Of course it is, that's why I added "at the stress levels we're talking about", meaning typical pressurization cycles. The results of said overloads/impacts has always required an inspection, so it's a matter of inspecting the relevant areas for damage, according to the methods that had to be developed especially for aircraft maintenance. Additionally, I can imagine most stuff being designed to minimze the propagation of flaws, like delamination. It sounds easier to me to do so with composites than with a typical metal alloy.
Yes, of course. However, the particular composites used are said not to suffer from fatigue at the stress levels we're talking about. Considering aircraft longevity is mostly tied to metal fatigue due to pressurization (ignoring economic and regulatory issues), the lack of fatigue is a major improvement on paper. It's doubtful that planes will suddenly be used for longer, though.
These things aren't certified lightly, so I'm confident they're at least as good as previous materials. UV exposure is a non-issue, since the whole plane is covered in several layers of paint. As for vitrifcation of the plastics involved, testing that is relatively easy, so again, no cause for concern.
The fact that both Boeing and Airbus allow higher cabin pressures in the 787 and A350 also shows how confident they are that composites will work perfectly.
Call it piss poor journalism. It's Airbus' answer to the lukewarm response their originally planned A350 got. They wanted a simple derivative, new engines, refined aerodynamics, maybe greater use of composites, like the A320 NEO or 737MAX. Most airlines bought into Boeing's hype (time will tell if it's more than that) and weren't impressed. So they designed a new one from scratch.
Prototypes will use Li-Ion batteries, as was originally planned before the 787 incidents, but the final version will use traditional Ni-Cd, at least at first. Later versions may revert to Li-Ion.
Title is very misleading. The A350 XWB was designed after the original A350 (modernized A330, basically) drew lukewarm support, at best. Now it's pretty popular.
Theoretically, yes. In practice, airliners can easily make into into their 20s before reaching their practical end of life, longer if they're not cycled a lot. Many don't survive that long in 1st tier airlines, though.
It's hard not to. Intel wrote the book on "best way to screw-up a microarchitecture and let your competitor gain an advantage", which they have been taking into account since dropping Netboost. Now comes AMD and follows that very same book quite closely...
No, if you're in doubt, read a few comments. You should see a pretty good mixture of "ARM is killing Intel!", "Intel is killing ARM!", "Why doesn't AMD make better stuff these days?", "Intel is a convicted monopolist!" and "Why don't we have low-end hexa-core processors yet?" comments.
Their current solution for their pollution problems is telling people to stay inside. This seems like a logical next step in an idiotic pollution management system.
Nope. As much as I agree with a lot of the Windows 8 hate, after experiencing it on my Samsung Ativ SmartPC Pro (which, by the way, is probably worse than the Surface Pro), those guys are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.
Instead of a simple "Allow us to stay exclusively within Metro or the Desktop" suggestion, they're advocating three seperate versions of Windows: One with only desktop, one with only metro, and a pseudo-version that makes you reboot if you want to switch from metro to desktop or vice-versa or if you want to use the touchscreen. They claim it's a minor issue, but it most certainly would not be - forcing a reboot is obviously not necessary (Nobody complains about Windows 8's oerformance) and it adds a non-trivial delay if you want to detach or reattach the keyboard and use Metro or Desktop, respectively.
More importantly, information can not be transmitted as quickly as text can. Especially when they start adding crappy transitions, long intros and ads.
There's no replacing the process of reading a text.
Of course not, but it has to emulate the relevant printers. Only then can it receive what the printer would have received from the application and do with it whatever is convenient (dump to disk, pipe to printer, convert to PDF/XPS, call Windows' print stack - listed in what seems to be least to most convenient).
Slashdot Mirror
How much time do you spend next to CRTs? And why?
Coconuts seem to be a reasonable analogue of horses, so you can have a friend bang coconuts together and you'll practically be riding a horse.
Of course it is, that's why I added "at the stress levels we're talking about", meaning typical pressurization cycles. The results of said overloads/impacts has always required an inspection, so it's a matter of inspecting the relevant areas for damage, according to the methods that had to be developed especially for aircraft maintenance.
