Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Democrats (Score 2) 298

You said,

It's not just one party doing it.

The summary said,

The measure passed by 232 votes to 184 along party lines

Yes, it's one party doing it. First they changed the rules via the FCC, and now they've made it permanent. It's the very definition of "one party doing it".

Comment Re:Flight Simulators and Computerized Calculation (Score 1) 300

Well, I certainly hope you [Fast Ben] are a better pilot than I was (which wouldn't be difficult), but you didn't consider the width. If the runway is reasonably wide and you control your approach properly, then you would be landing straight and slowing down to a safe taxi speed well before you need to start following the curve.

If your approach is bad, then you're supposed to go around anyway. From that perspective it might actually increase the safety if there is a clear buffer zone around the airport. I still remember the time I was on final and a sudden crosswind lined me up over the parked planes... However, the "sudden crosswind" is a case that this design would still be vulnerable to, so you still need planes and pilots that can handle such situations. (No mention of "sudden" in the comments, but that doesn't much surprise me on Slashdot these days. Maybe I should be surprised to see another pilot here at all? A lot of today's comments are from people who know little whereof they speak... (Though I still miss the "funny" more.))

I think the instrument landing part is where you earned the "insightful" mod, though I doubt the moderator knows why. However, I think it is basically a software problem. Yes, you'd need more beacons, but mostly you'd need to be able to interpret their data from more orientations. I think you'd have to calculate every instrument approach for the current conditions, and probably for the individual plane.

Comment Re:More =/= better (Score 1) 300

Again, I have to wonder about the moderation as "insightful". At least you [MrLogic17] posed your comment in the form of a question.

The obvious answer, though it doesn't appear in any of the visible replies (and I basically don't read ACs) is that you don't have to keep all of it clear, but only the parts that are actually in use under the current wind conditions, as well as selected taxiways.

This part is more speculative, but I think it would actually be easier to keep the "active" runways clear since the wind would always be blowing directly down the runway. From a mathematical perspective, the "entry point" of fresh snow would only be at one small point at the end of each active runway.

As regards the last part of your comment, pretty sure you've never flown a plane. I was a lousy pilot, but I'm pretty sure the wording refers to two landing and two taking off, but they aren't counting one of the taking off planes because it is waiting for the turbulence to settle down. Another possibility is that one side is being used for landings and they are counting the takeoff as one plane because that takes roughly twice as long per plane.

Comment Re:Conflict? (Score 1) 300

...they wouldn't have to fight against crosswinds. And three planes would be able to take off or land at the same time...

If three are landing at the same time, I'd say that at least one is fighting cross-winds.

Rather than blaming the author, I'd rather say that whoever moderated that comment as insightful doesn't read too well. As regards the author, it's merely obvious that he or she has no experience actually flying planes.

Oh well. Moot insofar as the article is on the edge of Slashdot death (at the bottom of the page). The largest disappointment is the lack of funny comments on such a rich target.

Comment Re:Is it just branding or is it a real patent issu (Score 1) 243

I'm actually surprised that there's a market for cheap golf balls given how much disposable income you need to have to play golf these days. You need to belong to a country club, buy thousands of dollars worth of equipment

Not really: you can buy relatively good clubs (non-pro of course) for a few hundred dollars, and there are plenty of golf courses that don't require club membership. You can play a round for less than $50 on some decent courses. They're not quite PGA-level, but then again if you aren't going to spend a ton of money you probably aren't at the skill level that would require.

Slashdot Top Deals

Mathematicians practice absolute freedom. -- Henry Adams

Working...