From http://www.mozilla.org/xpfe/ConfigChromeSpec.html "The chrome is that part of the application window that lies outside of a window's content area. Toolbars, menu bars, progress bars, and window title bars are all examples of elements that are typically part of the chrome."
From http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/re ference/methods/showmodaldialog.asp "Specifies whether the dialog window displays the border window chrome. This feature is only available when a dialog box is opened from a trusted application. The default is no."
The cnet story seems to be passing off the word "chrome" as some sort of new technology name, when it seems that both Mozilla and Microsoft developers refer to it as a generic term for describing application window adornments.
What's the significance of this? Well, this "chrome" itself isn't a part of Microsoft's patent. It's existed in almost every window in almost every application made by any developer. Microsoft's HTML application technology removes the window chrome, but the "meat" of the patent is the ability to use HTML and Internet Explorer to create an application.
The only thing this has in common with Mozilla is that it also deals with window chrome.
Microsoft isn't copying Mozilla by using the same software term.
"The Rotodyne was advanced technology for its day, but it was killed by the politicians."
Just like what Osprey today. I find the Osprey controversy interesting because it is not something divided among party lines, but knowledge lines. That is, people more knowledgable of its technology and capabilities support it, and those who are not aware do not support it.
"If all the young people in America were to act as you intend to act, the country would be defenseless and easily delivered into slavery." [Letter to a pacifist, 1941]
They won't be able to take a beating from modern AAA and SAMs. The A-10's reliance on "absorbing" damage is not something that will work against modern and next-generation weapons such as the S-300 and S-400. Weapons that the A-10 has yet to be used against, and in a potential WW3, very well may have to deal with.
P.S. The main feature of the A-10 is its GAU-8A Avenger cannon, which is much more powerful than an M61 Vulcan (50% larger caliber, much higher muzzle velocity, DU warheads, discarding sabot rounds, etc.).
"In short, it can't land quick enough to avoid a 15 year-old kid with an RPG blowing a $68 million dollar hole in the taxpayer's wallet. Those who will have to ride in it view it as a death trap. The descent rate is slow enough to make even rifle fire a serious problem."
And how is this different from current helicopters? On the other hand, the V-22's much higher cruising speed and altitude will make it far less vulnerable to MANPADS and other anti-air weaponry than current helos.
Sure, the Osprey is not a step-forward in all areas of rotary wing performance, but it definitely is in the areas that count.
And give me a fixed-wing aircraft that can land anywhere (no, the Harrier requires at least prepared area covered in steel mats), that can fly slow and low enough to conduct detailed reconnaissance, that can turn a company of tanks into smoldering wreckage in seconds. Helos are here to stay.
"The engines can create an unusual vortex that has never really been seen before. When this vortex happens they loose lift and control of the aircraft and it crashes."
Vortex ring states are common to all rotary-wing aircraft. It involves a toroid-shaped volume of air surrounding the rotor disc, in which air pushed downward is recirculated into the top of the rotor disc, instead of pushing against the ground. All helo pilots are trained in how to avoid them and attempt to recover from them. It is a subject of thorough investigation in aerodynamics, and a problem inherent to every helicopter. What makes its presence in the V-22 significant is that even a mild vortex ring state in one of its rotors can cause a drastically sharp roll movement (due to uneven lift on both sides) that is very difficult to recover from.
"The B-1 bomber also suffered a number of crashes in testing."
The B-1B has also proven to be a hangar queen with tremendous operating costs, going against your point of "here are some aircraft which vindicated themselves in actual usage".
I do agree that tilt-rotor technology is the logical evolution of transport helicopters. This isn't just some novel "hey that's neat" offshoot of helos; this is the next generation of rotary-wing tech, something that will eventually replace Chinooks, Sea Knights, Mi-6's and the like.
I emailed Dell tech support about my mouse not working. Received a reply the next day that a new mouse had been sent. I received the new mouse a day later, brand new and worked perfectly.
I email Dell tech support about my CD-ROM drive not working. Received a reply the next day with a list of things to try in order to fix it. I email them again saying their solutions didn't work, they say they are sending a replacement drive. New drive comes in a box with a prepaid shipping label. I install the new drive and return the defective drive using the box and shipping label.
Both the mouse and the drive work fine to this day.
At subsonic speeds drag increases exponentially as function of velocity. As supersonic speeds the effects of compression, wave drag and viscous airflow have to be taken into account, making things much more complex...
Re:Here's a way better solution.
on
Son of Concorde
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
In other words, designing an aircraft which performs worse would be easier. Ingenious. But to attack your points specifically...
