Suddenly the "less than 100" aircraft is now flying 150 knots and the bird is flying at 40? I get considering the oncoming aircraft speed, but if you're going to do that, please do it consistently.
Again, as the GP of my previous post said, it's not likely to be unrecoverable. I've known of planes with over 20 feet of their vertical stab (tail) torn off that made it home. I've seen reports of some with absolutely no vertical stab land, and otherwise be fine. Taking out a full wing would be a major problem. Taking out the entire back end would be a problem. Clipping the end of the wing as shown in the video wouldn't have been a catastrophic event. As indicated, it would have definitely scared the crap out of everyone on board but not likely done much more than that. From the video it wasn't even close to the engine, despite what the article implied.
Yes a bird will have significantly less impact than a "rigid body" as you indicate, but that doesn't somehow mean that any impact with a rigid body is going to be catastrophic.
You don't work with drones of any kind, do you? None of these small drones come close to flying at "several hundred miles per hour". Most of this size fly below 100, with a couple of exceptions. Even the larger drones, with a few exceptions (global hawk, avenger and a similar non-US birds), only fly in the 100-150 knot range.
Also, the average adult goose weighs closer to 12 or 13 pounds (depending upon male or female). Modern aircraft (jet) engines are designed for bird strikes and can easily handle them. The instances of birds bringing down any kind of modern aircraft are when the aircraft encounters hundreds of birds, not individual birds. A "single goose, about 6-7 lb" will merely "annoy" most modern passenger aircraft of the size shown in the video.
What the GP said was it wouldn't bring down the passenger plane- nothing about "not damaging it." There is no doubt had this incident actually happened there would have been some passengers who needed new underwear, but the likelihood of it actually damaging the plane beyond recovery is incredibly low, as the GP indicated.
You're aware that the "cancelled drone program" was for a EuroHawk, which is only similar to this drone in the way an RC plane is similar to a 747. The EuroHawk is a high altitude, all-weather, long endurance aircraft with payloads that weigh more than the entire aircraft depicted in this video.
Global/Euro Hawk not only has collision avoidance capabilities but wouldn't be in the same airspace as the civilian aircraft shown. There is no possibility that the Euro Hawk "could have caused similar situations".
I seriously doubt any of the major businesses that develop anything are going to require you to bring your own device as then you could legitimately claim that any side work you are doing can not be their property. Or similarly, you could claim any work you're doing "extra" under the auspices of their business could also legally be used for your own endeavors. Gartner has this completely wrong.
Some might allow it but very few of the "big names" are going to require it. In any industry.
Hell, every employer I have had in the last 15 years has specifically said "you can't do our work on your personal devices" with the exception of phone conversations.
Flex circuits have been around for a while. That's not particularly revolutionary. We've been using them for about 5 years. They're typically fairly simple circuits, but still this isn't the "cutting edge" part of this research. Getting the components small enough to still be flexible on the 1 cm circuit may be the part that he's referring to, though, which is less trivial.
This. SSDs have incredible life compared to when they were in their infancy. They simply don't fail any more often than spinning drives do these days. The myth that they do is just that, a myth.
Every computer I use (and have used for the last 5 years) has an SSD in it. (That's some 200 computers and counting, just for operations.) We use them literally 24 hours a day with constant reads and writes and have no problems with them (well no more than standard drives anyway). They are less sensitive to shock and vibe and they're faster. What's not to recommend?
It was a war to the Koreans. They're the ones that count in this scenario, after all. Whether the US declared war or not is irrelevant to the fact that it was a war.
Because you're looking at it from an external perspective. Kim Jong Il did the same kind of posturing. This is about Kim Jong Un consolidating power and making sure he isn't overthrown by the military, nothing more nothing less. This isn't really about getting anything from the US, though if it has that side effect, all the better.
Someone please mod this up. This is the only real future of a unified Korean peninsula, especially if "unified by war". Anything that changes the status quo is going to set the economy of South Korea back at least a decade, probably more.
