Which plane? You mean like the Concorde which has a maximum speed of about 10x the stall speed? Unless of course you reckon it stalls at 450 miles per hour.
The A380 lands at about 130 knots compared to a top speed of 550. That's already 4.2x.and they don't land at full stall, and that's a loaded plane (not fuel). They can go slower when completely empty. The maximum versus stall speed for a BAe146 plane is 4.2.
I noticed you bumped it up groom 3x to 5x quietly half way through this debate.
You've massively confused a trade-off with a physical law. Making large fast planes have low stall speeds is expensive. There's just not much point in really dropping that speed very low. And for many planes, trans sonic effects limit the top speed.
And here's the incredibly important bit you missed: wind turbines don't fall over if the wind speed is too low. They do not have a minimum speed.
FYI wind turbines don't have to stay in the air under their own lift.
FYI you've also confused aircraft stall to the related aerofoil stall. Aerofoils which are not supporting their own weight do not have a minimum speed under which they stall.
The idea that there is a cartel of evil men twirling their mustaches saying, "WE LOVE TO POLLUTE AND WILL CRUSH ALL IN FAVOR OF CHEAPER, CLEANER POWE, mu hahahahahah." is just the stuff of (bad) cartoons.
Th cessna is cheap, lightly built aircraft therefore wind power can't work. what the fuck?
There are prop planes much faster than the Cessna, like the TU 95. People even figured out how to make propellers o supersonic though it turned out to be a somewhat poor idea due to the continuous and destructive sonic boom from the propellor.
And here's an interesitng factoid: wind turbines do not have to fly! Crazy I know but they can be somewhat more heavily built than planes.
Also, they don't have to fly! Crazy I know but that means they can operate a speeds where the wind doesn't generate much power so comparing to aircraft stall speed is utterly irrelevant.
It's a tradeoff. We can build wind turbines that will survive even the stronges hurricaine easily. We won't do so. What we will do is build them so that the tradeoff between the extra cost of building them tough matches the extra risk of then being downed by an unusually big storm plus the insurance cost.
IOW they will optimise the economics just like any other bit of engineering.
No that's not true. Most peple will probably go for electric because it will be cheaper and they don't have an inane and inexplicable attachment t ofossil fuel vehicles.
You also ignored my comment about how not tacing them simply socialises the damage fossil fuel vehicles cause rather than forcing the owners to pay up front. Classic "libertarian" thinking: anything that stops you harming others is too restricting on your freedoms.
Not maybe, it's true. At one company I've worked at every coder is a "software engineer". I am *not* trying to justify this stance. Calling programmers software engineers is often part of a cultural problem that undervalues the actual engineering part.
with additional classes in software design, not programming
Souds reasonably. Way back when I used to teach an intro to software engineering to engineers. Also not programming. I figured many people in the room would go on and do programming, so I tried to basically give an intro to many of the major parts of engineering in a sort of "this won't make you a software engineer yet but you have to know about the existence of these things and the basic pitfalls so you'll know what to look up instead of just makeing a huge mess". A bugger to examine, but I figured my job was to teach not examine.
ethics [for software engineers]
Well for actual engineers sure. For "software engineers" as in programmers it's more about move fast and break things, or just break things. Maybe with some comp-sci algorithms thrown in because hey got to get some value from the degree, right?
I'm fairly confident that the university had a better idea of what a software engineer is than you do.
Sigh. It was going so well up to that point. How about you get off your high horse and reread my post.
And just WHO do you think will be writing the software for these "Infotainment Systems"?
Google, proably, as in Android.
Nonetheless even if Samsung writes the software, it still doesn't follow that it will be packed full of ads. Audi will be paying them if they write it and Audi will be making an independent assessment of whether it's worth spaming hapless users with ads to what assessment Samsung makes for their TVs.
Seeing how Samsung Smart TVs are choke-full of adverting and tracking, I expect that Audi cars will now also be choke-full of advertising and even more tracking.
That doesn't follow. These are CPUs, not systems they're selling.
It's quite interesting since I guess it gives them a platform with a much higher envelope than phones. My guess is they'll do the new stuff in the auto ones before figuring out how to get the power draw down for use in power and heat constrained systems.
In normal rich and happy nations people can enjoy the freedom to find a car they want.
Stop simply making shit up to support your point. In Norway you're not restricted from buying fossil fuel vehicles.
Not what the gov suggests with a new tax rate.
That's the opposite of true.
