Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Does it really cost $100k? (Score 1) 461

by JumboMessiah (#46462469) Attached to: The $100,000 Device That Could Have Solved Missing Plane Mystery

I agree. The submitter doesn't know the industry. It's also a rather dubious claim becuase ACARS is fitted to every 777 that rolls off the line from Boeing. This includes ACARS with SATCOM, VHF, and HF capability. There's no need to "install" it.

The only argument is did Malaysian airlines fully utilize the service. To receive ACARS data remotely requires a subscription service to SITA, which can be rather expensive. No go and force this on an airline that's been on the verge of bankruptcy for quite some time.

There's no mandate that airlines use remote ACARS and I don't believe that they should be. Locating the aircraft sooner will not bring those people back. The submitter also forgets that it took 2 years to recover the FDR and CVR from AF447 and that plane sent loads of ACARS data via SATCOM link prior to the crash.

Comment: Re:Thoughts (Score 1) 142

Primary return data is most likely available for the initial part of the descent (maybe down to 10,000 AGL), regardless of SSR MODE-S data. The Gulf is covered pretty well radar wise (not counting military sets) Ref: See page 2. The difficulty is collecting, combining, and analysing all the CD2 data from the primary returns. Even then, the general public may not be advised of the outcome of the analysis until well after the search.

I concur that it did not break up at altitude, otherwise the debris field would of been located relatively close to the flight path.

Other notable water crashes took many years to determine their final outcomes. I agree with the sentiment, we need to be patient and let the experts do their work.

Comment: Re:Thoughts (Score 3, Informative) 142

IANAATC, but...

Most center surveillance radars have a range of 200 - 250NM (ARSR-3, ARSR-4, AN/FPS-117, AN/FPS-67B). Secondary beacon radars have a range of about 190NM for 1090ES equipped transponders.

You are correct in assuming most high altitude center control ops, for aircraft in cruise, rely heavily on MODE-S data. This is transponder data and not primary radar echo return data.

Terminal radar, the kind you see at your local airport, mostly relies on primary radar data. But at a shorter range (~50NM).

The reasons for the difference are many, but come down to accuracy and overlap. Center controllers use a mosaic of data from multiple radars that must average primary returns, this leads to slight disagreements on the true location of the aircraft. The MODE-S data is constant though, so it is preferred. In terminal environments, there's usually a single radar set. So the primary data is more useful in terms of accuracy for spacing the aircraft (they can pack them in tighter more safely). Terminal radar sets also have a higher scan rate.

MH370 was over the Gulf of Thailand and was under coverage of about three different radars. Even if the transponder was turned off, primary return data would still be available for the track. CrimsonAvenger has a valid point, but the last known location of the flight was far off shore and at a cruising altitude. So we could possibly speculate that line of sight was not a big factor.

There's a lot of big mysteries and speculation at this point, but we just need to give it time. They will eventually find the wreckage and hopefully determine they cause. There are many historical crashes that required more searching than has been applied to MH370 (AF447). In the meantime, grab some popcorn and enjoy the conspiracy theories...

Comment: Re:Wayland Remote Rendering (Score 1) 300

by JumboMessiah (#43210537) Attached to: GNOME Aiming For Full Wayland Support by Spring 2014

Late followup to this. It is non officially planned and Kristian is working on it. And if he is working on it, it should arrive by the time Wayland is slated to take over from X.org.

A libwayland application may start up a proxy compositor on the machine (server, appliance, closet PC in your example) and blit the compressed damaged regions over the network. Or an RDP (or SPICE, VNC) server could offer the proxy compositor (even through SSH).

He also has commented on examples of a rolling hash algorithm to instruct the client to reposition damaged regions vs re-blitting their contents.

Now that the 1.0 specification has been released, I hope to see others helping out in the area of remoting. Nobody's going to deny that Wayland can't do everything X11 can do today, but they're also not positioning Wayland to replace X11 _today_.

Comment: Wayland Remote Rendering (Score 4, Informative) 300

by JumboMessiah (#43161495) Attached to: GNOME Aiming For Full Wayland Support by Spring 2014

For everyone bitching about Wayland vs X11 and network transparency, you need to watch this talk by Kristian Høgsberg. Keith and the rest of the devs have always said that remoting would eventually come down the pipeline.

