land manually... in my day we had to climb out of the cockpit and move the flaps up and down on the wing with one hand and shoot at the nazis buzzing around with the other
This is the problem with non-free airplanes. If the blueprints had been free under a freedom preserving license I'm sure the problem that caused the hiccup had been found.
the question is... would you fly in an open source plane?
as airplanes that crash often involve huge decelerations on impact, it is very difficult to design an airplane that will enable passengers to survive a crash
it's not like a car where you can just include a crumple zone, because the size of the crumple zone required for 300+ g decelerations from an airliner crashing into a mountain is going to make it harder to design the aircraft to actually get off the ground and/or carry any useful/profitable payload
aircraft also need powerplant to drive them forward, and the most efficient powerplant today is the high bypass turbofan fueled with kerosene jet a1. aircraft designers go to great lengths to ensure that where the fuel is stored can't catch fire, and if the general public knew exactly what an airliner fuel tank can withstand (including direct lightning strikes) they would be amazed.
even if you could completely prevent fire in the case of a plane crash, there are a myriad of other causes of death. protection against burning or smoke inhalation deaths in the cabin has been greatly improved due to strict regulations for flammability requirements for materials used in cabins (including use of fire retardants in seat cushion materials and self-extinguishing tests). unless there is structural damage to the cabin, even a fire outside shouldn't get into the cabin (there are tests for this that materials must pass). flammability requirements will evolve and improve over time. it was unfortunate that the FAA didn't mandate immediate replacement of cabin insulation materials after the swissair flight 111 disaster, but i can understand the need for gradual implementation for economic reasons - this accident may force their hand though.
much of aviation safety that we take for granted today has been at the expense of the lives of countless passengers and crew (particularly in areas like metal fatigue, human factors in flight deck design, engine containment, lightning protection, electrical interference, etc), and unfortunately this will always be the case. if an engineer discovers a safety issue, there is a good chance little will be done immediately, particularly if there is significant expense and/ore reputations on the line. unfortunately killing a plane load of people is often required to get the bureaucracy moving.
from the limited news jibberish i've read it seems like the pilot may have lost power on final, pulled up to avoid prematurely hitting the ground and the tail struck the ground before the main undercarriage... seems pretty straightforward (except for the cause of the power loss of course)
there are fuel tanks in the lower fuselage between the wings (in the "wing box") and i can see how an extremely hard landing could have caused main undercarriage structure to fail, leading to rupture of this tank and then fire, which could have burnt through into the cabin if there was also damage to the cabin floor structure
there doesn't seem to be any signs that the aircraft rolled over or cartwheeled or any other weird things because much of the unburnt portions of the fuselage is undamaged (except for rear lower)...
what could have caused the fire in the forward fuselage?
this airplane has just made a trip from seoul to san fransisco, so it wouldn't have been chock full of fuel at the time
also, the sides of the fuselage are undamaged in the forward section
the only thing i can see is a burnt area just forward of the starboard side wing leading edge below the cabin floor level
maybe the nose gear structure also failed and caused damage to the fuselage, or maybe parts of the engine came loose and flew into the underside of the fuselage (apparently rr trent engines on a 777 rotate clockwise which would put a dislodged starboard compressor fan into the fuse - assuming it could become dislodged, which seems a little far fetched but then again the entire starboard engine has come adrift (must have been right at the end though else it would have been away from the aircraft more).
the problem with both these theories is that there's still nothing to propagate a fire in the forward cabin
- all materials used in a cabin are (should be) self-extinguishing - no fuel tanks in/under forward cabin - weird unburnt area snaking along the side of the fuse between the two main fire damage holes (suggests fire wasn't continuous between two areas) - occurred at end of international flight (so shouldn't have been a huge amount of fuel in tanks) - no sign of fuel vapour explosion
the smoke pattern from the tops of the windows suggests the fire was burning for a long time on the ground (not in flight because the smoke doesn't trail aft), so how long did it take fire services to get to the crash?
what the heck fuelled the fire for such an apparently long time?
maybe this aircraft had the same cabin insulation in the roof as swissair flight 111, 1998 which would explain fire propagation along the roof space, which appears to be where most of the fire damage has occurred
not sure what caused the fire in the first place, but there would have been a bit of fuel left, engines are hot, or the shock of landing could have caused damage to electrical power equipment and shorting... probably though when the engine came off the starboard pylon and thrust/rotated into the starboard lower fuselage, the exhaust (the hot bit) set a mixture of baggage and insulation alight, and the fire propagated up the insulation in the walls and into the roof.
