Its only slightly mire than a hundred years since people were saying the same thing about powered flight...
And yes, people died but we didn't stop flying. There hasn't been a year since without a single commercial passenger death, but the commercial airline business continues on just fine.
Now consider the developers who, like you, have been asking that very question but, unlike you, have until now been predominantly Windows and Visual Studio based.
Your argument works perfectly the other way round - just because it exists doesnt mean its aimed at you...
Oh wow, how original, never heard that one before, give yourself a much needed pat on the back and immediately consider yourself a top tier comedian...
VS does send certain metrics to Microsoft, this has been the case for ages, and its not hidden. But there's absolutely no evidence that VS is sending the sort of thing that you are alleging, so unless you provide some...
Remote building and debugging has been part of VS for certain targets for ages, this is nothing new. And I'm both identifying myself and calling you out. How about that?
You do realise that "remote" in this instance is you own Linux machine, right? Not a closed build server owned by Microsoft - you are asked for connection information to a Linux machine so VS can copy sources, build, run and connect the debugger.
A 30 second scan of the link in the summary would have shown that up, but that might have held up your shit posting...
What makes you think there is no engineering behind it? Just because actual metal hasn't been cut? Engineering also has a theoretical side to it as well, and this has definitely had engineering input within Airbus.
Some light aircraft do have a parachute system for last-ditch-effort crash landings, but you are heavily restricted on the weight of the aircraft and also the airspeed at which the parachute can be deployed.
Ejection systems are *heavy* and adding two ejection seats to such a concept as this would dramatically increase the lift needed, and in turn the thrust needed to generate that lift.
A commercial jet with ejection seats or an ejection capsule for the passengers simply wouldn't be economically viable - think along the lines of an economy ticket costing the same price as a first class ticket currently costs.
I'm sure I read somewhere that the extra registers are part of the processor package and not limited to 64bit use - you just need a compiler which understands how to use them in 32bit mode...
Older drivers can be forced to surrender their licenses under many different laws, without incurring any penalty points at all. So what you suggest actually already happens.
There is a reason why younger drivers have massive insurance premiums (insurance here is specific to a driver and their car - you cant simply jump in any car and be insured) - an 18 year old driver driving a 1.6 litre car could easily be quoted more than a thousand pounds for insurance. Thats because they have more risk attached to them.
If you cant see why its useful to force newer drivers to be more careful until they gain experience, then its pointless discussing this at all.
A 40 year old who just passes their test has the same restrictions and probationary period, with the same penalties.
A newer driver has less experience, less ingrained knowledge of how a car will react in situations and a different decision making process to more experienced drivers.
The probation in the UK is actually quite lax - the only real difference (aside from this new law) is you automatically lose your license if you exceed 6 penalty points (its normally 12 points).
And its a damn good idea because the most dangerous group of drivers falls into the group most affected by it - 17-19 year old boy racers.
Statistically, newer drivers have the most accidents - which is why we have a 2 year probation here in the UK, which has a lower "lose your license" limit. Other countries have similar restrictions, such as not allowing passengers etc.
Russian jet manufacturers cant compete with western quality standards, economics and support - they are well known for having poor supply chain, which hits airlines when a plane goes tech for instance.
Sorry but racism simply doesnt have anything to do with this - its pure economics. If their aircraft could compete, western airlines would be buying them in droves, simply because Airbus and Boeing cant keep up with current orders - the situation is ripe for a third major producer in the same market, the capacity in the market is there in the single aisle segment and has been for a couple of decades now, but the Tu-204 still failed.
As I said, the C-Series sits beneath the entrenched market that Airbus and Boeing compete in - the fact that the CS300 touches the low end of Airbus and Boeings products capacity wise doesnt alter that, as airline orders have been trending toward the top end of those offerings for several years.
A319NEO orders stand, to date, at just 55, with the bulk of Airbuses orders going to the A320NEO (two thirds at 3,600) and A321 (a third at 1,400).
737MAX orders are trending a similar way where airlines have identified the subtype, with the 737 MAX 7 only seeing 60 orders to date, with the rest of the orders split in a similar way to that of the Airbus products.
