If that's what you want to do, you *should* use windows.... Remember what I said.... IF you want PROCESSING speed, use LINUX. If you want a GUI, use something else... The application I'm running has no GUI component, so I don't need or want X. A web server needs no GUI component so I'd not load X... Get it yet?
Ah, so you don't know how to pick a distro, build it from scratch for your hardware (which is what I'm claiming makes the most difference) and tune your system then? I guess you don't. Also, who in their right mind runs the GUI? Unless you are running desktop aps (Web Browser, Office, etc) don't bother with it on Linux.
If you *really* want processing performance, Linux is usually where you should turn. If you are running a desktop app, you don't need performance, just stick with Windows. But I'm repeating myself.
If we can do this shit for terrorism we can damn right do it for Ebola.
There is you problem... Apparently we CAN'T do anything you suggest... To many PC rules and ACLU lawyers out there to enforce them.
Case in point is the TSA. Literally powerless to actually stop a determined attack and ham strung by enough rules (no profiling, no bottles over this size, x-ray everybody's shoes etc) to make an dedicated middle manager blush. We get frisking of grandma in her wheelchair and 12 year old girls strip searched, but no real assurance that we are safe.
You can't tell me a ban on air travel from Africa would be any different. Unless you just ban international travel and close the borders (and we already have proven we cannot do that) stuff like this will keep happening.
Actually, no. I want Linux because if you build everything to your actual hardware it will run circles around Windows for the same applications.
BTW, Yes, I've measured this using real custom applications written in C++. I saw about a 10 fold increase in performance when moving to Linux from Windows 7, then gained another increase by building my own kernel, shared libs and support applications targeted to my specific hardware. Your mileage may vary with your application, it's language, shared libs and the tool chain you used to build it, but in general a Linux platform will be faster on the same hardware.
However, Windows has it's place.... Running IE, Office, and most PC based games.... Oh, and the "Server" variants are good at sharing files, being domain controllers for other windows boxes and other such things, if you can afford the license costs... Other than that (and even FOR that sometimes) I'd prefer Linux.
So give me what I want, then let ME decide what bloat I install after that..
Because it is TX. No insurance, no treatment. And they saw fit to reject the Affordable Care Act which would have expanded coverage. Smart move there....
Even before the ACA, if you showed up at the emergency room, they treated you with regard to your ability to pay. The ACA didn't change that one bit. Anybody gets treatment, insurance or not, even in Texas.
What TX rejected was taking the money from the Fed for implementation of parts of the ACA. So the only real difference is where you go to sign up for the ACA. Instead of going to a Texas website, you go to HealthCare.gov if you live in Texas.
We keep getting this scares, and still, no ban on flights. It seems they want to infect US and Europe in purpose.
Oh please... Banning all flights? How's that going to help unless you totally ban travel to affected countries and how on earth are you going to enforce that?
As this virus currently works, it is unlikely to be a serious problem here. I remember when AIDS was all the rage back in the 80's. Everybody was up in arms and freaked out. How did that turn out? Well, some died, but nothing close to the dire predictions happened. Ebola has even a lower risk profile (in it's current form).
More people die in cars every day than have ever died from Ebola. TB kills tens of thousands each year, Ebola has killed no more than a few thousand in total. But we are all worried about Ebola... Go figure..
I don't have a bunker, but I do have a solid supply of food and water and a generator with gasoline. If I have to, I can avoid most human contact for a month or more. I never actually believed it would come to this, though - it's like something out of a movie.
See you in a month....
BTW, I think they have essentially contained the problem for now. We will know for sure in 21 days.
The FAA does this ALL the time actually. They routinely issue AD's for many maintenance and operational issues discovered on aircraft. Sometimes these AD's come with short deadlines (you will fix this before the next flight) and sometimes they give you years (like this one giving 5 years). The FAA does this all the time, so this is NOT new.
No, the pilots are putting their tablets up on the dash... I'm sure they have some pretty hefty field strength requirements, but I doubt 1kW from 1 inch is what it takes.
Either way, the airlines should have to deal with Boeing and not with Honeywell.
I think the question is likely covered in contract and could fall either way. Boeing may not be liable for the costs of applying an Airworthiness Directive issued by the FAA unless the sales/lease contract says Boeing has to pay for replacing the displays. Boeing WILL have to do the engineering necessary to satisfy the FAA in the design, but if these aircraft are not pretty new, the owners and not Boeing will likely be footing the bill for the parts and labor.
thought i made a spelling mistake, but at least Wikipedia agrees with me.
