Batteries yes, but rocket's have huge reserves or kerosene and operate at high temperature. You could integrate a solid-oxide fuel cell as an energy stage (80% efficiency) and keep the stack warm with exhaust heat.

As opposed to people who complain about wikipedia can can't possibly have agendas?

Color me skeptical when various political factions are consistently complaining that "the media" is against them.

is that why you don't post your opinion on a public comments website?

Body cameras would go a long way to providing hard, tangible evidence that would let us get rid of the "few bad cops". Because trying to have the police self-police based on heresay absolutely does not work (high school is a sad prototype for life: everyone knew who the bully was, but guess what's always worse and dangerous: being the guy who tries to call him out on it).

On top of that, all trials of them show that the actual rate of false allegations against police plummets when they're used - it's a win-win.

Two places: people's lives aren't in danger with centrifuges. Them breaking is the same as any other mechanical stoppage of a plant. The choice of operating system, as a result, for the types of PLC controllers which are used, is quite different and subject to different selection requirements then an aircraft's flight systems.

Centrifuges are still different systems to aircraft. Aircraft don't run Windows either.

Yes if there's one obvious solution it's allowing a bunch of random people to make decisions about how to fly a plane. Populism is the true test of operating complex machinery!

A pilot has no way to know wind speed from being in the plane you realize. An autopilot would be able to infer it from GPS data alone since an apparent 0 ground-speed would not be showing loss of altitude or command-authority over the control surfaces. In practice a plane would be able to use dopper-radar to get a read on wind-speeds as well, and also sample the directions to infer the situation.

A pilot in a plane with 0 visibility (likely, if you had a complex situation arising) is more blind then a computer.

This is an important point: flying is so far outside watching for lions on the African planes that almost everything your instincts tell you to do is wrong. It's why pilots have checklists to start with - because in pretty much every situation that arises, the absolute worst thing you can do is start going with "what it feels like".

It's worth noting that the automation in modern fight aircraft is also absolutely vital - modern fighter jets are incapable of stable flight, and only fly because automation dynamically adjusts control services to correct for the chaotic irregularities of unstable flight.

The entire thing described here is an automation system with ground controllers. The plane would flag a bunch of alarms on the ground and operators would evaluate how to deal with it.

The plane would calmly throttle up and abort landing, the same way pilots would be trained to do? What do you even think you're saying here?

The history of air travel disasters is full of pilots who steadily held course until they crashed into the ground, or pulled the plane into a stall over and over again despite the autopilot repeatedly trying to take over and prevent a fatal situation.

Complaining about other people's open source projects seems to be what Slashdot posters do in order to make themselves feel important.

You are essentially blaming all security bugs ever on "incompetence". That's lazy management in the business world and it's stupid everywhere else. C has numerous and many traps. Building tools which make it impossible to make the "easy" mistakes is how we get to spend more time thinking about the actual hard ones.