A helicopter is expected to spend at least twice the amount of time being maintained than it spends flying. The lowest actual estimate I could find said 3.5 times as much. If an electric helicopter can reduce the amount of time required for maintenance, the fact that refuelling is slower is completely negligible. Refuelling is free, it only ties down capital. When you look at lifetime costs of a helicopter, the initial purchase cost practically vanishes.
We ARE that much better. This kind of "plane drops out of the sky for no good reason" basically doesn't happen anymore. It used to, we got better.
The closest thing is probably the Air France Airbus where the crew got so confused that they spent several minutes believing they were overspeeding while the reality was that they have practically zero airspeed. Still, that only happened once, and the plane wasn't actively trying to crash, merely trying to confuse the crew.
It is ridiculous to have the safety of the aircraft depend on one single sensor with no clear indication of the state of that sensor. Especially if you then don't tell the crew about it because doing so would mean they would have to actually be trained on the aircraft they're flying, not on a somewhat similar model without the automatic trim system.
The year we live in has an effect on how good we are at air safety. The modelling tools are simply incomparably better today, our understanding of everything related to aircrafts has vastly improved.
There is no excuse to make a plane that can't fly straight.
So hopefully all 737 max pilots have gotten the message now, and will respond quickly and appropriately when their aircraft exhibit a determined effort to dive into the ground.
A better option would seem to be to fix the aircraft so that it does not exhibit a determined effort to dive into the ground.
Xpdf, evince, mupdf,... lots of open source viewers missing
The justification is this:
"In the first phase of our security evaluation we concentrated on pdf viewer and online validation services, since they give a clear indication wether the attack was successful. To this point, we did not analyze PDF libraries like poppler (pdfsig) or pdfbox, since different configurations are possible. For example, the validation of a signed pdf can be executed with different calls in pdfbox."
Of course they could have tested evince as a proxy for poppler. But they didn't.
No. LPWAN has encryption. It may not be amazing, but it's there.
The pager protocol on the other hand is entirely unencrypted. Any idiot with an SDR can spy on them. The devices are not designed with security in mind, so they are likely to have interesting vulnerabilities if someone sends them unexpected messages.
Security is actually the best reason to ditch the pagers as soon as possible.
Absolutely, raising the price of driving works. Lowering the cost of public transport doesn't. Naive economics would make people assume those things give equivalent results, but they don't.
According to the graph, the number jumps up and down a bit but does not have a clear trend. Considering how many people are affected and have their lives and their chances to contribute to society ruined by these diseases, it is a very low number. The EU alone spends 30 times that on agricultural subsidies, with unclear benefits.
Are you really asking that question? How is Netflix going to send you Rick Astley videos instead of the fast forward you requested? That is incredibly easy, they just ignore what your machine asks for and send whatever they want to instead.
Your client can block out Rick Astley. It cannot substitute Rick Astley with Godzilla 28 unless the streaming service kindly grants it the bits for Godzilla 28.
If they hire the planes with crew and everything, they are not an airline, they're a travel company. If they have their own crew or outsource it to a different company than the planes, they are an airline.
Similarly, if Netflix rents a studio without staff and brings their own people to start producing movies, they are a production studio. If they hire the whole studio including staff, they are not.
My car is parked next street... did not use it in 7 or 8 months...
That is the other thing that works apart from increasing congestion. Making parking inconvenient. If you have to walk a significant distance to get to your car and you struggle to find a parking space at your destination, you are likely to use public transport or cycling.
Instead, what happens is you have the same number of cars, much more closely spaced, driving slowly and taking longer to get to their destination.
You won't have the same number of cars. You'll have more and more cars. London has a low rate of car journeys as a percentage of total journeys, and that would absolutely skyrocket if you gave the cars more room. The low rate of car journeys is there despite the rather sorry state of the London Underground these days. Making cycling viable would reduce the car journeys even more, assuming that you use the freed-up space for bike lanes and not for letting more cars in.
In addition, congestion slows buses down (even accounting for bus lanes), and as buses slow down, so usage levels fall, and getting people out of cars and on to buses delivers a significant net reduction in pollution levels.
Congestion only slows buses down when you let it. If it does, you make more bus lanes and dedicate some roads to public transport, further increasing congestion for cars.
