Because you do understand we are not talking about Spitfire MK I's here, these are the latest most advanced MK XIV's Obsolete? I think not!! They were cutting edge for the time. The statement that "The British had an operational jet fighter by the end of the war." is a bit misleading have you ever researched the stats on the Gloster Meteor? Or the production numbers?
Again, Spitfire's were amazing aircraft in their time. However 1946 was past their time. According to wiki the RAF had 16 squadrons flying Meteors in 1946. Spitfires were increasing used for non-fighter roles. Photo-recon seemed popular. Plus the Spitfires seemed to be migrating from the RAF to colonial and developing nations.
I'm a little more familiar with the P-51. It too was still in use in the 1950s. However like the Spitfire it was technologically obsolete and was being used for non-fighter roles. In the Korean war the P-51s were used for close air support, their slower speed allowed them to hit targets closer to friendly troops. The front line fighters of that time, the jets, were too fast and needed more of a safety margin between friendly troops and targets. Perhaps some Spitfires were used by the RAF for similar reasons.
I know the feeling. The//e is what I cut my teeth programming on ^_^
That was my second love, after the II+. Still miss the programming when it was direct and simple.
I am so glad that I learned assembly language on a 6502. If I had started on an x86 I probably would have had a bad attitude towards assembly like most who did start on x86. To be fair, x86 became a whole lot better once it went 32-bit. However 68000 remains my favorite. Learned it via coprocessor boards in our Apple//e systems. PowerPC was OK, it had its moments.
The Macintosh was such a superior machine in nearly every aspect that the unsold Lisas had to be hauled off to the landfill.
I don't know about the Mac being superior. I had the chance to use both, the Lisa had many advantages over the original Mac.
The problem with Lisa was the $10K price tag. That just put it out of reach of many Apple II developers so a market never really materialized, unlike the Mac which was affordable by such developers.
Prior to the first native Pascal, and later C compilers, friends and I were actually using 68000 coprocessors for Apple IIs to write Mac software in assembly. A Microsoft Basic program running on the Mac would read the binary from the serial port, poke it into RAM and jump to it. I am not saying this was cost effective compared to buying a Lisa for Mac development, but we had time and no money. One of my friends actually completed a strategy game port from PC to Mac in this manner. I'm not sure but I think it was one of the SSI games. Its not as crazy as it sounds. Core non-UI code could be debugged to a degree on the Apple II's 68000 coprocessor.
I don't know whether to lambast the guy for being so f***ing stupid, or feel sorry for him because he's mentally ill. I mean, let's think about this. Why, WHY, would they bury even a single plane, let alone 124 of them? It's just not rational.
Spitfires were considered technologically obsolete at the time. The British had an operational jet fighter by the end of the war. The ships necessary to transport the crates back to the UK may have been unavailable, or had higher priority cargo, or it was not cost effect,... The mechanics needed to assemble the aircraft may have been, or were about to be, shipped home and discharged from service. Similarly the pilots may have been shipped home, or perhaps they were never sent to where the crates were in the first place.
While burial is plausible, it would also seem plausible to just store the crates and sell the aircraft off as surplus to developing nations.
The Spitfire is an amazing aircraft. An important part of history. But at the end of the war they were not as rare and valuable as they are today, and sufficient quantities were available in the UK for historical preservation and museum needs. If the aircraft in question had been returned to the UK they probably would have been scrapped and the metal sent off to the recycler. It may seem strange to us today but that was the postwar fate of many warbirds. That is why they are so rare today.
Usually you only need release forms if you capture their voice along with their image, just image doesn't usually require a release.
I think it is more complicated than that. My understanding is that a release is necessary if the image can be interpreted as endorsing or promoting something. This can be something as simple as buying a pretzel from a street vendor. Other scenarios may require a release as well.
no. Absolutely no. You do not give up freedom to record just because something is happening. That's absurd.
Sorry for not being clear but I was referring to "recording" in its noun form, the data itself, not its verb form, the acquisition of the data. Hence the reference to broadcasting while events are unfolding. I was not suggesting that the pictures or video should not be taken, just that their use should be delayed.
Are you in public? then your right to privacy does not include filming you about your business.
That is ANYBODY.
I do not think that is accurate. If you are recording things for your personal use I suspect its true. If you are recording for public use I suspect its not true, hence the need to get "model release" signatures or blur the faces of regular people who are recognizable. Note "regular" people, celebrities and public officials do not get this sort of protection.