Winter does bad things to aircraft.;-) ice accumulates at the leading edge of wings and props, until the profile is no longer generating lift.
That is why most aircraft have heating in the wings leading edge and mechanical deformation to break of the ice.
Actually, usually only larger aircraft have deicing capacity. Most private airplanes have none beyond heat for the airspeed probe.
Commercial aircraft carry it only for convenience because the flying rules state that you cannot fly into known icing conditions without it. They take it along so they can more easily make their schedule and not have to fly around stuff.
Finally, I'd like to point out that there are multiple kinds of deicing setups and what you describe is pretty much how the low end stuff works. Most commercial jets just heat the leading edges using high temperature bleed air from the turbines. The rubber boot thing doesn't work so well at high mach numbers...
Actually, that's the arguably the biggest problem here. The FAA was directed to develop a policy for commercial drones, and it's initial reaction was to determine, without any sort of rule making process, that drones that followed the model rules were not in fact models, and attempt to prohibit any sort of autonomous flight whatsoever. A couple months back they were even saying that first person view direct remote control under model rules was unacceptable, and still claiming that no rule making was required.
For Commercial operations yes, the FAA has totally banned drones for commercial use (until now)... Hobby use, not so much. Where the FAA technically governs anything from the ground up outside a building, they've never really handed out regulations for individual private hobby flying toys and I doubt they care about them as long as they don't interfere with manned flight operations.
It's the same sort of thing they do for ultralights. Keep the aircraft under a specified weight and out of controlled airspace and you don't need to register the craft, have a pilot's license to fly it or have a license to maintain it. Just stay out of controlled space and they don't say anything. Try to sell rides in your ultralight and voila a whole host of regulations hit you because it's now a commercial operation. Same with Drones. Keep it small, low and for personal use, they won't bat an eye, but start doing commercial things with it and they are going to inspect you every which way and twice on Sunday.
You see, the FAA really only cares about the commercial use of the airspace, which is really their mandate. Yea they govern private aviation too, but only because they use the same facilities as commercial and unless everybody follows the same rules when mixed up, bad things will happen. But you get a private plane outside of controlled airspace and they won't care much about you anymore. Just don't endanger the commercial operations..
And let people use drones not in controlled airspaces as they see fit. Really complicated.
Which is what we actually have now with one more restriction. COMMERCIAL use is banned outright. Private Individual Hobby use is already allowed outside of controlled airspace below about 200' AGL as I understand it.
So drones are flying at 38,000 feet or circling over international airports now?
Not by individuals or companies. I'm guessing we have government doing this already, if for no other reason than to allow testing.
Surely there is a minimum allowable altitude for any manned aircraft so simply mandate all drone stay below that. There you go FAA, i just saved you millions in lost man hours and other random crap associated with this kind of nonsense. I'll be expecting my cheque any day now.
There are *recommended* limits, how high you should fly over obstructions, how far away you should stay from people etc, but if you are flying VFR over farmland it's pretty much pilot discretion outside of controlled airspace. You will get blamed if you ball it up by hitting a tree and you might even get cited for being reckless, but if you are PIC and you think it's safe, knock yourself out all the way down to the ground.
I suppose you could just declare that Drones under 500' AGL (maybe 200'?) outside of controlled airspace that maintains minimum distances from humans and property are allowed for any reason that's not commercial. Just issue a NOTAM and tell pilots that they are only protected above 500' AGL, problem solved. I think I'd put size and weight limits on these unlicensed drones, but apart from the size and weight limits and commercial operation that's what we have/had until now.
If a company can do it, I can. Its just a person after all.
If a reporter has some right, so do I.
Given tax breaks to movies and the NFL, there is so much free content out there. Govt sponsored = crown copyright = no copyright.
You ALREADY have permission to operate a drone as an individual. RC hobbyists have been doing this for decades. There are places you cannot fly them of course, but flying a drone for hobby use is allowed now and has been allowed for the whole of the FAA's existence.
What's being restricted is COMMERCIAL use, and flying in controlled airspace. We don't have rules and procedures in place to allow us to deal with this safely, which is why commercial use has been prohibited until now. The FAA is actually relaxing the rules for commercial use under conditions similar to private hobby use of drones.