it looks like there may be a substantial amount of fire damage inside the cabin to, which seems unusual without an excessive amount of fuel due to self-extinguishing properties of cabin materials. dunno how the fuel could have got into the cabin (maybe though damage to floor) but also could be burnt debris fallen from the roof. that there were so few casualties seems to favour the latter as if burning fuel was in the cabin there would have been more casualties.
will be interesting to see what ntsb finds... i wouldn't mind betting that flammability standards for materials used in the fuse/cabin come under fire (pardon the pun)
MariaDB will lead the way merely because Oracle smells like Schrodinger's cat piss to open source types. I'm also not sure if Oracle is "supporting" MySQL (milking it may be more the case).
what will Oracle do?
Probably look for some other project to buy off in it's early stages that is set to take over the world.
It still baffles me how Sun Microsystems could simply "buy" GPL licensed MySQL in the first place, but I guess if you own the trademark you own the software.
I wish MariaDB well. I'm yet to convert (I'm still stuck in the old PHP mysql_connect function call mentality), but I will hopefully eventually get with the times.
bay films might be better if they had a frame rate 2-3 times what they are, but that would likely cost a lot more to produce
i remember a cinema experience in sydney when i was a teenager where the seats had rollercoaster type safety bars and the film they played was at something like 72 fps and the rows of seats moved small amounts with the film (it was a race in space or something like that) and i remember it feeling literally like being upside down even though the seats were only actually moving tiny amounts, but apparently the combination of small movement and high speed film makes for a wild ride because at the end i was holding onto the bars so tight and my hands were sweating profusely that it was as good as any rollercoaster. i imagine a michael bay film could be potentially awesome with motion seats like this and a cranked up framerate.
foreign films are often good in that they have really good plots, they usually have no stereotypical treatment of sex issues/scenes (they don't dramatize them to be like some magical or supernatural experience like many US films) and they are low budget/low cgi.
i'm guessing they'll probably just scoff at it as not being a real problem then
possibly different discipline engineers are different. i'm aero/structures. i know some electrical engineers would look at anything that isn't electrical like it was foreign, but tell an electrical engineer that it's impossible to make an electrical gadget work and you'll definitely spark his interest (pun intended)
i've forgotten most of what i was taught at school/uni.
the real purpose of uni isn't to teach you anything in particular... it's purpose is to teach you how to learn independently, manage your time, work with others effectively, communicate, meet short-term deadlines, work hard to achieve a distant goal, etc, which are many of the attributes that employers are looking for.
most employers after formally educated staff don't give a toss if you can solve a quadratic equation (or whatever TFA was about - i didn't bother reading it), so the ADF is possibly merely trying to weed out these people to find the plebs with a basic level of education that they can shape into obedient grunts with their own education programs
most engineers I know wouldn't have either the inclination or ability solve that kind of problem
apparently you don't know many/any engineers...
they are often crafty buggers that know how to get the best of people in all positions (that's why they are often employed in management), but they are also themselves easily manipulated... if you want to get the attention of an engineer (or a whole office full of them), just mention that you have an unsolvable problem. they will then likely proceed to throw as much time and resources as they can muster to trying solving such a problem, and will likely come up with at the very least some kind of workaround if only to save face.
engineers aren't usually outwardly egotistical (compared to say lawyers or bankers), but on the inside they are as full of themselves as anyone else
engineers are the compliment of scientists... scientists love chasing problems, engineers love chasing solutions
Slashdot Mirror
two thieves who have their hands so deeply insert into each other's pockets
sounds kinda gay to me
maybe gondwanaland is now covered by sea so they had to drop the 'land' bit to avoid confusing the kiddies?
either that or it was declared by emperor nasi goreng
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvlWQyvEI38
land manually... in my day we had to climb out of the cockpit and move the flaps up and down on the wing with one hand and shoot at the nazis buzzing around with the other
as i started scrolling down such a long article i was suddenly reminded of hosts files and open sores
actually, for slashdot it was a breath of fresh ass... i mean air :)
if i smoked enough pot i bet i could make my eyes move like that too
This is the problem with non-free airplanes. If the blueprints had been free under a freedom preserving license I'm sure the problem that caused the hiccup had been found.
the question is... would you fly in an open source plane?
