The Soyuz is designed for long duration missions. What I'm talking about here is endurance. The Soyuz TMA configuration can stay at the station for 6 months and operate as a lifeboat because it was designed for that. Boeing is specifically saying their vehicle will not.
I find it interesting that the vehicle is being designed for short duration missions. Is Boeing prematurely bowing out of the upcoming lifeboat competition?
What people imagine and what the FAA allows are almost always two different things. What I don't understand is people who assume the only thing possible is what they saw in sci-fi.
Get creative. Consider the possibility of a runway parallel to a highway.. the tower clears you for landing, after landing on the runway you continue taxiing onto the highway and merge, then the next pilot can be cleared to land. Similarly for takeoffs, but perhaps with a traffic calming on-ramp to the runway.
I read down a little more and saw that, yeah. 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.
you don't have to have a medical exam to fly this fucking contraption. If I can't pass my medical I cannot even fly a Cessna 150 which weighs in at about the same as this thing does.
Really? Is there some special exception to the law which you could refer me to which excludes pilots from the medical requirements for this vehicle but not for the vehicle you mentioned? What's the criteria?
Using current systems? sure. But as the Aeronautics part of NASA has been saying for years, flight traffic control needs a massive upgrade. It's coming and it could handle that kind of load.
Even if everyone got a pilot's license, I don't trust normal people with that kind of responsibility.
Pilots are normal people... What responsibility don't you want to trust them with? Do you mean we shouldn't trust pilots to fly near your house? We don't.
Let me just ask this question: Do you oppose people getting pilot's licenses and flying their own plane? Does it matter how many people do it? Does it matter whether or not the plane can also drive on the freeway?
If the answer is no, then it sounds like you're just saying you object to relaxing regulations which prohibit flying near buildings, in which case I've gotta ask: who suggested we should?
Which would basically mean they are restricted to the airport, and designated airways.
Yeah, and if drivable planes were widespread and popular there would most likely be a lot more designated locations where you could take off and land from.. with proper clearance from a tower.
I was trying to understand what his point was.. sometimes that involves suggesting that someone said something they didn't so they can clarify. I think I made it clear that he *didn't* say any of the things I suggested.
Not to disparage your opinion of the average person's flying ability as I'm sure most of us would agree with that, but..
I don't understand where this attitude came from that because you anticipate someone, some day, may crash into your house that you would ban anyone, ever, from having a flying vehicle. I know that's not precisely what you're saying, but I don't understand how you imagine a ban on these vehicles would actually work. For example, if you're suggesting that no-one should be able to fly one of these vehicles without first obtaining a pilot's license then I would say ok, no problem, couldn't agree with you more.. but I don't think you are. I think what you're saying is that you don't want there to be a populous movement to acquire a pilot's license as that will somehow make flying more dangerous. Or, maybe, you're saying that no aircraft should be allowed to fly near your house... but I find that a terribly strange position to take because there's already laws against that..
So, uhhh.. could you maybe clarify what exactly it is you're opposed to and what action you imagine should (or shouldn't) be taken to prevent it?
I know a lot of geeks who are going to watch the Stanislav Petrov retelling and groan because it's such a cliche anecdote, so I'm glad you hadn't heard it and so didn't have that response:)
What you may have missed is that the specialist they brought in seems to be based on Bob Zubrin, head of the Mars society, except this guy seems a lot more personable:)
Targeting an audience of people who's fundamental demographic factor is that they don't like paying for stuff was probably a bad idea for a donation funded show.
You forgot person 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 who have all asked the same question and the answer is more like: the color of the sky depends on your location and the time of day, I recommend you wait until the sky is clear and then go out and TAKE A FUCKING LOOK FOR YOURSELF, but until then....
Having person 9, 10, 11, and 12 ask the same question AGAIN is not productive.
I prefer to think the honesty age is about to begin.. instead of going to a store, plonking down money, buying a physical product and then having the publisher say "oh no no, you don't own that" we will finally have a legitimate pay-for-service that if I don't like it I can stop paying for it. That said, OnLive's current business model is really shit: base subscription + one-off payments for access to each individual game.. but hopefully that will go away eventually and we'll get a straight all-you-can-eat model, if not from OnLive then from some other competitor.
Are you getting tired yet about people asking you about lag and OnLive? [laughs]
SP: I am. So, the other thing is we're going to be putting out facts. There's a lot of misconceptions about latency. It's a brand new technology, and it's fair for people to ask. We're going to need to understand this, right.
For example, we've measured monitors that have 80 milliseconds of latency. The monitor. [laughs] In fact, we spoke to that monitor manufacturer, who will remain nameless [laughs], and they understood what we were doing. They got excited about it, and they came out with a new line of monitors that have 9 milliseconds of latency. They're some of the best monitors out there now, okay.
So, people just don't think about it. But you know, if you have an 80 millisecond monitor, anything you're playing on it, a local game, you're going to see some lag in a local game. But people don't think about it because they figure, "Okay, it's local, so lag is not on my agenda to thing about."
