Gravity has quite a few more issues than Apollo 13.
Orbital physics where totally ignored in favor of the dramatic effect and a number of the activities done by the characters are/where totally impossible. Thinking back, the issues where HUGE and even though I didn't figure it out until later but my BS sense was bothering me through the whole show. There are some glaring issues with the technology being utilized and don't get me started on the photography issues. There is some really cheesy CGI effects that really where there to showcase the 3D effects and for plot development, that on reflection where not really doing what they would in orbit.
While I found myself mildly distracted by physics a number of times while watching, I still recommend this movie. It's worth seeing even if you have to willingly suspend reality from time to time to enjoy the story. Just ignore the issues and enjoy the story, it's pretty good.
I learned that most people fail to understand the importance of a good software architect.
The problem is worse than that. Most folks don't understand how hard and expensive good software is to develop and deploy.
Remember, most folks only see the stuff that works. Nobody remembers Yahoo, Google or Amazon when they where struggling to keep the servers alive. We barely hear about Netflix when they are down... This stuff just works and most don't have a clue the effort that goes into making that happen.
Obama's administration was in *WAY* over their heads trying to put the infrastructure in place for the marketplace. NOBODY tries to field a complicated website at full capacity on a single day, at least nobody who's actually been successful at this. You ALWAYS soft start and ramp up to production goals. The whole idea is as unworkable as the website implementation turned out to be. But that's politics. Make confident assertions about things you have no clue about.
But that's government for you. Doing STUPID things in a big and expensive way then throwing money at the problem to fix it.
Obama need not know when I buy a router bit for my portable drill.
A *router bit* for a portable *drill* ? Um, I'm not sure what you are trying to do with a router bit chucked into your drill, but I'm pretty sure you are doing something wrong here....
I take it you pay cash for everything too? lighten up or this "i"m being watch" thing might get you a long jacket with long sleeves that buttons up the back
I fail to see how any device that is on the internet (and what's so fun about an android device that's NOT on the internet) can escape the NSA. You are on the net, you are subject to being monitored by the NSA and a whole host of countries which do the same thing (albeit on a smaller scale..)
So is this article assuming android has NSA tracking built in on all commercial devices sold? Somehow, I doubt even the NSA (which apparently has the same reputation as Ole Saint Nick, [knows when you are sleeping, knows when you are awake.. etc]) could manage to do that. Most of these devices are built and have their software loaded over seas. If anything, I'd be more concerned about China getting their software bits added but that's a totally different story.
Even though Snowden and WikiLeaks make loud claims about what the NSA can possibly do, it does not make it so and to me, much of the noise being made is self serving "I want my 15 seconds of fame" grand standing. Yes, they can likely track a lot more than most realize, but they are not putting tracking software on commercial devices being sold to the public. If they did, it would be a HUGE violation of law that would make the reported on excesses at the NSA look like a 2 year old shoplifting candy in the checkout line. (Bad, to be sure, but you might want to pay attention to the armed robbery going on involving the cash register..)
Sarcasm
Of course, turning off the TV IS doing something about it, now they won't know what I'm doing. Better unplug your X-Box too, oh and all your android devices, I-devices, etc, cause they are out to get you...
I am a private pilot and have been for over 20 years now. Before that I flew RC aircraft and worked at a Naval Aviation Depot. Before that, I grew up the child of an aircraft mechanic who worked for a major airline. One of his jobs was to maintain the flight training simulators and I got to play with them some as a child. I've been around airplanes for most of my life.
On the girlfriends front, I have a wife & kids so I'm not interested. A girlfriend would be WAY too much trouble and not nearly as much fun as being with my wife and kids.
This is the very reason I do some basic flight training with anybody in the right seat when I have time. I explain the radio, even let them make radio calls when possible. I let them take the controls and run them though level flight, basic turns, power and trim adjustments to an airspeed. It takes about 5-10 min or so of flight time to get them to master concepts and knowledge needed to land the aircraft. (At least for what I I fly..) I also try to explain what I'm doing when I'm not too rushed, like calling out target airspeeds, altitudes, power settings and check list items. I'm not saying I can teach you how to land in 10 min, only that I can introduce you to all the controls and how to use them. It usually takes a few hours of training to get good enough skills to be good at landing but armed with some basic knowledge, somebody could talk you through it fairly easy.
My goal is three fold. First, I hope to remove any fear they may have and help them feel comfortable. Second, I'm hopefully imparting a love for flying by teaching them as much as I can. Third, something I say or some skill they develop may save their life. Not to mention, I like teaching.
Totally agree. Landing Micro$oft simulator is much harder than the real thing. And yes, I've done both many times.
The simulator is great for procedure training (how to shoot approaches, do procedure turns, holding patterns, navigation etc.) but it sucks when you get close to the ground. In a real airplane, you get all sorts of feedback, motion, sounds, visual and control feel that make it easier to handle the plane. Doing procedure training during flight is harder than necessary and a really expensive way to learn about the process, it's quicker (and cheaper) to become proficient in a simulator before you go fly them.
