Those situations are *not* few and far between tho - I learned to drive at the grand old age of 27 precisely because the UK rail network was utter shite, and I was using it a lot at that point.
It was more often than not that between Bristol Temple Meads and Birmingham New Street, the train was so packed you could not find a seat, and standing room was all the way down the car aisles - this was the norm. On more than a few occasions the train manager refused to leave Bristol Temple Meads until some people got off the train, as it was so crowded - with no alternative transport, and no guarantee the next train might not also be as crowded...
I live in Norwich, which has a relatively good bus network. To get from my house to Norwich hospital takes one change and about an hour travel time in total - by car it takes 10 minutes.
A friend moved from the US to the UK and joined the company I worked at (he wasnt a friend before that point) and he was astounded by how different the drink-drive culture is in the UK - over here, its universally accepted that its a very very very bad thing to do, to the point where very few people pressure you to "have a quick one" if you are driving, and drinking soft drinks on a night out is completely acceptable.
He was very approving of it, and said that it was unheard of from where he came from (California).
He joined Dropbox quite late on, they had a fully developed syncing platform for years before he joined.
He might have advanced that platform on, but its difficult to claim that he "built quite a lot of Dropbox". From what I gather, his main work is around optimising their python runtimes, compilers and interpreters.
If they are being sold as medical devices when they are not, then they should be banned - and it very much sounds like they are being sold as medical devices...
AMD has had a console monopoly for the past three or so years anyway (their chips power the current versions of the Wii, Xbox and Playstation), and I haven't exactly seen an uptick of games being optimised on the PC for AMD graphics hardware...
So if AMD have had a full monopoly in the console arena for the past 3 years or so, and had most of the console arena for the previous generation as well (Xbox 360 and Wii - PS3 had an Nvidia chip), why are they still struggling today, when apparently the console monopoly should be doing grand things for them?
The B-52s multiple engine configuration is one of its bonus points in actuality - they did a study about hanging four modern engines off the wings rather than eight, and they discovered that they lost so much command authority through asymmetrical thrust in a single-engine loss scenario that they would have to double the size of the rudder...
As it currently stands, the Airbus A380 only needs a maximum of 76K lb of thrust, but Airbus are currently considering an airframe stretch which will increase the thrust requirement - and the engine can always be derated to a lower thrust rating to optimise it for the airframe, while still maintaining near 100% parts compatibility with the version that is hung on the 777X.
Yes, the Airbus A350XWB-1000 (first flight later this year) and the currently-being-mused-about Airbus A350XWB-1100 would be ideal candidates for this engine, as would an A380 with a new engine option (again, currently being mused about for the 2020 or so time period - Rolls Royce will have an engine to hang off of a refreshed A380, GE don't want to put an engine on, and are blocking Pratt & Whitney from making an engine for the A380 because of the Engine Alliance partnership the two have signed).
is the sole reason why I'm voting for the UK to leave the EU!
(Just joking, probably...)
One of the questions the Commission asked and is currently looking for an answer is whether companies should be allowed to deny users access to a website if they don't want to accept using cookies. The EU wants Internet companies to build alternative (usable) websites for people that don't want to use cookies at all, and so respect their decision for privacy.
So the EU want to force companies to serve customers regardless? Fuck that. Fuck that big time. If a customer doesn't want to meet the criteria for using the website, then the website should be perfectly within its rights to refuse service.
If the EU do move in this direction, then I will be voting to leave. Fuck that.
Not while you are flying you cannot - used batteries still carry a massive weight penalty, while used fuel does not. Aircraft efficiencies are built around getting ever lighter during their cruise, as many aircraft cannot climb to their optimum cruise altitude when at maximum takeoff weight, and only reach optimum after some time in the air - you cant do that with batteries, because the aircraft never gets lighter.
So you will be carrying more weight for greater distances. That problem right there changes the entire airline industries view on battery powered aircraft, because it completely changes the way air travel needs to be handled.
No, its just the largest - the GEnx has a larger fan size than the GE90-115 (128 inches vs 133 inches) but produces less thrust (115,300 lb vs 105,000 lb).
The GE9X has a higher bypass ratio with a lower core thrust, meaning more air is moved for less fuel consumed.