Also note that some places open to the public are not public spaces. I believe that on private property open to the public recording can be prohibited. I don't think you can get arrested but the property owner can surely instruct you to leave. If you fail to do so then you are trespassing and subject to arrest.
Some recordings should be restricted to a degree. For example an ongoing barricaded hostage situation where the police are about to make an entry to conduct a rescue. A recording should not be broadcast or otherwise shared in a live or near-live manner. The hostage taker could see what is going on outside. Once the hostage situation is resolved then broadcasting/sharing should be allowed.
Article says a $100 add-on, and their fancy sensors-on-a-chip are meant to be used with phones, PC's, and medical devices.
Then why the fuck the headline says 'iphone'?
Because a sensor-on-a-chip is not a commercial product. A gizmo that plugs into a phone is. Such a gizmo targeting an iPhone may simply be the first such product. Numerous sources indicate that Android users are less prone to spend money than iPhone users so it makes sense to target iPhone first, or maybe even only. I lean towards iPhone first not iPhone only. By the time you have an iPhone product that R&D is a sunk cost and the Android version may be justified on the incremental cost to get such a version.
Perhaps its some sort of act of defiance but if an ebook is not offered for a lower price than the paper version I tend go with paper.
Currently my digital books tend to be technical references that I want to carry around with me in case I need to look up something at work or old classics that are available at no charge.
Stuff I read for fun still tends to be on paper. Perhaps that will change if pricing changes, or maybe I'll just move on to another excuse... I want to read in the bathtub might work until the Kindle Paperwhite becomes water resistant.
True. However given that there are unexplained observed anomalies in flight, some highly correlated with personal electronics, I think the somewhat academic argument offered is rightly less persuasive.
For some value of "highly correlated". "The problem went away 1 minute after turning off the PED" is not really much of a correlation.
They turned it on and off more than once and the erroneous turns came and went. This repetition is where "highly" comes into play. The 1 minute lag may be a function of the autopilot's long range navigation algorithm. It may average readings over time before applying a coarse correction, making for smoother flights. We are not talking about nap of the earth flying where the corrections need to be in real time.
Perhaps handset manufacturers should get some sort of airline rating for devices.
Even if they did, you wouldn't accept it, because you'd then demand every possible combination of devices be tested.
Really, I am surprised that I would think that? And here I thought that I believed in keeping an open mind regarding interference due to reports made by flight crews; the laboratory observation that sampled devices had some emissions at nav, comms or landing frequencies beyond acceptable levels; and the remaining untested devices that may or may not emit at higher levels or more often. Thank you for letting me know that I would not accept a device that was tested and rated to never emit beyond acceptable levels.
Would it keep the driver's eyes on the road, or would their attention be split between the road and whatever the glasses are displaying?
Even when "looking at" a display on the glasses you still have situational awareness regarding what is happening outside the vehicle. Its still an improvement over looking down into the dashboard at gauges.
There are some folks who have relevant experience. Fighter pilots with the helmet based heads up display (HUD) seem to prefer them over the windscreen/gunsight based HUD and over looking down into the cockpit at an instrument panel.
The problem seems to be that anomalies observed in flight are being reproduced in a lab.
Did you read the study?
Yes, unfortunately I left the word "not" out of my comment. It should have read: "not being reproduced in a lab".
I don't find that terribly reassuring. The informal inflight experiment do seem to suggest very strong correlations. The failure to reproduce sounds a lot like "the software works fine on the developers computer".
You must be reading a different report than I.
Re-read the cell phone portions. They indicate that the tested phones generated noise on frequencies used for navigation, comms and instrument landing. They indicated that they emissions were "generally" within acceptable limits, suggesting that at times the emissions were beyond these limits.
I think there is sufficient evidence to keep an open mind.
I'd sure like to see some evidence behind the claim that onboard laser pointers can interfere with electronic flight systems.
The problem is not the visible light. The electronics generating that light may very well be emitting noise on other frequencies as an unintended side effect.
The fact that the sample 16 phones did not exceed emission limits is hardly any guarantee that other phones do not, nor that one of those sampled phones with replacement firmware would not.
You could make that objection, or similar ones, to any test which could be made. Incompleteness of evidence against the proposition that there is interference does not constitute evidence of interference.
