tjohns

30 ms·

391.
by tjohns 4y ago
You can't compare a for-profit corporation with a public library. You also can't compare a TV station (which offers fixed programming) with a library (which allows users to browse titles on request). Libraries are not supposed to
392.
by tjohns 4y ago
NOAA doesn't list any meaningful geomagnetic storms right now: https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/communities/space-weather-enthusia... But that aside, I'd really hope that these cars are using professional WAAS-capab
393.
by tjohns 4y ago
A big part of the reason why we have an epidemic of obesity is because it's cheaper (and easier) to eat junk food than to eat healthy. Here in the Bay Area, I can buy a McDonalds value menu hamburger and a soda for $2, or I can buy a h
394.
by tjohns 4y ago
This would involve a waiver to one or more rules under FAR Part 107. The FAA publishes all of the waivers here: https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/part_107_waiver... At the moment, the only waivers on fi
395.
by tjohns 4y ago
Each side in a trial gets to dismiss a certain number of potential jurors, for nearly any reason they like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire#United_States
396.
by tjohns 4y ago
I use it when working on Ubuntu/Debian LTS systems, since the Homebrew packages tend to be more significantly more up-to-date than whatever's packaged in the LTS Apt repositories. As an added benefit, unlike apt, you don't ne
397.
by tjohns 4y ago
To be clear, this is not a "backdoor" in the traditional sense. Nobody can log into your router without your consent. This is a way for the router administrator (you) to manually give the police access to a copy of traffic in resp
398.
by tjohns 4y ago
From that document: "If you’re an enterprise managing trusted CAs for your organization, including locally installed enterprise CAs, the policies described in this document do not apply to your CA. No changes are currently planned for
399.
by tjohns 4y ago
And how do you know you're actually encrypting against google.com's public key, and not somebody else's key? A VPN provider is in the perfect position to MITM all of your traffic, swapping out any site's public keys with
400.
by tjohns 4y ago
That's standard procedure in flying as well, drilled into pilots' heads from their very first flight lesson: A: "You have the flight controls." B: "I have the flight controls." A: "You have the fli
401.
by tjohns 5y ago
It's an impedance mismatch. You're moving files between a system that supports multiple streams per file (data fork + resource fork) to a system that has no concept of different streams (POSIX). The extra stream has to go somewher
402.
by tjohns 5y ago
There is one .DS_Store file per directory. It contains information like window size, icon position, folder background, thumbnails, etc. Deleting/vetoing .DS_Store files will not hurt anything of substance - other than discarding user p
403.
by tjohns 5y ago
Here's the relevant ADs for Boeing... AD 2022-03-05: https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf... AD 2022-03-20: https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf
404.
by tjohns 5y ago
> It seems to me then the owners of the offending equipment are responsible for the bill. I don't see how you can come to any other logical conclusion. Because at the time the equipment was bought, it met every applicable federal st
405.
by tjohns 5y ago
As mentioned, this isn't a Boeing-specific issue. This affects every major aircraft manufacturer, as well as a lot of smaller aircraft with aftermarket avionics. Surely Boeing isn't going to pay for the entire industry. Also, the
406.
by tjohns 5y ago
As has been pointed out several times already, this is not a Boeing problem. It affects practically every major aircraft manufacturer. If anything, Boeing has been very proactive about identifying the affected equipment well before any acci
407.
by tjohns 5y ago
No, they really can't. At least not until GBAS is rolled out. GPS is notoriously unreliable for altitude data. GPS altitude is used for LPV approaches, provided you also have a WAAS correction signal, but those require higher weather m
408.
by tjohns 5y ago
> So "this altimeter may be inaccurate near 5G" means "this airliner may not be airworthy near 5G" which means airlines must ground those planes. No, they don't need to ground the planes. There's different t
409.
by tjohns 5y ago
Yes, the RTCA did a study back in 2020 which identified the interference from 5G towers was outside tolerance for the aircraft equipment: "The extent of the RF interference is summarized by the worst-case exceedance of the safe interfe
410.
by tjohns 5y ago
> these aircraft shouldn't be in the air at all with a radar altimeter that is so dangerously defective A radio altimeter is not required equipment for flight, nor does lack thereof make for a dangerous aircraft. It is required for
411.
by tjohns 5y ago
I've also heard these reports from a couple of friends who are commercial pilots. At least one of them filed an ASAP safety report, but I don't know of any way for the public to query that database. I don't know of any commer
412.
by tjohns 5y ago
> rejecting signals that (according to design specifications) they should easily be able to reject Please link to this specification. Because I've read the specification (TSO-C87), and it actually says nothing about required levels
413.
by tjohns 5y ago
They already are. Are you implying otherwise? The entire aviation community has been aware of this issue and the manufacturers have been working on it. It's not an exaggeration to say these things take time. "Move fast and break t
414.
by tjohns 5y ago
This isn't a Boeing-specific issue. Boeing doesn't even make the avionics in question. Some of the manufacturers don't even exist anymore. It's not clear who would pay, or how you'd enforce it. At the time these uni
415.
by tjohns 5y ago
It also impacts smaller regional aircraft as well, like the Embraer 175.
416.
by tjohns 5y ago
Two different government agencies with different incentives. The FCC really wants to proceed with the 5G rollout. The FAA really wants to make sure aircraft don't crash. They do not agree with each other on this, so they each proceeded
417.
by tjohns 5y ago
That is exactly what's been happening. The FCC has continued with the 5G rollout, and the FAA published a NOTAM prohibiting use of radio altimeters on approach until each model can be proven safe. However, folks are now unhappy because
418.
by tjohns 5y ago
So, here's what's actually happening in a nutshell... The FCC allocated a specific band for radar altimeters to transmit in. The FCC only specified rules on transmission, and the radar altimeters are 100% compliant with the FCC ru
419.
by tjohns 5y ago
The radar altimeters aren't "using" (in the FCC sense) any of the 5G spectrum. This is an issue on the receive side. The FCC primarily regulates transmission, and the transmitters themselves are compliant. The FAA's TSO-
420.
by tjohns 5y ago
> The question isn't really whether the radalt fails in any particular test (spoiler: it probably won't) Annecdata, but... I know two commercial pilots who have both recently run into interference with their radar altimeters du

More ›