People can enjoy old and new cars. Electric, SUV, trucks.
Nice use of "weasel words", "enjoy". In Norway you can still buy and run old cars as well as new ones. Claims to the contrary are lies.
The freedom to buy any regular car they want.
Like you can in Norway.
Not having to consider the tax rate and getting priced by the gov into selecting from a few new approved electric cars.
Ah now we get to the heart of it. You don't like taxes. I suspect however you're not prepared to accept partial liability for all the deaths caused by particulates emitted by fossil fuel cars.
In other words you're the worst kind of socialist: you never want to give up your hard earned dollars to support a person but you want all of them to hand over heaps of cash to take on your risks.
Is there an electric half-ton pickup truck that could replace my truck?
Why do you drive a half ton truck as opposed to a much smaller, cheaper and cheaper to run compact or alternatively a semi tractor? People have different use cases which is why you have a truck.
Not everyone's needs are served by electric, especially if they're road warriors. Most people aren't and most people's day to day range is well served by an electric car.
Software engineering is the process of producing software. It is 't programming.
Well just about every asshole who hacks shit together that breaks next week as soon as someone takes ownership calls themsleves a software engineer...
It's like people latched onto the software bit and have entirely forgotten about the engineering part.
It has nothing to do with direct coding.
Wait but what about that candidate who is personable, has great taste, natural eye for testing, can actually code but can't invert a binary tree on demand in an interview? Surely a REAL ENGINEER is simply a repository of computer science algorithmic knowledge.
This is where it gets a bit fuzzy. If he repeatedly called himself an engineer, that would imply that he felt using the title would convince people that they should follow his advice because he has the requisite knowledge and experience.
I disagree. What he did is completely fine because he wasn't claiming he was licensed (or chartered as we say over here). I call myself an engineer in a professional capacity and actually do engineering for money. I have never claimed to be chartered and nor have I done enything charter-worthy like signing off a bridge or a railway signalling system and so on.
But the court was absolutely right not just from a legal point of view (who am I to judge?) but a linguistic and general good sense one. No one earns the term Engineer, but you can own Engineering certifications.
[conservatives defined as] "opposing change that reduces freedom"
Why don't you go the whole hog and just define "conservative" as "better than other people", I mean you did 99% of that, why are you afraid of the last 1%?
The lovely thing is that when you define yourself as better than other people you never need to reconsider your actions. They're always right, by definition.
It does, like I said, in the terminal only. Seriously try it in terminal.app. It works. But it's a very poor shadow of what we have on X.
The main thing I miss about macOS on other platforms is having the same copy and paste shortcuts in the terminal as everywhere else. Other platforms (including crappy X11 DEs that originated on '90s PCs, but not proper UNIX DEs that originated on machines that had a meta key) decided to overload Control-C
Yep. Old unixy things from m*tif etc used Alt-C Alt-V, which worked just fine and dandy in the terminal. But at that stage windows was the thing to chase so they went by the wayside. That was probably the earliest victim of the trend of chasing the most fashionable desktop OS.
The one big thing Apple did better than anyone else was deploy a Unix-based operatimng system that users and developers both like.
I don't like it.
It's the OS that Linux might have become had it not been for all that poisonous bickering and fragmentation.
Please, fuck no.
This attitude is ruinin the experience of Linux. Linux was never going to be a better Apple than Apple, just as it wasn't a better Windows 95 than Windows 95 or a better XP than XP.
That was despite lots of effort. And it sucked. Instead of doing UNIX well, people keep chasing the latest fads and make Linux a shitty knockoff of whtever the currently most fashionable GUI is.
This sort of attidude is why the fuckwits at GNOME want to kill off middle click paste. Even though Apple have a crap version that only works in the terminal. but because Apple only have a crap version, Linux should too!
The load factor for UK nuclear plants hovered betweeen 65 and 77%
That's because we spent a fuckton of money developing nuclear reactor tech and then at the point where we'd figured it out and could actually roll out mature ones, we decided to junk it all and buy American.
It's the classic British way: spend the money developing innovative new tech then junk it and buy foreign just before we see fruits of the labour. Sometimes we even sell it off cheap, then let someone else sell it back to us for a large profit.
onshore wind in particular beats UK Nuclear on energy prices quite handily, onshore wind even managed to beat Combined Cycle Gas Turbines.
Great! We should build as many as we can. The main problem is we can't build enough since the population density is too high. When we run out of space for more, the choice will be fossil fuel or nuclear. I prefer the latter.