True. However given that there are unexplained observed anomalies in flight, some highly correlated with personal electronics, I think the somewhat academic argument offered is rightly less persuasive. If folks want to use personal electronics in flight during critical periods such as landing and takeoff it does seem reasonable to expect those devices to meet a higher standard of scrutiny, including a shifting of the burden of proof in some areas. Perhaps handset manufacturers should get some sort of airline rating for devices.
Or perhaps there could be a signal to put devices into "airplane mode" automatically. Aircraft could then broadcast this signal during takeoff and landing phases. This might be useful in school during exams, movie theaters, etc.:-)
The fact that they are emitting at all on navigation and landing frequencies is a reason to keep an open mind regarding interference.
Out of band radiation is practically impossible to avoid completely with electronic equipment; that's why there are standards greater than zero for such emissions.
I'd just like to point out that Boeing said the tested phones "generally" met such emissions standards, implying that some did not.
A person driving a car would find it useful for the same reason that military pilots find it useful. A heads up display would keep the drivers eyes on the road. No more looking down at instruments, the screen with maps or rear view camera image; or looking at road signs for hazard warnings and other alerts.
And of course since it is google there will probably be ads from the businesses that you are driving past.:-)
Where does government spying even come into play at the moment? I'm genuinely confused. Regardless, enabling easier spying goes both ways - it becomes easier to spy on the government too.
Where does government spying even come into play at the moment? I'm genuinely confused.
It may not be gov't spying as much as you are constantly surrounded by "informants". In the sci fi book I mentioned in a different post I recall adults, the older the more likely, constantly recording young people to deter vandalism, robberies, muggings, etc. Things devolved to the point where the smallest infraction of a rule led to a video being submitted to the police.
No more yelling "get off my lawn". Instead a video titled "Johnny trespassing on my property" gets emailed to the police.
I read it as a teenager and can not remember the title or author's name, but there was a book where everyone wore glasses with a camera built in. The result was a society heavy on surveillance. There was no need for the government to setup a lot of cameras. Ordinary citizens were constantly submitting their videos to the police or relevant authorities.
Slashdot Mirror
Because you do understand we are not talking about Spitfire MK I's here, these are the latest most advanced MK XIV's Obsolete? I think not!! They were cutting edge for the time. The statement that "The British had an operational jet fighter by the end of the war." is a bit misleading have you ever researched the stats on the Gloster Meteor? Or the production numbers?
Again, Spitfire's were amazing aircraft in their time. However 1946 was past their time. According to wiki the RAF had 16 squadrons flying Meteors in 1946. Spitfires were increasing used for non-fighter roles. Photo-recon seemed popular. Plus the Spitfires seemed to be migrating from the RAF to colonial and developing nations.
I'm a little more familiar with the P-51. It too was still in use in the 1950s. However like the Spitfire it was technologically obsolete and was being used for non-fighter roles. In the Korean war the P-51s were used for close air support, their slower speed allowed them to hit targets closer to friendly troops. The front line fighters of that time, the jets, were too fast and needed more of a safety margin between friendly troops and targets. Perhaps some Spitfires were used by the RAF for similar reasons.
Is Google's Dalvik virtual machine available for PC or just Android? Perhaps a little competition is needed.
err ... "remember my password"
Because I totally want anyone who steals my phone to be able to access every other site I use.
Well given the popularity of the "remember by password" "feature" that is sort of where we are today on computers and mobile devices.
I know the feeling. The //e is what I cut my teeth programming on ^_^
That was my second love, after the II+. Still miss the programming when it was direct and simple.
I am so glad that I learned assembly language on a 6502. If I had started on an x86 I probably would have had a bad attitude towards assembly like most who did start on x86. To be fair, x86 became a whole lot better once it went 32-bit. However 68000 remains my favorite. Learned it via coprocessor boards in our Apple //e systems. PowerPC was OK, it had its moments.
The Macintosh was such a superior machine in nearly every aspect that the unsold Lisas had to be hauled off to the landfill.
I don't know about the Mac being superior. I had the chance to use both, the Lisa had many advantages over the original Mac.
The problem with Lisa was the $10K price tag. That just put it out of reach of many Apple II developers so a market never really materialized, unlike the Mac which was affordable by such developers.