The C-Series simply doesnt compete in the same market.
As to a CS500, sorry but its a pipe dream. Bombardier have enough debt and issues with the CS100 and CS300, they simply cant commit to a new stretch in the next decade. They also dont have enough orders currently to break even on the current versions, and don't have an engine for anything larger so that would need more investment with an engine company.
There is also no evidence of strong arming by Airbus and Boeing - yes, Bombardier approached Airbus for investment and were denied, but neither Airbus nor Boeing have anything to gain by stopping Bombardier compete at the low end of the market. Bombardiers main competitor is Embraer and the new jets coming out of Russia (Sukhoi Superjet), China (Comac C919 and ARJ19) and Japan (MRJ). Airbus and Boeing dont want to compete in the regional jet market.
I'm confused as to how 82 orders constitutes "sold well" when it doesnt come close to breaking even, and was only bought by the usual eastern airlines. Western airlines didnt touch it for obvious reasons.
It isnt - the C-Series sits beneath the entrenched market that Boeing and Airbus dominate with the 737 and A320 series. Bombardier is really looking at the larger end of the regional jet market with the C-Series, as it just barely nibbles at the lower end of the 737 and A320 series capacities (and both Boeing and Airbus are seeing their customer base for those aircraft drift largely to the top end).
Actually the article is a load of crap - Boeing is reducing 777 production right now, is in talks to end 747 production and has scrapped a production increase in the 787 (and may indeed scrap an entire production line in the next few years).
The only aircraft seeing production rate increases at the moment (that arent related to a new program coming on line, such as the A350XWB) are the A320 series and the 737 series - those sell well more than a thousand copies each year, with production lagging sales considerably.
You do realise that the An-225 is an appallingly low tech aircraft, all it has going for it is its size. And the Ukraine basically doesnt have an aviation industry any more, as its prime buyer was Russia...
Slashdot Mirror
At least I chose one.
Right now, that is correct...
Its only slightly mire than a hundred years since people were saying the same thing about powered flight...
And yes, people died but we didn't stop flying. There hasn't been a year since without a single commercial passenger death, but the commercial airline business continues on just fine.
You don't.
Now consider the developers who, like you, have been asking that very question but, unlike you, have until now been predominantly Windows and Visual Studio based.
Your argument works perfectly the other way round - just because it exists doesnt mean its aimed at you...
Oh wow, how original, never heard that one before, give yourself a much needed pat on the back and immediately consider yourself a top tier comedian...
I'm not saying it was an impediment, just that the entire premise of the argument was bollocks - the Linux machine in question is one you supply.
VS does send certain metrics to Microsoft, this has been the case for ages, and its not hidden. But there's absolutely no evidence that VS is sending the sort of thing that you are alleging, so unless you provide some...
Remote building and debugging has been part of VS for certain targets for ages, this is nothing new. And I'm both identifying myself and calling you out. How about that?
You do realise that "remote" in this instance is you own Linux machine, right? Not a closed build server owned by Microsoft - you are asked for connection information to a Linux machine so VS can copy sources, build, run and connect the debugger.
A 30 second scan of the link in the summary would have shown that up, but that might have held up your shit posting...
What makes you think there is no engineering behind it? Just because actual metal hasn't been cut? Engineering also has a theoretical side to it as well, and this has definitely had engineering input within Airbus.
Some light aircraft do have a parachute system for last-ditch-effort crash landings, but you are heavily restricted on the weight of the aircraft and also the airspeed at which the parachute can be deployed.
Weight. Pure and simple.
Ejection systems are *heavy* and adding two ejection seats to such a concept as this would dramatically increase the lift needed, and in turn the thrust needed to generate that lift.
A commercial jet with ejection seats or an ejection capsule for the passengers simply wouldn't be economically viable - think along the lines of an economy ticket costing the same price as a first class ticket currently costs.
I'm sure I read somewhere that the extra registers are part of the processor package and not limited to 64bit use - you just need a compiler which understands how to use them in 32bit mode...
Its not Welsh, too many vowels...
Older drivers can be forced to surrender their licenses under many different laws, without incurring any penalty points at all. So what you suggest actually already happens.
