The issue of flying the engine over water does not have to do with interaction between the water and the engine, it has to do with the lack of places to land other than the water. If you look at commercial aviation, you can see where the standards for flying two-engine aircraft over long stretches of water has been higher than for more than two engines (EROPS and ETOPS) at least until recently. It makes sense to be more concerned about the engines when there are no suitable places to land.
With that said, IMO this is probably about politics and not the engine. This is an experimental aircraft, not a passenger carrier. Seems like a convenient excuse to shut this project down.
Apples and oranges. Single use rockets are one thing, but a single use design is another.
It would be like spending $1000 to design and build a burger completely different from anything before, and then only making one. When you spend that much on something, you would hope the fixed costs would get spread out.
On a mobile device with a walled-garden app ecosystem, the only choice is to never upgrade.
And then they have done forced upgrades in the past, making it so that you can't use the app unless you update, and there are other apps that do the same thing. I really wish Apple and Google would put a stop to it.
I think you're missing the point FireballX301 is trying to make. It's not about the languages, it's about the tools. If Apple wants to move developers to Swift for whatever reason, there are ways they could enforce that to an extent by removing support for Objective-C within their tools. Sure, there may be third-party solutions that pop up (such as Xamarin with C#), but if Apple's tools don't support Objective-C code, I think that would effectively force quite a few developers to make the change.
With that said, I doubt Apple is going to do that, at least not yet.
It only works with carry on, unless you want you checked luggage to end in LA.
Your luggage won't end up in LA because the airline is not going to put it on the flight if you aren't on it. I would imagine that it would not be a fun process to try to retrieve the luggage in SLC, however.
I actually had someone at AT&T tell me that my problems with dropped packets would go away with a faster connection. I tried explaining when I called to report the problem that it wasn't a problem of the bandwidth - that videos were loading slow - it was that the videos would just stop loading due to dropped packets and downloads would constantly fail.
Luckily, I eventually managed to talk to people who knew what they were talking about, and I do have to give them a lot of credit for having some very exceptional staff. But then there are others who only know how to read from a script and won't transfer you to someone who knows better. I get that that probably nets ISPs more money, but I think it needs to stop.
If it were me, having security escort me out would piss me off considerably more than just being laid off. Additional security isn't going to stop someone if they're belligerent enough.
I've seen some top flight engineers lose their jobs because of this type of scatter-shot layoff.
Assuming you're talking about a member of a flight crew, I'm not sure that's an apples-to-oranges comparison. FEs were layed off because they were no longer required on newer aircraft, not because of an arbitrary mandate.
The original paper doesn't seem to be about automatic banning at all; that seems to have been added to the headline and the article linked to here (and therefore the summary). The paper says this: "automatic, early identification of users who are likely to be banned in the future."
While that identification could be used for automatic banning, I think it would be more likely to be used to flag potential problem users, which could be very useful in determining which reported posts to investigate first rather than dealing with all of the "I don't like this post so I'm reporting it" instances.
Most technology is capable of being abused in the wrong hands. We don't halt R&D because of these concerns.
And I never said anything to that effect that we should (or shouldn't).
My point is exactly what I stated above: that you cannot thwart the bad without thwarting the good. That isn't to say anything about halting R&D or not halting R&D. It is to suggest that it presents a problem for the good as well as for the bad.
While I'm glad to hear they're open sourcing some technology...
[quote]on networks like Tor, where Hidden Services are protected by the privacy-enhancing, encrypted hosting, often for good, often for bad[/quote]
This is what concerns me. Just because the tool is supposedly there to find the bad doesn't mean that it can't be used to go after the good, and not just in the context of the US (though the US has proven itself perfectly willing to go after even journalists doing research into the subject: http://www.forbes.com/sites/sa...). You can't thwart the bad without thwarting the good as well.
I would say whoosh, but given we're talking about the SF340 you can't really hear the wind stream over the sound of the engines.
(I must admit I like the plane though.)
It's still an entirely valid complaint in this instance IMHO. Whether or not its news should be judged on whether or not it's new information to the public, not whether or not it's a recent occurrence. After all, things we discover about the past are in the news all the time.
I don't really care either way, but using the aggregate time is a poor measure of how it effects the experience of watching the film. Frequency is more important, because even if each instance doesn't last long, it's noticeable.
That's blatant misrepresntation of the problem and of what GP said. There's a difference between blocking completely and throttling uaing shady methods.
It should be obvious that when you rule with an iron fist, people will shy away from more serious crimes. The question is if people are really better off.
What ericloewe said. Also, I would imagine that in practice this might be used more to verify the integrity of some "mission critical" hardware rather than inspections on a massive scale.
Slashdot Mirror
The issue of flying the engine over water does not have to do with interaction between the water and the engine, it has to do with the lack of places to land other than the water. If you look at commercial aviation, you can see where the standards for flying two-engine aircraft over long stretches of water has been higher than for more than two engines (EROPS and ETOPS) at least until recently. It makes sense to be more concerned about the engines when there are no suitable places to land.