IMHO small jetliners are easier to land than piston-engined GA aircraft. Throttle response on turbines is more intuitive, even with the lag. Also, a jetliner will have a full blind landing system, including the all-important glide scope, and a bunch of pilot-assist warning systems to remind you of things you need to do. I'd much rather be at the controls of an unfamiliar 100-seat jet than a 10-seat piston engined GA aircraft.
Not on your life... I want to be landing the aircraft that comes over the fence the SLOWEST as possible. Jets are usually NOT slow on final. The problem is that during landing a lot of things happen between short final and full stop, you want to have as much time to think and react as possible and the faster you are going when you cross the fence the shorter time you have. So I want a slow aircraft and a LONG runway that's preferably wide.
Perhaps not exactly true. I've not been listening to 10 Meters at that time of day, but I would assume that the band would be closed though much of the requested transmit window as the MUF drops below 28Mhz in the evening. So, a signal from North America may not be refracted back to the ground, but it will still be bent as it passes though the ionosphere. This may make it possible for signals to make it to the listening location.
Point taken, but remember you are not their target audience over there at the Pi Foundation. This thing is not about interfacing it to other things, albeit it still can, it's about being a cheap way to introduce folks to programming. Others may be matching their price now, but when they came out, they where the leader in cost/performance for a learning platform. I'm personally miffed that they can't get some of the processor chip fully utilized because of NDA's but they are/where cheap....
If they fast-tracked the project, they probably didn't have an electrical engineer do a load analysis.
In my experience, some engineer probably DID the analysis, but they ignored him/her because it would take too long to do it right. The revision 1 Blue prints where already under contract and it would take too long to process a change order. Of course, everybody KNEW that the design had a fatal flaw, at least until the program management started leaving like rats from a sinking ship and their replacements where not aware (or told) of the problems.
The original engineer is then tasked with fixing the problem with about 1/4 the resources necessary and no authority to actually make any changes to the project. Every time there is a power failure and equipment gets smoked, the engineer is blamed for not having the "problem" fixed. His performance rating takes a dive at the next performance review and he either quits in frustration or gets fired.
That's what happens in large government projects... At least in my experience...
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to go see a movie, expecting to see accurate science or other reflections of reality shouldn't be one of your motives.
Oh I learned that with Al Gore's "An inconvenient Truth.. "
Funny you should mention hearing explosions in space given how this movie starts...
Gravity has quite a few more issues than Apollo 13.
Orbital physics where totally ignored in favor of the dramatic effect and a number of the activities done by the characters are/where totally impossible. Thinking back, the issues where HUGE and even though I didn't figure it out until later but my BS sense was bothering me through the whole show. There are some glaring issues with the technology being utilized and don't get me started on the photography issues. There is some really cheesy CGI effects that really where there to showcase the 3D effects and for plot development, that on reflection where not really doing what they would in orbit.
While I found myself mildly distracted by physics a number of times while watching, I still recommend this movie. It's worth seeing even if you have to willingly suspend reality from time to time to enjoy the story. Just ignore the issues and enjoy the story, it's pretty good.
I learned that most people fail to understand the importance of a good software architect.
The problem is worse than that. Most folks don't understand how hard and expensive good software is to develop and deploy.
Remember, most folks only see the stuff that works. Nobody remembers Yahoo, Google or Amazon when they where struggling to keep the servers alive. We barely hear about Netflix when they are down... This stuff just works and most don't have a clue the effort that goes into making that happen.
Obama's administration was in *WAY* over their heads trying to put the infrastructure in place for the marketplace. NOBODY tries to field a complicated website at full capacity on a single day, at least nobody who's actually been successful at this. You ALWAYS soft start and ramp up to production goals. The whole idea is as unworkable as the website implementation turned out to be. But that's politics. Make confident assertions about things you have no clue about.
But that's government for you. Doing STUPID things in a big and expensive way then throwing money at the problem to fix it.
Obama need not know when I buy a router bit for my portable drill.
A *router bit* for a portable *drill* ? Um, I'm not sure what you are trying to do with a router bit chucked into your drill, but I'm pretty sure you are doing something wrong here....
You are from the TSA riiiight????
Oh no, it won't say that.. It will go something like this...
"Mr. Jones! You need to buy this month's issue of "insert title here" or I'm going to tell Mrs. Jones on Isle 3 about you... "
I take it you pay cash for everything too? lighten up or this "i"m being watch" thing might get you a long jacket with long sleeves that buttons up the back
I love that approach... Yea, Move the cereal from the shelf below to the one hawking their wares electronically.
Small IR laser pointed in the right direction and vola.... By by sensor... Problem solved.
A good old fashioned Book Burning! Yea... That's the ticket!
I'll start the fire, you all go get your bad books to burn... Anybody know how to burn an E-Book?
The human race isn't going to last a million years!
Optimist!
Sure you can... It just takes a mirror in the right place...
Yea, but the "Paper" can be photo copied right?
I knew a lady who had a therapist and a nurse in her list of personalities. She could lock herself up for treatment..
But I get your point...
I fail to see how any device that is on the internet (and what's so fun about an android device that's NOT on the internet) can escape the NSA. You are on the net, you are subject to being monitored by the NSA and a whole host of countries which do the same thing (albeit on a smaller scale..)
