There was a dramatisation of Fligth 243 filmed but as far as I know never shown, funnily enough it was filmed at Mojave. Guess you saw the dumped plane used for the ground scenes. Ever wondered how they moved the aircraft from Hawaii to Mojave intact otherwise?
Or, if a two-engine plane were to lose an engine in the middle of the ocean, that would increase drag as the plane would slip due to mismatched thrust, and might not have enough fuel to make it to land. Hopefully they plan for this, and provide enough extra fuel for this kind of emergency.
Yes they do, its called ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine Operation Performance Standards) and it governs how far a twin engined commercial airliner can be from an alternate airport at any given moment, usually in minutes and reachable on a single engine within that time. Standard ETOPS times are 180 minutes for nearly all major twin engine aircraft, including the A330 and 767, while the 777 gets 207 minutes due to uprated engines and higher safety statistics.
Private jets are excluded in the FAA jurisdiction, but must stick to 120 minutes in the JAA jurisdiction.
But yes -- pretty much most 2+ engine airplanes can maintain altitude and even climb slightly if they lose one engine in a `normal' way. (Exploding/disintegrating engines don't really count. Fortunately they're very rare.)
Again, all civilian airliners are required to be able to loose an engine on takeoff, be able to complete the takeoff and the go around without issue and land again.
Actually, depressurisation events are fairly common, as incidents go, and very survivable. United Airlines flight 811 suffered one of the worst when the front righthand cargo door opened in flight due to faulty wiring and none functional safety devices on it, at 23,000ft. The resulting depressurisation blew out most of the right hand side of the cabin before the wing and ejected a number of passengers. The aircraft landed safely. Funnily enough, this was the fourth instance of this happening, and Boeing hadnt even looked at the problem.
Uhm no, VU has nothing to do with Steam at all, thats completely Valve. If anything, this proves that Valves approach using Steam as a distyribution method was a good choice for them, and they can use it again.
No, the first day of the week is whatever your society says it is, Sunday, Monday or even Thursday. Its completely arbitrary. The UK locale has the start ofthe week set to Monday.
In certain locales, if the first day of the week is set to monday, and the first of the month falls on a sunday, its not displayed in the new NSDatePicker control in cocoa. Yup, that month officially starts on the 2nd. Immediately obvious because thats what happens for May 2005:) Reported to Apple a week ago, no action thus far.
Slashdot as a community seems to have the opinion that if the announcement of something isnt accompanied by that something straight away, then its classed as vapourware, purely because slashdot bases its opinions on the workings of the opensource community, and that is completely unfair. If I announce an opensource project, I can immediately give anon read cvs access to the tree, regardless of whether theres anything in there. Sun cant do this tho, they have announced OpenSolaris to essentially placate the calls for opensourcing any and every closed source app that has been appearing in the community, and as the article states they need time to ensure theres no legal issues with the code. If Sun hadnt announced when they did, there would still be a lot of shouting down of Sun about an opensource solaris, even if Sun was doing this work in private. At least this way people get to know whats happening.
Spaces have a way of suddenly getting a lot bigger when you arent confined to standing on one single surface. Plus the entire rear of the CEV is crew space too, not jsut the seating area at the front, tho it doesnt make that clear on the images.
How many times has the Shuttle been used to return large payloads from space - from what I can tell, never! It was sold on that idea (stealing enemy sats) but never used.
Thats the whole point, the cargo is sent up seperately, maybe in a mission pod designed to be a cargo launcher. This way, if anything goes wrong, you jetison the CEV and leave the cargo to be destroyed. On missions that dont have heavy payloads like satillites, you arent carrying all that weight of a largely empty cargo bay up. The shuttle couldnt really be reconfigured to save weight, the CEV will be.
The CEV would contain the living quarters and facilities for the crew, the mission module would be catered specifically to the mission, so you dont have to cater to the crew too much.
If people insist on going to see them regardless, then what incentive does he have to change his methodology? Many people on slashdot would go and see episode 3 if it was made from bad sock puppets and shoeboxes. Personally, I went and saw episode 1, came away disappointed and havent seen episode 2 yet, and I have no intentions of seeing episode 3 at all. I also havent bought any of the butchered 'remastered' versions of the origional trilogy for similiar reasons.