It doesn't really matter how much physical damage DPRK can inflict (and they can inflict serious physical damage, even if only for a short time) the financial damage is going to be almost incalculable.
yeah this sounds exactly like giving police powers to the employer.
does the employer have the right to conduct random spot searches at the employees apartment? no? why the fuck should employer get email, storage etc access..
While I don't agree with this bill at all, let me suggest this reason: Every company I've ever worked for clearly states in their indoctrination briefings that your work computer isn't yours, it's theirs. As such, if you use your work computer for any social media they have the right to the information that computer was used to access/transfer. If you use it to create a new company, they might even try to take away the IP of that company...
If I didn't use my work computer to access the sites I use, like/. there's no way in hell I'd comply with this law. Using the work computer, there's less argument that it's "my data". It ain't right, but that's what I knowingly agreed to as an employee. It's also why I use my personal computer for shit I don't want my employer having access to for whatever reason.
Until the government asks for it. You have heard of the Patriot Act, right? Or, have you not seen any tv show based on police work in the last 12 years? All cops have to do is ask in most situations, without a warrant, and people automatically give full control of camera footage right over. No, it's not as good as the tv shows say but access to it is pretty much automatic these days.
Seriously, ubiquitous cameras and fear of the police is all that is necessary. Please reference the article on secret compartments for how they instill fear of the police in otherwise reasonably honest citizens.
How many people with that kind of money have that kind of cash on hand, carry it around in a car, and that car is one clearly chosen to hide the fact that the occupant is wealthy, and those people are not criminals? The slightly-not-right, but not-criminal people who hoard their financial assets do so because they think cash and the banks aren't trustworthy -- they'll have their hoarded "money" in something tangible like gold, stashed somewhere.
If 99% of the time, people displaying the behavior in question are criminals, its not really a safe bet to claim you assumed they weren't. A bartender doesn't have to prove you're drunk to an extent that would stand up in court (like a blood test) to be liable when they don't cut you off. Its the same here. Any reasonable person in that situation would know the odds are the person in question has that money illegally, and the very fact that he was playing the "don't ask, don't tell" card means he knew that was the case.
You don't know a lot of foreigners do you? People who grow up in third world regions often simply don't trust banks. Some of them will keep their life's savings on hand at all times. That's not illegal.
I know of at least 20 people who keep no less than $15,000 in cash readily accessible any time of day or night. Of those, probably another 12 keep another $50-100K in their homes on top of the money they keep "on hand". All of these people are legitimate business owners who do nothing illegal, they simply run cash businesses like restaurants.
"99% of the time" simply isn't an accurate statistic. I think the guy did know what was going on, but that doesn't make him liable for 24 years in prison with no parole. He got screwed because he didn't play ball with the Feds, nothing more.
Perhaps a couple of years, yes. Not 292 months ( >24 years) and certainly not more time than the people actually buying/selling the drugs. This is a gross miscarriage of law. Even if he knew it was for drugs this is insane.
Evacuated where, exactly? We're talking about 20+ million people. That isn't just 20 million able-bodied people, it's young, old, sick and healthy alike. Hell, we couldn't even get New Orleans (population 1.3 million) evacuated properly before Katrina and the ones that did had hellish experiences for weeks.
Be realistic. Even if you got half of Seoul evacuated (very unlikely) you'd still have no place to house them.
Now multiply that by how many people are in your family (sounds like 1 for you) and you start to get the "real cost" of going to a theater for most people. I have 3 kids plus me and my wife. Your ~$200/yr now comes to ~$1000. The math changes significantly for families.
That said, I still think this is a great option for a lot of people, especially families. I'd jump on this subscription if it was available near me. Makes for a great "kids go watch this movie, mom and dad are going to watch that movie" once the kids are old enough to handle themselves... or in situations like mine where there's a 16 year age gap between the youngest and oldest.
