Correct me if I'm wrong but don't most modern aircraft have an inertial navigation system and a seperate angle of attack transmitter protruding from the plane? Why no redundancy?
Well, you're confusing some of the terms. An inertial navigation system is for navigation, e.g. north is that way. The failed computer, an "air data inertial reference unit" is (probably) the computer that collects the measurement data from angle of attack probes, pitot-static tubes, altimeters, and whatever other sensors they have, and calculates useful parameters like angle of attack, airspeed, altitude, etc...
They have redundancy. They surely have multiple angle of attack probes. They might even have multiple computers to compare the results. They surely try to detect and discard erroneous measurements. But sometimes the wrong things will fail at the wrong time and in the wrong way, and all the data will be junk. Murphy was, in fact, an aerospace engineer.
The flight control computer needs an angle of attack value. They don't have the option declaring the input suspicious and giving manual control to the pilot. Not on Airbus, anyway.
Easy. Put a man on Mars. For only a few billion dollars, you can have all the coverage you want, and inspire the next generation of engineers and scientists (and mathematicians).
"Ice is up to my solar panels now. So cold... so cold... Why haven't they come for me yet? They said they would. They promised. I know they will, I just need to hold out... a little... longer..."
1) Balance laptop on hands with assistance of IBM's new technology. 2) Drop laptop. 3) ??? 4) Profit!
Wait. Wait, that's it! I've just figured out what the "???" step is. It's "sue"! Of course! It's so obvious now. How could we have been so blind!? The gnomes are to blame for today's flood of frivolous lawsuits. THE GNOMES RUN THE RIAA!
They do make a point about the roll rate, but a Skyhawk is much more useful for migrating coconuts. An African swallow could carry one coconut at most, but they are non-migratory, so it is uncertain what sort of range they would have. European swallows are generally thought to be unable to carry even one coconut, unless two of them carried it together, but that increases the risk of mid-air collisions.
A Skyhawk, on the other hand, could carry a large number of coconuts. However, unlike with the swallows (where the main issue is not the grip but the weight ratios), the Skyhawk would be limited by the number of coconuts that could be attached. The Skyhawk is an attack aircraft with a payload of close to 10,000 lbs, which would make for a lot of coconuts. But, the only reasonable place to attach large numbers of them without causing aerodynamic interference would be the wing pylons, where the bombs usually go. If they were to fit, these coconut packages could not be much bigger than the bombs. As there are only five hardpoints, I can't imagine there being room for more than about 50 coconuts.
Still, this is a significant improvement over the swallows, and if you had to choose between the two, the Skyhawk would be a much better choice for migrating coconuts into temperate climes. Of course, something like a C-17 would be even better, but those have an even lower roll rate.
We'll never get there if we keep putting it off until "technology is better than it is now." Trips to orbit, the moon, and space stations will never be casual if we don't push the technology that exists now.
No way. I'm sure the hypnotoad can hypnotize brain slugs too. So, if you get a brain slug and see hypnotoad, the brain slug will make you think that hypnotoad is great.
Is it a space race? Yes, but they are several space laps down. Still, there is a long way to go to the space finish, and if we just pulled into the space pits and sat there, they could catch up.
Many (most? all?) US military aircraft already have inertial navigation that is aided by GPS, i.e. the inertial system does its thing, occasionally receiving updates from GPS to reduce error. For them, GPS is not necessary, but it helps. Even JDAMs, which are often called "GPS-guided" bombs, are guided by INS, with GPS aid (if available).
AI in OFP doesn't cheat a lot at all. 300 feet is not very far. In fact, it's very close. 300 meters is a farish engagement range, and it's quite possible to take out an entire AI squad from that range if you engage first, if they're in the open, and, most importantly, if you don't miss. Frankly, if you miss from 100 meters, you deserve to get shot.
In fact, the AI is blind compared to humans. In the open, you'll notice them before they notice you, and if you're behind concealment, they'll walk right next to you without seeing you. They do detect you when you shoot (unless you're really far), but they are slow to react.
