What is Microsoft going to do next? Windows 12, Windows 13, etc., up through Windows 29, and then skip to Windows 40 because Windows 3.x apps checked for version 3?
Though there's also "NT4" and "Windows 2000" to consider here.
Any software old enough to care about Win9x is software that Microsoft does not care about supporting on Windows 9.
Even if it does exist it would probably misidentity as "Windows 1".
Only if they orbit solar power satellites. Part time power is silly."
That eliminates the random element. But the power output will still be "part time" due to the Earth being in the way for about half the time. Only a geostationary orbit will not require any kind of tracking. A geosynchronous orbit creates a North-South ground track. (The article dosn't even mention Indonesia, BTW). Any other orbit is going to create a complex ground track requiring "handover" and possibly multiple satellites in the same orbit. There's also the issue of how do you create such a satellite which isn't capable to being used as a weapons grade maser.
Build 100 1000 megawatt fission plants and be done with it.
Which is something we already know how to do. Including designs which can be throttled and produce little long term radioactive waste.As well as designs which could be developed if money wasn't being squandered on wind and solar.
Generation and power delivery need to be separate, so you pay to have grid tie and pay for power delivery. You can also sell your power back at some rate that the market will bear.
The structure of the grid depends very much on the kind of power plants used though. In terms of are they generating full time or part time. If that latter is it to a schedule or effectivly random.
That's actually a really good point. If you want to get access to sensitive locations, get hired onto the work crew. Want a key to the CEO's office? Become a janitor.
Cleaners and janitors are a known known issue with physical security. So this is unlikely to work with the likes of the NSA:)
No, but commercial aircraft in high traffic areas tend to have TCAS and similar to alert them to traffic, and if on a proper clearance won't run into anyone anyway.
IIRC there are plenty of places where TCAS is mandatory. Even for light aircraft which intend to use that airspace.
Believe it or not, there are other people who stop planes from running into "each other". They're called "pilots". Actual human beings who control the airplanes and where they go.
They also tend to have a direct personal interest in planes not colliding too. They are also not obliged to follow ATC either. There are rules specifically indicating that if ATC and TCAS are in conflict to follow TCAS.
Though a pilot might have to answer to all sorts of people afterwards if they said "unable" without a good reason.
Now, what happens when a nutter cuts the cable going out of the building, or sets it afire? Yeah, it has a serious impact.
Where there is malicious action that can easily circumvent "redundancy". Especially where this involves "insiders" who can know which parts of systems are the least redundant. Since redundant systems are generally intended to be so against random damage.
Not even barring inclement weather. The navigation aids were not impacted by this, only center. Departure and approach were still functional, too. Get an IFR clearance and fly it. You don't have to talk to a center to do that.
It's the getting the clearance which is the issue. Because of the problem the FAA might reject your flight plan. If the flight is effectivly a charter by the FAA then that isn't likely to happen.
The problem is, we are trying to adapt CFLs to Incandescent sockets.
Not always too well, since the result can be a a bad fit. Sometimes even a lamp which can't fit in the fixture.
The CFLs you're getting have about the cheapest ballasts that can be made in them and the airflow through them is awful. In an ideal setup you'd have these ballasts elsewhere... where they can remain cool.
Which is how "classic" florescent fittings work. With the ballast typically nowhere near the lamp.
LED stands for Light Emitting Diode. So they can be fed AC and illuminate. One way of making a tri-colour LED is to connect a red and a green one in anti-parallel within the same package. Result DC one way red, DC the other way green, AC yellow (actually the illusion of yellow due to presistance of vision).
None of the LEDs in this house have failed so far (after close to three years since installation), so I have no reason to expect that they won't last the rated lifetime.
I've seen one fail. But it looks like it was some of the electronics driving the lamps which literally "went up in smoke".
What killed the plane for commercial service is the same thing that killed every other tri-jet. Third Engine meant higher costs both in terms of fuel and maintenance.
There's also the costs of requiring 3 cockpit crew. Unless converted to an MD-10.
Fundamental problem with DC-10 was the poor management. They made a stupid decision to make the cargo door open outward. Designed a complex locking arrangment using pins to be done by the cargo handlers. If not properly locked, the door flies off.
Outward opening cargo doors are common on widebodied aircraft. N4713U, performing flight UA 811, was a 741.
Even though the locking mechanism used by Douglas was different from that of Boeing both contained design flaws.
Added to that the airlines were using some home grown procedure to dismount and remount engines. Recommended process called for removing some 198 bolts. Airliners detached three loading pins on the pylon. In the process damaged the pylon. They had the engine on a fork lift truck while someone shouted directions trying to slide in the loading pin. The mistake was by the airlines. DC-10 paid the price for it.