Do you actually live in London or have you just been talking with authority about a place you don't know?
I do not live in London. Insulting me does not change facts.
People in France don't like that fuel prices increase to tackle pollution. That does not say anything about whether fuel prices are an effective way to fight pollution (they are, but price increases have to be rather serious to work).
As I said, the policies that work are painful. Voters do not like painful, and for very good reasons. By all means, give voters fluffy things like free public transport for children, if that is what they want. That's democracy. Just don't lie to them and pretend it will improve congestion or pollution.
London is a great example. It is heavily congested, which keeps most people from driving into the center. Imagine the pollution you would get if you demolished houses to make most roads an extra lane wide.
As to marginal lanes to remove, there is always a lane to remove. If a road is down to a single lane per direction, make it one lane and force cars to pass in certain areas. If that is not enough, make it a pedestrian street and force the traffic to other roads. You can always make congestion worse.
Cars filling up a street idling emit less pollution per time than the same amount of cars driving at speed. Obviously they emit more pollution per distance travelled, but that is beside the point -- because there is no practical upper limit to the distance people are willing to drive in cities, if you give them room to do so.
In a 1000 or 2000 year old city in Europe: there are no such advantages.
The fact that in some cities the layout has already forced the issue does not change my point. People take public transport because congestion has made car journeys suck. Cost of public transport is practically irrelevant, no one picks it over driving because of cost. They do, however, pick cheap public transport over cycling.
Oh, you never have been in Europe?
I was born in Denmark. I have never lived outside Europe.
Slashdot Mirror
A helicopter is expected to spend at least twice the amount of time being maintained than it spends flying. The lowest actual estimate I could find said 3.5 times as much. If an electric helicopter can reduce the amount of time required for maintenance, the fact that refuelling is slower is completely negligible. Refuelling is free, it only ties down capital. When you look at lifetime costs of a helicopter, the initial purchase cost practically vanishes.
We ARE that much better. This kind of "plane drops out of the sky for no good reason" basically doesn't happen anymore. It used to, we got better.
The closest thing is probably the Air France Airbus where the crew got so confused that they spent several minutes believing they were overspeeding while the reality was that they have practically zero airspeed. Still, that only happened once, and the plane wasn't actively trying to crash, merely trying to confuse the crew.
It is ridiculous to have the safety of the aircraft depend on one single sensor with no clear indication of the state of that sensor. Especially if you then don't tell the crew about it because doing so would mean they would have to actually be trained on the aircraft they're flying, not on a somewhat similar model without the automatic trim system.
The year we live in has an effect on how good we are at air safety. The modelling tools are simply incomparably better today, our understanding of everything related to aircrafts has vastly improved.
There is no excuse to make a plane that can't fly straight.
In 1965 that kind of thing was inevitable. In 2019, we should do better.
So hopefully all 737 max pilots have gotten the message now, and will respond quickly and appropriately when their aircraft exhibit a determined effort to dive into the ground.
A better option would seem to be to fix the aircraft so that it does not exhibit a determined effort to dive into the ground.
Modern aircraft are a UI disaster.
The cynicism is strong in this one!
That's nice, but the chances that the NHS are using encrypted paging are pretty slim.
Also, proprietary encryption is always full of holes.
Xpdf, evince, mupdf,... lots of open source viewers missing
The justification is this:
"In the first phase of our security evaluation we concentrated on pdf viewer and online validation services, since they give a clear indication wether the attack was successful. To this point, we did not analyze PDF libraries like poppler (pdfsig) or pdfbox, since different configurations are possible. For example, the validation of a signed pdf can be executed with different calls in pdfbox."
Of course they could have tested evince as a proxy for poppler. But they didn't.
Easier to sniff / log too.
No. LPWAN has encryption. It may not be amazing, but it's there.
The pager protocol on the other hand is entirely unencrypted. Any idiot with an SDR can spy on them. The devices are not designed with security in mind, so they are likely to have interesting vulnerabilities if someone sends them unexpected messages.
Security is actually the best reason to ditch the pagers as soon as possible.
The pager service could technically be done much cheaper today by the use of LPWAN. This would enable easy competition between LPWAN providers.
