I'm not sure the objections are valid but, if they are, they are against the entire entire LSA category and that's the FAA's decision. It's not something specific with drivable planes.
It's specific to this drivable plane -- the FAA just granted an exception allowing them to treat this as an LSA despite the fact that it weighs as much as a Cessna, and thus is likely to be just as lethal to whatever it crashes into. All the momentum of a Cessna, without the safety requirements! Wonderful. The objection you're objecting too does not apply to the entire LSA category because most of the aircraft in it are light.
As I recall, the long, paper-strewn trail to independence for Canada started, along with the rise of Canadian nationalism, following their victory over the United States during the War of 1812 (repelling the US invasion of what was, at the time, British territory, and starting to think, "Hey, this is OUR land."). Your comments about them never having fought for what's important to them shows the kind of historical ignorance that suggests you probably aren't even aware of the fact that the USA lost the War of 1812. Ah well...
In any case, your logic is utter fail, even if the false "facts" you based it on were true. It can be argued that one has to be willing to fight for the principles, and one doesn't know for sure if they are unless they have, but your statement that a nation must have actually done so at some point is bizarre and absurd.
Apple is not a semiconductor company. Sure, they bought one but it's not their core competency.
Ah yes, the old "companies are just like individuals" fallacy. Can't do two things at once, because... apparently... the entire company has just one brain between them?
Companies are composed of multiple individuals. It's entirely possible for 100 people to be expert at 100 different things. This does not, in any way, shape, or form, become less true if you hire them all. 99 of them don't suddenly lose their own competence because you give them a paycheck.
You're either asserting that the semiconductor company they bought did not have, as its core competency, making semiconductors, or you're asserting the above absurd proposition that they've suddenly lost the ability because the account their paychecks are drawn from changed.
Just out of curiosity, which of these do you think can't possibly be good: a Yamaha piano, or a Yamaha motorcycle? After all, Yamaha can't possibly do both things well, right?
And that differs from any other highly integrated SoC from Samsung or everybody else?
Please quote the part of the article where they specifically say Samsung and others don't do the same. Failing that, please stop trying to debate straw-men in public. It's just silly...
Nice, the old ad populum logical fallacy. Would you like to cite your reference on where you found out that most people accept splashdown as a verb, or would you rather toss my salad instead?
I doubt he could find a cite for that specific verb, but there's no need. One need only demonstrate that most people accept verbing nouns. I can't provide a cite for that, either, but I know from experience it's true for nearly everyone I know. I would venture to say, at this point, one is not a competent speaker of the English language is you cannot comprehend sentences with verbed nouns, as the practice quite widespread.
"No, it's not really censorship"
Yes, it really is, just not censorship performed by a government. Apple censors the content available on these devices, plain and simple -- why state it any other way?
It's censorship if and only if you agree it's censorship if you deny me the right to walk into your living room and stand between you and your television waving a sign and shouting slogans.
If you agree owners of property have the right to allow whoever they want on it, of more appropriately, if you think a store owner has the right to determine for herself what products she is going to stock on her shelves rather than having other people dictate it to her, then you support this sort of thing. If you still want to call it censorship, fine, but make it clear that your definition of censorship includes property owners exercising their right to determine what they do with their own time and money on their own property.
I recall when being an "elementary particle" meant that there would be only a very small number of different types. Now a passe' notion, i understand....wait, actually I don't understand.
Nobody understands physics. If you think you understand physics, you missed something...
Indeed, the point of the 9th Amendment is to address the fears that by enumerating certain rights, it would be construed as excluding any rights not specifically mentioned. It's due to the 9th Amendment that a "strict interpretation" of the Constitution is unconstitutional. The Constitution itself specifically says just because something it not explicitly stated does not mean it is not protected.
you're missing the difference between bandwidth and latency....
No, you're failing to follow the thread of the conversation. The person you're replying to was answering a question about how much bandwidth is required. He didn't "miss" the difference, he simply didn't talk about something that wasn't relevant to the question being answered.
Slim odds you say? At least one probe we've gone planet-hopping with has been hit by a small asteroid, enough to knock its orientation off for a bit before it (thankfully) managed to correct itself. It's a big place, but when you're traveling for a number of years, at an ever growing rate of speed, the odds start catching up with you.
