Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Sensors wrong (Score 1) 460 460

The flight computer wasn't confused, it correctly detected an error in the speed readings and then, as designed, returned control to the human pilots. It could just have well put the plane into the correct pitch/throttle settings itself, but it wasn't designed to.

Also a senior pilot in a non-chaotic situation (for example at a remote control station) would have had a much better chance of maintaining situational awareness over what was going on and so better spot mistakes like pitching up too far.

Comment Re:Sensors wrong (Score 1) 460 460

In the Air France 447 it was the (junior) co-pilots who became confused though, not the flight computer. In a more automated plane the autopilot would, in the same situation, have put the plane into a safe pitch attitude and thrust setting (the correct procedure for loss of airspeed indication) and called for the senior pilot/operator to fix the issue.

Comment Re:And that's half the story (Score 1) 178 178

But the thing is there's enough evidence that the plane remained flying to discount a sudden catastrophic failure; Military radar picked it up making several precise waypoint manoeuvres well away from it's planned flight path and the satellite comms gear kept responding for 7+ hours after the plane went missing.

Comment Re:And that's half the story (Score 2) 178 178

I could imagine some electrical problems from a large number of cells catching fire or 'gassing' the whole airplane within seconds.

But of course that would either quickly cause the aircraft to crash, or to just stick to its original autopilot headings if only the crew were incapacitated. Military radar caught it making precise manoeuvres around several waypoints well away from it's original flight plan...

Comment Re:And that's half the story (Score 3, Informative) 178 178

The standard procedure, as far as I know (not being an expert), is upon noticing the fire, the pilots would have shut down all the circuits on the plane in order to find out if one was responsible for the fire.

They don't turn off all circuits, only non-essential ones. For example as in this crash caused by an in-flight fire the standard procedure is to switch off power to the cabin but not the cockpit, as without power to the cockpit you'll barely be able to fly. The radio was also kept on at all times as you're less likely to be able to make a successful emergency landing without being able to talk to ATC to make sure the runway is clear and prepared.

Comment It's a test of reading bad code, not writing it (Score 2) 252 252

It's not telling students to use recursion to output that number sequence, it's asking students to read and understand a bit of code that does it. Being able to read and understand other people's badly written code is absolutely essential in todays software industry...

Comment Re:ExFAT (Score 1) 229 229

Logically it's a bit of a grey area though, because while cameras have tightly integrated hardware and firmware laptops almost entirely have general purpose, easily replaceable OSs and peripherals like card readers are internally attached via general buses like USB so are more like standalone card readers.

If putting an SDXC logo on a laptop depended on having a specific OS installed, not just SDXC hardware, then selling that laptop without an OS installed or with a different OS would need a different production line for a different case without the SDXC logo.

Comment Re:ExFAT (Score 2) 229 229

But in order to carry the SDXC logo, the device must be capable of reading and writing the patented file system.

That makes sense for self-contained devices like cameras, but for card readers (especially add-on readers) there must be an exception because the reader itself can't read ExFAT (or any other filesystem for that matter), it's the host OS that does.

Comment Apart from all the other languages (Score 1) 245 245

But then some clever kid discovered he could get JavaScript running on the server. Suddenly, there was no need to use PHP to build the next generation of server stacks.

What is this blogspam shit doing here? There's no "need" to use either of them, there have been loads of alternatives to PHP for years and there are still plenty of alternatives for both. The individual points make no sense either, it's like they've just quickly Googled for "PHP advantages" and "Node.JS advantages", bullet-pointed them on a page and stuffed the rest full of ad links.

Never ask two questions in a business letter. The reply will discuss the one you are least interested, and say nothing about the other.