I will just add that a tweaked engine is just that, tweaked - it doesn't take all that much to take an engine intended for a thrust rating of 100K lb and tweak it to fit on an aircraft that needs a thrust rating of 95K lb, its not even the biggest job in hanging that engine off that new airframe.
Wikipedia is wrong - the reason the 777X only has GE as a supplier is because GE and Boeing are carrying on their profit sharing investment agreement they started on the 777-300, giving GE a monopoly on the aircraft type in return for GE providing an investment and assuming some risk sharing on the aircraft itself, in addition to GE funding the engine development.
The bits that are unique between different engine options on an aircraft are limited to:
1. the pylon (although the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350XWB have common pylons for the engines, so thats not an issue any more)
2. the design of the actual intake (some engines are designed around a shorter length intake, some are designed around longer length intakes - basically there's an optimal intake length for a given engine, but in actuality the engine intake design is often handed to the engine manufacturer which offers the better deal to the airframe manufacturer, so one engine will often be running at slightly less than optimal efficiency because its using an intake designed for its competitor).
3. the engine control unit and engine management system code
Beyond the above, an engine can be integrated onto another airframe easily enough - if you want to pay for the certification costs that is.
The main thing which ties an engine type to a particular airframe however is the thrust rating - you want enough thrust for the airframe to do its job, but you don't want too much thrust ability in the engine as that costs weight (you need more or larger parts to move more air through the engine) - you can derate an engine, but that means the engine is not operating in its optimal efficiency band, so again you want a tweaked engine which does the job you are asking it to do.
For who? More passengers carried means better economics for the airline - smaller planes increase the number of pilots needed to move the same number of people, less cargo, shorter distances.
GE won't put this engine on an Airbus aircraft, because they have a profit sharing stake in the Boeing 777 and 777X (literally, they funded some of the 777-300 and 777X development in order to have an engine monopoly on the type and a share of the profits of each one delivered) so they have a vested interest in not competing with themselves.
Its been a sticking point for Airbus for several years - the A380 has an Engine Alliance engine option (which GE is part of), but EA have been extremely lackluster in moving that engine forward, to the point where their prestige customer (Emirates Airline) has defected to Rolls Royce with their latest orders.
GE won't hang an engine off of the Airbus A350XWB either, because Airbus wants the entire series to be covered by any such engine option (originally, the A350XWB-800, -900 and -1000, now just the latter two as the -800 has been dropped) and GE wouldn't agree to that because the -1000 competes with the 777 and 777X.
So the only manufacturer that will use this engine is Boeing.
Stephen Fry wants to be relevant again, after throwing his social media toys out of his social media pram (as he has done several times over the years).
The Sonic Cruiser was never intended to go as fast as Mach 1.5, it was intended to hang around in the trans-sonic region (Mach 0.98 - 1.02 ish) and it was also intended to use the same engines as the Boeing 777 was using at the time. In the end, it was the fact that the aircraft was smaller than a 777, had much the same operating costs as the 777 and only arrived twenty or thirty minutes earlier than a 777 that killed it.
Of course, Boeing received a lot of NASA funding for development into composite structures that later went into the Boeing 7E7 (which became the 787) - some people might say that Boeing ran the Sonic Cruiser project purely as a means to get free funding from NASA...
Perhaps you need a proper national medical scheme then - regardless of what you think of the quality of it, I would much rather live with the NHS here in the UK than have to use the US system.
You can't legally VM Mac OS. It just doesn't have compatible licensing.
From the El Capitan license agreement:
(iii) to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software, for purposes of: (a) software development; (b) testing during software development; (c) using OS X Server; or (d) personal, noncommercial use.
My wife (a doctor) sees patients (both male and female) who have lived in this country for 15 - 20 years, and they still need a translator because they haven't bothered to learn the local language. Some people simply don't want to integrate.
No, that guy built fission reactors using various radioactive sources, while this guy is using a fusion reactor - the two are entirely different concepts. In this case the fuels are (relatively) inert when not involved in an experiment, the only radioactivity being produced is during collisions.
Slashdot Mirror
Those situations are *not* few and far between tho - I learned to drive at the grand old age of 27 precisely because the UK rail network was utter shite, and I was using it a lot at that point.
