A lot of pilots use the earth's magnetic field for navigation. When flying around under visual flight rules in an analog cockpit (which make up the majority of general aviation aircraft), the magnetic compass backs up the gyro-based heading indicator. Every 15-20 minutes, the heading indicator is realigned with the compass heading when in straight and level, unaccelerated flight due to the effects of precession, making that magnetic field very important. Even in a glass cockpit, the FAA requires a backup magnetic compass in case of computer or electrical failure.
It's fairly rare that some critical piece of hardware comes out that currently-supported versions of Windows will never support. Besides, no one is talking about banning the older drive architecture. If Microsoft draws the line in the sand on this one, I think we'll be able to forgive them for it, especially since it will be easy to label new drives appropriately, and the older drive architecture will continue to be available. One can still get new PATA drives, after all, and they've been out of primary preference for a good number of years.
Thank you. I've tried to do some searches for older uses of the terms, but unfortunately, they're so widespread that it's pretty much impossible. I wish I still knew the guy at the LA Times that would occasionally do archive searches on pointless things for me. He might have been able to find some really old examples, at least in headlines, well before the 1980s.
I should run it past one of the guys at work tomorrow. He's been surfing California beaches since at least the 1970s.
I must be missing your point. Is it that anything that appears in several million results on Google isn't much to worry about? A search for "drunk driving" gets 12 million hits. A search for "heart disease" gets 53 million hits. At what point in the number of Google search results returned is it not worth worrying about?
The first page of your search is filled with stories of a Southwest flight that lost cabin pressure and had to land. I realize that everyone made it through safely, but that does not mean that it's not a major concern. Losing cabin pressure at cruise altitudes is a serious event. The estate of Payne Stewart can fill you in on the dangers involved.
Besides which, a hole that comes from metal fatigue is not the same as a hole that comes from a bomb. The bomb that brought down TWA 103 fit inside a suitcase, and yet managed to weaken the structure sufficiently that the nose section tore away only a few seconds after the explosion.
You clearly have no idea how I talk. I eschew pointless abbreviations like those that you mention, but you choose to pin them on me anyway, knowing nothing about the way that I speak save what you take from a single word. I use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation, and I know and use many of the nuances of the language that escape others. I can guarantee you that save for an occasional example in conversations about the twisting of the language, and maybe once or twice in a mocking fashion, I have never, ever used any of those words. I have little tolerance for those who do, and will usually end a conversation rather quickly when such language develops.
The abbreviation "SoCal" long predates recent abbreviations such as you mention, going back at least into the 1980s. It certainly is far older than a certain other abominable abbreviation brought about by network television, one shot down with some humor in Arrested Development. Perhaps you could take into account such origins instead of lashing out at people that use any abbreviation whatsoever.
It also had the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, which was composed of volunteers of Asian descent and became the most highly decorated regiment in the history of the United States. The story of racism towards the Japanese in World War II is a bit more complex than just the internments.
You can get something of a traffic jam on rare occasions, usually when certain airports are closed by temporary flight restrictions (TFR). I flew into Palomar Airport a few months ago during the Miramar Air Show, and the pilots that normally would have flown into Montgomery, Gillespie, and maybe Ramona (all reasonably-populated airports) were basically having to use Palomar. When I touched down, there were at least five other aircraft in the pattern, and several others in the vicinity of the airport either inbound or outbound. Tower gets a little hectic at that time.
As for speed -- absolutely. I can get just about anywhere beyond the 30-mile marker faster by plane than by car (preflight can take a few minutes). A trip to Las Vegas from my home is about a four-hour drive, and that's presuming there's no traffic, such as there is on holiday weekends or certain major events, when it can take twice that long to get home. By plane, it's under two hours in a Cessna 172, and under 90 minutes in a Cessna 182, pretty much any time. From where I fly, that's about $600 rental for either the 172 ($150/hr) or the 182 ($200/hr), looking at a round trip. It's a decent deal on holiday weekends: Four people go out at $150 each on a weekend trip, skipping the major airport tedium and getting stuck in traffic. And if we want, we can do a little sight-seeing along the way, something that's much harder to do in a car.