So, actually, being a private individual over a company gives you more rights to fly drones, or it used to before now.
Keep it under about 200', and away from airports and you are free to move about the country. RC models have been operating under these conditions for a long time. So individuals CAN operate drones NOW as a hobby. What is being limited in COMMERCIAL use of drones, and drones that impact existing air traffic.
apple really screwed the pooch with celebgate. protecting against brute force attacks is like security 101
Seriously? I think the celebrities where/are stupid.
Who in their right mind takes compromising photos and allow them to be stored on anybody's cloud, while knowing that said pictures would be of great value to the public? Security 101 says, DON'T TAKE THE PICTURES in the first place, but if you insist on doing so, DON'T PUT THEM ON THE INTERNET.
Apple may have messed up by not notifying their customers of hacking attempts, but you are not thinking if you put things of value in anybody's hands for safe keeping up on the net, even if it's Apple. It's a bad idea to give up control of your data if it is sensitive in any way, unless it's well encrypted.
Celebrities where primarily responsible, they where plain stupid to allow such pictures to be taken, much less store them protected by no more than a password. What do they THINK is going to happen? Putting tens of thousands of dollars worth of "personal photos" online protected by a password? Even if Apple had done all due dalliance, you can bet somebody would have eventually found a way.
If this is successfully argued, could it then be argued that there is no reason why there are any country restrictions on streaming any sort of media since it isn't "broadcasting"?
Not to mention that it would put Aereo.com back in business...
As sad as it sounds, I think you are right. Steve was apparently an SOB to work for, making demands and taking no excuses for failure, but that's what it takes to stay on top with technology. I'm thinking that they are falling into the corporate "manage to quarter" mindset. They are just running in the same well worn rut now and will follow Steve into the grave...
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, I know, but I'm married...
NEVER use a router that you haven't loaded third party firmware onto.
Which leads to not buying hardware that won't run OpenWRT.....
Which means, nobody but you controls with the router upgrades its firmware or decides to phone home. ALWAYS be the master of your own network.
If that's what you want to do, you *should* use windows.... Remember what I said.... IF you want PROCESSING speed, use LINUX. If you want a GUI, use something else... The application I'm running has no GUI component, so I don't need or want X. A web server needs no GUI component so I'd not load X... Get it yet?
Ah, so you don't know how to pick a distro, build it from scratch for your hardware (which is what I'm claiming makes the most difference) and tune your system then? I guess you don't. Also, who in their right mind runs the GUI? Unless you are running desktop aps (Web Browser, Office, etc) don't bother with it on Linux.
If you *really* want processing performance, Linux is usually where you should turn. If you are running a desktop app, you don't need performance, just stick with Windows. But I'm repeating myself.
If we can do this shit for terrorism we can damn right do it for Ebola.
There is you problem... Apparently we CAN'T do anything you suggest... To many PC rules and ACLU lawyers out there to enforce them.
Case in point is the TSA. Literally powerless to actually stop a determined attack and ham strung by enough rules (no profiling, no bottles over this size, x-ray everybody's shoes etc) to make an dedicated middle manager blush. We get frisking of grandma in her wheelchair and 12 year old girls strip searched, but no real assurance that we are safe.
You can't tell me a ban on air travel from Africa would be any different. Unless you just ban international travel and close the borders (and we already have proven we cannot do that) stuff like this will keep happening.
Goodby Lotus 1-2-3 in 3 - 2 - 1.....
And you want software bloat?
Actually, no. I want Linux because if you build everything to your actual hardware it will run circles around Windows for the same applications.
BTW, Yes, I've measured this using real custom applications written in C++. I saw about a 10 fold increase in performance when moving to Linux from Windows 7, then gained another increase by building my own kernel, shared libs and support applications targeted to my specific hardware. Your mileage may vary with your application, it's language, shared libs and the tool chain you used to build it, but in general a Linux platform will be faster on the same hardware.
However, Windows has it's place.... Running IE, Office, and most PC based games.... Oh, and the "Server" variants are good at sharing files, being domain controllers for other windows boxes and other such things, if you can afford the license costs... Other than that (and even FOR that sometimes) I'd prefer Linux.
So give me what I want, then let ME decide what bloat I install after that..
Because it is TX. No insurance, no treatment. And they saw fit to reject the Affordable Care Act which would have expanded coverage. Smart move there....