THe 'publically funded open software' is still available for you to use and build on. Microsoft has the moral right, just as you yourself do, and microsofts use of that code in no way detracts from your use of the same code. You both have the same advantages and the same starting position.
If i come across an application that I like, solves my problems, and works for me, then I will and *do* spread the word for that app and recommend it when others are looking for a similiar solution. If that app happens to be a paid for closed source project by a for profit company, then by Slashdots standards, Im being a shill.
My main experience was that the upgrade broke stuff. irssi no longer works, and it looks to be due to two bugs in the OS itself - sysconf(_SC_GETPW_R_SIZE_MAX) returns -1 rather than the correct value, and poll() changing subtly in a way that isnt yet documented (its possibly now a syscall).
Other than that -
Dashboard - love it, got lots of widgets and the best thing is, theres info widgets for places outside the US!
Spotlight - As someone said to me earlier today, Spotlight is fantastic for browsing sourcecode and source documentation, as well as all the mundane stuff.
Xcode2 - Brilliant, and finally we have a datepicker!
The Russians cannot budget enough for much more than they do now, which is why the Russians are asking NASA to get on with getting the Shuttle back up so they can resume some of the supply missions. NASA did look into funding the Russian program to a certain extent, but its forbidden from doing so because of legislation forbidding funding of states which provide support to Iran.
The one Safari feature I was looking forward too seems to be missing. Anyone know how to get Safari to scale images to the screen in the same way as IE or FF does?
Turn off the iTunes actions for audio CD insertion events in System Preferences, load up your favourite Mac audio player and listen to your hearts content. Not exactly rocket science.
What exactly is Longhorn still bringing to the table at its release? I used to look forward to Longhorn when I ran Windows, because it was supposed to contain all these new and wonderful technologies, then I got tired of waiting and.... well, my.sig says it all really.
That is true my figures for that are off, what I meant to say is that the $3.2billion tax break that Boeing gets is equal to the launch aid loans which Airbus got for the A380 ($3.7billion repayable). Now, this 'massive launch subsidies which are risk-free' thing has come up several times and is frankly ludicrous. Airbus is committed to paying back those funds once the number of hte orders received passed one quarter the number that is required for the project to break even. Since the loans only equate to 1/3rd of the cost of the project at maximum, saying they are risk free is stupid - as opposed to tax breaks which ARE risk free.
Everyone seems to overlook the fact that Boeing and the US government specifically agreed to Airbus getting these funds, and the conditions for repayment were signed off BY THOSE SAME PEOPLE. Today Boeing, the US government and a lot of anti Airbus people seem to get a bee in their bonnet over something that was agreed to previously - talk about changing stances when it suits. Airbus and the EU didnt move the goalposts or act 'illegally' in anyway, they are abiding by the very terms of the agreement that Boeing and the US government signed up to in 1992. Seems amazing that something agreed to when Boeing was the top dog now no longer stands just because Boeing is being a cry baby.
While you are at it, ask yourself why Boeing can price the 787 at $130million USD while the A350 is priced at $170million USD. Boeing farmed out much of the wing, central box section and some forward fuselage construction out to japanese manufacturers (Japanese Aircraft Development Corporation), who are getting massive state subsidies valued at $1.5billion USD and can charge Boeing pennies on the dollar for these parts. This came about because Japan wanted the technology behind the construction techniques, which the US government agreed to allow the export of for the 787 project, and the low cost parts are a 'Thankyou' to Boeing. These actions have already been deemed illegal under WTO rules by several analysts, and if the US persist in taking the Airbus to the WTO over launch aid, then Airbus already have a cut and dried case to return fire on.
Also with the 787, Kansas State has granted Boeing a $290million tax break for manufacturing contracts, and the Italian government has given Boeing $600million in incentives for contracts. Starting to sound like Boeing is getting a lot of 'Risk Free' cash for the 787 doesnt it? Airbus are required to pay back the money when a certain order point is reached, tell me when Boeing is going to repay the $5billion it received directly or indirectly during 2004?