I can tell you that it's a lot more expensive in any area than that to get a license, unless you happen to know someone with their own plane who passes on to you only the cost of fuel. Even then, at a national average of 70 hours of flight time, $45 per hour for the instructor, and $4 per gallon of fuel at an average consumption of 8 gallons per hour, you're looking at more than $5000. Add in plane rental, and you're adding in at least $6000 more. The average cost to get a private pilot's license is in the range of $13,000. That does not include endorsements for high performance (required for anything over 200hp) or complex aircraft (adjustable prop and retractable landing gear), each of which is perhaps another five hours, nor for instrument flight rules training, which is an entire training course in itself.
Soldiers train to put themselves in harm's way. In situations where harm is expected, they usually have a reasonable chance to defend themselves. Civilians try to stay out of harm's way, and usually have little in the way of defense against an armed, prepared attacker.
There certainly is construction going on there, and has been for a few years. I went through it in March, and at that time, some above-ground construction was visible. The design appears to have been finalized, and recent expectations are that floor construction should begin in the next couple of months. It took a while, but there was also a great deal of back and forth over the final design.
Well, for what it's worth, she saw no differences anywhere in either Tulsa or DFW airports, nor on the plane itself. It was a domestic flight, true, but one would think that two international airports might have handled things a little more strictly.
His proposal is giving you your one channel. It's giving those that want something a little more hopped up their channel, which may lead them to understand why it is that you like your channel. This is trivial to do with a webcast, which is how I usually watch NasaTV, as I have no idea what channel it's on for me (or if it's even available).
There are commentators that can do a good job of explaining what's happening while also making it a little more entertaining. Think of the way that Neil deGrasse Tyson or Michio Kaku approach their descriptions of science. That kind of approach could do NasaTV some good.
In SoCal, we get "StormWatch 2009!!!" (Exclamation points added because of the way they approach it.) We don't get a lot of rain here, averaging about 15 inches (38cm) per year, and most storms bring less than an inch of rain. Any storm that is expected to bring more than an inch, or any series that combines for that, will usually trigger the StormWatch logos on the local TV stations. We had such a storm recently, and while it was important to have some heightened concern over the possibility of landslides in recent burn areas, the dramatics that were used were really unnecessary.
I've been through some pretty serious storms, even here in SoCal. Every five to ten years, we get something through that really does some damage, overloading the drainage and flood control systems, maybe dropping four or five inches of rain in under 48 hours (and sometimes in less than 24 hours). That is more deserving of dramatics. (Yes, I know that this is a more common storm size in many other places, but factor in what the area usually gets and what we can realistically handle.)
I fly, mostly because the patterns are familiar enough that I'm only slowed by the people that don't know the procedures, and a growing number of airports are instituting lanes based on traveling experience. I can walk up to the line, get my shoes and jacket off and into the bin, my notebook out and into another bin, and my backpack in line for the X-ray machine in a few seconds, so I go into the diamond lane. Families with children go into the family lane. Those with a little experience go into a third lane for intermediates. People seem to sort themselves pretty well along these lines, and it moves quickly enough that it's not that much slower than before 9/11.
I'm not learning for the utility. As one of the flight instructors at my school said, no one learns to fly to save money.:) I ran the numbers, and flights up to about two hours are often a wash if you can get at least one person to go with you, especially when you factor in the ability to drop into lesser-used airports closer to actual destinations. When I ran the numbers for flying a Cessna 182 to Dallas from SoCal, though, it drove home the cost point.
To an extent, it is. They were primarily going after the idea that a bullet hole would doom the plane, when it certainly will not. An explosive can do one of a few things:
Not explode
Explode without doing damage to the window/wall/floor
Explode and make a hole, but not weaken the airframe sufficient to prevent landing
Explode and weaken the airframe, possibly to a disastrous degree
There are instances of a significant piece of the fuselage tearing away and the plane being able to land. There are also instances where a bomb of a somewhat small size managed to bring down an entire plane, killing all aboard. These were, so far as I can gather, larger than what was attempted in this case, but it may not require a large amount to destroy the plane.
Before the advent of millimeter-wave scanners, puffers were becoming more common in airports. I had to go through one once -- it was a booth where I had to lift my arms and I got hit with a few blasts of air, which would have carried vapors from any explosive of flammable substances into the detectors. After a few seconds, the detectors decided that I didn't have any explosives on me, and I went ahead and picked up my X-rayed items.
I don't know at this point if the new scanners have puffers, as I have yet to go through one. I would think that embedding something like that in a metal detector would probably be fairly easy, with follow-up checks for positives in a larger, more precise system.