And for everyone else talking about efficiency of sending pixmaps via the network, you should learn how your current stack actually works. It will be much better with Wayland.

I've used X11 since 1995, I'm very fond of it. But I also realize it needs to go...

Comment: ES&S IVotronic (Score 5, Informative) 386

by JumboMessiah (#41902005) Attached to: Voting Machine Problem Reports Already Rolling In

The machine in the video is an ES&S IVotronic terminal. It's the same terminal I voted on this morning. It directly appears the digitizer is incorrectly calibrated. What the video author doesn't show is the paper tabulator in the lower left corner. It would of clearly showed his vote being tallied incorrectly. Perhaps he was voting Romney and didn't want his cast vote shown, but the paper trail recorder clearly shows your selection in the window. It even shows when you got back and correct a selection. Now, they key is that each candidate field on the screen is independently calibrated and can be re-calibrated in under a minute by any third party.

At minimum, this terminal should of been isolated and inspected for tampering. Hopefully that was the ultimate outcome. I know I would of not left the area until a proper election official arrived.

Comment: Professional Broadcasting (Score 4, Informative) 180

by JumboMessiah (#41286123) Attached to: 100GbE To Slash the Cost of Producing Live Television

Insightful write up. Getting rare here on ./

For those not RTFA, they are referring to using Ethernet in professional live broadcast situations. Aka, newsroom or outdoor sporting broadcasts where cable bundles are still common. I believe they are imagining a world where a broadcast truck rolls up to a stadium and runs a few pair of 100Gbe fiber vs a large coax bundle. This could save considerable time and money. Some interesting bw numbers:

SD 270 Mbit/s
Interlaced HD 1485 Mbit/s
Progressive HD 2970 Mbit/s

Comment: Wish I had both! (Score 1) 851

by JumboMessiah (#38463320) Attached to: Do You Really Need a Smart Phone?

What I really want?

I work on the move all the time and am very rarely in an office. My HTC Thunderbolt on Verizon 4G is one of the key factors that allows me to actually work _and_ get out and enjoy society. I've fielded calls and worked issues sitting in my car in a Target parking lot. But, that's what I do. I basically get paid to be available at a moments notice and provide support. I am happy with the trade off. I get great flexibility, and in return, give up some of my personal freedom.

So, here's my biggest issue to date. Smart devices are getting too big to be truly portable. Try dragging a 4.5" device around the gym on an armband. Or find a place for it on a 5 mile run. I need to be connected, but sometimes only really need the old school phone/texting features. What I would love to see is carriers offer a single phone number that will route to multiple SIMs in multiple devices. That way, when i don't need the power and bulk of the Thunderbolt, I can grab a small and pocketable device instead.

Perhaps Google voice can accommodate this? Anybody have any experience with it?

Comment: Re:Navy's answer to Chinese Anti-Carrier Missile (Score 1) 482

by JumboMessiah (#32969512) Attached to: Warships May Get Lasers For Close-In Defense

Doubtful. Current carrier fleet defenses are pretty impressive (forward to 2:30) already. And the Nimitz class carriers now use RIM-116 point defense systems (a carrier never travels alone).

The laser defense is just the last layer of the strategy and part of the overall big dick swinging contest. The Air Force is working on it, the Army is working on it, and the Navy wants its part.

I could see its use for cooking UAVs and other type stuff where you don't want to be wasting $1M missile shots. It's definitely a more economical weapon (sans development cost). It's also more effective against high trajectory fire, similar to MTHEL's capability.

Comment: Choice of F-104 (Score 2, Interesting) 85

by JumboMessiah (#31747206) Attached to: Another Contender For the Land Speed Record

The choice of the F-104 is by no accident. It's low altitude performance is well known.

Darryl Greenamyer's Red Baron F-104 did 998 mph (mach 1.30) officially and 1013 mph (mach 1.33) unofficially. At less than 300 ft, back in the '70's. The J79 has to be water/alcohol injected during runs like these, otherwise it will exceed it's maximum inlet operating temps.

Say what you want about the F-104, but it was built to fly straight and fast, intercept and shoot down bombers. Another work or artfrom Kelly Johnson and company IMHO. Especially considering the timeframe.

A penny saved is a penny to squander. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...