Some of the mice you can get that are 15 milliseconds of latency, or you can get mice with 1 millisecond of latency, you know what I mean. It's a huge swing. So, what we're going to do is put the facts. We're going to say, "Look. Here are the kind of things that introduce latency. Please let us know. If you're going to be on a lagging experience, come tell us. Tell us what your system is so we can go and try to test that equipment."
Then what we're going to try to do is put up a list of different equipment and how we've measured it. Not every laptop, but most laptops have pretty low latency screens. So, you know, again, not every trackpad, but trackpads are probably not the best thing to use for gaming. But nonetheless, at least it's built in, and there's a good chance the latency is not too bad on it, right. So, give that a go before you kind of condemn the whole system. [laughs]
These are things that we need to educate people on. The bottom line is this: if you have a good connection to OnLive and your gear is low latency, you have a low latency experience. It works. It really does. It's never going to be low latency as having the exact same computer capability locally, right. I think that's an obvious thing, right. There's a load of latency introduced by the internet.
But the thing that we need to get across to people is that the latency is not exactly what you expected. Sometimes the latency is actually not the internet. Most of the latency is in the last mile. Actually, most of the latency, if you don't have optimal equipment, is in your gear, your monitor, and your mouse. And then the next place you look is in the last mile. And actually, the third place you look is in the internet.
.. and? Are you saying free speech shouldn't be guaranteed? or are you saying that this is a gross oversight? or are you just providing a helpful fact thereby enabling you to participate in the conversation while sitting on the fence?
I don't think you guys get what the bug is.... in Internet Explorer you can enter a special url that can open help files and run scripts which can contain commands to execute arbitrary code. The solution is trivial: disable the crud in IE that does that. If that's too hard, disable the service which passes the request from IE to the help file launcher. If that's too hard, disable the arbitrary code execution from help files (fucking duh!).
So why didn't Microsoft push out that command via Windows Update as soon as the bug was reported? They have the power to prevent a single user from being attacked by this vector, why didn't they? They could even make the message more informative.
Slashdot Mirror
There's lots going on, you might wanna pay attention.
The Soyuz is designed for long duration missions. What I'm talking about here is endurance. The Soyuz TMA configuration can stay at the station for 6 months and operate as a lifeboat because it was designed for that. Boeing is specifically saying their vehicle will not.
I find it interesting that the vehicle is being designed for short duration missions. Is Boeing prematurely bowing out of the upcoming lifeboat competition?
http://quantumg.blogspot.com/2010/06/lifeboat-politics.html
What people imagine and what the FAA allows are almost always two different things. What I don't understand is people who assume the only thing possible is what they saw in sci-fi.
Get creative. Consider the possibility of a runway parallel to a highway.. the tower clears you for landing, after landing on the runway you continue taxiing onto the highway and merge, then the next pilot can be cleared to land. Similarly for takeoffs, but perhaps with a traffic calming on-ramp to the runway.
Ahh.. then that makes perfect sense. Thank you for explaining it.
I read down a little more and saw that, yeah. 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.
you don't have to have a medical exam to fly this fucking contraption. If I can't pass my medical I cannot even fly a Cessna 150 which weighs in at about the same as this thing does.
Really? Is there some special exception to the law which you could refer me to which excludes pilots from the medical requirements for this vehicle but not for the vehicle you mentioned? What's the criteria?
use <quote> on Slashdot.
Using current systems? sure. But as the Aeronautics part of NASA has been saying for years, flight traffic control needs a massive upgrade. It's coming and it could handle that kind of load.
Everything you said makes sense except for this:
Even if everyone got a pilot's license, I don't trust normal people with that kind of responsibility.
Pilots are normal people... What responsibility don't you want to trust them with? Do you mean we shouldn't trust pilots to fly near your house? We don't.
Let me just ask this question: Do you oppose people getting pilot's licenses and flying their own plane? Does it matter how many people do it? Does it matter whether or not the plane can also drive on the freeway?
If the answer is no, then it sounds like you're just saying you object to relaxing regulations which prohibit flying near buildings, in which case I've gotta ask: who suggested we should?
Which would basically mean they are restricted to the airport, and designated airways.
Yeah, and if drivable planes were widespread and popular there would most likely be a lot more designated locations where you could take off and land from.. with proper clearance from a tower.
I was trying to understand what his point was.. sometimes that involves suggesting that someone said something they didn't so they can clarify. I think I made it clear that he *didn't* say any of the things I suggested.
Not to disparage your opinion of the average person's flying ability as I'm sure most of us would agree with that, but..
I don't understand where this attitude came from that because you anticipate someone, some day, may crash into your house that you would ban anyone, ever, from having a flying vehicle. I know that's not precisely what you're saying, but I don't understand how you imagine a ban on these vehicles would actually work. For example, if you're suggesting that no-one should be able to fly one of these vehicles without first obtaining a pilot's license then I would say ok, no problem, couldn't agree with you more.. but I don't think you are. I think what you're saying is that you don't want there to be a populous movement to acquire a pilot's license as that will somehow make flying more dangerous. Or, maybe, you're saying that no aircraft should be allowed to fly near your house... but I find that a terribly strange position to take because there's already laws against that..