It's not that they got lucky once -- they've been able to pull off significant attacks on several occasions. Of 11 significant plots currently listed on Wikipedia tied to al Qaeda, seven were successful, three were failures, and one was a mixed result. (The plots do not include yesterday's attempt or Richard Reid.) That's a pretty high ratio of success.
I'm learning to fly right now (my FAA practical test is on Tuesday), and despite the cost of flying myself most places, it's starting to look like a better and better idea.
A friend is flying home on Southwest to Dallas tonight. I'll be asking her what she experienced on the flight.
There is still a valid purpose in watching for bombs, and has been for decades. The most courageous passengers will do no good if someone manages to set off a usable explosive and blow a hole in the side of the plane.
I don't know which state you're referencing, but in California, you can refuse a breathalyzer without penalty to that specific refusal. You then have two other options: urine or blood, both of which are handled at the police station. However, if you refuse all three, you have violated implied consent laws, which state that as part of accepting the driving privilege, you consent to some form of testing for influence or intoxication upon probable cause. Penalties vary, but they can include stiff fines and jail time (jail only if you've previously been convicted of DUI), and insurance companies are notified of the refusal, which then jack up the rates.
Of course, if the state has evidence other than chemical that is sufficient (testimony or video of a person weaving, smell of liquor on the person, open containers or empties in the vehicle, and/or failure of coordination tests), you may well get convicted of DUI anyway.
For repeat offenders, yes. For someone who made the mistake of doing it (or at least getting caught) once, I think such a punishment for a year or two or for the duration of parole/probation on top of whatever other sentencing is fitting. There might be a spike in it at the beginning, but afterward, some public shame could help to reduce it, bringing down drunk driving overall.
I have little tolerance for people who drive drunk. My mother worked in a hospital for the better part of two decades, and saw plenty of crash victims come through, and all too often their next move after the emergency room was to the morgue.
There is still some uncertainty in the calculations due to imperfect observations, the effects of gravity, and the solar wind, for example. The trajectory shown in the video is very close to the most likely one, but there are still some factors that could change from the expected parameters and so change the actual path.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of pilots use the earth's magnetic field for navigation. When flying around under visual flight rules in an analog cockpit (which make up the majority of general aviation aircraft), the magnetic compass backs up the gyro-based heading indicator. Every 15-20 minutes, the heading indicator is realigned with the compass heading when in straight and level, unaccelerated flight due to the effects of precession, making that magnetic field very important. Even in a glass cockpit, the FAA requires a backup magnetic compass in case of computer or electrical failure.
It's fairly rare that some critical piece of hardware comes out that currently-supported versions of Windows will never support. Besides, no one is talking about banning the older drive architecture. If Microsoft draws the line in the sand on this one, I think we'll be able to forgive them for it, especially since it will be easy to label new drives appropriately, and the older drive architecture will continue to be available. One can still get new PATA drives, after all, and they've been out of primary preference for a good number of years.
Thank you. I've tried to do some searches for older uses of the terms, but unfortunately, they're so widespread that it's pretty much impossible. I wish I still knew the guy at the LA Times that would occasionally do archive searches on pointless things for me. He might have been able to find some really old examples, at least in headlines, well before the 1980s.
I should run it past one of the guys at work tomorrow. He's been surfing California beaches since at least the 1970s.
I must be missing your point. Is it that anything that appears in several million results on Google isn't much to worry about? A search for "drunk driving" gets 12 million hits. A search for "heart disease" gets 53 million hits. At what point in the number of Google search results returned is it not worth worrying about?
The first page of your search is filled with stories of a Southwest flight that lost cabin pressure and had to land. I realize that everyone made it through safely, but that does not mean that it's not a major concern. Losing cabin pressure at cruise altitudes is a serious event. The estate of Payne Stewart can fill you in on the dangers involved.
Besides which, a hole that comes from metal fatigue is not the same as a hole that comes from a bomb. The bomb that brought down TWA 103 fit inside a suitcase, and yet managed to weaken the structure sufficiently that the nose section tore away only a few seconds after the explosion.
