Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
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:Flight Simulators and Computerized Calculation (Score 1) 321

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) 321

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) 321

...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:You don't want this to upgrade (Score 1) 343

Reviewing my comment, I see that I mentioned Windows 2000, and I believe it included the NT kernel. If not, then perhaps I should have extended to XP?

However, in terms of required OS-level functionality, I think that most of the later versions of Windows can only be described as bloatware. If the focus had been on optimizing and improving and properly securing a smaller OS as the hardware improved, I think we would be living in a quite different world. For two things, the OS itself would be really fast and much more secure.

There was a time when I could figure out what processes were actually running on my computers and which ones I actually needed. Now the Task Manager shows me a vast list of stuff, most of which I'm not using, but various parts of it are tied together in complicated ways, while EVERY part might contain severe vulnerabilities.

Actually, I'm certain that there are still plenty of severe vulnerabilities. At this point I think it's one of the few things I'm certain about regarding the latest and so-called greatest versions of anything from Microsoft.

As regards the original topic of Windows 10 upgrades, the only reason I upgraded to Windows 10 was because Microsoft was holding the gun of unsecured Windows 7 at my head. Ditto XP, except that Microsoft didn't give me an upgrade path and two of those machines are now Linux boxen. (One of those machines even runs an ancient app that is still important to me, at least in terms of avoiding a painful rewrite and port.)

Comment Re: Alternative media. (Score 1) 292

Okay, my apologies, but I was having trouble framing the context of your prior comment. It sounded like you were taking one of their absolute positions based on their confusion about what freedom means.

Not that I'm a linguist, but I suspect that a lot of the problem involves ambiguities in the English language around the many senses of "free". Again, not that I'm fluent, but insofar as I understand Japanese the way they use separate words for the various senses of "free" makes a lot of sense to me. (Going beyond that, I'm beginning to speculate on how the confusing modal verbs of English are related to similar confusions created by the modal confusions in Japanese. Perhaps everyone is trying to be as "proper" in a normative sense as their respective languages will permit?)

Comment Re:Sucked out of an airplane? Not likely (Score -1, Interesting) 278

Mythbusters does less science than the catholic church.

They couldn't have possibly tested what happens unless they were moving the aircraft at several hundred miles of air and openned a hole in the side which, due to the forward movement of the aircraft and the wind passing this new opening at a higher rate of speed than the surrounding air ... would have created a low pressure situations with strong winds that will 'suck' things right out of the aircraft. (Actually, they're blown out, vacuum doesn't pull anything, pressure on the other side pushes it).

Bernoulli described the physical processes doing this about 300 years ago now ... but hey, you're right, Jamie knows all about real science!

Also, don't let several confirmed cases of it happening in real aircraft incidents sway you either.

Oh and by the way, the sun is purple because Mythbusters said so.

Comment Re: Alternative media. (Score 1) 292

Well, his strong claim may have been incorrect in that sense, but I'm pretty sure that your claim is also incorrect. The trick is that they have to make some argument that the public interest is served by requiring the private businesses to respect people's Constitutional rights. Separate but equal? Remember? We went through all of this back in the '50s and '60s, so why are we still squabbling about it?

Perhaps more significantly, the government can pass laws or impose regulations that have restrictive effects on certain kinds of speech. I don't care how private you think your entity is, if you collect and distribute such speech as child pornography, you're going to get the heck regulated out of you. With my hearty endorsement, much as I approve of freedom of speech (which is NOT the same as freedom, though there are important relationships).

I'm afraid I suspect you [4145623] of being another libertarian confused about what freedom actually means. The presence of real-world constraints does not eliminate freedom, but rather they are part of the "meaningful" part of my sig equation.

Comment Re:YouTube in an EVIL nutshell (Score 1) 292

I think I agree with you, but those videos are mostly labors of love and not driven by the advertising concerns that are the focus of the original article or the broken and even criminal economic models that are my main focus. There are some other gems on YouTube, but I think few of them are related to the google's greed, which is the deeper source of my increasing dislike of the google.

Comment Re:You don't want this to upgrade (Score 1) 343

What if you had the free choice to contribute to a fund to keep the older software upgraded against security vulnerabilities? Would you prefer that to letting companies like Microsoft decide when the new version supports their marketing plans and the old versions will no longer be supported?

Then again, if I had my druthers, I might still be running Windows 95 or Windows 2000. My choice between those two would probably be based on the size of the relevant support projects...

Windows 3.1 is a tad too retrograde for me, but I can't see a lot of crucial OS-level improvements since 95 came out. Or at least almost nothing that I would require to be a part of the OS. I'm convinced that Microsoft's trade-off of unneeded features for unneeded complexity and unneeded security vulnerabilities has been negative for a long time.

Comment Re:YouTube in an EVIL nutshell (Score 1) 292

I think I'm glad that you got the insightful mod, but at the same time I think you could have gone much deeper with it.

The deep part that bothers me most is how advertising is tied to corporations that WANT docile, obedient, and even STUPID consumers who will obey the ads. Of course the risk of destroying public education was that there is no bottom limit to the resulting stupidity. Maybe you could even wind up with an insane clown president? Naw, That could never happen.

