding my opinion on it to prove that point. That you continue to insist that this is some kind of "great opportunity" to state it just goes to show that you're a total nutbar. Making a big deal about somebody's failure to express a "politically correct" opinion when discussing something tangential to that opinion is almost always the prelude to an ad hominem attack meant to distract from the original discussion.
As for my sig, I'm just happy to see that it's doing its job.
Yeah, there's a "Quote Parent" button which automatically inserts the parents with quote tags around it. Quote and blockquote show up on the full site as an indented section with a gray bar running down the left side. If there's no visual indicator for them in text mode then that's a real problem!
The general rule of these things is, "Save your own ass, and the passengers will follow."
Emergencies are no time for finesse. Do what you need to save your own ass, and by extension the airplane. If you can recover gently then that's great, but you should never even begin to think about such a move unless you're absolutely certain that there is no danger.
And just a note, as far as I understand it even "flicking off the autopilot" is unnecessary. Autopilots are either weak enough to be overridden by the pilot, or will automatically disengage when the controls are moved (like a car's cruise control disengages when you press the break). In fact this latter design is responsible for at least one fatal accident, where in the controls were pushed and disengaged the autopilot without the (terribly incompetent) pilots noticing until it was far too late. If the autopilot begins to misbehave then the pilot can simply start doing what he needs to do with the controls and the autopilot will get out of the way.
Attitude, not altitude. How fast a plane accelerates vertically is, to at least a first order approximation, directly related to how fast its attitude changes and to the square of how fast it's moving forward.
I agree, but you might want to reply to the guy who said that, rather than the guy who just quoted it.
Ah, but we can both be right.
Does piracy hurt demand? Most likely.
But would demand be higher, lower, or the same if piracy were somehow eliminated?
That is hard to say. My guess from what I know (and I realize this is just a guess) is that demand would still be going down even in the absence of piracy. That is to say, while piracy may be responsible for some losses, the industry would still be hurting even if it were not happening.
In any case, I think that the debate is irrelevant. You can no more stop your products from being pirated than you can stop your buildings from being rained on. If your roof leaks then you must fix the roof, not stop the rain. Likewise, businesses which are built on selling copyrighted material must come to terms with piracy and figure out ways to make money despite it. This is not really a good thing for us (I make my money in this area too!) but there's simply no way to make it stop.
"Flamebait" and "Troll" are just code words for "I'm a stupid moderator and I don't like what you say". Maybe I should make that my sig....
I think moderators should not be anonymous. When you click the score of a post, show not only the moderations applied but who applied each one. That would probably all but eliminate this kind of abuse.
Yet, somehow, I see neither ACLU nor yourself complaining about these outrages â" and I suspect, you actually celebrated (along with most Slashdotters) the one requiring MediaSentry to have a private investigator (!) license to run whois and traceroute...
Once again, please confine your criticism toward me to things which I have actually said. Do not assume my position on anything.
Well, that depends on what that hypothetical political party is advocating and known for. For example, if repeated trespassing (as was the case with Max Obuszewski and pals [michaelmoore.com]) is part of that party's action plan, then suspecting all its members of trespassing is quite reasonable.
Ah, guilt by association, I love it.
Try this on for size: both the Republican Party and Democratic Party favor, or at least favored for a long time, that the illegal and immoral imprisonment of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay. Therefore all members of those two parties should be held under the deepest suspicion of kidnapping, false imprisonment, and torture.
You just missed a great opportunity to state, for the record, whether or not you actually have a problem with Osama bin Laden being on the list of suspected terrorists... I wonder, why you chose not to state your opinion... Khmm...
What kind of "great opportunity" was this? Please elucidate. My idea of a "great opportunity" is something like being able to effortlessly get a risk-free return of 10% on my money. Something like an offer to fly in somebody's private airplane for free. The opportunity to meet someone in person I've always admired. Getting set of Japanese twins to have sex with me.
So please explain how the opportunity to state whether I have a problem with Osama bin Laden being on an abusive government list is a "great opportunity". Because I just to don't see it. I don't have to prove my political chops to anyone, and making an anonymous post to a techie web site about how I think the government should handle a particular terrorist does not appear to be a "great opportunity" to me in any conceivable way. For some reason you think it is, so please explain why.
Actually, basic economics will tell you that the quantity of something which is obtained for free has no bearing on the demand for a product. "Demand" means the shape of the whole curve, and that curve necessarily spikes far upward at the point where price reaches zero. That people download like crazy for free tells you absolutely nothing about what they would be doing if they had no choice but to pay money.
