jussij

44 ms·

421.
by jussij 7y ago
OS/2 1.x was the competition for Windows 3.x and it ran DOS programs in a thing colloquially called a dog box so you can imagine how well that worked. And that dog box could only run MS-DOS and no Windows programs. Now it is true O
422.
by jussij 7y ago
OS/2 had a big advantage over Windows in that it was an OS designed from the ground up. Windows started out life as nothing more than a GUI designed to make MS-DOS look more like the Apple Macintosh. One of Windows 3.x big strengths wa
423.
by jussij 7y ago
The page says the records stated that manufacturing work had been completed when it had not . If that statement is correct then it means Boeing or someone at Boeing had been lying to the FAA and that would be a rather big deal in line with
424.
by jussij 7y ago
Boeing said it self-disclosed the problem to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration after Air Canada notified them of the fuel leak. If that statement is accurate it means Boeing the entity took ownership of what was being reported. It
425.
by jussij 7y ago
> At this point, there isn't much value for Microsoft to hang on to the legacy of Windows I would say this move by Microsoft is the exact opposite, because it maintains Windows at the centre of the picture. Microsoft is basically sa
426.
by jussij 7y ago
Thanks for the link. It is a very interesting read. In particular it also says this: To avoid both signals being added by the system, a priority P/B is provided on each stick. By pressing this button, a pilot may cancel the inputs of
427.
by jussij 7y ago
> The Airbus does average the inputs if both pilots are making inputs at the same time. Do you have a url/link/pdf that describes this behaviour?
428.
by jussij 7y ago
> which will now stay in storage until 2025 This is the really big problem Boeing now faces. For these planes to fly again they need to be certified safe to fly again. However since the FAA was one of the last authorities to ground the p
429.
by jussij 7y ago
I would say times have changed at Boeing, because it seems for the MAX, rather than sorting their shit out they instead seem to prefer covering up their design faults. They also seem to have a bad habit of blaming the dead pilots for not
430.
by jussij 7y ago
100% correct. The available evidence suggest this averaging thing never happened and certainly was not the cause of the crash. What we have is situation of two pilots in close proximity to each other not communicating and the captain unfo
431.
by jussij 7y ago
> "turned it up to 11", and didn't re-evaluate the original design. In other words they thru all engineers principals out the window. Now there is no doubt this is exactly what happened. But the bigger question is why did
432.
by jussij 7y ago
I will have to take your word on this dual input alarm as I have not read or seen any details on this alarm. Now if that alarm was raised then that suggests both pilots were in error as they both seemed to have ignore that alarm. However
433.
by jussij 7y ago
I was responding to the claim the flight control was averaging the two pilot inputs, because if that was the case then two pilots would have been flying the plane. Might point was I doubt that this was in fact happening and there was only e
434.
by jussij 7y ago
I could see how in the day of the internet that move might backfire rather badly. The new plane might quickly turn into a internet meme.
435.
by jussij 7y ago
I don't the flight control was averaging the pilot inputs. From this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Human_fa... In April 2012 in The Daily Telegraph, British journalist Nick Ross publis
436.
by jussij 7y ago
Hence the reason I said time will tell. But there are also many examples of aircraft with terrible early safety records that never recovered from their bad start.
437.
by jussij 7y ago
What amazes me about this whole sorry saga is what appears to be blatant deception on the part of Boeing. Boeing somehow tricked the FAA into believing, from the pilots perspective the 737-MAX and 737 were the exact same plane. That allowed
438.
by jussij 7y ago
The FAA suffered a major loss of credibility in their handling of the first round of testing/accreditation of the MAX. The FAA can't afford another stuff up this second time around and as such I suspect they will be checking every
439.
by jussij 7y ago
Just visit a flight tracking website before booking. In addition I'm sure airlines not flying the MAX will be using that fact as a marketing tool (i.e. we only fly Airbus etc) so you could limit your bookings with just those airlines.
440.
by jussij 7y ago
Boeing also has a solid safety record on their other models 777 and 767 and an incredibly poor safety record for their 737-MAX model. The problem for Boeing is the history of flying has many examples of planes with poor safety records bei
441.
by jussij 7y ago
> Open Source is the worst thing that can happen to the US tech in US vs China trade war. While the OP seems to have added some level of rant to the end of the post, I do suspect the first part of the post has some merit and is in fact c
442.
by jussij 7y ago
From the article: In India, a 22 per cent deficit has been recorded in pre-monsoon showers in the months of March, April and May — the second lowest in the past 65 years — and with monsoons delayed by a fortnight or so, daily temperatures
443.
by jussij 7y ago
> The test sure seemed to prove that. I would not get too hung up on those multiple choice tests. I've been programming professionally now for over 25+ years and ran into my first multiple choice test about 4 years ago. In a very sh
444.
by jussij 7y ago
> What possible incentive could Pfizer have to suppress something they thought could be useful? Without seeing the results of the test it would be impossible to know. But hypothetically the reason could be as simple as them not wanting
445.
by jussij 7y ago
> Because Pfizer believed it would lead others down a wrong path. Call me a sceptic but I don't believe that for a minute. Instead I'm sure they acted on some other ulterior motive.
446.
by jussij 7y ago
> Presumably no pilot will fly into terrain if in control. The history of flight has many instance where this has happened. A very common cause is bad visibility mixed in with mountainous terrain.
447.
by jussij 7y ago
In fact Cicadas emerge on 7, 13 and 17 year periods. The theory for this 'prime number' periodic cycle is quite interesting: https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2001/11/27/421251.ht...
448.
by jussij 7y ago
and reputation.
449.
by jussij 7y ago
> There's absolutely no reason why a properly-designed and -vetted MCAS system wouldn't have been a perfectly acceptable solution Surely that was exactly the MCAS that was installed in both of the planes that crashed. But the f
450.
by jussij 7y ago
> However, that wasn't worthy of sensationalistic headlines in the NYT. The headline was formed based on the quote from the academic involved: 'We are flirting in uncharted territory,' Dr. Marsh So if the headline is sen

More ›