It was more often than not that between Bristol Temple Meads and Birmingham New Street, the train was so packed you could not find a seat, and standing room was all the way down the car aisles - this was the norm. On more than a few occasions the train manager refused to leave Bristol Temple Meads until some people got off the train, as it was so crowded - with no alternative transport, and no guarantee the next train might not also be as crowded...
I live in Norwich, which has a relatively good bus network. To get from my house to Norwich hospital takes one change and about an hour travel time in total - by car it takes 10 minutes.
Public transport in the UK is abysmal.
A friend moved from the US to the UK and joined the company I worked at (he wasnt a friend before that point) and he was astounded by how different the drink-drive culture is in the UK - over here, its universally accepted that its a very very very bad thing to do, to the point where very few people pressure you to "have a quick one" if you are driving, and drinking soft drinks on a night out is completely acceptable.
He was very approving of it, and said that it was unheard of from where he came from (California).
He joined Dropbox quite late on, they had a fully developed syncing platform for years before he joined.
He might have advanced that platform on, but its difficult to claim that he "built quite a lot of Dropbox". From what I gather, his main work is around optimising their python runtimes, compilers and interpreters.
If they are being sold as medical devices when they are not, then they should be banned - and it very much sounds like they are being sold as medical devices...
AMD has had a console monopoly for the past three or so years anyway (their chips power the current versions of the Wii, Xbox and Playstation), and I haven't exactly seen an uptick of games being optimised on the PC for AMD graphics hardware...
So if AMD have had a full monopoly in the console arena for the past 3 years or so, and had most of the console arena for the previous generation as well (Xbox 360 and Wii - PS3 had an Nvidia chip), why are they still struggling today, when apparently the console monopoly should be doing grand things for them?
The B-52s multiple engine configuration is one of its bonus points in actuality - they did a study about hanging four modern engines off the wings rather than eight, and they discovered that they lost so much command authority through asymmetrical thrust in a single-engine loss scenario that they would have to double the size of the rudder...
As it currently stands, the Airbus A380 only needs a maximum of 76K lb of thrust, but Airbus are currently considering an airframe stretch which will increase the thrust requirement - and the engine can always be derated to a lower thrust rating to optimise it for the airframe, while still maintaining near 100% parts compatibility with the version that is hung on the 777X.
Yes, the Airbus A350XWB-1000 (first flight later this year) and the currently-being-mused-about Airbus A350XWB-1100 would be ideal candidates for this engine, as would an A380 with a new engine option (again, currently being mused about for the 2020 or so time period - Rolls Royce will have an engine to hang off of a refreshed A380, GE don't want to put an engine on, and are blocking Pratt & Whitney from making an engine for the A380 because of the Engine Alliance partnership the two have signed).
is the sole reason why I'm voting for the UK to leave the EU!
(Just joking, probably...)
So the EU want to force companies to serve customers regardless? Fuck that. Fuck that big time. If a customer doesn't want to meet the criteria for using the website, then the website should be perfectly within its rights to refuse service.
If the EU do move in this direction, then I will be voting to leave. Fuck that.
Not while you are flying you cannot - used batteries still carry a massive weight penalty, while used fuel does not. Aircraft efficiencies are built around getting ever lighter during their cruise, as many aircraft cannot climb to their optimum cruise altitude when at maximum takeoff weight, and only reach optimum after some time in the air - you cant do that with batteries, because the aircraft never gets lighter.
So you will be carrying more weight for greater distances. That problem right there changes the entire airline industries view on battery powered aircraft, because it completely changes the way air travel needs to be handled.
Sorry, meant "the GE9X has a larger fan size...". Got the GENx on the brain atm.
No, its just the largest - the GEnx has a larger fan size than the GE90-115 (128 inches vs 133 inches) but produces less thrust (115,300 lb vs 105,000 lb).
The GE9X has a higher bypass ratio with a lower core thrust, meaning more air is moved for less fuel consumed.
I will just add that a tweaked engine is just that, tweaked - it doesn't take all that much to take an engine intended for a thrust rating of 100K lb and tweak it to fit on an aircraft that needs a thrust rating of 95K lb, its not even the biggest job in hanging that engine off that new airframe.