So is this article assuming android has NSA tracking built in on all commercial devices sold? Somehow, I doubt even the NSA (which apparently has the same reputation as Ole Saint Nick, [knows when you are sleeping, knows when you are awake.. etc]) could manage to do that. Most of these devices are built and have their software loaded over seas. If anything, I'd be more concerned about China getting their software bits added but that's a totally different story.
Even though Snowden and WikiLeaks make loud claims about what the NSA can possibly do, it does not make it so and to me, much of the noise being made is self serving "I want my 15 seconds of fame" grand standing. Yes, they can likely track a lot more than most realize, but they are not putting tracking software on commercial devices being sold to the public. If they did, it would be a HUGE violation of law that would make the reported on excesses at the NSA look like a 2 year old shoplifting candy in the checkout line. (Bad, to be sure, but you might want to pay attention to the armed robbery going on involving the cash register..)
Sarcasm
Of course, turning off the TV IS doing something about it, now they won't know what I'm doing. Better unplug your X-Box too, oh and all your android devices, I-devices, etc, cause they are out to get you...
I am a private pilot and have been for over 20 years now. Before that I flew RC aircraft and worked at a Naval Aviation Depot. Before that, I grew up the child of an aircraft mechanic who worked for a major airline. One of his jobs was to maintain the flight training simulators and I got to play with them some as a child. I've been around airplanes for most of my life.
On the girlfriends front, I have a wife & kids so I'm not interested. A girlfriend would be WAY too much trouble and not nearly as much fun as being with my wife and kids.
This is the very reason I do some basic flight training with anybody in the right seat when I have time. I explain the radio, even let them make radio calls when possible. I let them take the controls and run them though level flight, basic turns, power and trim adjustments to an airspeed. It takes about 5-10 min or so of flight time to get them to master concepts and knowledge needed to land the aircraft. (At least for what I I fly..) I also try to explain what I'm doing when I'm not too rushed, like calling out target airspeeds, altitudes, power settings and check list items. I'm not saying I can teach you how to land in 10 min, only that I can introduce you to all the controls and how to use them. It usually takes a few hours of training to get good enough skills to be good at landing but armed with some basic knowledge, somebody could talk you through it fairly easy.
My goal is three fold. First, I hope to remove any fear they may have and help them feel comfortable. Second, I'm hopefully imparting a love for flying by teaching them as much as I can. Third, something I say or some skill they develop may save their life. Not to mention, I like teaching.
Totally agree. Landing Micro$oft simulator is much harder than the real thing. And yes, I've done both many times.
The simulator is great for procedure training (how to shoot approaches, do procedure turns, holding patterns, navigation etc.) but it sucks when you get close to the ground. In a real airplane, you get all sorts of feedback, motion, sounds, visual and control feel that make it easier to handle the plane. Doing procedure training during flight is harder than necessary and a really expensive way to learn about the process, it's quicker (and cheaper) to become proficient in a simulator before you go fly them.
IMHO small jetliners are easier to land than piston-engined GA aircraft. Throttle response on turbines is more intuitive, even with the lag. Also, a jetliner will have a full blind landing system, including the all-important glide scope, and a bunch of pilot-assist warning systems to remind you of things you need to do. I'd much rather be at the controls of an unfamiliar 100-seat jet than a 10-seat piston engined GA aircraft.
Not on your life... I want to be landing the aircraft that comes over the fence the SLOWEST as possible. Jets are usually NOT slow on final. The problem is that during landing a lot of things happen between short final and full stop, you want to have as much time to think and react as possible and the faster you are going when you cross the fence the shorter time you have. So I want a slow aircraft and a LONG runway that's preferably wide.
Great movie for the puns..
Emacs? "vi" you fool!
Perhaps not exactly true. I've not been listening to 10 Meters at that time of day, but I would assume that the band would be closed though much of the requested transmit window as the MUF drops below 28Mhz in the evening. So, a signal from North America may not be refracted back to the ground, but it will still be bent as it passes though the ionosphere. This may make it possible for signals to make it to the listening location.
73's
Point taken, but remember you are not their target audience over there at the Pi Foundation. This thing is not about interfacing it to other things, albeit it still can, it's about being a cheap way to introduce folks to programming. Others may be matching their price now, but when they came out, they where the leader in cost/performance for a learning platform. I'm personally miffed that they can't get some of the processor chip fully utilized because of NDA's but they are/where cheap....
If they fast-tracked the project, they probably didn't have an electrical engineer do a load analysis.
In my experience, some engineer probably DID the analysis, but they ignored him/her because it would take too long to do it right. The revision 1 Blue prints where already under contract and it would take too long to process a change order. Of course, everybody KNEW that the design had a fatal flaw, at least until the program management started leaving like rats from a sinking ship and their replacements where not aware (or told) of the problems.
The original engineer is then tasked with fixing the problem with about 1/4 the resources necessary and no authority to actually make any changes to the project. Every time there is a power failure and equipment gets smoked, the engineer is blamed for not having the "problem" fixed. His performance rating takes a dive at the next performance review and he either quits in frustration or gets fired.
That's what happens in large government projects... At least in my experience...