In short, yes you guys are as bad as us guys, only theres an agreement covering all this that was created in 1992.
Slashdot Mirror
There was a dramatisation of Fligth 243 filmed but as far as I know never shown, funnily enough it was filmed at Mojave. Guess you saw the dumped plane used for the ground scenes. Ever wondered how they moved the aircraft from Hawaii to Mojave intact otherwise?
Or, if a two-engine plane were to lose an engine in the middle of the ocean, that would increase drag as the plane would slip due to mismatched thrust, and might not have enough fuel to make it to land. Hopefully they plan for this, and provide enough extra fuel for this kind of emergency.
Yes they do, its called ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine Operation Performance Standards) and it governs how far a twin engined commercial airliner can be from an alternate airport at any given moment, usually in minutes and reachable on a single engine within that time. Standard ETOPS times are 180 minutes for nearly all major twin engine aircraft, including the A330 and 767, while the 777 gets 207 minutes due to uprated engines and higher safety statistics.
Private jets are excluded in the FAA jurisdiction, but must stick to 120 minutes in the JAA jurisdiction.
But yes -- pretty much most 2+ engine airplanes can maintain altitude and even climb slightly if they lose one engine in a `normal' way. (Exploding/disintegrating engines don't really count. Fortunately they're very rare.)
Again, all civilian airliners are required to be able to loose an engine on takeoff, be able to complete the takeoff and the go around without issue and land again.
Actually, depressurisation events are fairly common, as incidents go, and very survivable. United Airlines flight 811 suffered one of the worst when the front righthand cargo door opened in flight due to faulty wiring and none functional safety devices on it, at 23,000ft. The resulting depressurisation blew out most of the right hand side of the cabin before the wing and ejected a number of passengers. The aircraft landed safely. Funnily enough, this was the fourth instance of this happening, and Boeing hadnt even looked at the problem.
Uhm no, VU has nothing to do with Steam at all, thats completely Valve. If anything, this proves that Valves approach using Steam as a distyribution method was a good choice for them, and they can use it again.
No, the first day of the week is whatever your society says it is, Sunday, Monday or even Thursday. Its completely arbitrary. The UK locale has the start ofthe week set to Monday.
In certain locales, if the first day of the week is set to monday, and the first of the month falls on a sunday, its not displayed in the new NSDatePicker control in cocoa. Yup, that month officially starts on the 2nd. Immediately obvious because thats what happens for May 2005 :) Reported to Apple a week ago, no action thus far.
Slashdot as a community seems to have the opinion that if the announcement of something isnt accompanied by that something straight away, then its classed as vapourware, purely because slashdot bases its opinions on the workings of the opensource community, and that is completely unfair. If I announce an opensource project, I can immediately give anon read cvs access to the tree, regardless of whether theres anything in there. Sun cant do this tho, they have announced OpenSolaris to essentially placate the calls for opensourcing any and every closed source app that has been appearing in the community, and as the article states they need time to ensure theres no legal issues with the code. If Sun hadnt announced when they did, there would still be a lot of shouting down of Sun about an opensource solaris, even if Sun was doing this work in private. At least this way people get to know whats happening.
Spaces have a way of suddenly getting a lot bigger when you arent confined to standing on one single surface. Plus the entire rear of the CEV is crew space too, not jsut the seating area at the front, tho it doesnt make that clear on the images.
How many times has the Shuttle been used to return large payloads from space - from what I can tell, never! It was sold on that idea (stealing enemy sats) but never used.
Thats the whole point, the cargo is sent up seperately, maybe in a mission pod designed to be a cargo launcher. This way, if anything goes wrong, you jetison the CEV and leave the cargo to be destroyed. On missions that dont have heavy payloads like satillites, you arent carrying all that weight of a largely empty cargo bay up. The shuttle couldnt really be reconfigured to save weight, the CEV will be.
The CEV would contain the living quarters and facilities for the crew, the mission module would be catered specifically to the mission, so you dont have to cater to the crew too much.
