A computer doesn't give a shit if the runway is straight or curved, because it can handle a little more left (or whatever) while it's managing dozens of other things.
An autoland system in aircraft depends on the local airport navigation system - either Instrument Landing System (ILS) cat III or Microwave Landing System (MLS).. An ILS or MLS installation cannot be easily moved, and is usually tuned and adjusted for a specific runway.
For this to be viable, it would have to be implemented in conjunction with a Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS), an augmentation to GPS navigation which could provide guidance from any runway direction. However, GBAS does not currently provided the required accuracy for autoland systems. I think if they want this concept to work, they need to focus on the navigation system challenges first, including air traffic management.
But how much time do you save nowadays though. 20 years ago when the Concord ran, you got to the airport 45 min ahead of time with plenty of time to spare.
Today, international travel takes about 3 hours at the airport alone. Let alone the flight. So if we're taking 9 vs 6 hours spent, is it really that big of a difference?
The Boom jet is a business jet, not a commercial aircraft. Passengers in a business jet typically drive directly to the tarmac and board the plane, bypassing the usual delays. I've had the opportunity to fly business jet once for work, and it only required me to arrive 15min ahead of takeoff, with the additional benefit of not having to do any layovers.
According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), a bridge is classified as structurally deficient if the condition rating for the deck, superstructure, substructure or culvert and retaining walls is rated 4 or below or if the bridge receives an appraisal rating of 2 or less for structural condition or waterway adequacy.
They're rating the bridge based on whether one or more of the bridge key structural elements are in poor condition or not. The need to widen the bridge is secondary to their assessment.
I have a few issues with this argument:
- The current states with their boundaries are artificial man-made creations. California could've entered the union as 2 states or the Dakotas as one. Given the political compromises made for many states to enter the union, I'd say allocating votes by state is allocating votes according to 19th century political compromises made with slave states.
- While the electoral college is said to give smaller states a voice, presidential candidates completely ignored smaller states. Wyoming may have the biggest electoral college weight, but it received zero ad spending from either candidate. Even a battleground state like NH was mostly ignored after the primaries. Attention is solely focused on the large battleground states.
- Even if votes are allocated by state according to the electoral college formula, there is no need to have the electoral college as an intermediary. Even today, the presidential election results are not final, and it is possible, even if unlikely, that electors could change their vote. In the 2000 election, it would have taken only 2 electors to change the results. That this is both legal and possible should worry voters.
While true that the differences may be demographic in nature, these claims point to a bigger problem with e-voting machines: there is no paper trail to allow the results to be audited and scrutinized. The integrity of the results cannot be verified. With a paper ballot, a careful manual recount would've been possible, with multiple observers to confirm the count. This is simply not possible with electronic ballots
Having a cloud of suspicion over the results benefits no one, most of all Trump himself. Any election system that does not have an auditable paper trail will become a breeding ground for conspiracy theories and a focus for electoral challenges. This is bad not just for the losing candidate, but for democracy in general, as it risks deligitimizing the results.
For an airliner, what matters is the flight time+aircraft turnaround time. Currently a trip from New York to London takes 6h30, and London to New York averages around 8hrs, due to prevailing winds. When aircraft turnaround time is included, usually around 1hr in average, this means an aircraft can be used to fly one round-trip fly a day.
With a flight time of 3-4hrs, this new supersonic aircraft will be able to fly 2 round trip flights a day, and possibly 3 if turnaround is quick. For an airliner, this means they need half the number of aircraft to maintain the same flight frequency, which reduces costs. This is where airliners can see substantial savings.
When people use the expression "he's on autopilot" they tend to mean someone who's just going through the motions without being mentally engaged. In a popular sense, autopilot is used for any task that is running without active engagement. E.g. a business running on autopilot, to mean a business functioning without active engagement. What matters is how the term is popularly used, not how it is used in a particular technical context.
I suspect the real reason Tesla wants to hang on to "Autopilot" term, is that it allows them to subtly market this function as a self-driving vehicle without explicitly saying so by playing on the misunderstanding of the term by laypeople. This allows them to have it regulated as a cruise control device, instead of the more stringent safety and reliability standards that a self-driving car would have to meet.
That she's being held to a different standard is established. Anyone else applying for a high-level, sensitive job in the government with her track record would never, ever be hired (presuming they were out of jail and able to apply in the first place).
There should be a different standard. In most european countries, elected officials are given broad immunity from crimes commited while in office. This avoids politically based prosecutions, while still leaving the option of the ballot box to remove politicans accused of serious mismanagement. While broad parliamentary immunity can allow some corrupt elected officials to go unpunished, most europeans recognize the benefits to democracy of avoiding political show trials far outweigh any risk of a few bad apples going unpunished.
Clinton isn't just anyone else applying for a goverment job. She is the front running candidate for the top political office in the country. Having even an administrative sanction against her would be a damaging and corrosive interference in the political process. She can and will still be judged by a jury of her peers - the american electorate.
If it's good enough to drive at all, it's good enough to be put to use for the purpose I bought it.
The problem is there's likely regulatory issues involved. In states where legislation to regulate self-driving cars has been introduced, they've largely been treated as experimental vehicles where their usage is restricted. Using it for commercial purposes would likely violate the limited scope under which these vehicles have been allowed in the road.
Unix soit qui mal y pense [Unix to him who evil thinks?]