Here too you can find similar problems with both the DC-10 and B747. American Airlines 191 and El Al 1862
Greenwashing is done with signs and advertisements, not with millions of dollars and heavy equipment investments.
The likes of "biofuels" and "renewable" electricity generation can involve vast amounts of money and plant. Yet be useless, even counterproductive, assuming a goal of reducing fossil fuel usage. So the idea that "greenwashing" cannot involve these is false.
The credible way out of the problem of burning fossil fuels is to replace as many energy sources as possible with renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc.).
Wind and solar are not especially credible energy sources. Except for specific niche applications, possibly excluding this one. Geothermal and hydro require rather specific geography with hydro often being opposed by "greenies". With the most effective and most truely "renewable" option being even more strongly opposed by the "greenies".
It's usually easy to tell whether a driver involved in an accident was texting and the penalties can be stiff (including manslaughter or vehicular homicide).
Should there actually be special laws along the lines of "vehicular homicide" especially given that they potentially allow someone to literally "get away with murder".
if you want to save money and take a risk with a cab that doesn't have inspections, why should the government butt in?
again, consenting adults not small children that need a nanny to watch over them.
On the other hand there dosn't appear to be much interst in regulating "school runs".
The anti-salt propaganda has as much basis as the "wisdom" of drinking eight glasses of water a day. It became a thing everyone "knows" is true without questioning if there is any factual support.
Much the same is true of the various versions of "five a day".
Nobody has ever demonstrated a mechanism for how salt intake causes heart disease. All you ever get is a lot of hand waving and vague statistics collected from people who already have advanced CV disease.
Not just with salt, when it comes to CVD. Dosn't help either that many of the people involved have no excuse for not knowing the difference between a lipoprotein and a steroid either.
Slashdot Mirror
What is Microsoft going to do next? Windows 12, Windows 13, etc., up through Windows 29, and then skip to Windows 40 because Windows 3.x apps checked for version 3?
Though there's also "NT4" and "Windows 2000" to consider here.
Any software old enough to care about Win9x is software that Microsoft does not care about supporting on Windows 9.
Even if it does exist it would probably misidentity as "Windows 1".
Only if they orbit solar power satellites. Part time power is silly."
That eliminates the random element. But the power output will still be "part time" due to the Earth being in the way for about half the time. Only a geostationary orbit will not require any kind of tracking. A geosynchronous orbit creates a North-South ground track. (The article dosn't even mention Indonesia, BTW). Any other orbit is going to create a complex ground track requiring "handover" and possibly multiple satellites in the same orbit. There's also the issue of how do you create such a satellite which isn't capable to being used as a weapons grade maser.
Build 100 1000 megawatt fission plants and be done with it.
Which is something we already know how to do. Including designs which can be throttled and produce little long term radioactive waste.As well as designs which could be developed if money wasn't being squandered on wind and solar.
Generation and power delivery need to be separate, so you pay to have grid tie and pay for power delivery. You can also sell your power back at some rate that the market will bear.
The structure of the grid depends very much on the kind of power plants used though. In terms of are they generating full time or part time. If that latter is it to a schedule or effectivly random.
That's actually a really good point. If you want to get access to sensitive locations, get hired onto the work crew. Want a key to the CEO's office? Become a janitor.
:)
Cleaners and janitors are a known known issue with physical security. So this is unlikely to work with the likes of the NSA
Parent has seen all the proof he needs in "Die Hard II".
This fiction. Mythbusters managed to inadvertantly "bust" the ending too.
No, but commercial aircraft in high traffic areas tend to have TCAS and similar to alert them to traffic, and if on a proper clearance won't run into anyone anyway.
IIRC there are plenty of places where TCAS is mandatory. Even for light aircraft which intend to use that airspace.
Believe it or not, there are other people who stop planes from running into "each other". They're called "pilots". Actual human beings who control the airplanes and where they go.
They also tend to have a direct personal interest in planes not colliding too. They are also not obliged to follow ATC either. There are rules specifically indicating that if ATC and TCAS are in conflict to follow TCAS. Though a pilot might have to answer to all sorts of people afterwards if they said "unable" without a good reason.
You might as well be the person in the back yelling "WHY AREN'T WE TAKING OFF" after a blown tire and abort near V1.
Or even the one in the back of the plane behind the one now stuck half way down the runway until all the wheels on the MLG are changed.
Now, what happens when a nutter cuts the cable going out of the building, or sets it afire? Yeah, it has a serious impact.
Where there is malicious action that can easily circumvent "redundancy". Especially where this involves "insiders" who can know which parts of systems are the least redundant. Since redundant systems are generally intended to be so against random damage.