And this is why laws get made. From anything other than a legal point of view there is a material difference between something done at a personal scale (sitting on a bench, hiring a PI) and a massive systematic effort by a vast and incredibly well funded company.
People reconise the difference between the possibility that a PI might track them and the certainty that google is. The law doesn't, and this is ultimately why laws get made. It's both dickish and harmful and widely recognised as different but not technically ilegal, so companies will keep doing it until they're stopped by a change in the law.
I reckon a change in the law will hapen but only after wide scale harm has been proven. Better late than never and that's how most laws get made.
What would it even mean to have the right to "public privacy".
My guess would be the scale of the operation. Look at GDPR for example:
You can arrest someone from taking a picture of a nice looking park because you happened to be laying the grass?
Not under GDPR. But a company abusing that can be fined. A lot.
The reason why capturing images in public is legal is because anything else is the road to madness and collapse of society.
That's ridiculous blakc and white hyperbole. There's a difference between PERSONAL freedom and unfettered freedom of corporations with limited liability protection.
Don't like the restrictions of that massive gift of power? You could always give up limited liability.
The comparison was sound. No one was actually either calling anyone Nazis or comparing them to Nazis. But the logistical operation of finding 10 million people scattered throuhout the general population is something that's happened before. The best way to figure out how long it would take now is to see how long it took before.
Slashdot Mirror
Which plane? You mean like the Concorde which has a maximum speed of about 10x the stall speed? Unless of course you reckon it stalls at 450 miles per hour.
The A380 lands at about 130 knots compared to a top speed of 550. That's already 4.2x.and they don't land at full stall, and that's a loaded plane (not fuel). They can go slower when completely empty. The maximum versus stall speed for a BAe146 plane is 4.2.
I noticed you bumped it up groom 3x to 5x quietly half way through this debate.
You've massively confused a trade-off with a physical law. Making large fast planes have low stall speeds is expensive. There's just not much point in really dropping that speed very low. And for many planes, trans sonic effects limit the top speed.
And here's the incredibly important bit you missed: wind turbines don't fall over if the wind speed is too low. They do not have a minimum speed.
FYI wind turbines don't have to stay in the air under their own lift.
FYI you've also confused aircraft stall to the related aerofoil stall. Aerofoils which are not supporting their own weight do not have a minimum speed under which they stall.
And Phil Schiller is rubbing his hands with glee, laughing at how all the stupid goyim have made him rich.
First post, blatantly anti-semitic, +1 informative.
Someone mod this shit down. And don't forget to meta-moderate so whichever berk modded this up doesn't get mod points in future.
I remember back in the early 2000s when google sounded like some sort of geek paradise where they also paid you.
Now it's all about privacy violation and apparently DRM now too. Yuck.
The idea that there is a cartel of evil men twirling their mustaches saying, "WE LOVE TO POLLUTE AND WILL CRUSH ALL IN FAVOR OF CHEAPER, CLEANER POWE, mu hahahahahah." is just the stuff of (bad) cartoons.
cartoons... and the US president.
Th cessna is cheap, lightly built aircraft therefore wind power can't work. what the fuck?
There are prop planes much faster than the Cessna, like the TU 95. People even figured out how to make propellers o supersonic though it turned out to be a somewhat poor idea due to the continuous and destructive sonic boom from the propellor.
And here's an interesitng factoid: wind turbines do not have to fly! Crazy I know but they can be somewhat more heavily built than planes.
Also, they don't have to fly! Crazy I know but that means they can operate a speeds where the wind doesn't generate much power so comparing to aircraft stall speed is utterly irrelevant.
It's a tradeoff. We can build wind turbines that will survive even the stronges hurricaine easily. We won't do so. What we will do is build them so that the tradeoff between the extra cost of building them tough matches the extra risk of then being downed by an unusually big storm plus the insurance cost.
IOW they will optimise the economics just like any other bit of engineering.
No that's not true. Most peple will probably go for electric because it will be cheaper and they don't have an inane and inexplicable attachment t ofossil fuel vehicles.
You also ignored my comment about how not tacing them simply socialises the damage fossil fuel vehicles cause rather than forcing the owners to pay up front. Classic "libertarian" thinking: anything that stops you harming others is too restricting on your freedoms.