"2. By limiting the top speed to around Mach 1.7, it also means there is less need for exotic jet engine designs, which also reduces development costs. We could, for example, develop an engine for this new SST as a derivative of the Rolls-Royce Trent engine now found on many of today's widebody airliners. That could also mean the engine will meet today's strict rules for exhaust emissions, especially oxides of nitrogen emissions." A derivative of the Trent 900, perhaps? It would be have to be modified significantly enough (1.9 times intake air velocity complicating everything, nacelle-less configuration for essential drag reduction, etc.) that it would be necessary to design an entirely new engine.
3. [sonic boom stuff] And who says they're not doing this? Northrop's QSP efforts reached even the mainstream-tech media, and so I find it unlikely that the British engineers are unfamiliar with it. On the other hand, are you aware of the deployable serrated flap tests on lambda wing UAV's, or the vortex generator effects analysis on the V-22's dorsal region? Or the effects of forebody LEX during high-alpha supermaneuvers?
I think you are vastly oversimplifying the design necessary for a high-supersonic airliner and, in effect, insulting the intelligence and knowledge of aerospace engineers.
And after American attempts at VTOL fixed wing aircraft failed, the U.S. acquired British Harriers, and then later assisted in advancing the aircraft's design. And there are British "Dauphin" helos used by the USCG, the Merlin engine in WW2, the Merlin helo used today, the British ejection seats, the British DASS and HUD used in the F/A-22, the list goes on...
Re:Remember the Sonic Cruiser?
on
Son of Concorde
·
· Score: 2
I believe it was scrapped because its reception by carriers was lukewarm at best, and downright cold compared to that of the A380. Airlines are not expanding (a year after 9-11 only 1 airline had its revenues increase), and so they are not buying aircraft to match increased demand. They are buying aircraft that have lower operating costs than their current ones.
The Sonic Cruiser would not have lower operating costs. It would require significant adjustment of the pilots and of the airports, not to mention higher fuel consumption and a very high up-front purchase price. With the U.S. economy as it is and the airline industry as it is, the Sonic Cruiser would not have been a profitable venture.
Re:Failure Reborn
on
Son of Concorde
·
· Score: 4, Informative
"The real reason Concorde failed was that it carried too few passengers, used too much fuel and protectionism in the US blocked landing at the major airports until the consortium stopped manufacture."
Not only in the U.S., but also in Europe.
"Airbus will be building a 1200 seat aircraft, which with the current glut of 600 seaters is probably the sweet spot in the market at this point."
Whoa there! 1200 seats? The double-decker A380 currently undergoing early construction seats about 560, roughly 100 more than the 747-400 (the current largest capacity civil passenger aircraft). There are no 600 seat aircraft in service at this time, and certainly not any 1200 seaters for a while.
"I question whether this proposed airplane will actually fly in the hypersonic region, since to an engineer that means Mach 5 or above."
Not exactly Mach 5. "Hypersonic" is actually defined as the speed region in which the shockwave angle becomes small enough such that it is conformal with the viscous boundary airflow.
At high enough hypersonic velocities, the heat generated even starts to breakdown the bonds of the air molecules...
Re:Wait a second...
on
Son of Concorde
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Single-crystal titanium blades are common in high performance engines, not just the F119-PW-100 (note it's 100, not 200).
"A typical mid-to-high bypass turbine used in a fighter will have a bleed air system to reduce the airspeed running through the turbine; this has to be counteracted by dumping raw fuel into the bypass & exhaust (i.e. afterburner). Indeed, to get much over M1.0 the F22 needs to employ this same trick."
The F-22 has demonstrated supercruise at 1.53 mach, i.e. it has reached speeds significantly above 1 mach without afterburner use. Top speed in level flight, at altitude, is probably no greater than 1.9 mach due to the deletion of variable intake ramps (which the YF-22 had).
Re:Not half the world...
on
Son of Concorde
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Indeed. Air routes aren't determined based on the shortest path between two points, they're based on "hops" from one airport region to another (regardless of whether they actually land at the airport). Easier to keep track of the aircraft, but terribly inefficient.
I myself use Linux for everything that I can, but for some things, Ijust can't. Besides games, many applications cannot be run in Linux reasonably and have no reasonable alternatives. Graphics software like Combustion (very different than CinePaint) and 3ds max, audio software like SoundForge, these applications among many others can only be run in Windows and have no perfect Linux-compatible alternatives.
It seems like this is a chicken-and-the-egg problem; to justify Linux support, there must a sufficient number of users, and for a sufficient number of users there must software support. How do you think the Linux community should go about getting increased software support from developers?
Slashdot Mirror
Antitrust was fun, but I wouldn't call it a masterpiece of cinema (or anything close to that).