As others have said, there is no requirement to only show new releases. There are a lot of thriving theaters that primarily show old[er] movies. We have a local theater that runs about 50/50 mix of US and foreign films (primarily Bollywood). Of the US films I'd say there's at least three theaters at any given time dedicated to 1 children's movie and a couple of older films. Add to that the current trend of seeing Orchestra/Opera/non-movie performances on a movie screen and you open yourself up to a whole new clientele that aren't looking for the latest Hollywood superhero movie.
I would dare say it could re-energize the movie theater industry, though. I used to go to the movies at least twice a month. Now I go a couple times a year, but if I could go see whatever movie is playing without paying $10 per movie (for matinee) then I'd go a lot more often. That means more popcorn, more sodas, etc etc. I see this as a great way for struggling theaters to keep up and, at least until the distributors start jacking up the prices for the theaters, a win win for consumers and theater owners.
With a subscription service and "day pass" or individual ticket sales, you don't lose any existing customers and you may gain back some portion of the customer base that has been lost over the last 10 years or so.
So couldn't it be treated and "recycled"? Is treated nuclear cooling water safe for consumption or is it just safe for "release back into the ground" where it will get further filtering through the earth, albeit slowly?
Or maybe you don't bother using the same water for drinking. If, for example, you used a nuclear drive of some kind and had the water cooling in the "skin" of the ship, it could then act as a barrier to the heavy particles, and be cooled (at least in theory) by space itself. I have no idea if this would even be sufficient cooling or feasible but sounds good in my head anyway.
Once you leave the atmosphere of this blue planet, *everything* will kill you. No amount of engineering, terraforming, or any other science fiction magic will ever make any other body within human reach survivable for long, and certainly not without HEAVY and CONSTANT support from earth.
There is no earthly analogy. Even the most hostile environments on earth usually have at least SOME oxygen, water, soil, air pressure--*something* that could make it at least *somewhat* survivable. Leave earth, and finding even *one* of these conditions becomes very rare. Establishing even the smallest of colonies out there will take orders of magnitude more resources than it will take to solve even the worst problems here. Short of a planet-obliterating collision, we'll always have a better shot on earth. And even with such a collision, having a colony will only slightly delay the inevitable, since no colony out there could survive for long without constant support from earth.
No other body is survivable in our solar system. And with the next-closest solar system at over 100,000 years journey away in the fastest craft we can build, don't think of escaping to another solar system either.
We are stuck here. There is no escape. Dream all you want--write stories about it, make movies about it. But we ain't leaving.
Who ever said anything about colonizing anything? Space exploration isn't just about being able to "expand" or about being able to continue after we've destroyed this planet. Sometimes it gives us incite into how we can save this planet. Or how this planet started being capable of supporting life as we know it in the first place. It's not all about science fiction. Some of it is just about science.
There's room for both. Put a few "sythetist" type thinkers in with of a whole bunch of specialists and you've got a pretty amazing combination. Some people are better suited to specialty, while others excel at being a "jack of all trades". We obviously can't all be a DaVinci but those who are really make an impact.
Tell that to the Egyptians. Or the Syrians. It hasn't happened, yet, in the USA but rest assured, at some point the tide will shift away from the government as we know it and move back (hopefully) toward the government as it was intended. I believe that will happen with guns, personally. I hope it doesn't but I believe it will.
"Insane worries" which are statistically unnecessary. The USA has no worries other nations don't have, we just hype our worries up a lot more than other nations do because it sells advertisements. It sells guns. It sells movies. Basically, it just sells.
There really aren't that many "home invasions" (with people at home), despite what the news and Hollywood tell you. The FBI doesn't even track the information, as "home invasion" is usually considered part of a number of different charges all falling under "violent crime" heading.
That said, the "violent crime rate" (which includes, murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery of all types) was 386 per 100,000 in the USA for 2011. That's 0.3 percent of the population actually being victim of ANY violent crime.
Slashdot Mirror
Suddenly the "less than 100" aircraft is now flying 150 knots and the bird is flying at 40? I get considering the oncoming aircraft speed, but if you're going to do that, please do it consistently.
