Seems like Apple got bitten by their products again. Leopard has lost some of its shine just like Vista did after the fancy launch. Major and minor bugs were being reported every week after the launch, in particular the data loss bug when transferring files between hard disks is just shocking. Now we hear of a critical flaw with Seagate HDDs in MacBooks. Do the QA dept in Apple bother to check their products' reliability and functionality? Or do they just check whether the products are good looking and shiny?
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
USAF Nuclear Missile Transfer Blunder?!
What a shocker! The US Air Force messed up again and it's all over the press. I vaguely remembered the last bad press on the US Air Force was not too long ago when a F-15 dropped a bomb on British troops...Anyways back to today's news. So they managed to leave nuclear warheads on missiles to be decommissioned and flew them from North Dakota to Louisiana before realising. How did they manage it? Check out reports from BBC, CNN and Army Times.
Did nobody notice the nuclear warhead markings at the tips of the missiles when they were loaded on to the B52? Apparently they were loaded to the external pylons of the bomber, so surely someone who have spotted the nukes?
If they can't even spot such an obvious mistakes, what other mistakes have they missed out in all these years?
Did nobody notice the nuclear warhead markings at the tips of the missiles when they were loaded on to the B52? Apparently they were loaded to the external pylons of the bomber, so surely someone who have spotted the nukes?
If they can't even spot such an obvious mistakes, what other mistakes have they missed out in all these years?
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Phone war heating up (again)
The iPhone hit the US market and instantly turned into a success. Now with numerous reports of successful unlocking the iPhone, a new market might spur for customers overseas purchasing an iPhone in the US and then unlocking it and using it on local networks elsewhere.
Then there's the rumours about the launching of a Gphone by Google, as well as Nokia announcing the new NSeries phones linked with the Ovi internet services, and the possible acquisition of RIM (Blackberry) by Microsoft. Looks like a new phone war is about to erupt.
Then there's the rumours about the launching of a Gphone by Google, as well as Nokia announcing the new NSeries phones linked with the Ovi internet services, and the possible acquisition of RIM (Blackberry) by Microsoft. Looks like a new phone war is about to erupt.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
China Airlines B737-800: Human error, mechanical failure, or pure bad luck?
China Airlines did it again - another serious accident further damaging its rather poor safety record. On 20/8/07 a China Airlines B737-800 burst into flames after landing at Naha Airport, Japan. Check out the raw footage captured by the Japanese press.
So what caused a plane to explode AFTER completing what looked to be a normal flight? There has been reports suggesting a fuel leakage from the engines, possibly from a fuel pipe rupture at one of the engine pylons. If that is the case, then why could the pilot not stop the flames on its tracks? Let us retrace the final journey of this B737-800.
Some news agencies have suggested poor maintenance was to blame. That claim is rather baseless, as even though China Airlines does have a poor safety record, their airliners are NOT maintained by their own mechanics, just as the vast majority of other airlines around the world. Airliners tend to be maintained by contracted specialist companies based in international airports around the world which services numerous airlines, and they would ensure that every plane leaving their hangers are fully operational.
So the cause of the accident came after the plane rolled out to the runway. Well, the ground crew and the flight crew should have spotted a pipe rupture during their preflight checks if it had occurred back at there and then. The flight made a seemingly normal flight from Taipei to Naha. After touching down in Naha and rolling off the taxiway all seemed to be normal. However, after the plane has stopped on its parking slot and was preparing for disembarkation, the PASSENGERS noticed that smoke is coming out of the left engine and informed the cabin crew to evacuate the plane. Surely the flight crew is still in the cockpit and would have noticed that before the passengers! Modern airliners such as the B737-800 (this particular plane in the accident rolled out of the assembly lines 5 months ago) has wings which are rigged with numerous sensors detecting the pressure and temperature changes all across the wing to give the pilots and the flight computers the necessary data to achieve optimum flight conditions. These would have sounded the alarm way faster than the passengers spotting the smoke! What were the pilots doing??
So the left engine is on fire, why didn't the pilot isolate the heat source on the left wing? He should have immediately isolated the fuel tank compartments near to the heat source and pump the remaining fuel to the fuselage/right wing tanks to deny the heat source any further fuel source. That would have at worst meant losing a WING, not THE WHOLE PLANE! Luckily the cabin crew did a good job of evacuating all the passengers before the flames engulfed the whole plane.