Actually, the article doesn't say that being somewhat overweight reduces your risk of death, but only that it does not increase it. So, it won't be greater than 100%.
The reason orbital vehicles have problems with heat when reentering the atmosphere is because they are moving at an orbital velocity (for their orbit) before they enter. If you were to jump out of the space elevator, your initial velocity would be zero, which is quite a bit lower. That doesn't mean you wouldn't have any problems with heat, but certainly not as much as something try to get back from orbit.
I will discontinue using unauthorized P2P protocols on your network. I appologize if my usage of such protocols has caused any problem for your department of for the University.
From now on, I will only use allowed protocols, such as FTP and HTTP, to illegally download copyrighted material across your network.
The tracks are not too narrow. Monaco is an exception, most tracks are wide enough. One element of track design did contribute to the murder of passing, and that's the addition of chicanes. The simplest and safest passing maneuver can occur at a sharp corner after a very long straight, because it is possible to utilize drafting on the straight, outbraking in the braking zone, and the geometry is favorable if you get on the inside. There are no longer any very long straights.
The top cars are near equal, but that has never stopped passing. The problem with heavy reliance on aerodynamics is that the surfaces of the car in the back will not be as effective passing through the air disturbed by the car in front.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't most modern aircraft have an inertial navigation system and a seperate angle of attack transmitter protruding from the plane? Why no redundancy?
Well, you're confusing some of the terms. An inertial navigation system is for navigation, e.g. north is that way. The failed computer, an "air data inertial reference unit" is (probably) the computer that collects the measurement data from angle of attack probes, pitot-static tubes, altimeters, and whatever other sensors they have, and calculates useful parameters like angle of attack, airspeed, altitude, etc...
They have redundancy. They surely have multiple angle of attack probes. They might even have multiple computers to compare the results. They surely try to detect and discard erroneous measurements. But sometimes the wrong things will fail at the wrong time and in the wrong way, and all the data will be junk. Murphy was, in fact, an aerospace engineer.
The flight control computer needs an angle of attack value. They don't have the option declaring the input suspicious and giving manual control to the pilot. Not on Airbus, anyway.
No need for the complexity of flipping a coin. If the questions are random, answering 'yes' all the time still ought to be correct 50% of the time.
And you don't even need to build a bot. Just grab a middle management yes-man from your nearest office.
They're going about this all wrong. The correct procedure is:
1. Invent and patent "A"
2. Claim prior art and start suing
3. This step you know unless you're new here.
Easy. Put a man on Mars. For only a few billion dollars, you can have all the coverage you want, and inspire the next generation of engineers and scientists (and mathematicians).
Not at all. You know what they say, there are many more aircraft in the sea than there are submarines in the sky.
Hey, if your wife was a bitch like Hera, you too would get wasted and go around taking various forms and impregnating mortal women, so don't judge.
Sorry, that particular insight is marked "for emergency use only."
Actually, thou hast broken it. "Ye" was only the subject form, "you" was the object before it took over everything else.
-- 16th Century Grammar... Spanish Inquisitor.
Seriously, for such an advanced species, they make very little sense.
Maybe they only have women?
It'll only get worse.
"Ice is up to my solar panels now. So cold... so cold... Why haven't they come for me yet? They said they would. They promised. I know they will, I just need to hold out... a little... longer..."
1) Balance laptop on hands with assistance of IBM's new technology.
2) Drop laptop.
3) ???
4) Profit!
Wait. Wait, that's it! I've just figured out what the "???" step is. It's "sue"! Of course! It's so obvious now. How could we have been so blind!? The gnomes are to blame for today's flood of frivolous lawsuits. THE GNOMES RUN THE RIAA!
They do make a point about the roll rate, but a Skyhawk is much more useful for migrating coconuts. An African swallow could carry one coconut at most, but they are non-migratory, so it is uncertain what sort of range they would have. European swallows are generally thought to be unable to carry even one coconut, unless two of them carried it together, but that increases the risk of mid-air collisions.