You clearly have no idea how I talk. I eschew pointless abbreviations like those that you mention, but you choose to pin them on me anyway, knowing nothing about the way that I speak save what you take from a single word. I use proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation, and I know and use many of the nuances of the language that escape others. I can guarantee you that save for an occasional example in conversations about the twisting of the language, and maybe once or twice in a mocking fashion, I have never, ever used any of those words. I have little tolerance for those who do, and will usually end a conversation rather quickly when such language develops.
The abbreviation "SoCal" long predates recent abbreviations such as you mention, going back at least into the 1980s. It certainly is far older than a certain other abominable abbreviation brought about by network television, one shot down with some humor in Arrested Development. Perhaps you could take into account such origins instead of lashing out at people that use any abbreviation whatsoever.
It also had the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, which was composed of volunteers of Asian descent and became the most highly decorated regiment in the history of the United States. The story of racism towards the Japanese in World War II is a bit more complex than just the internments.
You can get something of a traffic jam on rare occasions, usually when certain airports are closed by temporary flight restrictions (TFR). I flew into Palomar Airport a few months ago during the Miramar Air Show, and the pilots that normally would have flown into Montgomery, Gillespie, and maybe Ramona (all reasonably-populated airports) were basically having to use Palomar. When I touched down, there were at least five other aircraft in the pattern, and several others in the vicinity of the airport either inbound or outbound. Tower gets a little hectic at that time.
As for speed -- absolutely. I can get just about anywhere beyond the 30-mile marker faster by plane than by car (preflight can take a few minutes). A trip to Las Vegas from my home is about a four-hour drive, and that's presuming there's no traffic, such as there is on holiday weekends or certain major events, when it can take twice that long to get home. By plane, it's under two hours in a Cessna 172, and under 90 minutes in a Cessna 182, pretty much any time. From where I fly, that's about $600 rental for either the 172 ($150/hr) or the 182 ($200/hr), looking at a round trip. It's a decent deal on holiday weekends: Four people go out at $150 each on a weekend trip, skipping the major airport tedium and getting stuck in traffic. And if we want, we can do a little sight-seeing along the way, something that's much harder to do in a car.
I can tell you that it's a lot more expensive in any area than that to get a license, unless you happen to know someone with their own plane who passes on to you only the cost of fuel. Even then, at a national average of 70 hours of flight time, $45 per hour for the instructor, and $4 per gallon of fuel at an average consumption of 8 gallons per hour, you're looking at more than $5000. Add in plane rental, and you're adding in at least $6000 more. The average cost to get a private pilot's license is in the range of $13,000. That does not include endorsements for high performance (required for anything over 200hp) or complex aircraft (adjustable prop and retractable landing gear), each of which is perhaps another five hours, nor for instrument flight rules training, which is an entire training course in itself.
Soldiers train to put themselves in harm's way. In situations where harm is expected, they usually have a reasonable chance to defend themselves. Civilians try to stay out of harm's way, and usually have little in the way of defense against an armed, prepared attacker.
There certainly is construction going on there, and has been for a few years. I went through it in March, and at that time, some above-ground construction was visible. The design appears to have been finalized, and recent expectations are that floor construction should begin in the next couple of months. It took a while, but there was also a great deal of back and forth over the final design.
Well, for what it's worth, she saw no differences anywhere in either Tulsa or DFW airports, nor on the plane itself. It was a domestic flight, true, but one would think that two international airports might have handled things a little more strictly.
His proposal is giving you your one channel. It's giving those that want something a little more hopped up their channel, which may lead them to understand why it is that you like your channel. This is trivial to do with a webcast, which is how I usually watch NasaTV, as I have no idea what channel it's on for me (or if it's even available).
There are commentators that can do a good job of explaining what's happening while also making it a little more entertaining. Think of the way that Neil deGrasse Tyson or Michio Kaku approach their descriptions of science. That kind of approach could do NasaTV some good.
In SoCal, we get "StormWatch 2009!!!" (Exclamation points added because of the way they approach it.) We don't get a lot of rain here, averaging about 15 inches (38cm) per year, and most storms bring less than an inch of rain. Any storm that is expected to bring more than an inch, or any series that combines for that, will usually trigger the StormWatch logos on the local TV stations. We had such a storm recently, and while it was important to have some heightened concern over the possibility of landslides in recent burn areas, the dramatics that were used were really unnecessary.
