Pilots had less than a minute to figure out what was going on.
Really? The pilot of the Indonesia flight had, according to the story, time to try resolving the issue 21 times by pulling back on the yoke, retrimming, and letting go. Twenty one times. And then he had time to hand the problem to the co-pilot who gave it a couple more shots.
And neither of them correctly identified the basic problem and applied the standard emergency checklist proecdure to resolve it.
You literally run out of time resulting in a catastrophic outcome.
Here's how much time it would take to keep from crashing into the ground: pull back on the yoke. MCAS, according to the stories of how it works, stops trimming the airplane if you do that. You've stopped MCAS from killing you.
The PROBLEM is that the pilots retrimmed the aircraft so they could let go of the yoke again. And MCAS took over. The pilot pulled back on the yoke again. MCAS stopped. The pilot trimmed the aircraft back to normal and let go. MCAS started again....
You know, about the second time the aircraft starts showing a runaway stabilizer, smart pilots do the immediate action of pulling back on the yoke and then NOT LETTING the electric trim system get control again, because there is obviously something wrong. If the electric trim has control taken away from it, MCAS cannot kill you.
what is the implication if the plane reaches a flight regime where the MCAS is a hindrance or a danger and has to be turned off?
If you ever manage to reach a "flight regime" where the MCAS is a danger, then you follow the emergency checklist for the demonstrated problem. You are only hypothesizing that there is some "flight regime" where a properly functioning MCAS is a danger, however. The problem at hand is when a faulty sensor gave MCAS faulty data and the pilots failed to follow the emergency procedures to stop MCAS from being a problem.
As TFS and TFA point out, the FAA issued an emergency AD last November covering the MCAS system and how to disable its effects. And Boeing disseminated a message to every customer with the same info. Last November. Explain why the pilots of the March crash were not properly trained, again?
I'll tell you: you now have two pilots with only variant training
Describe for us specifically what the difference in resolving a runaway stabilizer problem is between the non-MAX and MAX variants, please. Answer: there is none.
It is worse than that. TFA isn't clear, but it looks like they pay you $2000 per month, yet you are still responsible for paying tuition that exceeds that.
I don't see anything in TFS, TFA, or on the Modern Labor website that says there is any tuition fee.
Since these are "online" courses, their net cost to educate you is near zero.
The fine website talks about being assigned projects under the leadership of a project manager, with code reviews. This is not "near zero" cost.
If you pay with plastic, the email can be forwarded via your credit card provider, who already has your email anyway.
No, they don't. My CC companies have no need for my email address, so they don't have it.
In any case, this law is an example of a government micromanaging daily life. Retailers can already ask people if they want a paper receipt, they can already print one out at customer request. If they want to do it that way. Because of the "unless the customer requests one" clause, this is essentially a useless law. Retailers will still have to be able to print receipts, people will still ask for them. My credit union ATMs all ask if I want a receipt, and of course I do. I want to see the numbers. Office Max asks, and of course I want one unless, as others have mentioned, the thing I'm buying isn't worth coming back to get a refund for.
In addition there was very little in the manual on it plus virtually no pilot training and consequently no pilot awareness, leading to two completely avoidable accidents.
Every POH has an emergency procedure section, and that section includes a checklist to deal with runaway trim situations. These pilots ignored that documented procedure. They can't claim they were unware, it is part of their recurring training.
In addition, the pilots of the second crash ignored both an FAA emergency AD discussing exactly this issue, and a message from Boeing to every 737-MAX customer discussing exactly this issue, both of which came out last November -- months before the second crash.
Yes, the accidents were avoidable. The well-trained dead-head pilot on the Indonesian flight the day before the first crash proves this. He knew the procedures and followed them, and everyone survived.
What blame do you ascribe to Boeing when pilots trained and employed by the airlines don't pay attention to the emergency checklists that Boeing provides?
If you had asked me a month ago whether Boeing would build hardware that could command huge amounts of trim using only a single AoA sensor, I'd have said no.