I wouldn't say slim odds. The larger you make the sail, the more likely it is some rock is gonna hit it. Any significant sail used for any significant time is going to get hit many times. And the effect will be... unnoticeable. Oddly enough, when you have a few square kilometers of surface area, a hole the size of a tiny pebble subtracts a very tiny percentage of your operational surface area. And sunlight is not known for its ability to rip things apart once they develop a small tear or hole.
You'll also notice that the second planetary body in the picture (why you're calling it a "photo" when it clearly isn't, I'm not sure) is not the moon...
0.0003-inch-thick? Come on, this is the 21st century. Measurements in metres (or centimetres, or millimetres, or microns, etc)
Amazing how America, the country that is so on the pace, so setting the pace, is often so behind in a few key aspects.
Next you'll be telling me the speed of light in yards per second!
There is substantially less benefit from having every nation on earth use the same units of measurement (i.e. speak the same language in terms of measuring things) than there would be from having every nation on earth simply speak the same language, period. As soon as France adopts English as its official language, the United States will adopt the metric system as its official measuring system.
(Note, I'm not actually suggesting France adopt English. I'm just pointing out the bizarreness of the argument that somehow one nation is "behind" for not adopting the other's way of doing things. It's not "progress" to switch from one arbitrary means of communicating information to another equally arbitrary means, whether it's language in general or just measurements. That says... "Hey, it's the 21st century, people! Speak English for gods' sakes!")
Now, the flight recorder data from numerous crashes caused by human error show the tendency of humans to panic when they think they're going to die, and when the pilot panics and pulls up the nose (because aiming your nose at the ground is precisely the kind of thing that causes mortal fears to scream loudly in your head) causing the aircraft to stall (because what the pilot really really really needed to do right then was point his nose at the ground at pick up some airspeed so the plane didn't stall) and crash and die, I'm sure you're rest smugly in heaving knowing that although you just died in a perfectly survivable situation, at least the pilot died with you (whereas you all would have lived if he hadn't been in mortal panic at the time he was required to keep a cool head and fly the plane competently rather than like someone in mortal panic).
So, do you think Sully would have pulled off a perfect water landing if he had been miles away from the cockpit?
I absolutely do, yes.
If the pilot's life isn't at risk, I just don't think he's going to have the same drive to handle an emergency.
Obviously, you have a fairly low opinion of Captain Sullenberger. I, for one, think he's a decent human being. Being a decent human being, he'd have the same drive to handle a situation competently when people's lives are on the line whether his one is one of them or not. The word for the kind of person who isn't like that is "scumbag". I know, I know, most people are scumbags, but I don't think Sully is one of them. I suspect he actually cares if another human being lives or dies, even if it's not himself. Hence, "decent human being", and thus the kind of person would have the same drive to land a plane safely whether he was on it or not, unless there was no one at all on it -- might not show the same concern for a UPS cargo plane if it was completely automated with no human beings at all on board, but if there are person on board, assuming he's a decent human being, then yes, he would.
He's not going to have all the visual, auditory, and tactile, information a human in the pilot's seat is going to have either.
You mean those things that train pilots learn to ignore and trust what the instruments say, since they won't completely fuck up your perception of the situation the way all that other stuff will? Most crashes caused by human error are caused by people relying on those things, rather than looking at their bloody instruments. The instruments know which way is up, forget what your fucking inner ear is telling you. Humans did not evolve to fly airplanes. Your fucking inner ear is a fucking liar.
Sometimes you need the reflexes of a well trained human being whose life is on the line.
Sully didn't save the day by having good reflexes. Sully saved the day by having good judgment and a cool head in a crisis. It's a testament to how good he is that he kept this while his life was on the line, but for most people it's actually easier to keep a cool head when they aren't in imminent mortal danger. This is why some pilots stall their airplanes and crash them, killing themselves and everyone else onboard, when the nose dips because the automatic stall prevention system points the nose down to pick up airspeed to keep air moving over the wings. Mortal fear bloody well kills them.
Whoa, the airwaves are already crowded enough. Now you want them to carve out enough spectrum to get all the information needed to fly the plane remotely?
Is these some reason you think this isn't a trivial task? It doesn't take a library of congress per jiffy to transmit relevant flight data.
Expensive compared to what? I spent more on a Dell R610 and an ESX license this morning than the average annual salary of a commercial airline pilot. Burger king pays more for its night shift supervisors...