Additionally, I can imagine most stuff being designed to minimze the propagation of flaws, like delamination. It sounds easier to me to do so with composites than with a typical metal alloy.
Yes, of course. However, the particular composites used are said not to suffer from fatigue at the stress levels we're talking about. Considering aircraft longevity is mostly tied to metal fatigue due to pressurization (ignoring economic and regulatory issues), the lack of fatigue is a major improvement on paper. It's doubtful that planes will suddenly be used for longer, though.
These things aren't certified lightly, so I'm confident they're at least as good as previous materials. UV exposure is a non-issue, since the whole plane is covered in several layers of paint. As for vitrifcation of the plastics involved, testing that is relatively easy, so again, no cause for concern.
The fact that both Boeing and Airbus allow higher cabin pressures in the 787 and A350 also shows how confident they are that composites will work perfectly.
They wanted a low-cost derivative of the A330. The market wanted a new plane. Simple as that.
Call it piss poor journalism. It's Airbus' answer to the lukewarm response their originally planned A350 got. They wanted a simple derivative, new engines, refined aerodynamics, maybe greater use of composites, like the A320 NEO or 737MAX. Most airlines bought into Boeing's hype (time will tell if it's more than that) and weren't impressed. So they designed a new one from scratch.
Prototypes will use Li-Ion batteries, as was originally planned before the 787 incidents, but the final version will use traditional Ni-Cd, at least at first. Later versions may revert to Li-Ion.
Current understanding suggests they should last longer than AL structures, mostly due to the lack of metal fatigue.
Yes, you're right. It's meant to differentiate it from the original A350 concept (A330 with new engines, basically), which would've been narrower.
Title is very misleading. The A350 XWB was designed after the original A350 (modernized A330, basically) drew lukewarm support, at best. Now it's pretty popular.
Theoretically, yes. In practice, airliners can easily make into into their 20s before reaching their practical end of life, longer if they're not cycled a lot. Many don't survive that long in 1st tier airlines, though.
Nobody who buys a Xeon and needs it would ever overclock it. It's not worth the (minimal) risk increase.
It's hard not to. Intel wrote the book on "best way to screw-up a microarchitecture and let your competitor gain an advantage", which they have been taking into account since dropping Netboost. Now comes AMD and follows that very same book quite closely...
No, if you're in doubt, read a few comments. You should see a pretty good mixture of "ARM is killing Intel!", "Intel is killing ARM!", "Why doesn't AMD make better stuff these days?", "Intel is a convicted monopolist!" and "Why don't we have low-end hexa-core processors yet?" comments.
Their current solution for their pollution problems is telling people to stay inside. This seems like a logical next step in an idiotic pollution management system.
Solving engineering problems is easy compared to convincing people to radically change their lifestyle.
If it gets rid of coal and prevents natural gas' rise, it's damn worth it. Clean electric cars would be the icing on the cake.
http://xkcd.com/1200/
Nope. As much as I agree with a lot of the Windows 8 hate, after experiencing it on my Samsung Ativ SmartPC Pro (which, by the way, is probably worse than the Surface Pro), those guys are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.
Instead of a simple "Allow us to stay exclusively within Metro or the Desktop" suggestion, they're advocating three seperate versions of Windows: One with only desktop, one with only metro, and a pseudo-version that makes you reboot if you want to switch from metro to desktop or vice-versa or if you want to use the touchscreen. They claim it's a minor issue, but it most certainly would not be - forcing a reboot is obviously not necessary (Nobody complains about Windows 8's oerformance) and it adds a non-trivial delay if you want to detach or reattach the keyboard and use Metro or Desktop, respectively.
In essence, they have no freaking clue.
Now we know why red tape is red.
Maybe bureaucracy has a healing aura...?
More importantly, information can not be transmitted as quickly as text can. Especially when they start adding crappy transitions, long intros and ads.
There's no replacing the process of reading a text.
You just had to bring it up after we'd forgotten about it...
No more burgers for me in the next weeks...
Of course not, but it has to emulate the relevant printers. Only then can it receive what the printer would have received from the application and do with it whatever is convenient (dump to disk, pipe to printer, convert to PDF/XPS, call Windows' print stack - listed in what seems to be least to most convenient).