as airplanes that crash often involve huge decelerations on impact, it is very difficult to design an airplane that will enable passengers to survive a crash
it's not like a car where you can just include a crumple zone, because the size of the crumple zone required for 300+ g decelerations from an airliner crashing into a mountain is going to make it harder to design the aircraft to actually get off the ground and/or carry any useful/profitable payload
aircraft also need powerplant to drive them forward, and the most efficient powerplant today is the high bypass turbofan fueled with kerosene jet a1. aircraft designers go to great lengths to ensure that where the fuel is stored can't catch fire, and if the general public knew exactly what an airliner fuel tank can withstand (including direct lightning strikes) they would be amazed.
even if you could completely prevent fire in the case of a plane crash, there are a myriad of other causes of death. protection against burning or smoke inhalation deaths in the cabin has been greatly improved due to strict regulations for flammability requirements for materials used in cabins (including use of fire retardants in seat cushion materials and self-extinguishing tests). unless there is structural damage to the cabin, even a fire outside shouldn't get into the cabin (there are tests for this that materials must pass). flammability requirements will evolve and improve over time. it was unfortunate that the FAA didn't mandate immediate replacement of cabin insulation materials after the swissair flight 111 disaster, but i can understand the need for gradual implementation for economic reasons - this accident may force their hand though.
much of aviation safety that we take for granted today has been at the expense of the lives of countless passengers and crew (particularly in areas like metal fatigue, human factors in flight deck design, engine containment, lightning protection, electrical interference, etc), and unfortunately this will always be the case. if an engineer discovers a safety issue, there is a good chance little will be done immediately, particularly if there is significant expense and/ore reputations on the line. unfortunately killing a plane load of people is often required to get the bureaucracy moving.
at the end of the day there will always be a risk in air travel, just as there is risk in almost any venture. you are still far more likely to be killed by/in a car than as a passenger in a plane.
http://traveltips.usatoday.com/air-travel-safer-car-travel-1581.html
maybe it was an insurance scam
http://media.naplesnews.com/media/img/photos/2013/07/06/Asiana_Airline_jet_crash.JPG
from the limited news jibberish i've read it seems like the pilot may have lost power on final, pulled up to avoid prematurely hitting the ground and the tail struck the ground before the main undercarriage... seems pretty straightforward (except for the cause of the power loss of course)
there are fuel tanks in the lower fuselage between the wings (in the "wing box") and i can see how an extremely hard landing could have caused main undercarriage structure to fail, leading to rupture of this tank and then fire, which could have burnt through into the cabin if there was also damage to the cabin floor structure
there doesn't seem to be any signs that the aircraft rolled over or cartwheeled or any other weird things because much of the unburnt portions of the fuselage is undamaged (except for rear lower)...
what could have caused the fire in the forward fuselage?
this airplane has just made a trip from seoul to san fransisco, so it wouldn't have been chock full of fuel at the time
also, the sides of the fuselage are undamaged in the forward section
the only thing i can see is a burnt area just forward of the starboard side wing leading edge below the cabin floor level
maybe the nose gear structure also failed and caused damage to the fuselage, or maybe parts of the engine came loose and flew into the underside of the fuselage (apparently rr trent engines on a 777 rotate clockwise which would put a dislodged starboard compressor fan into the fuse - assuming it could become dislodged, which seems a little far fetched but then again the entire starboard engine has come adrift (must have been right at the end though else it would have been away from the aircraft more).
the problem with both these theories is that there's still nothing to propagate a fire in the forward cabin
- all materials used in a cabin are (should be) self-extinguishing
- no fuel tanks in/under forward cabin
- weird unburnt area snaking along the side of the fuse between the two main fire damage holes (suggests fire wasn't continuous between two areas)
- occurred at end of international flight (so shouldn't have been a huge amount of fuel in tanks)
- no sign of fuel vapour explosion
the smoke pattern from the tops of the windows suggests the fire was burning for a long time on the ground (not in flight because the smoke doesn't trail aft), so how long did it take fire services to get to the crash?
what the heck fuelled the fire for such an apparently long time?
maybe this aircraft had the same cabin insulation in the roof as swissair flight 111, 1998 which would explain fire propagation along the roof space, which appears to be where most of the fire damage has occurred
not sure what caused the fire in the first place, but there would have been a bit of fuel left, engines are hot, or the shock of landing could have caused damage to electrical power equipment and shorting... probably though when the engine came off the starboard pylon and thrust/rotated into the starboard lower fuselage, the exhaust (the hot bit) set a mixture of baggage and insulation alight, and the fire propagated up the insulation in the walls and into the roof.