With that said, IMO this is probably about politics and not the engine. This is an experimental aircraft, not a passenger carrier. Seems like a convenient excuse to shut this project down.
Apples and oranges. Single use rockets are one thing, but a single use design is another. It would be like spending $1000 to design and build a burger completely different from anything before, and then only making one. When you spend that much on something, you would hope the fixed costs would get spread out.
On a mobile device with a walled-garden app ecosystem, the only choice is to never upgrade.
And then they have done forced upgrades in the past, making it so that you can't use the app unless you update, and there are other apps that do the same thing. I really wish Apple and Google would put a stop to it.
I think you're missing the point FireballX301 is trying to make. It's not about the languages, it's about the tools. If Apple wants to move developers to Swift for whatever reason, there are ways they could enforce that to an extent by removing support for Objective-C within their tools. Sure, there may be third-party solutions that pop up (such as Xamarin with C#), but if Apple's tools don't support Objective-C code, I think that would effectively force quite a few developers to make the change.
With that said, I doubt Apple is going to do that, at least not yet.
It only works with carry on, unless you want you checked luggage to end in LA.
Your luggage won't end up in LA because the airline is not going to put it on the flight if you aren't on it. I would imagine that it would not be a fun process to try to retrieve the luggage in SLC, however.
I actually had someone at AT&T tell me that my problems with dropped packets would go away with a faster connection. I tried explaining when I called to report the problem that it wasn't a problem of the bandwidth - that videos were loading slow - it was that the videos would just stop loading due to dropped packets and downloads would constantly fail. Luckily, I eventually managed to talk to people who knew what they were talking about, and I do have to give them a lot of credit for having some very exceptional staff. But then there are others who only know how to read from a script and won't transfer you to someone who knows better. I get that that probably nets ISPs more money, but I think it needs to stop.
If you don't plan on spending any money on the service
Read up; they're talking about a hypothetical higher limit as someone proposed, which is certainly a bit more than just "any money."
and not being able to spam the forums or invite to group chats are a no-go for you
Now you're just pulling things out of thin air.
No need to be a dickparade.
Chaining yourself to a fence and flying a helicopter at the Capitol are vastly different on the scale from harmless to harmful.
That's complete nonsense. Considering nobody was harmed in either of these instances, both seem to fall under "harmless."
If it were me, having security escort me out would piss me off considerably more than just being laid off. Additional security isn't going to stop someone if they're belligerent enough.
I've seen some top flight engineers lose their jobs because of this type of scatter-shot layoff.
Assuming you're talking about a member of a flight crew, I'm not sure that's an apples-to-oranges comparison. FEs were layed off because they were no longer required on newer aircraft, not because of an arbitrary mandate.
The original paper doesn't seem to be about automatic banning at all; that seems to have been added to the headline and the article linked to here (and therefore the summary). The paper says this: "automatic, early identification of users who are likely to be banned in the future."
While that identification could be used for automatic banning, I think it would be more likely to be used to flag potential problem users, which could be very useful in determining which reported posts to investigate first rather than dealing with all of the "I don't like this post so I'm reporting it" instances.
Most technology is capable of being abused in the wrong hands. We don't halt R&D because of these concerns.
And I never said anything to that effect that we should (or shouldn't). My point is exactly what I stated above: that you cannot thwart the bad without thwarting the good. That isn't to say anything about halting R&D or not halting R&D. It is to suggest that it presents a problem for the good as well as for the bad.
While I'm glad to hear they're open sourcing some technology... [quote]on networks like Tor, where Hidden Services are protected by the privacy-enhancing, encrypted hosting, often for good, often for bad[/quote] This is what concerns me. Just because the tool is supposedly there to find the bad doesn't mean that it can't be used to go after the good, and not just in the context of the US (though the US has proven itself perfectly willing to go after even journalists doing research into the subject: http://www.forbes.com/sites/sa...). You can't thwart the bad without thwarting the good as well.
I would say whoosh, but given we're talking about the SF340 you can't really hear the wind stream over the sound of the engines. (I must admit I like the plane though.)
It's still an entirely valid complaint in this instance IMHO. Whether or not its news should be judged on whether or not it's new information to the public, not whether or not it's a recent occurrence. After all, things we discover about the past are in the news all the time.
I don't really care either way, but using the aggregate time is a poor measure of how it effects the experience of watching the film. Frequency is more important, because even if each instance doesn't last long, it's noticeable.
That's blatant misrepresntation of the problem and of what GP said. There's a difference between blocking completely and throttling uaing shady methods.
Don't breathe this...
Don't forget about "chemtrails."
Thankfully, most RTOs don't result in people going up in flames. It's still a relative non-event.
"People have it worse in X so we shouldn't be concerned about problem Y" is not even the least bit constructive.
It should be obvious that when you rule with an iron fist, people will shy away from more serious crimes. The question is if people are really better off.
What ericloewe said. Also, I would imagine that in practice this might be used more to verify the integrity of some "mission critical" hardware rather than inspections on a massive scale.
Well, the turnstyle is about all that's missing from the "Welcome to City 17" experience...