And if you asked me if any airline would ignore an FAA AD and notices from Boeing about a flight control system, I would have said "no". If you asked me if four presumably trained pilots would completely ignore the emergency procedures intended to solve a runaway trim condition when faced with a runaway trim condition, I would have said "no".
But if you asked me whether a flight control system failure could result in a runaway trim situation, I would have said "of course YES, and pilots are trained how to deal with that."
No, it's intended to stop a stall from happening by automatically adjusting the stabilizer trim as the elevators don't have enough pitch authority to counteract the pitch-up caused by the more powerful engines.
This is patent nonsense. If the elevators don't have enough authority to correct the pitch-up, then trimming them won't give them more authority.
Maybe you really don't understand what a trim system does? A trim system adjusts a small "tab" on the control surface to apply a force in a direction to cancel an input control force needed to maintain a certain position of the control surface. In other words, if you want to pitch an aircraft nose-down, you push forward on the yoke and that moves the elevator surface trailing edge down. This increases the angle of attack of the stabilizer and increases lift, bringing the tail up. Adjusting the trim, which is on the elevator, for more nose-down pitch means the trim tab moves to deflect airflow UP, thus pushing the elevator DOWN. The downward deflection of the elevator again increases angle of attack and lift, pulling the tail up -- nose down.
If the elevator doesn't have enough authority to counter a pitch-up equilibrium state, then the trim tab can't solve that.
It might be helpful if you look up aircraft incidents where the control surfaces have been frozen in place, either water in the control cables or forgetting to remove a control lock. When that happens, the trim system cannot deflect the control surfaces, and in those limited circumstances the trim controls then function OPPOSITE their panel markings. I.e., a nose-up adjustment doesn't move the elevator as a whole, but the small area of the trim control moving DOWN (which would deflect the elevator UP and cause a nose-UP attitude change) actually increases elevator lift overall and causes a nose-DOWN pitch change.
The system is intended to allow the plane to be certified without redesigning the elevators.
No, the system was intended to remove the need to retrain pilots on an aircraft that is 99% the same as what they already know.
thrust is what causes the stall this system is designed to mitigate.
No, an excessive angle of attack is what causes the stall.
If the aircraft has tiny elevators, like the 737, there is a point where the thrust is pitching the aircraft up more than they can correct,... 2) use the stabilizer trim to change the angle of the rear stabilizer
Uhhh, if the elevators cannot correct for your "thrust-induced pitch up", then the elevators cannot correct for your "thrust-induced pitch up". The stabilizer trim is a way of changing the equilibrium position of the elevators. That is, the position of the elevators when there is no control force being applied.
The fact that you admit that the stabilizer trim can correct the pitch-up that this (and many other) aircraft experience when thrust is applied means that the elevators are not too "tiny" to control the aircraft.
The issue is not that the pitch-up is more than can be controlled, it is that the pitch-up is more than the previous versions of the 737 experienced. Pilots who pay no attention to their aircraft may not notice this and fail to correct for it, as they normally would for any other aircraft that pitches up that they fly. It's called "lazy". It's called "ignore the other flight instruments". It's called "hey look, the attitude indicator is showing a significant, unexpected nose-high attitude. Let's ignore that instead of fix it."
Aircraft are not designed to be as reliable as possible by throwing in unlimited amount of redundancy.
The need for unlimited redundancy is supposed to be eliminated by having a pilot who can make decisions that the designers might not have considered. Who can recognize similar if not identical effects of a failure and use similar if not identical emergency procedures to mitigate or prevent a disaster.
For example, when seeing a "runaway trim" condition caused by an unknown source, use the "runaway trim" emergency procedure to stop it.
Ideally a transducer that does not depend on vanes (maybe some kind of movement/capacitance sensor that can sense the movement of air along its surface) would be a perfect backup.
Something like, if air is flowing the wrong direction over the leading edge of a wing, that wing is at too high an angle of attack and will stall if the situation gets worse. Put a small thingy sticking out into the airflow that can tell if the air is going the right way or the wrong way. Such a novel device can be found on almost every aircraft, at least all the small ones.
"There's no need for 4k streaming of anything, IMO."
High-def microscopic research done remotely?