From http://www.mozilla.org/xpfe/ConfigChromeSpec.html
e ference/methods/showmodaldialog.asp
"The chrome is that part of the application window that lies outside of a window's content area. Toolbars, menu bars, progress bars, and window title bars are all examples of elements that are typically part of the chrome."
From http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/r
"Specifies whether the dialog window displays the border window chrome. This feature is only available when a dialog box is opened from a trusted application. The default is no."
The cnet story seems to be passing off the word "chrome" as some sort of new technology name, when it seems that both Mozilla and Microsoft developers refer to it as a generic term for describing application window adornments.
What's the significance of this? Well, this "chrome" itself isn't a part of Microsoft's patent. It's existed in almost every window in almost every application made by any developer. Microsoft's HTML application technology removes the window chrome, but the "meat" of the patent is the ability to use HTML and Internet Explorer to create an application.
The only thing this has in common with Mozilla is that it also deals with window chrome.
Microsoft isn't copying Mozilla by using the same software term.
Your confusion of FCC with FAA pretty much makes any possible credibility of yours evaporate.
"The Rotodyne was advanced technology for its day, but it was killed by the politicians."
Just like what Osprey today. I find the Osprey controversy interesting because it is not something divided among party lines, but knowledge lines. That is, people more knowledgable of its technology and capabilities support it, and those who are not aware do not support it.
Um, it's not an airship. And a supersonic helo at this point is ridiculous to say the least.
"If all the young people in America were to act as you intend to act, the country would be defenseless and easily delivered into slavery." [Letter to a pacifist, 1941]
-Albert Einstein
They won't be able to take a beating from modern AAA and SAMs. The A-10's reliance on "absorbing" damage is not something that will work against modern and next-generation weapons such as the S-300 and S-400. Weapons that the A-10 has yet to be used against, and in a potential WW3, very well may have to deal with.
P.S. The main feature of the A-10 is its GAU-8A Avenger cannon, which is much more powerful than an M61 Vulcan (50% larger caliber, much higher muzzle velocity, DU warheads, discarding sabot rounds, etc.).
"In short, it can't land quick enough to avoid a 15 year-old kid with an RPG blowing a $68 million dollar hole in the taxpayer's wallet. Those who will have to ride in it view it as a death trap. The descent rate is slow enough to make even rifle fire a serious problem."
And how is this different from current helicopters? On the other hand, the V-22's much higher cruising speed and altitude will make it far less vulnerable to MANPADS and other anti-air weaponry than current helos.
Sure, the Osprey is not a step-forward in all areas of rotary wing performance, but it definitely is in the areas that count.
And give me a fixed-wing aircraft that can land anywhere (no, the Harrier requires at least prepared area covered in steel mats), that can fly slow and low enough to conduct detailed reconnaissance, that can turn a company of tanks into smoldering wreckage in seconds. Helos are here to stay.
"The engines can create an unusual vortex that has never really been seen before. When this vortex happens they loose lift and control of the aircraft and it crashes."
Vortex ring states are common to all rotary-wing aircraft. It involves a toroid-shaped volume of air surrounding the rotor disc, in which air pushed downward is recirculated into the top of the rotor disc, instead of pushing against the ground. All helo pilots are trained in how to avoid them and attempt to recover from them. It is a subject of thorough investigation in aerodynamics, and a problem inherent to every helicopter. What makes its presence in the V-22 significant is that even a mild vortex ring state in one of its rotors can cause a drastically sharp roll movement (due to uneven lift on both sides) that is very difficult to recover from.
"The B-1 bomber also suffered a number of crashes in testing."
The B-1B has also proven to be a hangar queen with tremendous operating costs, going against your point of "here are some aircraft which vindicated themselves in actual usage".
I do agree that tilt-rotor technology is the logical evolution of transport helicopters. This isn't just some novel "hey that's neat" offshoot of helos; this is the next generation of rotary-wing tech, something that will eventually replace Chinooks, Sea Knights, Mi-6's and the like.
I agree. The amount of lives saved by the Osprey when it's put into service will be a great help, especially compared to the UH-60s being shot down.
I emailed Dell tech support about my mouse not working. Received a reply the next day that a new mouse had been sent. I received the new mouse a day later, brand new and worked perfectly.
I email Dell tech support about my CD-ROM drive not working. Received a reply the next day with a list of things to try in order to fix it. I email them again saying their solutions didn't work, they say they are sending a replacement drive. New drive comes in a box with a prepaid shipping label. I install the new drive and return the defective drive using the box and shipping label.
Both the mouse and the drive work fine to this day.
You should work for Apple.
At subsonic speeds drag increases exponentially as function of velocity. As supersonic speeds the effects of compression, wave drag and viscous airflow have to be taken into account, making things much more complex...