There is a reason why younger drivers have massive insurance premiums (insurance here is specific to a driver and their car - you cant simply jump in any car and be insured) - an 18 year old driver driving a 1.6 litre car could easily be quoted more than a thousand pounds for insurance. Thats because they have more risk attached to them.
If you cant see why its useful to force newer drivers to be more careful until they gain experience, then its pointless discussing this at all.
A 40 year old who just passes their test has the same restrictions and probationary period, with the same penalties.
A newer driver has less experience, less ingrained knowledge of how a car will react in situations and a different decision making process to more experienced drivers.
The probation in the UK is actually quite lax - the only real difference (aside from this new law) is you automatically lose your license if you exceed 6 penalty points (its normally 12 points).
And its a damn good idea because the most dangerous group of drivers falls into the group most affected by it - 17-19 year old boy racers.
Statistically, newer drivers have the most accidents - which is why we have a 2 year probation here in the UK, which has a lower "lose your license" limit. Other countries have similar restrictions, such as not allowing passengers etc.
Russian jet manufacturers cant compete with western quality standards, economics and support - they are well known for having poor supply chain, which hits airlines when a plane goes tech for instance.
Sorry but racism simply doesnt have anything to do with this - its pure economics. If their aircraft could compete, western airlines would be buying them in droves, simply because Airbus and Boeing cant keep up with current orders - the situation is ripe for a third major producer in the same market, the capacity in the market is there in the single aisle segment and has been for a couple of decades now, but the Tu-204 still failed.
As I said, the C-Series sits beneath the entrenched market that Airbus and Boeing compete in - the fact that the CS300 touches the low end of Airbus and Boeings products capacity wise doesnt alter that, as airline orders have been trending toward the top end of those offerings for several years.
A319NEO orders stand, to date, at just 55, with the bulk of Airbuses orders going to the A320NEO (two thirds at 3,600) and A321 (a third at 1,400).
737MAX orders are trending a similar way where airlines have identified the subtype, with the 737 MAX 7 only seeing 60 orders to date, with the rest of the orders split in a similar way to that of the Airbus products.
The C-Series simply doesnt compete in the same market.
As to a CS500, sorry but its a pipe dream. Bombardier have enough debt and issues with the CS100 and CS300, they simply cant commit to a new stretch in the next decade. They also dont have enough orders currently to break even on the current versions, and don't have an engine for anything larger so that would need more investment with an engine company.
There is also no evidence of strong arming by Airbus and Boeing - yes, Bombardier approached Airbus for investment and were denied, but neither Airbus nor Boeing have anything to gain by stopping Bombardier compete at the low end of the market. Bombardiers main competitor is Embraer and the new jets coming out of Russia (Sukhoi Superjet), China (Comac C919 and ARJ19) and Japan (MRJ). Airbus and Boeing dont want to compete in the regional jet market.
I'm confused as to how 82 orders constitutes "sold well" when it doesnt come close to breaking even, and was only bought by the usual eastern airlines. Western airlines didnt touch it for obvious reasons.
It isnt - the C-Series sits beneath the entrenched market that Boeing and Airbus dominate with the 737 and A320 series. Bombardier is really looking at the larger end of the regional jet market with the C-Series, as it just barely nibbles at the lower end of the 737 and A320 series capacities (and both Boeing and Airbus are seeing their customer base for those aircraft drift largely to the top end).
No, the entire UK production side of the business was sold by BAE as part of the share buyout in 2006, and is now run under the company Airbus UK.
What Russia and China cant build is decent, fuel efficient engines - GE, P&W and Rolls Royce have that market sewn up.
Actually the article is a load of crap - Boeing is reducing 777 production right now, is in talks to end 747 production and has scrapped a production increase in the 787 (and may indeed scrap an entire production line in the next few years).
The only aircraft seeing production rate increases at the moment (that arent related to a new program coming on line, such as the A350XWB) are the A320 series and the 737 series - those sell well more than a thousand copies each year, with production lagging sales considerably.
You do realise that the An-225 is an appallingly low tech aircraft, all it has going for it is its size. And the Ukraine basically doesnt have an aviation industry any more, as its prime buyer was Russia...