You've fallen for the typical argument tactic of someone telling you what "you don't need". Doesn't matter what what's-his-name thinks you or I need. Nobody died and left him in charge of what we need.
What about my point that the ISP is saving a lot of money on peering costs?
What about your guesses? They're saving money they aren't necessarily going to spend anyway to upgrade a border gateway. How nice.
As for taking a chill pill -- you are the one who desperately needs it.
Yeah. Sure. When you stop stressing about my responses to other people (for example, the very first comment at the beginning of this discussion) you can lecture me about calming down.
ISP's pay government, government grants monopolies,
Not in the US. It is against federal law for any cable communications company to be granted an exclusive franchise. Then the issue becomes that you don't have to be a cable communications company to be an ISP, and no ISP EVER has been granted an exclusive franchise.
States are attempting to retire their POTS cable and are finding out 911 emergency service goes away with it
Really? I can call 911 from my cell phone just fine. They even get my GPS coordinates when I do. Where is 911 going?
and begin seperating publishers from content producers,
Uhhh, huh? So if I write a book I should not be able to publish it and sell it myself? Freedom of speech, much?
You seem to be proposing the novel idea that competition is possible in the current climate, or am I mistaken?
Not only is it possible, it is happening. You have to let go of the idea that the "cable company" is the only possible source of Internet service to notice it, however.
You are aware that it's not legally permissible to actually compete with the current monopolists as things stand, right?
Yes I am aware that this lie is floating around out there.
First I am a huge fan of the idea of three page bills. Hopefully they assert actual net neutrality and not Obama era rules.
You do realize that this bill is a "three page bill" that instructs FCC to reinstate their entire set of rules that were in place before and they can't ever change them. I didn't count, but I bet it's a lot more than three pages. It makes no changes at all to the previous FCC NN rules, so if you didn't like them this three page bill won't help. And if technology changes in the next few years, these NN rules cannot change to follow.
Believe you me, people in real life care about the inflated bill for crappy internet service
And NN as enacted by the FCC rules that the Dems want put back has nothing at all to do with prices or price controls.
You want full-time, dedicated gigabit service instead of a network that you share with others upstream from you, then prepare to pay for it. Once you start sharing, you need to understand you are sharing a limited resource, just like telecom planning has resulted in since Mr. Bell called his assistant to come help.
Many ISPs generally refused to accept these boxes because it undercut their arguments about getting Netflix to pay them.
Well, it seems you think that the ISP should offer free colo service to Netflix, eating the cost of site maintenance and power. Of course Netflix should pay for a colo site since they're the ones profiting from the customers paying them, and they're using consumables that actually do cost money.
Sans a colo, a thousand Netflix customers all streaming the same hot new show creates congestion at the border gateways, which is not a violation of NN. It's also not a violation of the advertised speeds, since "up to" means "up to" not "always". It's also pretty stupid to think that an advertised speed means the ISP must always provide data to you at that speed -- the ISP cannot control the data coming from non-ISP sources. Here's a free example. If your ISP says "100Mbps" for you, will you complain to them that my RPi web server cannot provide 100Mbps data to you? Yes?
As for what this proves about Republican's support for NN, sorry, no. That's a standard partisan political trick: write a bill that does something the wrong way, or does the wrong thing to solve a problem, wait for the opponent to oppose it, and then claim that they don't want whatever the alleged benefit would be. It can't be that the means don't justify the ends, no no, or that the alleged solution just wouldn't be one.
I think it is just fine for one party to oppose virtue signaling by the other. I also think it is fine for one party to oppose a "law" that says that a regulatory agency must put back rules they removed and cannot ever ever change them. If the regulatory agency has regulatory authority to do X, then they have authority to do X. If they don't, then congress telling them to do X anyway is the wrong solution.
Does it matter if the LED itself or the drive electronics dies? In either case, you're replacing the bulb. In neither case is anyone except a real diehard electrical nerd going to open the bulb up to see, nor will there be any significant amount of repair going on.