In other words, designing an aircraft which performs worse would be easier. Ingenious. But to attack your points specifically...
"2. By limiting the top speed to around Mach 1.7, it also means there is less need for exotic jet engine designs, which also reduces development costs. We could, for example, develop an engine for this new SST as a derivative of the Rolls-Royce Trent engine now found on many of today's widebody airliners. That could also mean the engine will meet today's strict rules for exhaust emissions, especially oxides of nitrogen emissions."
A derivative of the Trent 900, perhaps? It would be have to be modified significantly enough (1.9 times intake air velocity complicating everything, nacelle-less configuration for essential drag reduction, etc.) that it would be necessary to design an entirely new engine.
3. [sonic boom stuff]
And who says they're not doing this? Northrop's QSP efforts reached even the mainstream-tech media, and so I find it unlikely that the British engineers are unfamiliar with it. On the other hand, are you aware of the deployable serrated flap tests on lambda wing UAV's, or the vortex generator effects analysis on the V-22's dorsal region? Or the effects of forebody LEX during high-alpha supermaneuvers?
I think you are vastly oversimplifying the design necessary for a high-supersonic airliner and, in effect, insulting the intelligence and knowledge of aerospace engineers.
And after American attempts at VTOL fixed wing aircraft failed, the U.S. acquired British Harriers, and then later assisted in advancing the aircraft's design. And there are British "Dauphin" helos used by the USCG, the Merlin engine in WW2, the Merlin helo used today, the British ejection seats, the British DASS and HUD used in the F/A-22, the list goes on...
I believe it was scrapped because its reception by carriers was lukewarm at best, and downright cold compared to that of the A380. Airlines are not expanding (a year after 9-11 only 1 airline had its revenues increase), and so they are not buying aircraft to match increased demand. They are buying aircraft that have lower operating costs than their current ones.
The Sonic Cruiser would not have lower operating costs. It would require significant adjustment of the pilots and of the airports, not to mention higher fuel consumption and a very high up-front purchase price. With the U.S. economy as it is and the airline industry as it is, the Sonic Cruiser would not have been a profitable venture.
"The real reason Concorde failed was that it carried too few passengers, used too much fuel and protectionism in the US blocked landing at the major airports until the consortium stopped manufacture."
Not only in the U.S., but also in Europe.
"Airbus will be building a 1200 seat aircraft, which with the current glut of 600 seaters is probably the sweet spot in the market at this point."
Whoa there! 1200 seats? The double-decker A380 currently undergoing early construction seats about 560, roughly 100 more than the 747-400 (the current largest capacity civil passenger aircraft). There are no 600 seat aircraft in service at this time, and certainly not any 1200 seaters for a while.
"I question whether this proposed airplane will actually fly in the hypersonic region, since to an engineer that means Mach 5 or above."
Not exactly Mach 5. "Hypersonic" is actually defined as the speed region in which the shockwave angle becomes small enough such that it is conformal with the viscous boundary airflow.
At high enough hypersonic velocities, the heat generated even starts to breakdown the bonds of the air molecules...
Single-crystal titanium blades are common in high performance engines, not just the F119-PW-100 (note it's 100, not 200).
"A typical mid-to-high bypass turbine used in a fighter will have a bleed air system to reduce the airspeed running through the turbine; this has to be counteracted by dumping raw fuel into the bypass & exhaust (i.e. afterburner). Indeed, to get much over M1.0 the F22 needs to employ this same trick."
The F-22 has demonstrated supercruise at 1.53 mach, i.e. it has reached speeds significantly above 1 mach without afterburner use. Top speed in level flight, at altitude, is probably no greater than 1.9 mach due to the deletion of variable intake ramps (which the YF-22 had).
Indeed. Air routes aren't determined based on the shortest path between two points, they're based on "hops" from one airport region to another (regardless of whether they actually land at the airport). Easier to keep track of the aircraft, but terribly inefficient.
Of course it would be sad if tasks only got done because of bounties...
Moderator! This is no laughing matter.
Personally, I support SCO and their lawful actions. It's about time someone gave those Linux users what they deserved.
I found it interesting that he mentions "Linux version" instead of "Linux distribution". Typical newbie mistake.
I myself use Linux for everything that I can, but for some things, Ijust can't. Besides games, many applications cannot be run in Linux reasonably and have no reasonable alternatives. Graphics software like Combustion (very different than CinePaint) and 3ds max, audio software like SoundForge, these applications among many others can only be run in Windows and have no perfect Linux-compatible alternatives.
It seems like this is a chicken-and-the-egg problem; to justify Linux support, there must a sufficient number of users, and for a sufficient number of users there must software support. How do you think the Linux community should go about getting increased software support from developers?