Prior to the first native Pascal, and later C compilers, friends and I were actually using 68000 coprocessors for Apple IIs to write Mac software in assembly. A Microsoft Basic program running on the Mac would read the binary from the serial port, poke it into RAM and jump to it. I am not saying this was cost effective compared to buying a Lisa for Mac development, but we had time and no money. One of my friends actually completed a strategy game port from PC to Mac in this manner. I'm not sure but I think it was one of the SSI games. Its not as crazy as it sounds. Core non-UI code could be debugged to a degree on the Apple II's 68000 coprocessor.
that must mean I'm .... really old now.
But are those elephant floppy disks still good, nothing forgotten?
I don't know whether to lambast the guy for being so f***ing stupid, or feel sorry for him because he's mentally ill. I mean, let's think about this. Why, WHY, would they bury even a single plane, let alone 124 of them? It's just not rational.
Spitfires were considered technologically obsolete at the time. The British had an operational jet fighter by the end of the war. The ships necessary to transport the crates back to the UK may have been unavailable, or had higher priority cargo, or it was not cost effect, ... The mechanics needed to assemble the aircraft may have been, or were about to be, shipped home and discharged from service. Similarly the pilots may have been shipped home, or perhaps they were never sent to where the crates were in the first place.
While burial is plausible, it would also seem plausible to just store the crates and sell the aircraft off as surplus to developing nations.
The Spitfire is an amazing aircraft. An important part of history. But at the end of the war they were not as rare and valuable as they are today, and sufficient quantities were available in the UK for historical preservation and museum needs. If the aircraft in question had been returned to the UK they probably would have been scrapped and the metal sent off to the recycler. It may seem strange to us today but that was the postwar fate of many warbirds. That is why they are so rare today.
err ... crates.
i heard there was a war there too at about the same time
Spitfires were not shipped to Germany in creates and buried when the war ended rather than shipped back to the UK.
Trespassing is not a felony unless the place is in a designated class. So sue me.
One can be arrested for infractions and misdemeanors too.
Usually you only need release forms if you capture their voice along with their image, just image doesn't usually require a release.
I think it is more complicated than that. My understanding is that a release is necessary if the image can be interpreted as endorsing or promoting something. This can be something as simple as buying a pretzel from a street vendor. Other scenarios may require a release as well.
no. Absolutely no. You do not give up freedom to record just because something is happening. That's absurd.
Sorry for not being clear but I was referring to "recording" in its noun form, the data itself, not its verb form, the acquisition of the data. Hence the reference to broadcasting while events are unfolding. I was not suggesting that the pictures or video should not be taken, just that their use should be delayed.
Are you in public? then your right to privacy does not include filming you about your business. That is ANYBODY.
I do not think that is accurate. If you are recording things for your personal use I suspect its true. If you are recording for public use I suspect its not true, hence the need to get "model release" signatures or blur the faces of regular people who are recognizable. Note "regular" people, celebrities and public officials do not get this sort of protection.
Also note that some places open to the public are not public spaces. I believe that on private property open to the public recording can be prohibited. I don't think you can get arrested but the property owner can surely instruct you to leave. If you fail to do so then you are trespassing and subject to arrest.
Some recordings should be restricted to a degree. For example an ongoing barricaded hostage situation where the police are about to make an entry to conduct a rescue. A recording should not be broadcast or otherwise shared in a live or near-live manner. The hostage taker could see what is going on outside. Once the hostage situation is resolved then broadcasting/sharing should be allowed.
Article says a $100 add-on, and their fancy sensors-on-a-chip are meant to be used with phones, PC's, and medical devices.
Then why the fuck the headline says 'iphone'?
Because a sensor-on-a-chip is not a commercial product. A gizmo that plugs into a phone is. Such a gizmo targeting an iPhone may simply be the first such product. Numerous sources indicate that Android users are less prone to spend money than iPhone users so it makes sense to target iPhone first, or maybe even only. I lean towards iPhone first not iPhone only. By the time you have an iPhone product that R&D is a sunk cost and the Android version may be justified on the incremental cost to get such a version.
Perhaps its some sort of act of defiance but if an ebook is not offered for a lower price than the paper version I tend go with paper.
... I want to read in the bathtub might work until the Kindle Paperwhite becomes water resistant.
Currently my digital books tend to be technical references that I want to carry around with me in case I need to look up something at work or old classics that are available at no charge.