TFS has one part almost right: "Critics say if the reversal is finalized it will mean higher energy bills for consumers and more pollution." That's true only if consumers choose to use less efficient or higher polluting products. They can choose LED. They should be able to choose good old incandescent because sometimes that's what's needed.
For example, a CFL heat lamp is very ineffective. I've got one outside my shower. It isn't the right bulb for the job. Not only does it take five minutes to get to full bright, it throws no heat.
For example, a CFL or LED doesn't draw enough current to work with my front porch light. It stays on 24/7. The old incandescent I replaced, before burning out after more than five years of use, ran for a few minutes when triggered and then shut off.
For example, the CFL I dutifully replaced my living room lights with don't play well with X10. When they get warmed up and then turned off, they still draw enough current from the X10 control to blink.
The law should mandate that "regular" bulbs be efficient, but there should still be a way to get bulbs that aren't just "light" or that work with existing control systems.
You know very well that comparing black powder to cartridges is not referring to black powder "paper cartridges", and that the "cartridges" in this discussion isn't.
You know, there are terrorists who strap bombs to themselves and deliberately blow themselves up. I don't think the danger of a zip gun blowing up in their hand is going to stop someone like that.
Easier still to make an ABS stiletto and hide it inside a hair brush.
Yeah, because so many more people will be scared by what amounts to a plastic letter opener than by a zip gun. Sure.
Slashdot Mirror
Pilots had less than a minute to figure out what was going on.
Really? The pilot of the Indonesia flight had, according to the story, time to try resolving the issue 21 times by pulling back on the yoke, retrimming, and letting go. Twenty one times. And then he had time to hand the problem to the co-pilot who gave it a couple more shots.
And neither of them correctly identified the basic problem and applied the standard emergency checklist proecdure to resolve it.
You literally run out of time resulting in a catastrophic outcome.
Here's how much time it would take to keep from crashing into the ground: pull back on the yoke. MCAS, according to the stories of how it works, stops trimming the airplane if you do that. You've stopped MCAS from killing you.
The PROBLEM is that the pilots retrimmed the aircraft so they could let go of the yoke again. And MCAS took over. The pilot pulled back on the yoke again. MCAS stopped. The pilot trimmed the aircraft back to normal and let go. MCAS started again. ...
You know, about the second time the aircraft starts showing a runaway stabilizer, smart pilots do the immediate action of pulling back on the yoke and then NOT LETTING the electric trim system get control again, because there is obviously something wrong. If the electric trim has control taken away from it, MCAS cannot kill you.
what is the implication if the plane reaches a flight regime where the MCAS is a hindrance or a danger and has to be turned off?
If you ever manage to reach a "flight regime" where the MCAS is a danger, then you follow the emergency checklist for the demonstrated problem. You are only hypothesizing that there is some "flight regime" where a properly functioning MCAS is a danger, however. The problem at hand is when a faulty sensor gave MCAS faulty data and the pilots failed to follow the emergency procedures to stop MCAS from being a problem.
As TFS and TFA point out, the FAA issued an emergency AD last November covering the MCAS system and how to disable its effects. And Boeing disseminated a message to every customer with the same info. Last November. Explain why the pilots of the March crash were not properly trained, again?
I'll tell you: you now have two pilots with only variant training
Describe for us specifically what the difference in resolving a runaway stabilizer problem is between the non-MAX and MAX variants, please. Answer: there is none.
Is it just me, or is this more 30% than 15%?
It's just you.
There is also a $15k tuition for the bootcamp. Nowhere do they say tuition is waived for people being "paid to learn".
Nowhere do they say there is any tuition fee for their class. There is nothing to waive.
It is worse than that. TFA isn't clear, but it looks like they pay you $2000 per month, yet you are still responsible for paying tuition that exceeds that.
I don't see anything in TFS, TFA, or on the Modern Labor website that says there is any tuition fee.
Since these are "online" courses, their net cost to educate you is near zero.
The fine website talks about being assigned projects under the leadership of a project manager, with code reviews. This is not "near zero" cost.
If you pay with plastic, the email can be forwarded via your credit card provider, who already has your email anyway.
No, they don't. My CC companies have no need for my email address, so they don't have it.