Expensive compared to $0. Assuming roughly equivalent equipment costs (and that is a fair assumption in this case), one employee costs more than no employee.
Are there businesses where payroll isn't the largest expense? There may be, but I've never seen one. Given the nature of airlines, maybe they spend more money per year on fuel than on salaries, payroll taxes, and associated human resource costs. But if I had to place a bet, I'd bet not.
Also keep in mind that what a company pays to an employee is only part of what it pays for the employee, often (if not usually) less than half of it.
It would also make being a pilot a more bearable because a pilot could simple hand over the controls to another pilot after an 8-hour shift and go home to his family.
It goes beyond that, even. The planes will probably be robotically piloted rather than remotely piloted for most of the flight. The remote pilot will only "log in" to the aircraft at take-off and landing, and skip the long, boring stretches. So, not only a normal workday shift, but one spent overseeing the actually engaging parts of the flight and avoiding the long, mind-numbingly boring parts. It sounds like it might even be a fun job, albeit one where one pilot lands a few dozen planes a day, rather than requiring a few dozen pilots to do it, thus making it a much rarer job filled by a much smaller workforce. Of course, by "landing", frankly that will probably mostly consist of watching the planes land themselves and only taking control if things are looking tricky for some reason, so maybe pretty boring after all...
It should be noted that your retired pilots no doubt worked (or at least started working) during the day when unions actually had some power. People starting today, it hardly matters whether they're union or not.
Apple - copy everyone else, claim it's revolutionary.
It's revolutionary when someone else fails to start a revolution with their idea and it just languishes until you take it up and start a revolution in the industry with it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure the objections are valid but, if they are, they are against the entire entire LSA category and that's the FAA's decision. It's not something specific with drivable planes.
It's specific to this drivable plane -- the FAA just granted an exception allowing them to treat this as an LSA despite the fact that it weighs as much as a Cessna, and thus is likely to be just as lethal to whatever it crashes into. All the momentum of a Cessna, without the safety requirements! Wonderful. The objection you're objecting too does not apply to the entire LSA category because most of the aircraft in it are light.
As I recall, the long, paper-strewn trail to independence for Canada started, along with the rise of Canadian nationalism, following their victory over the United States during the War of 1812 (repelling the US invasion of what was, at the time, British territory, and starting to think, "Hey, this is OUR land."). Your comments about them never having fought for what's important to them shows the kind of historical ignorance that suggests you probably aren't even aware of the fact that the USA lost the War of 1812. Ah well...
In any case, your logic is utter fail, even if the false "facts" you based it on were true. It can be argued that one has to be willing to fight for the principles, and one doesn't know for sure if they are unless they have, but your statement that a nation must have actually done so at some point is bizarre and absurd.
Apple is not a semiconductor company. Sure, they bought one but it's not their core competency.
Ah yes, the old "companies are just like individuals" fallacy. Can't do two things at once, because... apparently... the entire company has just one brain between them?
Companies are composed of multiple individuals. It's entirely possible for 100 people to be expert at 100 different things. This does not, in any way, shape, or form, become less true if you hire them all. 99 of them don't suddenly lose their own competence because you give them a paycheck.
You're either asserting that the semiconductor company they bought did not have, as its core competency, making semiconductors, or you're asserting the above absurd proposition that they've suddenly lost the ability because the account their paychecks are drawn from changed.
Just out of curiosity, which of these do you think can't possibly be good: a Yamaha piano, or a Yamaha motorcycle? After all, Yamaha can't possibly do both things well, right?
And that differs from any other highly integrated SoC from Samsung or everybody else?
Please quote the part of the article where they specifically say Samsung and others don't do the same. Failing that, please stop trying to debate straw-men in public. It's just silly...
Doesn't the article discount the work of ARM's engineers by pretending that Apple created this thing?
No.
Nice, the old ad populum logical fallacy. Would you like to cite your reference on where you found out that most people accept splashdown as a verb, or would you rather toss my salad instead?
I doubt he could find a cite for that specific verb, but there's no need. One need only demonstrate that most people accept verbing nouns. I can't provide a cite for that, either, but I know from experience it's true for nearly everyone I know. I would venture to say, at this point, one is not a competent speaker of the English language is you cannot comprehend sentences with verbed nouns, as the practice quite widespread.