Even before the ACA, if you showed up at the emergency room, they treated you with regard to your ability to pay. The ACA didn't change that one bit. Anybody gets treatment, insurance or not, even in Texas.
What TX rejected was taking the money from the Fed for implementation of parts of the ACA. So the only real difference is where you go to sign up for the ACA. Instead of going to a Texas website, you go to HealthCare.gov if you live in Texas.
We keep getting this scares, and still, no ban on flights. It seems they want to infect US and Europe in purpose.
Oh please... Banning all flights? How's that going to help unless you totally ban travel to affected countries and how on earth are you going to enforce that?
As this virus currently works, it is unlikely to be a serious problem here. I remember when AIDS was all the rage back in the 80's. Everybody was up in arms and freaked out. How did that turn out? Well, some died, but nothing close to the dire predictions happened. Ebola has even a lower risk profile (in it's current form).
More people die in cars every day than have ever died from Ebola. TB kills tens of thousands each year, Ebola has killed no more than a few thousand in total. But we are all worried about Ebola... Go figure..
I don't have a bunker, but I do have a solid supply of food and water and a generator with gasoline. If I have to, I can avoid most human contact for a month or more. I never actually believed it would come to this, though - it's like something out of a movie.
See you in a month....
BTW, I think they have essentially contained the problem for now. We will know for sure in 21 days.
Sudden Outbreak of Common Sense (tm)
The FAA does this ALL the time actually. They routinely issue AD's for many maintenance and operational issues discovered on aircraft. Sometimes these AD's come with short deadlines (you will fix this before the next flight) and sometimes they give you years (like this one giving 5 years). The FAA does this all the time, so this is NOT new.
No, the pilots are putting their tablets up on the dash... I'm sure they have some pretty hefty field strength requirements, but I doubt 1kW from 1 inch is what it takes.
Either way, the airlines should have to deal with Boeing and not with Honeywell.
I think the question is likely covered in contract and could fall either way. Boeing may not be liable for the costs of applying an Airworthiness Directive issued by the FAA unless the sales/lease contract says Boeing has to pay for replacing the displays. Boeing WILL have to do the engineering necessary to satisfy the FAA in the design, but if these aircraft are not pretty new, the owners and not Boeing will likely be footing the bill for the parts and labor.
True, Gun laws just disarm the law abiding... Criminals are still armed..
Wow, I never would have guessed that car to be at #20 on this list.
thought i made a spelling mistake, but at least Wikipedia agrees with me. Winter does bad things to aircraft. ;-) ice accumulates at the leading edge of wings and props, until the profile is no longer generating lift.
That is why most aircraft have heating in the wings leading edge and mechanical deformation to break of the ice.
Actually, usually only larger aircraft have deicing capacity. Most private airplanes have none beyond heat for the airspeed probe.
Commercial aircraft carry it only for convenience because the flying rules state that you cannot fly into known icing conditions without it. They take it along so they can more easily make their schedule and not have to fly around stuff.
Finally, I'd like to point out that there are multiple kinds of deicing setups and what you describe is pretty much how the low end stuff works. Most commercial jets just heat the leading edges using high temperature bleed air from the turbines. The rubber boot thing doesn't work so well at high mach numbers...
Actually, that's the arguably the biggest problem here. The FAA was directed to develop a policy for commercial drones, and it's initial reaction was to determine, without any sort of rule making process, that drones that followed the model rules were not in fact models, and attempt to prohibit any sort of autonomous flight whatsoever. A couple months back they were even saying that first person view direct remote control under model rules was unacceptable, and still claiming that no rule making was required.
For Commercial operations yes, the FAA has totally banned drones for commercial use (until now)... Hobby use, not so much. Where the FAA technically governs anything from the ground up outside a building, they've never really handed out regulations for individual private hobby flying toys and I doubt they care about them as long as they don't interfere with manned flight operations.
It's the same sort of thing they do for ultralights. Keep the aircraft under a specified weight and out of controlled airspace and you don't need to register the craft, have a pilot's license to fly it or have a license to maintain it. Just stay out of controlled space and they don't say anything. Try to sell rides in your ultralight and voila a whole host of regulations hit you because it's now a commercial operation. Same with Drones. Keep it small, low and for personal use, they won't bat an eye, but start doing commercial things with it and they are going to inspect you every which way and twice on Sunday.