If people insist on going to see them regardless, then what incentive does he have to change his methodology? Many people on slashdot would go and see episode 3 if it was made from bad sock puppets and shoeboxes. Personally, I went and saw episode 1, came away disappointed and havent seen episode 2 yet, and I have no intentions of seeing episode 3 at all. I also havent bought any of the butchered 'remastered' versions of the origional trilogy for similiar reasons.
THe 'publically funded open software' is still available for you to use and build on. Microsoft has the moral right, just as you yourself do, and microsofts use of that code in no way detracts from your use of the same code. You both have the same advantages and the same starting position.
If i come across an application that I like, solves my problems, and works for me, then I will and *do* spread the word for that app and recommend it when others are looking for a similiar solution. If that app happens to be a paid for closed source project by a for profit company, then by Slashdots standards, Im being a shill.
Now those links are very very interesting, thanks for them! Im elegible to vote on 5th May, and vote is what I shall do.
Other than that -
I must admit to not loving the series - yes, get over the shock. The movie looks a lot better tho, and I am looking forward to its release.
The universe has a tendancy to like those kind of odds.
The Russians cannot budget enough for much more than they do now, which is why the Russians are asking NASA to get on with getting the Shuttle back up so they can resume some of the supply missions. NASA did look into funding the Russian program to a certain extent, but its forbidden from doing so because of legislation forbidding funding of states which provide support to Iran.
The one Safari feature I was looking forward too seems to be missing. Anyone know how to get Safari to scale images to the screen in the same way as IE or FF does?
NASA have postponed until July.
Turn off the iTunes actions for audio CD insertion events in System Preferences, load up your favourite Mac audio player and listen to your hearts content. Not exactly rocket science.
LGPLed actually, but Apple is usually pretty good about contributing stuff back.
What exactly is Longhorn still bringing to the table at its release? I used to look forward to Longhorn when I ran Windows, because it was supposed to contain all these new and wonderful technologies, then I got tired of waiting and .... well, my .sig says it all really.
That is true my figures for that are off, what I meant to say is that the $3.2billion tax break that Boeing gets is equal to the launch aid loans which Airbus got for the A380 ($3.7billion repayable). Now, this 'massive launch subsidies which are risk-free' thing has come up several times and is frankly ludicrous. Airbus is committed to paying back those funds once the number of hte orders received passed one quarter the number that is required for the project to break even. Since the loans only equate to 1/3rd of the cost of the project at maximum, saying they are risk free is stupid - as opposed to tax breaks which ARE risk free.
Everyone seems to overlook the fact that Boeing and the US government specifically agreed to Airbus getting these funds, and the conditions for repayment were signed off BY THOSE SAME PEOPLE. Today Boeing, the US government and a lot of anti Airbus people seem to get a bee in their bonnet over something that was agreed to previously - talk about changing stances when it suits. Airbus and the EU didnt move the goalposts or act 'illegally' in anyway, they are abiding by the very terms of the agreement that Boeing and the US government signed up to in 1992. Seems amazing that something agreed to when Boeing was the top dog now no longer stands just because Boeing is being a cry baby.
While you are at it, ask yourself why Boeing can price the 787 at $130million USD while the A350 is priced at $170million USD. Boeing farmed out much of the wing, central box section and some forward fuselage construction out to japanese manufacturers (Japanese Aircraft Development Corporation), who are getting massive state subsidies valued at $1.5billion USD and can charge Boeing pennies on the dollar for these parts. This came about because Japan wanted the technology behind the construction techniques, which the US government agreed to allow the export of for the 787 project, and the low cost parts are a 'Thankyou' to Boeing. These actions have already been deemed illegal under WTO rules by several analysts, and if the US persist in taking the Airbus to the WTO over launch aid, then Airbus already have a cut and dried case to return fire on.
Also with the 787, Kansas State has granted Boeing a $290million tax break for manufacturing contracts, and the Italian government has given Boeing $600million in incentives for contracts. Starting to sound like Boeing is getting a lot of 'Risk Free' cash for the 787 doesnt it? Airbus are required to pay back the money when a certain order point is reached, tell me when Boeing is going to repay the $5billion it received directly or indirectly during 2004?
In short, yes you guys are as bad as us guys, only theres an agreement covering all this that was created in 1992.