The problem is, none of the evidence supports you at all - even the first officer on that flight didn't back up the pilots version of events.
Put simply - there have been 3,572 A320s built to date and continues to be one of the fastest selling passenger jets of all time, if there was a problem with their control system then where is the evidence? Where is the lack of confidence? Where is the customer doubt?
Also, the fact that Airbus has taken on other significant Airworthiness Directives without an issue casts extreme doubt on your conspiracy theory.
Correct - the Habsheim crash was caused by pilot stupidity in that he was both below the visible height of surrounding obstacles, and had brought the throttles back to idle. Engines take some time to come back from idle to 'take off - go around' thrust (TOGA), and he applied that thrust far too late.
There have been no crashes attributed to the Airbus flight control system software, and Airbus doesn't depend on flight control software any more than Boeing - both the 777 and the 787 are fully fly by wire.
1440x900 is fine for a lot of what I do, but when I'm shelling out £1,400 on a laptop, I want something with a better resolution - I can get better resolution screens on Dells a 1/4 of that price (I know I know, no contest...).
The problem with these screens is not what they are made of, or whether they are gloss or matt, its their resolution. Not one of Apples laptops had a bump in screen resolution with these announcements, the 15.4" Pros *still* suffer with 1440x900 when most people are looking for 1600x1050 minimum these days. I won't be buying another Apple laptop until the screen resolutions get a decent bump, thats for sure.
Uhm, Exchange 2003 at least certainly works with FireFox - I use it daily. It may not be as rich as the environment you get with IE, but it certainly is perfectly usable.
The Scottish legal system may indeed be separate, but the patent system is not - and a Scottish court can still use precedent set in a court of England and Wales to reach their own rulings.
Yes, as I said, its a common misapprehension, one which is often thrown against Airbus in a discussion to prove that Boeing is 'better' in their approach. In most cases the way to overrule the computer is the same as the Boeing - disconnect the autothrottle or continued pressure on the control column etc. You can even disconnect the Airbus safety measures entirely (not sure about the Boeing approach to this).
A significant proportion of Virgin Medias broadband customer base is infact nothing more than wholesale BT ADSL - Virgin Medias cabled area is relatively small.
Which makes their recent adverts comparing ADSL speeds to their cabled offering rather amusing, not often a company pays money to diss their customers on prime time TV...
You aren't misreading at all, but you are acting under a misapprehension (but one that is fairly common) - an Airbus limit is not final either, you (the pilot) can indeed overrule the flight control systems decisions at any point.
The Captain was not backed up by his First Officer, which is extremely indicative in the circumstances. Also, no on 'swiped' the original FDR, it was removed by Air France and Airbus before being handed over to the Police. There have been many conspiracy theories regarding the crash, but none of them have ever been proven - the pilot went to court many times over this and lost every time.
Also, there has never been any proof that the (as you say, known about) defect in the FADEC had any bearing on this incident.
The bug bear I have about this case is that everyone seems to instantly use it as a 'omg, Airbus aircraft are sooooo unsafe, the planes overrule the pilots!' discussion point, and invariably never have the correct story.
Again, same old same old - the Habsheim Air France A320 crash was not caused by the aircraft software, it was caused by the pilot being an idiot.
The fly by was switched to a different runway minutes before it was due to take place, the pilot reduced engine thrust to idle and descended the plane below the height of surrounding obstacles. He then attempted to apply thrust too late, and even modern jet engines cannot come up from idle to TOGA (take off, go around) thrust instantly, so he was caught out by the several second lag between the thrust level he was at and the thrust level he wanted.
On the difference between Airbus and Boeing, both have alpha floor protection, which means both aircraft will take action to stave off a stall.
Pretty much every law is 'enforced' by the public, including the laws that say you can leave your car in the public car park and be reasonably sure it will still be there after 8 hours. Copyright is no exception.
Partially correct - in the UK, you can petition the court to be awarded costs, and the Judge can award you anywhere from 0% to 100%. You can certainly win and still have costs to pay at the end of it.
Yes, there are no restrictions on the Express editions in that regard - you are more than welcome to develop and distribute commercial software built with the Express Edition versions.
From their Express Editions FAQ:
# Can I use Express Editions for commercial use?
Yes, there are no licensing restrictions for applications built using Visual Studio Express Editions.
That seems like a hell of a lot of work to actually do, considering MS already has a pretty good AJAX library thats well integrated into the development platform.
Without Mono there would have been two options:
a) Pony up to MS to develop in.NET
b) Don't do the business.
neither of which are particularly appealing.
Mono allows competition and competition is good.
You can download the entire.Net framework and compilers free of charge from Microsoft, and you can get cut down versions of the VS IDE as well (or you can use SharpDevelop). In short, you most certainly can get started (and infact progress as far as you wish) in.Net development without ponying up anything to MS.
Mono is still good, however - I'm not disputing that.
Well, to be honest the entire GUI platform across the board has pretty much stagnated in the past 8 years (and 'across the board' includes OSX and the various Linux desktop environments) - there hasn't been anything revolutionary that I can immediately think of that would make XP defunct with regard to the desktop, there is no fantastic new way of doing things.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, none of the evidence supports you at all - even the first officer on that flight didn't back up the pilots version of events.
Put simply - there have been 3,572 A320s built to date and continues to be one of the fastest selling passenger jets of all time, if there was a problem with their control system then where is the evidence? Where is the lack of confidence? Where is the customer doubt?