I do have to say a bit about why I don't use ad blockers. I feel like that is a violation of the implicit (and sometimes even explicit) agreement between me and the people who are incurring real costs to make the content available. I think there has to be some kind of business model there, and if I participate on the basis of being exposed to ads, then I shouldn't play technical games with the details.

Having said that, I confess that I am allergic to ads. If I can remember ANY ad for a product, then I count that as a reason to buy something else. Seems to be kind of self-defeating to make me watch a company's ads, and I doubt that company would be willing to pay to show me their competitors' ads. I suppose the obvious "technical solution" from the perspective of the advertising agency with the perfect weapon would be to detect the polarity of the viewers of the ads, tailoring each ad to each sucker, and in cases such as mine, that tailoring would be to advertise the main competitor in the most annoying way.

Solution time? Let me CHOOSE THE ADS that I am interested in seeing BEFORE wasting my time by shoving them in my face.

First example: They could give me several links to pick from to determine which advertiser's ads I see. Interesting wrinkle would be to tweak the timing of the ads to find out how the customers feel about the advertised products: "Do you want to watch this video with two minutes of beer ads or with a one-minute ad for sanitary napkins?" If people keep selecting product A, then the system would keep increasing the ads for A seeking equilibrium.

Second example: Auction my time for watching ads. The auctioneer would have a strong incentive to protect my privacy to protect future auctions, and I would have a strong incentive to give the auctioneer some real data about what I actually want to buy. The companies bidding for my time would have a strong incentive to reach truly qualified and interested customers.

Can you believe that I can actually fantasize about applying such solutions to the cesspool that is YouTube? I must be getting even more delusional.

Comment YouTube in an EVIL nutshell (Score 2) 292

Everyone say goodbye to dissenting opinions on YouTube.

The basis of the "insightful" moderation is eluding me. Par for today's Slashdot, though I remain more discouraged by the lack of actually "funny" comments. Or perhaps I should say dismayed by both?

Or maybe it's just too hard for me to imagine why anyone would pay to advertise anything on YouTube. For a lot of the user-generated content the adjective execrable is just too kind. Not sure about "dissenting opinions", but the only ones I remember noticing were on the wrong side of execrable.

These is some legitimate and good content, but it's mostly teasers and since it's purpose is to advertise itself, then any other ads are just confusing the issue, and my feeling is that most of the teaser content is free of ads, or at least the ads are not intrusive. Things like snippets from HBO or paid news channels.

The rest of the wannabe good content is pirated stuff. Much of that is reduced below good by the insertion of lots of intrusive ads, obviously for cases where the pirate is profiting that way, but YouTube has an obvious vested interest in supporting that sort of thing as long as some sucker is paying for the ads. Then there is a HUGE amount of fake piracy that is just intended to lure you to an installer where your computer will get pwned. Offensive enough, but downright EVIL when it is targeting innocent children, and LOTS of it has been doing exactly that for many years.

I used to waste some time trying to fight against it, but I eventually realized the google is too EVIL to care now, as long as they are making money off it. The motto about "Don't be evil" is long dead in favor of "All your attention are belong to us." However there is a real threat to the google's new mission statement. They had to revise it when they realized there was too much information out there and that "useful" was a complicated notion. The new mission of the google is to make the advertisers' information available and the utility function is the corporations' profits. Humans are only incidentally involved.

Comment Who shall watch those selfsame watchers? (Score 2) 152

So now we have a level of people who spend all their time watching other people working (or faking it), but the obvious new job opportunity is to get a job watching the guys who are watching the other guys.

It's the ultimate in job security, because they'll always need to hire someone at the next level up!

Unbounded recursion? Resources exhausted? Whatever do you mean?

Comment Ever heard of the Hastert Rule? (Score 1) 542

Whoever moderated your comment as "insightful" obviously did it based on agreeing with you, not on the basis of your fake evidence. In contrast to those "insightful" moderators, you got me to follow your link and it does NOT support your claims.

Actually, the so-called Republicans have institutionalized party discipline that would make Lenin blush. His Bolsheviks were supposed to have been the experts, but now they look like amateurs.

Not that I can really defend the Democratic Party. Insofar as I have supported them, it has always been a kind of allergic reaction to the gawdawful candidates the GOP has run, especially at the top of the ticket.

In my youth, I actually did research on the top races and almost always concluded the Democratic candidate was better (or at least less bad), while on the down-ticket races I tended to vote for whoever seemed less represented, such as women or candidates with minority-sounding names. When I got older, I discovered that the down-ticket races were more important than I had realized, but by that time the down-ticket winners had gerrymandered my vote to meaninglessness. They almost managed to disenfranchise me completely last time, though it didn't make any difference (of course).

The demographics actually prove the GOP is no more, notwithstanding their successful conversion therapy of the old Dixiecrat racists into Reagan Republicans. So they've adopted a new strategy: If you can't beat 'em, break the game.

Evidently time to brush up on my Russian.

Slashdot Top Deals

Prototype designs always work. -- Don Vonada