He didn't really speak in that commercial unless you count mumbling.
After visiting some murlocs off the coast of Borean Tundra and learning their language, I find Ozzy quite easy to comprehend.
"No, it's not really censorship" Yes, it really is, just not censorship performed by a government. Apple censors the content available on these devices, plain and simple -- why state it any other way?
It's censorship if and only if you agree it's censorship if you deny me the right to walk into your living room and stand between you and your television waving a sign and shouting slogans.
If you agree owners of property have the right to allow whoever they want on it, of more appropriately, if you think a store owner has the right to determine for herself what products she is going to stock on her shelves rather than having other people dictate it to her, then you support this sort of thing. If you still want to call it censorship, fine, but make it clear that your definition of censorship includes property owners exercising their right to determine what they do with their own time and money on their own property.
They built the LHC at Cern for something that was found out at the place they were trying to make obsolete.
Good thing, too, since we'll need the LHC to figure out what's going on here and why, as explained in TFA.
I recall when being an "elementary particle" meant that there would be only a very small number of different types. Now a passe' notion, i understand. ...wait, actually I don't understand.
Nobody understands physics. If you think you understand physics, you missed something...
Indeed, the point of the 9th Amendment is to address the fears that by enumerating certain rights, it would be construed as excluding any rights not specifically mentioned. It's due to the 9th Amendment that a "strict interpretation" of the Constitution is unconstitutional. The Constitution itself specifically says just because something it not explicitly stated does not mean it is not protected.
you're missing the difference between bandwidth and latency....
No, you're failing to follow the thread of the conversation. The person you're replying to was answering a question about how much bandwidth is required. He didn't "miss" the difference, he simply didn't talk about something that wasn't relevant to the question being answered.
Slim odds you say? At least one probe we've gone planet-hopping with has been hit by a small asteroid, enough to knock its orientation off for a bit before it (thankfully) managed to correct itself. It's a big place, but when you're traveling for a number of years, at an ever growing rate of speed, the odds start catching up with you.
I wouldn't say slim odds. The larger you make the sail, the more likely it is some rock is gonna hit it. Any significant sail used for any significant time is going to get hit many times. And the effect will be... unnoticeable. Oddly enough, when you have a few square kilometers of surface area, a hole the size of a tiny pebble subtracts a very tiny percentage of your operational surface area. And sunlight is not known for its ability to rip things apart once they develop a small tear or hole.
Captain Obvious to the rescue! XD
You'll also notice that the second planetary body in the picture (why you're calling it a "photo" when it clearly isn't, I'm not sure) is not the moon...
0.0003-inch-thick? Come on, this is the 21st century. Measurements in metres (or centimetres, or millimetres, or microns, etc)
Amazing how America, the country that is so on the pace, so setting the pace, is often so behind in a few key aspects. Next you'll be telling me the speed of light in yards per second!
There is substantially less benefit from having every nation on earth use the same units of measurement (i.e. speak the same language in terms of measuring things) than there would be from having every nation on earth simply speak the same language, period. As soon as France adopts English as its official language, the United States will adopt the metric system as its official measuring system.
(Note, I'm not actually suggesting France adopt English. I'm just pointing out the bizarreness of the argument that somehow one nation is "behind" for not adopting the other's way of doing things. It's not "progress" to switch from one arbitrary means of communicating information to another equally arbitrary means, whether it's language in general or just measurements. That says... "Hey, it's the 21st century, people! Speak English for gods' sakes!")
As true as those numbers are, it ignores the fact that without people going into space, Hubble would be floating up there blind as a bat.
...and we wouldn't care, because we'd be getting perfectly good images from most if not all of the other 79 of them.
Now, the flight recorder data from numerous crashes caused by human error show the tendency of humans to panic when they think they're going to die, and when the pilot panics and pulls up the nose (because aiming your nose at the ground is precisely the kind of thing that causes mortal fears to scream loudly in your head) causing the aircraft to stall (because what the pilot really really really needed to do right then was point his nose at the ground at pick up some airspeed so the plane didn't stall) and crash and die, I'm sure you're rest smugly in heaving knowing that although you just died in a perfectly survivable situation, at least the pilot died with you (whereas you all would have lived if he hadn't been in mortal panic at the time he was required to keep a cool head and fly the plane competently rather than like someone in mortal panic).