Not even barring inclement weather. The navigation aids were not impacted by this, only center. Departure and approach were still functional, too. Get an IFR clearance and fly it. You don't have to talk to a center to do that.
It's the getting the clearance which is the issue. Because of the problem the FAA might reject your flight plan. If the flight is effectivly a charter by the FAA then that isn't likely to happen.
loyalty side effects may occur (aka you get what you pay for)
There are also highly paid (possibly overpaid) people who show utter contempt for their employers though.
The problem is, we are trying to adapt CFLs to Incandescent sockets.
Not always too well, since the result can be a a bad fit. Sometimes even a lamp which can't fit in the fixture.
The CFLs you're getting have about the cheapest ballasts that can be made in them and the airflow through them is awful. In an ideal setup you'd have these ballasts elsewhere... where they can remain cool.
Which is how "classic" florescent fittings work. With the ballast typically nowhere near the lamp.
LED is DC, and it needs regulated DC.
LED stands for Light Emitting Diode. So they can be fed AC and illuminate. One way of making a tri-colour LED is to connect a red and a green one in anti-parallel within the same package. Result DC one way red, DC the other way green, AC yellow (actually the illusion of yellow due to presistance of vision).
None of the LEDs in this house have failed so far (after close to three years since installation), so I have no reason to expect that they won't last the rated lifetime.
I've seen one fail. But it looks like it was some of the electronics driving the lamps which literally "went up in smoke".
Now, when you're using it as a water bomber, you're never going to pressurize the cabin, and you've likely made some other major changes.
But you will put a different set of stresses on the airframe through dumping the cargo.
What killed the plane for commercial service is the same thing that killed every other tri-jet. Third Engine meant higher costs both in terms of fuel and maintenance.
There's also the costs of requiring 3 cockpit crew. Unless converted to an MD-10.
Fundamental problem with DC-10 was the poor management. They made a stupid decision to make the cargo door open outward. Designed a complex locking arrangment using pins to be done by the cargo handlers. If not properly locked, the door flies off.
Outward opening cargo doors are common on widebodied aircraft. N4713U, performing flight UA 811, was a 741. Even though the locking mechanism used by Douglas was different from that of Boeing both contained design flaws.
Added to that the airlines were using some home grown procedure to dismount and remount engines. Recommended process called for removing some 198 bolts. Airliners detached three loading pins on the pylon. In the process damaged the pylon. They had the engine on a fork lift truck while someone shouted directions trying to slide in the loading pin. The mistake was by the airlines. DC-10 paid the price for it.
Here too you can find similar problems with both the DC-10 and B747. American Airlines 191 and El Al 1862
Specifically, tidal power period ~ 12.42 hours (in most places), wave power period ~ 15 seconds.
Wave power has the same problem as applies to wind and solar, variable with a strong random element.
This project was very successful, considering that the central purpose of all alternative-energy projects is to extract government subsidies.
Is that "alternative-energy" or "alternative to energy".
Greenwashing is done with signs and advertisements, not with millions of dollars and heavy equipment investments.
The likes of "biofuels" and "renewable" electricity generation can involve vast amounts of money and plant. Yet be useless, even counterproductive, assuming a goal of reducing fossil fuel usage. So the idea that "greenwashing" cannot involve these is false.
The credible way out of the problem of burning fossil fuels is to replace as many energy sources as possible with renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc.).
Wind and solar are not especially credible energy sources. Except for specific niche applications, possibly excluding this one. Geothermal and hydro require rather specific geography with hydro often being opposed by "greenies". With the most effective and most truely "renewable" option being even more strongly opposed by the "greenies".
It's usually easy to tell whether a driver involved in an accident was texting and the penalties can be stiff (including manslaughter or vehicular homicide).
Should there actually be special laws along the lines of "vehicular homicide" especially given that they potentially allow someone to literally "get away with murder".
if you want to save money and take a risk with a cab that doesn't have inspections, why should the government butt in? again, consenting adults not small children that need a nanny to watch over them.
On the other hand there dosn't appear to be much interst in regulating "school runs".
The fact that people aren't in the position to audit their books and look to see that they're in compliance with reasonable safety standards.
Are there no safety standards which would apply to any vehicle on Californian public roads?
The anti-salt propaganda has as much basis as the "wisdom" of drinking eight glasses of water a day. It became a thing everyone "knows" is true without questioning if there is any factual support.
Much the same is true of the various versions of "five a day".
Nobody has ever demonstrated a mechanism for how salt intake causes heart disease. All you ever get is a lot of hand waving and vague statistics collected from people who already have advanced CV disease.
Not just with salt, when it comes to CVD. Dosn't help either that many of the people involved have no excuse for not knowing the difference between a lipoprotein and a steroid either.