Again, as the GP of my previous post said, it's not likely to be unrecoverable. I've known of planes with over 20 feet of their vertical stab (tail) torn off that made it home. I've seen reports of some with absolutely no vertical stab land, and otherwise be fine. Taking out a full wing would be a major problem. Taking out the entire back end would be a problem. Clipping the end of the wing as shown in the video wouldn't have been a catastrophic event. As indicated, it would have definitely scared the crap out of everyone on board but not likely done much more than that. From the video it wasn't even close to the engine, despite what the article implied.
Yes a bird will have significantly less impact than a "rigid body" as you indicate, but that doesn't somehow mean that any impact with a rigid body is going to be catastrophic.
You don't work with drones of any kind, do you? None of these small drones come close to flying at "several hundred miles per hour". Most of this size fly below 100, with a couple of exceptions. Even the larger drones, with a few exceptions (global hawk, avenger and a similar non-US birds), only fly in the 100-150 knot range.
Also, the average adult goose weighs closer to 12 or 13 pounds (depending upon male or female). Modern aircraft (jet) engines are designed for bird strikes and can easily handle them. The instances of birds bringing down any kind of modern aircraft are when the aircraft encounters hundreds of birds, not individual birds. A "single goose, about 6-7 lb" will merely "annoy" most modern passenger aircraft of the size shown in the video.
What the GP said was it wouldn't bring down the passenger plane- nothing about "not damaging it." There is no doubt had this incident actually happened there would have been some passengers who needed new underwear, but the likelihood of it actually damaging the plane beyond recovery is incredibly low, as the GP indicated.
You're aware that the "cancelled drone program" was for a EuroHawk, which is only similar to this drone in the way an RC plane is similar to a 747. The EuroHawk is a high altitude, all-weather, long endurance aircraft with payloads that weigh more than the entire aircraft depicted in this video.
Global/Euro Hawk not only has collision avoidance capabilities but wouldn't be in the same airspace as the civilian aircraft shown. There is no possibility that the Euro Hawk "could have caused similar situations".
I seriously doubt any of the major businesses that develop anything are going to require you to bring your own device as then you could legitimately claim that any side work you are doing can not be their property. Or similarly, you could claim any work you're doing "extra" under the auspices of their business could also legally be used for your own endeavors. Gartner has this completely wrong.
Some might allow it but very few of the "big names" are going to require it. In any industry.
Hell, every employer I have had in the last 15 years has specifically said "you can't do our work on your personal devices" with the exception of phone conversations.
Flex circuits have been around for a while. That's not particularly revolutionary. We've been using them for about 5 years. They're typically fairly simple circuits, but still this isn't the "cutting edge" part of this research. Getting the components small enough to still be flexible on the 1 cm circuit may be the part that he's referring to, though, which is less trivial.
Zero tolerance == guilty until proven innocent.
You know, the way our legal system works now.
This. SSDs have incredible life compared to when they were in their infancy. They simply don't fail any more often than spinning drives do these days. The myth that they do is just that, a myth.
Every computer I use (and have used for the last 5 years) has an SSD in it. (That's some 200 computers and counting, just for operations.) We use them literally 24 hours a day with constant reads and writes and have no problems with them (well no more than standard drives anyway). They are less sensitive to shock and vibe and they're faster. What's not to recommend?
It was a war to the Koreans. They're the ones that count in this scenario, after all. Whether the US declared war or not is irrelevant to the fact that it was a war.
Because you're looking at it from an external perspective. Kim Jong Il did the same kind of posturing. This is about Kim Jong Un consolidating power and making sure he isn't overthrown by the military, nothing more nothing less. This isn't really about getting anything from the US, though if it has that side effect, all the better.
Someone please mod this up. This is the only real future of a unified Korean peninsula, especially if "unified by war". Anything that changes the status quo is going to set the economy of South Korea back at least a decade, probably more.