Maybe so
Not maybe, it's true. At one company I've worked at every coder is a "software engineer". I am *not* trying to justify this stance. Calling programmers software engineers is often part of a cultural problem that undervalues the actual engineering part.
with additional classes in software design, not programming
Souds reasonably. Way back when I used to teach an intro to software engineering to engineers. Also not programming. I figured many people in the room would go on and do programming, so I tried to basically give an intro to many of the major parts of engineering in a sort of "this won't make you a software engineer yet but you have to know about the existence of these things and the basic pitfalls so you'll know what to look up instead of just makeing a huge mess". A bugger to examine, but I figured my job was to teach not examine.
ethics [for software engineers]
Well for actual engineers sure. For "software engineers" as in programmers it's more about move fast and break things, or just break things. Maybe with some comp-sci algorithms thrown in because hey got to get some value from the degree, right?
I'm fairly confident that the university had a better idea of what a software engineer is than you do.
Sigh. It was going so well up to that point. How about you get off your high horse and reread my post.
And just WHO do you think will be writing the software for these "Infotainment Systems"?
Google, proably, as in Android.
Nonetheless even if Samsung writes the software, it still doesn't follow that it will be packed full of ads. Audi will be paying them if they write it and Audi will be making an independent assessment of whether it's worth spaming hapless users with ads to what assessment Samsung makes for their TVs.
Seeing how Samsung Smart TVs are choke-full of adverting and tracking, I expect that Audi cars will now also be choke-full of advertising and even more tracking.
That doesn't follow. These are CPUs, not systems they're selling.
It's quite interesting since I guess it gives them a platform with a much higher envelope than phones. My guess is they'll do the new stuff in the auto ones before figuring out how to get the power draw down for use in power and heat constrained systems.
In normal rich and happy nations people can enjoy the freedom to find a car they want.
Stop simply making shit up to support your point. In Norway you're not restricted from buying fossil fuel vehicles.
Not what the gov suggests with a new tax rate.
That's the opposite of true.
People can enjoy old and new cars. Electric, SUV, trucks.
Nice use of "weasel words", "enjoy". In Norway you can still buy and run old cars as well as new ones. Claims to the contrary are lies.
The freedom to buy any regular car they want.
Like you can in Norway.
Not having to consider the tax rate and getting priced by the gov into selecting from a few new approved electric cars.
Ah now we get to the heart of it. You don't like taxes. I suspect however you're not prepared to accept partial liability for all the deaths caused by particulates emitted by fossil fuel cars.
In other words you're the worst kind of socialist: you never want to give up your hard earned dollars to support a person but you want all of them to hand over heaps of cash to take on your risks.
Wait for the gov to go full East Germany
You're always banging on about this. So far the only thig that actually happened is East Germany colappsed and became like West Germany.
Nordic central planning at its best.
I hate the way those guys are so rich and happy. Must be the government's fault. Fuck the government I don't want to be rich or happy.
Not all commutes are so short.
Indeed but most are.
Is there an electric half-ton pickup truck that could replace my truck?
Why do you drive a half ton truck as opposed to a much smaller, cheaper and cheaper to run compact or alternatively a semi tractor? People have different use cases which is why you have a truck.
Not everyone's needs are served by electric, especially if they're road warriors. Most people aren't and most people's day to day range is well served by an electric car.
Software engineering is the process of producing software. It is 't programming.
Well just about every asshole who hacks shit together that breaks next week as soon as someone takes ownership calls themsleves a software engineer...
It's like people latched onto the software bit and have entirely forgotten about the engineering part.
It has nothing to do with direct coding.
Wait but what about that candidate who is personable, has great taste, natural eye for testing, can actually code but can't invert a binary tree on demand in an interview? Surely a REAL ENGINEER is simply a repository of computer science algorithmic knowledge.
This is where it gets a bit fuzzy. If he repeatedly called himself an engineer, that would imply that he felt using the title would convince people that they should follow his advice because he has the requisite knowledge and experience.
I disagree. What he did is completely fine because he wasn't claiming he was licensed (or chartered as we say over here). I call myself an engineer in a professional capacity and actually do engineering for money. I have never claimed to be chartered and nor have I done enything charter-worthy like signing off a bridge or a railway signalling system and so on.
But the court was absolutely right not just from a legal point of view (who am I to judge?) but a linguistic and general good sense one. No one earns the term Engineer, but you can own Engineering certifications.
EVERYBODY at Disneyland is called an actor!
So is everyone in LA! The barista? An actor. Uber driver? An actor. Waiter? Definitely an actor.