So, uhhh.. could you maybe clarify what exactly it is you're opposed to and what action you imagine should (or shouldn't) be taken to prevent it?
I know a lot of geeks who are going to watch the Stanislav Petrov retelling and groan because it's such a cliche anecdote, so I'm glad you hadn't heard it and so didn't have that response :)
What you may have missed is that the specialist they brought in seems to be based on Bob Zubrin, head of the Mars society, except this guy seems a lot more personable :)
I used to watch that..
Targeting an audience of people who's fundamental demographic factor is that they don't like paying for stuff was probably a bad idea for a donation funded show.
Just saying.
There's a limit on how much the Russians can launch, so there's fundamental benefit to having more providers in the market.
For the US Government, there's a strong need to keep that capability in the US too.
You forgot person 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 who have all asked the same question and the answer is more like: the color of the sky depends on your location and the time of day, I recommend you wait until the sky is clear and then go out and TAKE A FUCKING LOOK FOR YOURSELF, but until then....
Having person 9, 10, 11, and 12 ask the same question AGAIN is not productive.
regardless of the answer, it has been asked and answered, asking again is just going to yield the same answers.
What I expect is the stupid questions about lag to STOP because they have been ANSWERED.
The ownership age is over.
I prefer to think the honesty age is about to begin.. instead of going to a store, plonking down money, buying a physical product and then having the publisher say "oh no no, you don't own that" we will finally have a legitimate pay-for-service that if I don't like it I can stop paying for it. That said, OnLive's current business model is really shit: base subscription + one-off payments for access to each individual game.. but hopefully that will go away eventually and we'll get a straight all-you-can-eat model, if not from OnLive then from some other competitor.
Are you getting tired yet about people asking you about lag and OnLive? [laughs]
SP: I am. So, the other thing is we're going to be putting out facts. There's a lot of misconceptions about latency. It's a brand new technology, and it's fair for people to ask. We're going to need to understand this, right.
For example, we've measured monitors that have 80 milliseconds of latency. The monitor. [laughs] In fact, we spoke to that monitor manufacturer, who will remain nameless [laughs], and they understood what we were doing. They got excited about it, and they came out with a new line of monitors that have 9 milliseconds of latency. They're some of the best monitors out there now, okay.
So, people just don't think about it. But you know, if you have an 80 millisecond monitor, anything you're playing on it, a local game, you're going to see some lag in a local game. But people don't think about it because they figure, "Okay, it's local, so lag is not on my agenda to thing about."
Some of the mice you can get that are 15 milliseconds of latency, or you can get mice with 1 millisecond of latency, you know what I mean. It's a huge swing. So, what we're going to do is put the facts. We're going to say, "Look. Here are the kind of things that introduce latency. Please let us know. If you're going to be on a lagging experience, come tell us. Tell us what your system is so we can go and try to test that equipment."
Then what we're going to try to do is put up a list of different equipment and how we've measured it. Not every laptop, but most laptops have pretty low latency screens. So, you know, again, not every trackpad, but trackpads are probably not the best thing to use for gaming. But nonetheless, at least it's built in, and there's a good chance the latency is not too bad on it, right. So, give that a go before you kind of condemn the whole system. [laughs]
These are things that we need to educate people on. The bottom line is this: if you have a good connection to OnLive and your gear is low latency, you have a low latency experience. It works. It really does. It's never going to be low latency as having the exact same computer capability locally, right. I think that's an obvious thing, right. There's a load of latency introduced by the internet.
But the thing that we need to get across to people is that the latency is not exactly what you expected. Sometimes the latency is actually not the internet. Most of the latency is in the last mile. Actually, most of the latency, if you don't have optimal equipment, is in your gear, your monitor, and your mouse. And then the next place you look is in the last mile. And actually, the third place you look is in the internet.
.. and? Are you saying free speech shouldn't be guaranteed? or are you saying that this is a gross oversight? or are you just providing a helpful fact thereby enabling you to participate in the conversation while sitting on the fence?
I don't think you guys get what the bug is.... in Internet Explorer you can enter a special url that can open help files and run scripts which can contain commands to execute arbitrary code. The solution is trivial: disable the crud in IE that does that. If that's too hard, disable the service which passes the request from IE to the help file launcher. If that's too hard, disable the arbitrary code execution from help files (fucking duh!).
That's the *reason* why there's so many flaws in the wild being exploited.. because Microsoft is completely uninterested in stopping it.
Huh? You don't need to be able to type hcp:// into your browser to get at help files.
So why didn't Microsoft push out that command via Windows Update as soon as the bug was reported? They have the power to prevent a single user from being attacked by this vector, why didn't they? They could even make the message more informative.
huh? it's a security flaw that is being exploited in the wild.. pushing out hotfixes for stuff like that is what Windows Update is for.