Wikipedia is wrong - the reason the 777X only has GE as a supplier is because GE and Boeing are carrying on their profit sharing investment agreement they started on the 777-300, giving GE a monopoly on the aircraft type in return for GE providing an investment and assuming some risk sharing on the aircraft itself, in addition to GE funding the engine development.
The bits that are unique between different engine options on an aircraft are limited to:
1. the pylon (although the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350XWB have common pylons for the engines, so thats not an issue any more)
2. the design of the actual intake (some engines are designed around a shorter length intake, some are designed around longer length intakes - basically there's an optimal intake length for a given engine, but in actuality the engine intake design is often handed to the engine manufacturer which offers the better deal to the airframe manufacturer, so one engine will often be running at slightly less than optimal efficiency because its using an intake designed for its competitor).
3. the engine control unit and engine management system code
Beyond the above, an engine can be integrated onto another airframe easily enough - if you want to pay for the certification costs that is.
The main thing which ties an engine type to a particular airframe however is the thrust rating - you want enough thrust for the airframe to do its job, but you don't want too much thrust ability in the engine as that costs weight (you need more or larger parts to move more air through the engine) - you can derate an engine, but that means the engine is not operating in its optimal efficiency band, so again you want a tweaked engine which does the job you are asking it to do.
For who? More passengers carried means better economics for the airline - smaller planes increase the number of pilots needed to move the same number of people, less cargo, shorter distances.
GE won't put this engine on an Airbus aircraft, because they have a profit sharing stake in the Boeing 777 and 777X (literally, they funded some of the 777-300 and 777X development in order to have an engine monopoly on the type and a share of the profits of each one delivered) so they have a vested interest in not competing with themselves.
Its been a sticking point for Airbus for several years - the A380 has an Engine Alliance engine option (which GE is part of), but EA have been extremely lackluster in moving that engine forward, to the point where their prestige customer (Emirates Airline) has defected to Rolls Royce with their latest orders.
GE won't hang an engine off of the Airbus A350XWB either, because Airbus wants the entire series to be covered by any such engine option (originally, the A350XWB-800, -900 and -1000, now just the latter two as the -800 has been dropped) and GE wouldn't agree to that because the -1000 competes with the 777 and 777X.
So the only manufacturer that will use this engine is Boeing.
Stephen Fry wants to be relevant again, after throwing his social media toys out of his social media pram (as he has done several times over the years).
You realise that the US was not the only target during the cold war, right?
The Tsar Bomba was not an ICBM weapon, and was never intended to be delivered by an ICBM - it was always intended to be a bomber delivered weapon.
The Sonic Cruiser was never intended to go as fast as Mach 1.5, it was intended to hang around in the trans-sonic region (Mach 0.98 - 1.02 ish) and it was also intended to use the same engines as the Boeing 777 was using at the time. In the end, it was the fact that the aircraft was smaller than a 777, had much the same operating costs as the 777 and only arrived twenty or thirty minutes earlier than a 777 that killed it.
Of course, Boeing received a lot of NASA funding for development into composite structures that later went into the Boeing 7E7 (which became the 787) - some people might say that Boeing ran the Sonic Cruiser project purely as a means to get free funding from NASA...
Perhaps you need a proper national medical scheme then - regardless of what you think of the quality of it, I would much rather live with the NHS here in the UK than have to use the US system.
Apple simply stopped updating Safari for Windows, no announcement or notice, just quietly stopped releasing updates.
It's more to do with development.
You can't legally VM Mac OS. It just doesn't have compatible licensing.
From the El Capitan license agreement:
(iii) to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software
within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control
that is already running the Apple Software, for purposes of: (a) software development; (b)
testing during software development; (c) using OS X Server; or (d) personal, noncommercial
use.
http://images.apple.com/legal/...
My wife (a doctor) sees patients (both male and female) who have lived in this country for 15 - 20 years, and they still need a translator because they haven't bothered to learn the local language. Some people simply don't want to integrate.
No, that guy built fission reactors using various radioactive sources, while this guy is using a fusion reactor - the two are entirely different concepts. In this case the fuels are (relatively) inert when not involved in an experiment, the only radioactivity being produced is during collisions.