It doesn't really matter how much physical damage DPRK can inflict (and they can inflict serious physical damage, even if only for a short time) the financial damage is going to be almost incalculable.
yeah this sounds exactly like giving police powers to the employer.
does the employer have the right to conduct random spot searches at the employees apartment? no? why the fuck should employer get email, storage etc access..
While I don't agree with this bill at all, let me suggest this reason: Every company I've ever worked for clearly states in their indoctrination briefings that your work computer isn't yours, it's theirs. As such, if you use your work computer for any social media they have the right to the information that computer was used to access/transfer. If you use it to create a new company, they might even try to take away the IP of that company...
If I didn't use my work computer to access the sites I use, like /. there's no way in hell I'd comply with this law. Using the work computer, there's less argument that it's "my data". It ain't right, but that's what I knowingly agreed to as an employee. It's also why I use my personal computer for shit I don't want my employer having access to for whatever reason.
They don't have to, they read it on their servers. It's the backbone of their business model.
Until the government asks for it. You have heard of the Patriot Act, right? Or, have you not seen any tv show based on police work in the last 12 years? All cops have to do is ask in most situations, without a warrant, and people automatically give full control of camera footage right over. No, it's not as good as the tv shows say but access to it is pretty much automatic these days.
Seriously, ubiquitous cameras and fear of the police is all that is necessary. Please reference the article on secret compartments for how they instill fear of the police in otherwise reasonably honest citizens.
How many people with that kind of money have that kind of cash on hand, carry it around in a car, and that car is one clearly chosen to hide the fact that the occupant is wealthy, and those people are not criminals? The slightly-not-right, but not-criminal people who hoard their financial assets do so because they think cash and the banks aren't trustworthy -- they'll have their hoarded "money" in something tangible like gold, stashed somewhere.
If 99% of the time, people displaying the behavior in question are criminals, its not really a safe bet to claim you assumed they weren't. A bartender doesn't have to prove you're drunk to an extent that would stand up in court (like a blood test) to be liable when they don't cut you off. Its the same here. Any reasonable person in that situation would know the odds are the person in question has that money illegally, and the very fact that he was playing the "don't ask, don't tell" card means he knew that was the case.
You don't know a lot of foreigners do you? People who grow up in third world regions often simply don't trust banks. Some of them will keep their life's savings on hand at all times. That's not illegal.
I know of at least 20 people who keep no less than $15,000 in cash readily accessible any time of day or night. Of those, probably another 12 keep another $50-100K in their homes on top of the money they keep "on hand". All of these people are legitimate business owners who do nothing illegal, they simply run cash businesses like restaurants.
"99% of the time" simply isn't an accurate statistic. I think the guy did know what was going on, but that doesn't make him liable for 24 years in prison with no parole. He got screwed because he didn't play ball with the Feds, nothing more.
Perhaps a couple of years, yes. Not 292 months ( >24 years) and certainly not more time than the people actually buying/selling the drugs. This is a gross miscarriage of law. Even if he knew it was for drugs this is insane.
Evacuated where, exactly? We're talking about 20+ million people. That isn't just 20 million able-bodied people, it's young, old, sick and healthy alike. Hell, we couldn't even get New Orleans (population 1.3 million) evacuated properly before Katrina and the ones that did had hellish experiences for weeks.
Be realistic. Even if you got half of Seoul evacuated (very unlikely) you'd still have no place to house them.
Now multiply that by how many people are in your family (sounds like 1 for you) and you start to get the "real cost" of going to a theater for most people. I have 3 kids plus me and my wife. Your ~$200/yr now comes to ~$1000. The math changes significantly for families.
That said, I still think this is a great option for a lot of people, especially families. I'd jump on this subscription if it was available near me. Makes for a great "kids go watch this movie, mom and dad are going to watch that movie" once the kids are old enough to handle themselves... or in situations like mine where there's a 16 year age gap between the youngest and oldest.