So, do you think Sully would have pulled off a perfect water landing if he had been miles away from the cockpit?
I absolutely do, yes.
If the pilot's life isn't at risk, I just don't think he's going to have the same drive to handle an emergency.
Obviously, you have a fairly low opinion of Captain Sullenberger. I, for one, think he's a decent human being. Being a decent human being, he'd have the same drive to handle a situation competently when people's lives are on the line whether his one is one of them or not. The word for the kind of person who isn't like that is "scumbag". I know, I know, most people are scumbags, but I don't think Sully is one of them. I suspect he actually cares if another human being lives or dies, even if it's not himself. Hence, "decent human being", and thus the kind of person would have the same drive to land a plane safely whether he was on it or not, unless there was no one at all on it -- might not show the same concern for a UPS cargo plane if it was completely automated with no human beings at all on board, but if there are person on board, assuming he's a decent human being, then yes, he would.
He's not going to have all the visual, auditory, and tactile, information a human in the pilot's seat is going to have either.
You mean those things that train pilots learn to ignore and trust what the instruments say, since they won't completely fuck up your perception of the situation the way all that other stuff will? Most crashes caused by human error are caused by people relying on those things, rather than looking at their bloody instruments. The instruments know which way is up, forget what your fucking inner ear is telling you. Humans did not evolve to fly airplanes. Your fucking inner ear is a fucking liar.
Sometimes you need the reflexes of a well trained human being whose life is on the line.
Sully didn't save the day by having good reflexes. Sully saved the day by having good judgment and a cool head in a crisis. It's a testament to how good he is that he kept this while his life was on the line, but for most people it's actually easier to keep a cool head when they aren't in imminent mortal danger. This is why some pilots stall their airplanes and crash them, killing themselves and everyone else onboard, when the nose dips because the automatic stall prevention system points the nose down to pick up airspeed to keep air moving over the wings. Mortal fear bloody well kills them.
Whoa, the airwaves are already crowded enough. Now you want them to carve out enough spectrum to get all the information needed to fly the plane remotely?
Is these some reason you think this isn't a trivial task? It doesn't take a library of congress per jiffy to transmit relevant flight data.
Expensive compared to what? I spent more on a Dell R610 and an ESX license this morning than the average annual salary of a commercial airline pilot. Burger king pays more for its night shift supervisors...
Expensive compared to $0. Assuming roughly equivalent equipment costs (and that is a fair assumption in this case), one employee costs more than no employee.
Are there businesses where payroll isn't the largest expense? There may be, but I've never seen one. Given the nature of airlines, maybe they spend more money per year on fuel than on salaries, payroll taxes, and associated human resource costs. But if I had to place a bet, I'd bet not.
Also keep in mind that what a company pays to an employee is only part of what it pays for the employee, often (if not usually) less than half of it.
It would also make being a pilot a more bearable because a pilot could simple hand over the controls to another pilot after an 8-hour shift and go home to his family.
It goes beyond that, even. The planes will probably be robotically piloted rather than remotely piloted for most of the flight. The remote pilot will only "log in" to the aircraft at take-off and landing, and skip the long, boring stretches. So, not only a normal workday shift, but one spent overseeing the actually engaging parts of the flight and avoiding the long, mind-numbingly boring parts. It sounds like it might even be a fun job, albeit one where one pilot lands a few dozen planes a day, rather than requiring a few dozen pilots to do it, thus making it a much rarer job filled by a much smaller workforce. Of course, by "landing", frankly that will probably mostly consist of watching the planes land themselves and only taking control if things are looking tricky for some reason, so maybe pretty boring after all...
It should be noted that your retired pilots no doubt worked (or at least started working) during the day when unions actually had some power. People starting today, it hardly matters whether they're union or not.
2001 jokes? Let's take this a little more seriously...
Good idea...
Looks as though someone's been paid off to get the ball rolling. Special interest groups, perhaps? ...
Oh, sorry, I thought you were serious about being more serious for a moment there. XD
moar tinfoil plz kthxbai
Apple - copy everyone else, claim it's revolutionary.
It's revolutionary when someone else fails to start a revolution with their idea and it just languishes until you take it up and start a revolution in the industry with it.
Didn't they work out some sort of agreement for Apple using the name? I wonder if the same agreement (if there was one) would also cover using iOS?