How pointless. It would be more accurate to simply have a text file which reads "no".
That's a pretty bad example if you ask me, given that both sites were created by the same person.
He (William Ayers) did, does not deny it, and remains proud and remorseless — he can not be charged because of an earlier prosecutorial misconduct.
So then we've done the most we can under the law.
We can not continue prosecuting him for fear of encouraging more such misconduct, but he ought to be treated as a pariah with the utmost disdain and suspicion. (Along with those, who chose to associate with him, of course.)
Well, I strongly disagree with treating him as a pariah. But more importantly, that is not a government function, and they should have no say over such a thing.
What persecution are you talking about? People are simply added to a list — a list of those, who can be denied things by the government, that it can already deny to anyone . The (Executive) government's ability to deny basic things like travel (even driving is a privilege, not a right — that's why you need a license), or fixing a toilet (licensed plumbers only) is an awful thing. And the list itself is troublesome, as it lists suspects, rather than convicts.
I'm sorry, you're wrong. Travel is a right. You can't list drivers licenses as a counterexample, because drivers licenses are about driving cars, not traveling by car. I can travel by car without a license, simply by having someone else drive. The same goes for busses or trains or planes. And regardless of their ability to deny these things to anyone, placing someone on a special list because of something they've done, but doing so outside the due process of the law, and then changing how they are treated based on their presence on that list is persecution.
For example, let's say your local police had a list of people who they pulled over for lengthy traffic stops every time they saw those people driving at 1MPH over the speed limit. Then let's say that they placed people on this list any time they saw someone who, say, supported whatever political party they don't like. Even though pulling people over for lengthy traffic stops any time they exceed the speed limit is entirely within their rights, this still counts as persecution.
But these are different stories. If you don't have a problem with Osama bin Laden being on the list (he was not convicted either, was he?) then you should not have a problem with anyone else being there.
Please do not put words in my mouth. Unless I actually said somewhere that I don't have a problem with Osama bin Laden being on the list, do not assume that this is the case.
If an aggressive maneuver is required in flight then it is, pretty much by definition, required immediately. No manufacturer is going to require a pilot to take an extra step to explicitly override limits in that kind of situation. Fly-by-wire limits either come in the form of soft limits, like increasing stick forces or shaking, or in the form of absolute hard limits which simply cannot by bypassed at all, which Airbus is rather fond of and which make a lot of pilots really wary of their equipment.
A 747 certainly can push over fast enough to get negative gees in the cabin. It has nothing to do with a nose-dive and everything to do with how fast the plane's attitude changes. All you'd have to do is go negative enough to lift people in the air, then back to positive and they'll fall down.
Presidential TFRs close off the entire airspace, and every airport contained, within 30 miles. They also appear and move without warning, making it tricky at best to avoid them, and the guys in charge are not happy when you violate their invisible unannounced moving circle.
Sure, it's not as bad a disruption as when a President gets killed. On the other hand, it happens way more often. I honestly think that we ought to lighten up on the restrictions here and just accept that being President is a dangerous job.
What I meant to say was that you don't get to create such a legal category. Such an action is unconscionable by all the principles that western law is based on.
And in the 1/10 cases where the victim does care, the police does not.
Satellites are pretty constrained in their orbits. They're going to pass over the US at certain times no matter what. While they're passing over the US, they probably can't help with the search for Mr. bin Laden. As such, how do you think that these resources could instead go towards finding him?
That said, considering the present-day prominence (and a comfortable life of a tenured professor) of an anti-war protester turned terrorist [nytimes.com] (to this day unrepentant), the Maryland cops' action is not that unconscious...
Yes it is. If he did something illegal, arrest and charge him. If he didn't, then he should be considered on an equal footing to every other innocent man. You do not get to come up with an arbitrary third category of "didn't break the law but I still don't like him" and then persecute people in that category.
I never watch TV news, listen to news radio, or read newspapers. My internet news comes largely from international sources. Despite all of that, I still think Ron Paul is a nutbar and would not even think about voting for him.
When you get that far, you need to realize that it is, in fact, a problem with the person himself, not some vast conspiracy.
In other words, police have to pick and choose, so all else being equal they should choose the more important person to protect? Is that about right?
Closing off entire airports and entire sections of the country to all air traffic is "only a few things"? Google "Presidential TFR" and see just how un-disruptive Presidential movements are.
I'd vote Libertarian if it were possible to get nominated by that party without being utterly batshit insane.