As others have said, there is no requirement to only show new releases. There are a lot of thriving theaters that primarily show old[er] movies. We have a local theater that runs about 50/50 mix of US and foreign films (primarily Bollywood). Of the US films I'd say there's at least three theaters at any given time dedicated to 1 children's movie and a couple of older films. Add to that the current trend of seeing Orchestra/Opera/non-movie performances on a movie screen and you open yourself up to a whole new clientele that aren't looking for the latest Hollywood superhero movie.
I would dare say it could re-energize the movie theater industry, though. I used to go to the movies at least twice a month. Now I go a couple times a year, but if I could go see whatever movie is playing without paying $10 per movie (for matinee) then I'd go a lot more often. That means more popcorn, more sodas, etc etc. I see this as a great way for struggling theaters to keep up and, at least until the distributors start jacking up the prices for the theaters, a win win for consumers and theater owners.
With a subscription service and "day pass" or individual ticket sales, you don't lose any existing customers and you may gain back some portion of the customer base that has been lost over the last 10 years or so.
So couldn't it be treated and "recycled"? Is treated nuclear cooling water safe for consumption or is it just safe for "release back into the ground" where it will get further filtering through the earth, albeit slowly?
Or maybe you don't bother using the same water for drinking. If, for example, you used a nuclear drive of some kind and had the water cooling in the "skin" of the ship, it could then act as a barrier to the heavy particles, and be cooled (at least in theory) by space itself. I have no idea if this would even be sufficient cooling or feasible but sounds good in my head anyway.
Once you leave the atmosphere of this blue planet, *everything* will kill you. No amount of engineering, terraforming, or any other science fiction magic will ever make any other body within human reach survivable for long, and certainly not without HEAVY and CONSTANT support from earth.
There is no earthly analogy. Even the most hostile environments on earth usually have at least SOME oxygen, water, soil, air pressure--*something* that could make it at least *somewhat* survivable. Leave earth, and finding even *one* of these conditions becomes very rare. Establishing even the smallest of colonies out there will take orders of magnitude more resources than it will take to solve even the worst problems here. Short of a planet-obliterating collision, we'll always have a better shot on earth. And even with such a collision, having a colony will only slightly delay the inevitable, since no colony out there could survive for long without constant support from earth.
No other body is survivable in our solar system. And with the next-closest solar system at over 100,000 years journey away in the fastest craft we can build, don't think of escaping to another solar system either.
We are stuck here. There is no escape. Dream all you want--write stories about it, make movies about it. But we ain't leaving.
Who ever said anything about colonizing anything? Space exploration isn't just about being able to "expand" or about being able to continue after we've destroyed this planet. Sometimes it gives us incite into how we can save this planet. Or how this planet started being capable of supporting life as we know it in the first place. It's not all about science fiction. Some of it is just about science.
There's room for both. Put a few "sythetist" type thinkers in with of a whole bunch of specialists and you've got a pretty amazing combination. Some people are better suited to specialty, while others excel at being a "jack of all trades". We obviously can't all be a DaVinci but those who are really make an impact.
Tell that to the Egyptians. Or the Syrians. It hasn't happened, yet, in the USA but rest assured, at some point the tide will shift away from the government as we know it and move back (hopefully) toward the government as it was intended. I believe that will happen with guns, personally. I hope it doesn't but I believe it will.
"Insane worries" which are statistically unnecessary. The USA has no worries other nations don't have, we just hype our worries up a lot more than other nations do because it sells advertisements. It sells guns. It sells movies. Basically, it just sells.
There really aren't that many "home invasions" (with people at home), despite what the news and Hollywood tell you. The FBI doesn't even track the information, as "home invasion" is usually considered part of a number of different charges all falling under "violent crime" heading.
That said, the "violent crime rate" (which includes, murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery of all types) was 386 per 100,000 in the USA for 2011. That's 0.3 percent of the population actually being victim of ANY violent crime.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1
You have speakers right? Same basic principles at work...