Stuff I read for fun still tends to be on paper. Perhaps that will change if pricing changes, or maybe I'll just move on to another excuse
For some value of "highly correlated". "The problem went away 1 minute after turning off the PED" is not really much of a correlation.
They turned it on and off more than once and the erroneous turns came and went. This repetition is where "highly" comes into play. The 1 minute lag may be a function of the autopilot's long range navigation algorithm. It may average readings over time before applying a coarse correction, making for smoother flights. We are not talking about nap of the earth flying where the corrections need to be in real time.
Even if they did, you wouldn't accept it, because you'd then demand every possible combination of devices be tested.
Really, I am surprised that I would think that? And here I thought that I believed in keeping an open mind regarding interference due to reports made by flight crews; the laboratory observation that sampled devices had some emissions at nav, comms or landing frequencies beyond acceptable levels; and the remaining untested devices that may or may not emit at higher levels or more often. Thank you for letting me know that I would not accept a device that was tested and rated to never emit beyond acceptable levels.
Would it keep the driver's eyes on the road, or would their attention be split between the road and whatever the glasses are displaying?
Even when "looking at" a display on the glasses you still have situational awareness regarding what is happening outside the vehicle. Its still an improvement over looking down into the dashboard at gauges.
There are some folks who have relevant experience. Fighter pilots with the helmet based heads up display (HUD) seem to prefer them over the windscreen/gunsight based HUD and over looking down into the cockpit at an instrument panel.
The problem seems to be that anomalies observed in flight are being reproduced in a lab.
Did you read the study?
Yes, unfortunately I left the word "not" out of my comment. It should have read: "not being reproduced in a lab".
I don't find that terribly reassuring. The informal inflight experiment do seem to suggest very strong correlations. The failure to reproduce sounds a lot like "the software works fine on the developers computer".
You must be reading a different report than I.
Re-read the cell phone portions. They indicate that the tested phones generated noise on frequencies used for navigation, comms and instrument landing. They indicated that they emissions were "generally" within acceptable limits, suggesting that at times the emissions were beyond these limits.
I think there is sufficient evidence to keep an open mind.
I'd sure like to see some evidence behind the claim that onboard laser pointers can interfere with electronic flight systems.
The problem is not the visible light. The electronics generating that light may very well be emitting noise on other frequencies as an unintended side effect.
You could make that objection, or similar ones, to any test which could be made. Incompleteness of evidence against the proposition that there is interference does not constitute evidence of interference.
True. However given that there are unexplained observed anomalies in flight, some highly correlated with personal electronics, I think the somewhat academic argument offered is rightly less persuasive. If folks want to use personal electronics in flight during critical periods such as landing and takeoff it does seem reasonable to expect those devices to meet a higher standard of scrutiny, including a shifting of the burden of proof in some areas. Perhaps handset manufacturers should get some sort of airline rating for devices.
:-)
Or perhaps there could be a signal to put devices into "airplane mode" automatically. Aircraft could then broadcast this signal during takeoff and landing phases. This might be useful in school during exams, movie theaters, etc.
Out of band radiation is practically impossible to avoid completely with electronic equipment; that's why there are standards greater than zero for such emissions.
I'd just like to point out that Boeing said the tested phones "generally" met such emissions standards, implying that some did not.
A person driving a car would find it useful for the same reason that military pilots find it useful. A heads up display would keep the drivers eyes on the road. No more looking down at instruments, the screen with maps or rear view camera image; or looking at road signs for hazard warnings and other alerts.
:-)
And of course since it is google there will probably be ads from the businesses that you are driving past.
say wha?
Where does government spying even come into play at the moment? I'm genuinely confused. Regardless, enabling easier spying goes both ways - it becomes easier to spy on the government too.
Where does government spying even come into play at the moment? I'm genuinely confused.
It may not be gov't spying as much as you are constantly surrounded by "informants". In the sci fi book I mentioned in a different post I recall adults, the older the more likely, constantly recording young people to deter vandalism, robberies, muggings, etc. Things devolved to the point where the smallest infraction of a rule led to a video being submitted to the police.
No more yelling "get off my lawn". Instead a video titled "Johnny trespassing on my property" gets emailed to the police.
I read it as a teenager and can not remember the title or author's name, but there was a book where everyone wore glasses with a camera built in. The result was a society heavy on surveillance. There was no need for the government to setup a lot of cameras. Ordinary citizens were constantly submitting their videos to the police or relevant authorities.