I've been through some pretty serious storms, even here in SoCal. Every five to ten years, we get something through that really does some damage, overloading the drainage and flood control systems, maybe dropping four or five inches of rain in under 48 hours (and sometimes in less than 24 hours). That is more deserving of dramatics. (Yes, I know that this is a more common storm size in many other places, but factor in what the area usually gets and what we can realistically handle.)
I fly, mostly because the patterns are familiar enough that I'm only slowed by the people that don't know the procedures, and a growing number of airports are instituting lanes based on traveling experience. I can walk up to the line, get my shoes and jacket off and into the bin, my notebook out and into another bin, and my backpack in line for the X-ray machine in a few seconds, so I go into the diamond lane. Families with children go into the family lane. Those with a little experience go into a third lane for intermediates. People seem to sort themselves pretty well along these lines, and it moves quickly enough that it's not that much slower than before 9/11.
I'm not learning for the utility. As one of the flight instructors at my school said, no one learns to fly to save money. :) I ran the numbers, and flights up to about two hours are often a wash if you can get at least one person to go with you, especially when you factor in the ability to drop into lesser-used airports closer to actual destinations. When I ran the numbers for flying a Cessna 182 to Dallas from SoCal, though, it drove home the cost point.
To an extent, it is. They were primarily going after the idea that a bullet hole would doom the plane, when it certainly will not. An explosive can do one of a few things:
There are instances of a significant piece of the fuselage tearing away and the plane being able to land. There are also instances where a bomb of a somewhat small size managed to bring down an entire plane, killing all aboard. These were, so far as I can gather, larger than what was attempted in this case, but it may not require a large amount to destroy the plane.
Before the advent of millimeter-wave scanners, puffers were becoming more common in airports. I had to go through one once -- it was a booth where I had to lift my arms and I got hit with a few blasts of air, which would have carried vapors from any explosive of flammable substances into the detectors. After a few seconds, the detectors decided that I didn't have any explosives on me, and I went ahead and picked up my X-rayed items.
I don't know at this point if the new scanners have puffers, as I have yet to go through one. I would think that embedding something like that in a metal detector would probably be fairly easy, with follow-up checks for positives in a larger, more precise system.
It's not that they got lucky once -- they've been able to pull off significant attacks on several occasions. Of 11 significant plots currently listed on Wikipedia tied to al Qaeda, seven were successful, three were failures, and one was a mixed result. (The plots do not include yesterday's attempt or Richard Reid.) That's a pretty high ratio of success.
I'm learning to fly right now (my FAA practical test is on Tuesday), and despite the cost of flying myself most places, it's starting to look like a better and better idea.
A friend is flying home on Southwest to Dallas tonight. I'll be asking her what she experienced on the flight.
Suicide bombers believe that all sins of martyrs will be forgiven. They can do pretty much what they want before carrying out the act.
There is still a valid purpose in watching for bombs, and has been for decades. The most courageous passengers will do no good if someone manages to set off a usable explosive and blow a hole in the side of the plane.
I don't know which state you're referencing, but in California, you can refuse a breathalyzer without penalty to that specific refusal. You then have two other options: urine or blood, both of which are handled at the police station. However, if you refuse all three, you have violated implied consent laws, which state that as part of accepting the driving privilege, you consent to some form of testing for influence or intoxication upon probable cause. Penalties vary, but they can include stiff fines and jail time (jail only if you've previously been convicted of DUI), and insurance companies are notified of the refusal, which then jack up the rates.
Of course, if the state has evidence other than chemical that is sufficient (testimony or video of a person weaving, smell of liquor on the person, open containers or empties in the vehicle, and/or failure of coordination tests), you may well get convicted of DUI anyway.
No, you're not a convict until a judge or jury of your peers finds you guilty in a court of law. You can still be a drunk driver before that.
For repeat offenders, yes. For someone who made the mistake of doing it (or at least getting caught) once, I think such a punishment for a year or two or for the duration of parole/probation on top of whatever other sentencing is fitting. There might be a spike in it at the beginning, but afterward, some public shame could help to reduce it, bringing down drunk driving overall.
I have little tolerance for people who drive drunk. My mother worked in a hospital for the better part of two decades, and saw plenty of crash victims come through, and all too often their next move after the emergency room was to the morgue.
There is still some uncertainty in the calculations due to imperfect observations, the effects of gravity, and the solar wind, for example. The trajectory shown in the video is very close to the most likely one, but there are still some factors that could change from the expected parameters and so change the actual path.