Someone "just" has to fund the development of the new devices.
The frustrating thing is that the software support for the decent boards does not exist precisely because the Raspberry Pi exists.
But you are absolutely right about the state of software for everything that isn't either a Pi or PC compatible.
Absolutely, raising the price of driving works. Lowering the cost of public transport doesn't. Naive economics would make people assume those things give equivalent results, but they don't.
"by astrofurter"
I love it. Well played!
This part in particular is genius: "to unseat a popular and virtuous President."
According to the graph, the number jumps up and down a bit but does not have a clear trend. Considering how many people are affected and have their lives and their chances to contribute to society ruined by these diseases, it is a very low number. The EU alone spends 30 times that on agricultural subsidies, with unclear benefits.
Are you really asking that question? How is Netflix going to send you Rick Astley videos instead of the fast forward you requested? That is incredibly easy, they just ignore what your machine asks for and send whatever they want to instead.
Your client can block out Rick Astley. It cannot substitute Rick Astley with Godzilla 28 unless the streaming service kindly grants it the bits for Godzilla 28.
If they hire the planes with crew and everything, they are not an airline, they're a travel company. If they have their own crew or outsource it to a different company than the planes, they are an airline.
Similarly, if Netflix rents a studio without staff and brings their own people to start producing movies, they are a production studio. If they hire the whole studio including staff, they are not.
So the app triggers on someone, you go to them, you threaten to report that they were spending money on frivolous things...
My car is parked next street ... did not use it in 7 or 8 months ...
That is the other thing that works apart from increasing congestion. Making parking inconvenient. If you have to walk a significant distance to get to your car and you struggle to find a parking space at your destination, you are likely to use public transport or cycling.
Instead, what happens is you have the same number of cars, much more closely spaced, driving slowly and taking longer to get to their destination.
You won't have the same number of cars. You'll have more and more cars. London has a low rate of car journeys as a percentage of total journeys, and that would absolutely skyrocket if you gave the cars more room. The low rate of car journeys is there despite the rather sorry state of the London Underground these days. Making cycling viable would reduce the car journeys even more, assuming that you use the freed-up space for bike lanes and not for letting more cars in.
In addition, congestion slows buses down (even accounting for bus lanes), and as buses slow down, so usage levels fall, and getting people out of cars and on to buses delivers a significant net reduction in pollution levels.
Congestion only slows buses down when you let it. If it does, you make more bus lanes and dedicate some roads to public transport, further increasing congestion for cars.
Do you actually live in London or have you just been talking with authority about a place you don't know?
I do not live in London. Insulting me does not change facts.
LDAC can do 96kHz/24bit (Oreo+ Android phones, specialized hardware)
Only compressed. So can AptX HD.
None of them can do 44kHz 16bit uncompressed :(
People in France don't like that fuel prices increase to tackle pollution. That does not say anything about whether fuel prices are an effective way to fight pollution (they are, but price increases have to be rather serious to work).
As I said, the policies that work are painful. Voters do not like painful, and for very good reasons. By all means, give voters fluffy things like free public transport for children, if that is what they want. That's democracy. Just don't lie to them and pretend it will improve congestion or pollution.
London is a great example. It is heavily congested, which keeps most people from driving into the center. Imagine the pollution you would get if you demolished houses to make most roads an extra lane wide.
As to marginal lanes to remove, there is always a lane to remove. If a road is down to a single lane per direction, make it one lane and force cars to pass in certain areas. If that is not enough, make it a pedestrian street and force the traffic to other roads. You can always make congestion worse.
Cars filling up a street idling emit less pollution per time than the same amount of cars driving at speed. Obviously they emit more pollution per distance travelled, but that is beside the point -- because there is no practical upper limit to the distance people are willing to drive in cities, if you give them room to do so.
In a 1000 or 2000 year old city in Europe: there are no such advantages.
The fact that in some cities the layout has already forced the issue does not change my point. People take public transport because congestion has made car journeys suck. Cost of public transport is practically irrelevant, no one picks it over driving because of cost. They do, however, pick cheap public transport over cycling.
Oh, you never have been in Europe?
I was born in Denmark. I have never lived outside Europe.
Take lanes away from cars. Congestion increases. Pollution drops.