In any case, this law is an example of a government micromanaging daily life. Retailers can already ask people if they want a paper receipt, they can already print one out at customer request. If they want to do it that way. Because of the "unless the customer requests one" clause, this is essentially a useless law. Retailers will still have to be able to print receipts, people will still ask for them. My credit union ATMs all ask if I want a receipt, and of course I do. I want to see the numbers. Office Max asks, and of course I want one unless, as others have mentioned, the thing I'm buying isn't worth coming back to get a refund for.
Virtue signalling.
In addition there was very little in the manual on it plus virtually no pilot training and consequently no pilot awareness, leading to two completely avoidable accidents.
Every POH has an emergency procedure section, and that section includes a checklist to deal with runaway trim situations. These pilots ignored that documented procedure. They can't claim they were unware, it is part of their recurring training.
In addition, the pilots of the second crash ignored both an FAA emergency AD discussing exactly this issue, and a message from Boeing to every 737-MAX customer discussing exactly this issue, both of which came out last November -- months before the second crash.
Yes, the accidents were avoidable. The well-trained dead-head pilot on the Indonesian flight the day before the first crash proves this. He knew the procedures and followed them, and everyone survived.
What blame do you ascribe to Boeing when pilots trained and employed by the airlines don't pay attention to the emergency checklists that Boeing provides?
If you had asked me a month ago whether Boeing would build hardware that could command huge amounts of trim using only a single AoA sensor, I'd have said no.
And if you asked me if any airline would ignore an FAA AD and notices from Boeing about a flight control system, I would have said "no". If you asked me if four presumably trained pilots would completely ignore the emergency procedures intended to solve a runaway trim condition when faced with a runaway trim condition, I would have said "no".
But if you asked me whether a flight control system failure could result in a runaway trim situation, I would have said "of course YES, and pilots are trained how to deal with that."
But hey, pilots make mistakes.
No, it's intended to stop a stall from happening by automatically adjusting the stabilizer trim as the elevators don't have enough pitch authority to counteract the pitch-up caused by the more powerful engines.
This is patent nonsense. If the elevators don't have enough authority to correct the pitch-up, then trimming them won't give them more authority.
Maybe you really don't understand what a trim system does? A trim system adjusts a small "tab" on the control surface to apply a force in a direction to cancel an input control force needed to maintain a certain position of the control surface. In other words, if you want to pitch an aircraft nose-down, you push forward on the yoke and that moves the elevator surface trailing edge down. This increases the angle of attack of the stabilizer and increases lift, bringing the tail up. Adjusting the trim, which is on the elevator, for more nose-down pitch means the trim tab moves to deflect airflow UP, thus pushing the elevator DOWN. The downward deflection of the elevator again increases angle of attack and lift, pulling the tail up -- nose down.
If the elevator doesn't have enough authority to counter a pitch-up equilibrium state, then the trim tab can't solve that.
It might be helpful if you look up aircraft incidents where the control surfaces have been frozen in place, either water in the control cables or forgetting to remove a control lock. When that happens, the trim system cannot deflect the control surfaces, and in those limited circumstances the trim controls then function OPPOSITE their panel markings. I.e., a nose-up adjustment doesn't move the elevator as a whole, but the small area of the trim control moving DOWN (which would deflect the elevator UP and cause a nose-UP attitude change) actually increases elevator lift overall and causes a nose-DOWN pitch change.
The system is intended to allow the plane to be certified without redesigning the elevators.
No, the system was intended to remove the need to retrain pilots on an aircraft that is 99% the same as what they already know.
thrust is what causes the stall this system is designed to mitigate.
No, an excessive angle of attack is what causes the stall.
If the aircraft has tiny elevators, like the 737, there is a point where the thrust is pitching the aircraft up more than they can correct, ... 2) use the stabilizer trim to change the angle of the rear stabilizer
Uhhh, if the elevators cannot correct for your "thrust-induced pitch up", then the elevators cannot correct for your "thrust-induced pitch up". The stabilizer trim is a way of changing the equilibrium position of the elevators. That is, the position of the elevators when there is no control force being applied.