A Skyhawk, on the other hand, could carry a large number of coconuts. However, unlike with the swallows (where the main issue is not the grip but the weight ratios), the Skyhawk would be limited by the number of coconuts that could be attached. The Skyhawk is an attack aircraft with a payload of close to 10,000 lbs, which would make for a lot of coconuts. But, the only reasonable place to attach large numbers of them without causing aerodynamic interference would be the wing pylons, where the bombs usually go. If they were to fit, these coconut packages could not be much bigger than the bombs. As there are only five hardpoints, I can't imagine there being room for more than about 50 coconuts.
Still, this is a significant improvement over the swallows, and if you had to choose between the two, the Skyhawk would be a much better choice for migrating coconuts into temperate climes. Of course, something like a C-17 would be even better, but those have an even lower roll rate.
We'll never get there if we keep putting it off until "technology is better than it is now." Trips to orbit, the moon, and space stations will never be casual if we don't push the technology that exists now.
No way. I'm sure the hypnotoad can hypnotize brain slugs too. So, if you get a brain slug and see hypnotoad, the brain slug will make you think that hypnotoad is great.
Is it a space race? Yes, but they are several space laps down. Still, there is a long way to go to the space finish, and if we just pulled into the space pits and sat there, they could catch up.
Many (most? all?) US military aircraft already have inertial navigation that is aided by GPS, i.e. the inertial system does its thing, occasionally receiving updates from GPS to reduce error. For them, GPS is not necessary, but it helps. Even JDAMs, which are often called "GPS-guided" bombs, are guided by INS, with GPS aid (if available).
Do you realize that the Titan rockets burned 20,000 gal. of fuel per second (!) to go to the Moon.
No, I actually didn't realize that. I always thought it was the Saturn rockets that did that, not Titan. Wow, I guess I was ignorant.
"descending 20 times faster" probably refers to descent rate, not airspeed.
AI in OFP doesn't cheat a lot at all. 300 feet is not very far. In fact, it's very close. 300 meters is a farish engagement range, and it's quite possible to take out an entire AI squad from that range if you engage first, if they're in the open, and, most importantly, if you don't miss. Frankly, if you miss from 100 meters, you deserve to get shot.
In fact, the AI is blind compared to humans. In the open, you'll notice them before they notice you, and if you're behind concealment, they'll walk right next to you without seeing you. They do detect you when you shoot (unless you're really far), but they are slow to react.
I understood the word "the", unless they have a new meaning for it. Do they!?
What will the Air Force use now?
Actually, the article doesn't say that being somewhat overweight reduces your risk of death, but only that it does not increase it. So, it won't be greater than 100%.
The reason orbital vehicles have problems with heat when reentering the atmosphere is because they are moving at an orbital velocity (for their orbit) before they enter. If you were to jump out of the space elevator, your initial velocity would be zero, which is quite a bit lower. That doesn't mean you wouldn't have any problems with heat, but certainly not as much as something try to get back from orbit.
A better letter to IT:
Dear IT Department,
I will discontinue using unauthorized P2P protocols on your network. I appologize if my usage of such protocols has caused any problem for your department of for the University.
From now on, I will only use allowed protocols, such as FTP and HTTP, to illegally download copyrighted material across your network.
The tracks are not too narrow. Monaco is an exception, most tracks are wide enough. One element of track design did contribute to the murder of passing, and that's the addition of chicanes. The simplest and safest passing maneuver can occur at a sharp corner after a very long straight, because it is possible to utilize drafting on the straight, outbraking in the braking zone, and the geometry is favorable if you get on the inside. There are no longer any very long straights. The top cars are near equal, but that has never stopped passing. The problem with heavy reliance on aerodynamics is that the surfaces of the car in the back will not be as effective passing through the air disturbed by the car in front.