Also, the fact that Airbus has taken on other significant Airworthiness Directives without an issue casts extreme doubt on your conspiracy theory.
A lot of the problems in recent months have been on Boeing aircraft...
Correct - the Habsheim crash was caused by pilot stupidity in that he was both below the visible height of surrounding obstacles, and had brought the throttles back to idle. Engines take some time to come back from idle to 'take off - go around' thrust (TOGA), and he applied that thrust far too late.
There have been no crashes attributed to the Airbus flight control system software, and Airbus doesn't depend on flight control software any more than Boeing - both the 777 and the 787 are fully fly by wire.
1440x900 is fine for a lot of what I do, but when I'm shelling out £1,400 on a laptop, I want something with a better resolution - I can get better resolution screens on Dells a 1/4 of that price (I know I know, no contest...).
The problem with these screens is not what they are made of, or whether they are gloss or matt, its their resolution. Not one of Apples laptops had a bump in screen resolution with these announcements, the 15.4" Pros *still* suffer with 1440x900 when most people are looking for 1600x1050 minimum these days. I won't be buying another Apple laptop until the screen resolutions get a decent bump, thats for sure.
Did you intend this to go exactly to the 'Badger Badger...' tune? ;)
Uhm, Exchange 2003 at least certainly works with FireFox - I use it daily. It may not be as rich as the environment you get with IE, but it certainly is perfectly usable.
There has been a Shuttle crew with both husband and wife onboard.
The Scottish legal system may indeed be separate, but the patent system is not - and a Scottish court can still use precedent set in a court of England and Wales to reach their own rulings.
Virgin Medias cabled area covers around 3.3million UK subscribers as of 2007. BT ADSL subscribers were in the region of 6.4million in 2006.
Yes, as I said, its a common misapprehension, one which is often thrown against Airbus in a discussion to prove that Boeing is 'better' in their approach. In most cases the way to overrule the computer is the same as the Boeing - disconnect the autothrottle or continued pressure on the control column etc. You can even disconnect the Airbus safety measures entirely (not sure about the Boeing approach to this).
A significant proportion of Virgin Medias broadband customer base is infact nothing more than wholesale BT ADSL - Virgin Medias cabled area is relatively small.
Which makes their recent adverts comparing ADSL speeds to their cabled offering rather amusing, not often a company pays money to diss their customers on prime time TV...
You aren't misreading at all, but you are acting under a misapprehension (but one that is fairly common) - an Airbus limit is not final either, you (the pilot) can indeed overrule the flight control systems decisions at any point.
The Captain was not backed up by his First Officer, which is extremely indicative in the circumstances. Also, no on 'swiped' the original FDR, it was removed by Air France and Airbus before being handed over to the Police. There have been many conspiracy theories regarding the crash, but none of them have ever been proven - the pilot went to court many times over this and lost every time.
Also, there has never been any proof that the (as you say, known about) defect in the FADEC had any bearing on this incident.
The bug bear I have about this case is that everyone seems to instantly use it as a 'omg, Airbus aircraft are sooooo unsafe, the planes overrule the pilots!' discussion point, and invariably never have the correct story.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jHTjCdqdLNQC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&source=web&ots=x1R9fMr28Q&sig=BbAWUCkJiqgRv78cbGLtuycnf8I&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA47,M1
Again, same old same old - the Habsheim Air France A320 crash was not caused by the aircraft software, it was caused by the pilot being an idiot.
The fly by was switched to a different runway minutes before it was due to take place, the pilot reduced engine thrust to idle and descended the plane below the height of surrounding obstacles. He then attempted to apply thrust too late, and even modern jet engines cannot come up from idle to TOGA (take off, go around) thrust instantly, so he was caught out by the several second lag between the thrust level he was at and the thrust level he wanted.
On the difference between Airbus and Boeing, both have alpha floor protection, which means both aircraft will take action to stave off a stall.
Pretty much every law is 'enforced' by the public, including the laws that say you can leave your car in the public car park and be reasonably sure it will still be there after 8 hours. Copyright is no exception.
Partially correct - in the UK, you can petition the court to be awarded costs, and the Judge can award you anywhere from 0% to 100%. You can certainly win and still have costs to pay at the end of it.
From their Express Editions FAQ:
http://www.microsoft.com/express/support/faq/
;)
It took me all of 32 seconds to hunt down that FAQ page, so your research must not have been much at all...
That seems like a hell of a lot of work to actually do, considering MS already has a pretty good AJAX library thats well integrated into the development platform.
Then you would probably prefer ADO.Net Entities. Something new in .Net 3.5 SP1.
Without Mono there would have been two options: a) Pony up to MS to develop in .NET
b) Don't do the business.
neither of which are particularly appealing.
Mono allows competition and competition is good.
You can download the entire .Net framework and compilers free of charge from Microsoft, and you can get cut down versions of the VS IDE as well (or you can use SharpDevelop). In short, you most certainly can get started (and infact progress as far as you wish) in .Net development without ponying up anything to MS.
Mono is still good, however - I'm not disputing that.
Well, to be honest the entire GUI platform across the board has pretty much stagnated in the past 8 years (and 'across the board' includes OSX and the various Linux desktop environments) - there hasn't been anything revolutionary that I can immediately think of that would make XP defunct with regard to the desktop, there is no fantastic new way of doing things.
He ran out of altitude.
Covers just about all eventualities...