it looks like there may be a substantial amount of fire damage inside the cabin to, which seems unusual without an excessive amount of fuel due to self-extinguishing properties of cabin materials. dunno how the fuel could have got into the cabin (maybe though damage to floor) but also could be burnt debris fallen from the roof. that there were so few casualties seems to favour the latter as if burning fuel was in the cabin there would have been more casualties.
will be interesting to see what ntsb finds... i wouldn't mind betting that flammability standards for materials used in the fuse/cabin come under fire (pardon the pun)
where on the internet does it say HTML5 browser?
nowhere? thought so. not really a standard then is it
yet
i guess you think we should all go back to using IE6 too
he's too busy chowing down on toenails
MariaDB will lead the way merely because Oracle smells like Schrodinger's cat piss to open source types.
I'm also not sure if Oracle is "supporting" MySQL (milking it may be more the case).
what will Oracle do?
Probably look for some other project to buy off in it's early stages that is set to take over the world.
It still baffles me how Sun Microsystems could simply "buy" GPL licensed MySQL in the first place, but I guess if you own the trademark you own the software.
I wish MariaDB well. I'm yet to convert (I'm still stuck in the old PHP mysql_connect function call mentality), but I will hopefully eventually get with the times.
bay films might be better if they had a frame rate 2-3 times what they are, but that would likely cost a lot more to produce
i remember a cinema experience in sydney when i was a teenager where the seats had rollercoaster type safety bars and the film they played was at something like 72 fps and the rows of seats moved small amounts with the film (it was a race in space or something like that) and i remember it feeling literally like being upside down even though the seats were only actually moving tiny amounts, but apparently the combination of small movement and high speed film makes for a wild ride because at the end i was holding onto the bars so tight and my hands were sweating profusely that it was as good as any rollercoaster. i imagine a michael bay film could be potentially awesome with motion seats like this and a cranked up framerate.
foreign films are often good in that they have really good plots, they usually have no stereotypical treatment of sex issues/scenes (they don't dramatize them to be like some magical or supernatural experience like many US films) and they are low budget/low cgi.
i'm guessing they'll probably just scoff at it as not being a real problem then
possibly different discipline engineers are different. i'm aero/structures. i know some electrical engineers would look at anything that isn't electrical like it was foreign, but tell an electrical engineer that it's impossible to make an electrical gadget work and you'll definitely spark his interest (pun intended)
you might as well give "y-168=2x" in response
but that's just rewriting the question... the question may lack definition, but at least a graph illustrates all possible answers
i've forgotten most of what i was taught at school/uni.
the real purpose of uni isn't to teach you anything in particular... it's purpose is to teach you how to learn independently, manage your time, work with others effectively, communicate, meet short-term deadlines, work hard to achieve a distant goal, etc, which are many of the attributes that employers are looking for.
most employers after formally educated staff don't give a toss if you can solve a quadratic equation (or whatever TFA was about - i didn't bother reading it), so the ADF is possibly merely trying to weed out these people to find the plebs with a basic level of education that they can shape into obedient grunts with their own education programs
most engineers I know wouldn't have either the inclination or ability solve that kind of problem
apparently you don't know many/any engineers...
they are often crafty buggers that know how to get the best of people in all positions (that's why they are often employed in management), but they are also themselves easily manipulated... if you want to get the attention of an engineer (or a whole office full of them), just mention that you have an unsolvable problem. they will then likely proceed to throw as much time and resources as they can muster to trying solving such a problem, and will likely come up with at the very least some kind of workaround if only to save face.
engineers aren't usually outwardly egotistical (compared to say lawyers or bankers), but on the inside they are as full of themselves as anyone else
engineers are the compliment of scientists... scientists love chasing problems, engineers love chasing solutions
most Australians would probably look at an unsolvable problem and think the guy that came up with it was a dick head
in reality he's probably a "scientist"
123+45+x+x
if I were given this as a question i would probably just draw a graph of y=2x+168
not really what i would call "unsolvable"
It seems Microsoft is dis-kinected from fans
i imagine that may cause some overheating problems
ms fucked up when steve jobs died... they should have followed suit and killed off ballmer
steve jobs ate one too many apples
i'm pretty sure dipshit is a genetic disorder... i have a huge lab in my basement that told me so