You see, the FAA really only cares about the commercial use of the airspace, which is really their mandate. Yea they govern private aviation too, but only because they use the same facilities as commercial and unless everybody follows the same rules when mixed up, bad things will happen. But you get a private plane outside of controlled airspace and they won't care much about you anymore. Just don't endanger the commercial operations..
And let people use drones not in controlled airspaces as they see fit. Really complicated.
Which is what we actually have now with one more restriction. COMMERCIAL use is banned outright. Private Individual Hobby use is already allowed outside of controlled airspace below about 200' AGL as I understand it.
So drones are flying at 38,000 feet or circling over international airports now?
Not by individuals or companies. I'm guessing we have government doing this already, if for no other reason than to allow testing.
Surely there is a minimum allowable altitude for any manned aircraft so simply mandate all drone stay below that. There you go FAA, i just saved you millions in lost man hours and other random crap associated with this kind of nonsense. I'll be expecting my cheque any day now.
There are *recommended* limits, how high you should fly over obstructions, how far away you should stay from people etc, but if you are flying VFR over farmland it's pretty much pilot discretion outside of controlled airspace. You will get blamed if you ball it up by hitting a tree and you might even get cited for being reckless, but if you are PIC and you think it's safe, knock yourself out all the way down to the ground.
I suppose you could just declare that Drones under 500' AGL (maybe 200'?) outside of controlled airspace that maintains minimum distances from humans and property are allowed for any reason that's not commercial. Just issue a NOTAM and tell pilots that they are only protected above 500' AGL, problem solved. I think I'd put size and weight limits on these unlicensed drones, but apart from the size and weight limits and commercial operation that's what we have/had until now.
If a company can do it, I can. Its just a person after all.
If a reporter has some right, so do I.
Given tax breaks to movies and the NFL, there is so much free content out there. Govt sponsored = crown copyright = no copyright.
You ALREADY have permission to operate a drone as an individual. RC hobbyists have been doing this for decades. There are places you cannot fly them of course, but flying a drone for hobby use is allowed now and has been allowed for the whole of the FAA's existence.
What's being restricted is COMMERCIAL use, and flying in controlled airspace. We don't have rules and procedures in place to allow us to deal with this safely, which is why commercial use has been prohibited until now. The FAA is actually relaxing the rules for commercial use under conditions similar to private hobby use of drones.
So, actually, being a private individual over a company gives you more rights to fly drones, or it used to before now.
Keep it under about 200', and away from airports and you are free to move about the country. RC models have been operating under these conditions for a long time. So individuals CAN operate drones NOW as a hobby. What is being limited in COMMERCIAL use of drones, and drones that impact existing air traffic.
You should read the referenced article.... It is awash in stuff like this... "Cubic Gallons", "Cubic liters",
This wasn't written by somebody who knows what they are talking about. Somebody's trying to pull a fast one..
apple really screwed the pooch with celebgate. protecting against brute force attacks is like security 101
Seriously? I think the celebrities where/are stupid.
Who in their right mind takes compromising photos and allow them to be stored on anybody's cloud, while knowing that said pictures would be of great value to the public? Security 101 says, DON'T TAKE THE PICTURES in the first place, but if you insist on doing so, DON'T PUT THEM ON THE INTERNET.
Apple may have messed up by not notifying their customers of hacking attempts, but you are not thinking if you put things of value in anybody's hands for safe keeping up on the net, even if it's Apple. It's a bad idea to give up control of your data if it is sensitive in any way, unless it's well encrypted.
Celebrities where primarily responsible, they where plain stupid to allow such pictures to be taken, much less store them protected by no more than a password. What do they THINK is going to happen? Putting tens of thousands of dollars worth of "personal photos" online protected by a password? Even if Apple had done all due dalliance, you can bet somebody would have eventually found a way.
If this is successfully argued, could it then be argued that there is no reason why there are any country restrictions on streaming any sort of media since it isn't "broadcasting"?
Not to mention that it would put Aereo.com back in business...
As sad as it sounds, I think you are right. Steve was apparently an SOB to work for, making demands and taking no excuses for failure, but that's what it takes to stay on top with technology. I'm thinking that they are falling into the corporate "manage to quarter" mindset. They are just running in the same well worn rut now and will follow Steve into the grave...
Question is who will replace them.