[conservatives defined as] "opposing change that reduces freedom"
Why don't you go the whole hog and just define "conservative" as "better than other people", I mean you did 99% of that, why are you afraid of the last 1%?
The lovely thing is that when you define yourself as better than other people you never need to reconsider your actions. They're always right, by definition.
A lot of jurisdictions do not consider hydro to be renewable.
That sounds rather like legislating that pi is 3.
Huh? Apple doesn't have middle-click paste,
It does, like I said, in the terminal only. Seriously try it in terminal.app. It works. But it's a very poor shadow of what we have on X.
The main thing I miss about macOS on other platforms is having the same copy and paste shortcuts in the terminal as everywhere else. Other platforms (including crappy X11 DEs that originated on '90s PCs, but not proper UNIX DEs that originated on machines that had a meta key) decided to overload Control-C
Yep. Old unixy things from m*tif etc used Alt-C Alt-V, which worked just fine and dandy in the terminal. But at that stage windows was the thing to chase so they went by the wayside. That was probably the earliest victim of the trend of chasing the most fashionable desktop OS.
The one big thing Apple did better than anyone else was deploy a Unix-based operatimng system that users and developers both like.
I don't like it.
It's the OS that Linux might have become had it not been for all that poisonous bickering and fragmentation.
Please, fuck no.
This attitude is ruinin the experience of Linux. Linux was never going to be a better Apple than Apple, just as it wasn't a better Windows 95 than Windows 95 or a better XP than XP.
That was despite lots of effort. And it sucked. Instead of doing UNIX well, people keep chasing the latest fads and make Linux a shitty knockoff of whtever the currently most fashionable GUI is.
This sort of attidude is why the fuckwits at GNOME want to kill off middle click paste. Even though Apple have a crap version that only works in the terminal. but because Apple only have a crap version, Linux should too!
The load factor for UK nuclear plants hovered betweeen 65 and 77%
That's because we spent a fuckton of money developing nuclear reactor tech and then at the point where we'd figured it out and could actually roll out mature ones, we decided to junk it all and buy American.
It's the classic British way: spend the money developing innovative new tech then junk it and buy foreign just before we see fruits of the labour. Sometimes we even sell it off cheap, then let someone else sell it back to us for a large profit.
onshore wind in particular beats UK Nuclear on energy prices quite handily, onshore wind even managed to beat Combined Cycle Gas Turbines.
Great! We should build as many as we can. The main problem is we can't build enough since the population density is too high. When we run out of space for more, the choice will be fossil fuel or nuclear. I prefer the latter.
It used to be 7% or more, but with a political push to reduce it's percentage - it's now down to 4%.
Renewables are 11% according to the graph you posted.
Always been legal to [... etc ...]
Yes it has.
And this is why laws get made. From anything other than a legal point of view there is a material difference between something done at a personal scale (sitting on a bench, hiring a PI) and a massive systematic effort by a vast and incredibly well funded company.
People reconise the difference between the possibility that a PI might track them and the certainty that google is. The law doesn't, and this is ultimately why laws get made. It's both dickish and harmful and widely recognised as different but not technically ilegal, so companies will keep doing it until they're stopped by a change in the law.
I reckon a change in the law will hapen but only after wide scale harm has been proven. Better late than never and that's how most laws get made.
What would it even mean to have the right to "public privacy".
My guess would be the scale of the operation. Look at GDPR for example:
You can arrest someone from taking a picture of a nice looking park because you happened to be laying the grass?
Not under GDPR. But a company abusing that can be fined. A lot.
The reason why capturing images in public is legal is because anything else is the road to madness and collapse of society.
That's ridiculous blakc and white hyperbole. There's a difference between PERSONAL freedom and unfettered freedom of corporations with limited liability protection.
Don't like the restrictions of that massive gift of power? You could always give up limited liability.
Eh that's just a stupid reply.
The comparison was sound. No one was actually either calling anyone Nazis or comparing them to Nazis. But the logistical operation of finding 10 million people scattered throuhout the general population is something that's happened before. The best way to figure out how long it would take now is to see how long it took before.
LIKE freedom,
Good! So do I!
I want all government to shut down, stop stealing money from people, stop redistributing the stolen proceeds, stop controlling people.
Wait you just said you like freedom. Now you're effectively saying you want to live as a serf under the local warlord or crime boss.
Personally I prefer actual freedom. That requires a government to enforce it.