The fact that you admit that the stabilizer trim can correct the pitch-up that this (and many other) aircraft experience when thrust is applied means that the elevators are not too "tiny" to control the aircraft.
The issue is not that the pitch-up is more than can be controlled, it is that the pitch-up is more than the previous versions of the 737 experienced. Pilots who pay no attention to their aircraft may not notice this and fail to correct for it, as they normally would for any other aircraft that pitches up that they fly. It's called "lazy". It's called "ignore the other flight instruments". It's called "hey look, the attitude indicator is showing a significant, unexpected nose-high attitude. Let's ignore that instead of fix it."
Aircraft are not designed to be as reliable as possible by throwing in unlimited amount of redundancy.
The need for unlimited redundancy is supposed to be eliminated by having a pilot who can make decisions that the designers might not have considered. Who can recognize similar if not identical effects of a failure and use similar if not identical emergency procedures to mitigate or prevent a disaster.
For example, when seeing a "runaway trim" condition caused by an unknown source, use the "runaway trim" emergency procedure to stop it.
Ideally a transducer that does not depend on vanes (maybe some kind of movement/capacitance sensor that can sense the movement of air along its surface) would be a perfect backup.
Something like, if air is flowing the wrong direction over the leading edge of a wing, that wing is at too high an angle of attack and will stall if the situation gets worse. Put a small thingy sticking out into the airflow that can tell if the air is going the right way or the wrong way. Such a novel device can be found on almost every aircraft, at least all the small ones.
"There's no need for 4k streaming of anything, IMO." High-def microscopic research done remotely?
You've fallen for the typical argument tactic of someone telling you what "you don't need". Doesn't matter what what's-his-name thinks you or I need. Nobody died and left him in charge of what we need.
What about my point that the ISP is saving a lot of money on peering costs?
What about your guesses? They're saving money they aren't necessarily going to spend anyway to upgrade a border gateway. How nice.
As for taking a chill pill -- you are the one who desperately needs it.
Yeah. Sure. When you stop stressing about my responses to other people (for example, the very first comment at the beginning of this discussion) you can lecture me about calming down.
Site maintenance and power? Trivial amounts of money. It's a 2U appliance.
Power and air conditioning are not free. A 2U "appliance" doesn't hold much data. It's still takes space. TANSTAAFL.
Republicans? I did not mention Republicans or any political parties.
I didn't say you did. I was covering an additional topic.
I did not write many of the things you appear to be attempting to refute.
I didn't say you did. Please take a chill pill and let other people talk about things you aren't interested in, ok?
ISP's pay government, government grants monopolies,
Not in the US. It is against federal law for any cable communications company to be granted an exclusive franchise. Then the issue becomes that you don't have to be a cable communications company to be an ISP, and no ISP EVER has been granted an exclusive franchise.
States are attempting to retire their POTS cable and are finding out 911 emergency service goes away with it
Really? I can call 911 from my cell phone just fine. They even get my GPS coordinates when I do. Where is 911 going?
and begin seperating publishers from content producers,
Uhhh, huh? So if I write a book I should not be able to publish it and sell it myself? Freedom of speech, much?
You seem to be proposing the novel idea that competition is possible in the current climate, or am I mistaken?
Not only is it possible, it is happening. You have to let go of the idea that the "cable company" is the only possible source of Internet service to notice it, however.
You are aware that it's not legally permissible to actually compete with the current monopolists as things stand, right?
Yes I am aware that this lie is floating around out there.
First I am a huge fan of the idea of three page bills. Hopefully they assert actual net neutrality and not Obama era rules.
You do realize that this bill is a "three page bill" that instructs FCC to reinstate their entire set of rules that were in place before and they can't ever change them. I didn't count, but I bet it's a lot more than three pages. It makes no changes at all to the previous FCC NN rules, so if you didn't like them this three page bill won't help. And if technology changes in the next few years, these NN rules cannot change to follow.
Believe you me, people in real life care about the inflated bill for crappy internet service
And NN as enacted by the FCC rules that the Dems want put back has nothing at all to do with prices or price controls.
You want full-time, dedicated gigabit service instead of a network that you share with others upstream from you, then prepare to pay for it. Once you start sharing, you need to understand you are sharing a limited resource, just like telecom planning has resulted in since Mr. Bell called his assistant to come help.
One word: Multicast.
And when one sub wants to pause the stream so he can go refill the popcorn bowl, do all the other subs also get their streams paused?
No, sorry, multicast is not the solution, even if it is just one word.
Many ISPs generally refused to accept these boxes because it undercut their arguments about getting Netflix to pay them.
Well, it seems you think that the ISP should offer free colo service to Netflix, eating the cost of site maintenance and power. Of course Netflix should pay for a colo site since they're the ones profiting from the customers paying them, and they're using consumables that actually do cost money.
Sans a colo, a thousand Netflix customers all streaming the same hot new show creates congestion at the border gateways, which is not a violation of NN. It's also not a violation of the advertised speeds, since "up to" means "up to" not "always". It's also pretty stupid to think that an advertised speed means the ISP must always provide data to you at that speed -- the ISP cannot control the data coming from non-ISP sources. Here's a free example. If your ISP says "100Mbps" for you, will you complain to them that my RPi web server cannot provide 100Mbps data to you? Yes?
As for what this proves about Republican's support for NN, sorry, no. That's a standard partisan political trick: write a bill that does something the wrong way, or does the wrong thing to solve a problem, wait for the opponent to oppose it, and then claim that they don't want whatever the alleged benefit would be. It can't be that the means don't justify the ends, no no, or that the alleged solution just wouldn't be one.
I think it is just fine for one party to oppose virtue signaling by the other. I also think it is fine for one party to oppose a "law" that says that a regulatory agency must put back rules they removed and cannot ever ever change them. If the regulatory agency has regulatory authority to do X, then they have authority to do X. If they don't, then congress telling them to do X anyway is the wrong solution.
Ding ding ding, this is correct.
Does it matter if the LED itself or the drive electronics dies? In either case, you're replacing the bulb. In neither case is anyone except a real diehard electrical nerd going to open the bulb up to see, nor will there be any significant amount of repair going on.
TFS has one part almost right: "Critics say if the reversal is finalized it will mean higher energy bills for consumers and more pollution." That's true only if consumers choose to use less efficient or higher polluting products. They can choose LED. They should be able to choose good old incandescent because sometimes that's what's needed.
For example, a CFL heat lamp is very ineffective. I've got one outside my shower. It isn't the right bulb for the job. Not only does it take five minutes to get to full bright, it throws no heat.
For example, a CFL or LED doesn't draw enough current to work with my front porch light. It stays on 24/7. The old incandescent I replaced, before burning out after more than five years of use, ran for a few minutes when triggered and then shut off.
For example, the CFL I dutifully replaced my living room lights with don't play well with X10. When they get warmed up and then turned off, they still draw enough current from the X10 control to blink.
The law should mandate that "regular" bulbs be efficient, but there should still be a way to get bulbs that aren't just "light" or that work with existing control systems.
Powder and ball wrapped in paper is called..
You know very well that comparing black powder to cartridges is not referring to black powder "paper cartridges", and that the "cartridges" in this discussion isn't.
If your gun is that primitive, then why not have it be a black powder weapon that shoots balls?
For the same reason that cartridges replaced black powder weapons in general: convenience.
Less likely to blow up in your hand as well.
You know, there are terrorists who strap bombs to themselves and deliberately blow themselves up. I don't think the danger of a zip gun blowing up in their hand is going to stop someone like that.
Easier still to make an ABS stiletto and hide it inside a hair brush.
Yeah, because so many more people will be scared by what amounts to a plastic letter opener than by a zip gun. Sure.
so it's a little weird seeing a normal tool treated like some weird, vintage retro-technology being rediscovered by marketing hipsters.
Not a marketing hipster, a TECHNOLOGY WRITER. For a major newspaper. Kinda makes you wonder about his insight as a technology writer, huh?
Next week's news: you can actually listen to music and stuff on a device that fits in your pocket!