The firefighters didn't do a good job either. I'm shocked that (based on the video footages I saw) there were only TWO fire engines that turned up to the scene. Just TWO in an international airport?! So they eventually turned up to the site. Then they decide to wait and observe for tens of seconds before starting to spray on the plane. They've got an airliner on fire! They should be spraying even before they hit the brakes next to the plane! It is obvious from the videos that the fire is largely on the left side (port) of the plane when the fire engines turned up on the right side (starboard) of the plane. Why did they choose to spray from that position? Surely they should be spraying at the PORT side of the plane for maximum effect! And as one can see from the footages they were spraying intermittently at the fire sources, rather than constantly. They could have saved more parts of the plane if they had put in a little extra effort.
There has been a suggestion that the pilots in fact knew something was wrong prior to the landing (apparently passengers were informed that "something was wrong" and that they were instructed to de-plane as quickly as possible). If that is the case, why did the pilots not inform the airport ahead of time so that they could send out the response team and emergency services prior to the landing?
The entire chain of events seemed more like a scene from a fiction. Who is/are to blame for the accident? We shall see what comes out of the investigations taking place right now.
So what caused a plane to explode AFTER completing what looked to be a normal flight? There has been reports suggesting a fuel leakage from the engines, possibly from a fuel pipe rupture at one of the engine pylons. If that is the case, then why could the pilot not stop the flames on its tracks? Let us retrace the final journey of this B737-800.
Some news agencies have suggested poor maintenance was to blame. That claim is rather baseless, as even though China Airlines does have a poor safety record, their airliners are NOT maintained by their own mechanics, just as the vast majority of other airlines around the world. Airliners tend to be maintained by contracted specialist companies based in international airports around the world which services numerous airlines, and they would ensure that every plane leaving their hangers are fully operational.
So the cause of the accident came after the plane rolled out to the runway. Well, the ground crew and the flight crew should have spotted a pipe rupture during their preflight checks if it had occurred back at there and then. The flight made a seemingly normal flight from Taipei to Naha. After touching down in Naha and rolling off the taxiway all seemed to be normal. However, after the plane has stopped on its parking slot and was preparing for disembarkation, the PASSENGERS noticed that smoke is coming out of the left engine and informed the cabin crew to evacuate the plane. Surely the flight crew is still in the cockpit and would have noticed that before the passengers! Modern airliners such as the B737-800 (this particular plane in the accident rolled out of the assembly lines 5 months ago) has wings which are rigged with numerous sensors detecting the pressure and temperature changes all across the wing to give the pilots and the flight computers the necessary data to achieve optimum flight conditions. These would have sounded the alarm way faster than the passengers spotting the smoke! What were the pilots doing??
So the left engine is on fire, why didn't the pilot isolate the heat source on the left wing? He should have immediately isolated the fuel tank compartments near to the heat source and pump the remaining fuel to the fuselage/right wing tanks to deny the heat source any further fuel source. That would have at worst meant losing a WING, not THE WHOLE PLANE! Luckily the cabin crew did a good job of evacuating all the passengers before the flames engulfed the whole plane.
The firefighters didn't do a good job either. I'm shocked that (based on the video footages I saw) there were only TWO fire engines that turned up to the scene. Just TWO in an international airport?! So they eventually turned up to the site. Then they decide to wait and observe for tens of seconds before starting to spray on the plane. They've got an airliner on fire! They should be spraying even before they hit the brakes next to the plane! It is obvious from the videos that the fire is largely on the left side (port) of the plane when the fire engines turned up on the right side (starboard) of the plane. Why did they choose to spray from that position? Surely they should be spraying at the PORT side of the plane for maximum effect! And as one can see from the footages they were spraying intermittently at the fire sources, rather than constantly. They could have saved more parts of the plane if they had put in a little extra effort.
There has been a suggestion that the pilots in fact knew something was wrong prior to the landing (apparently passengers were informed that "something was wrong" and that they were instructed to de-plane as quickly as possible). If that is the case, why did the pilots not inform the airport ahead of time so that they could send out the response team and emergency services prior to the landing?
The entire chain of events seemed more like a scene from a fiction. Who is/are to blame for the accident? We shall see what comes out of the investigations taking place right now.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Heathrow Climate Change march
A group of climate change activists were protesting and threatening all sorts of action around Heathrow Airport, London this week, voicing their concerns regarding the building of the third runway in the airport. But do they actually comprehend the full picture?
Lets check out a few facts. Firstly, the aviation industry has undoubtedly contributed to global pollution. However, it is also FACT, that the aviation industry has contributed only a very small proportion to the global pollution as compared with the many other industries also contributing to global warming. Checking on ANY scientific paper written will show clearly that the automotive industry has contributed several times more to global warming than the aviation industry. Surely these people should be marching off to car makers' headquarters demanding for faster development in "greener" cars?
Secondly, it is known fact that the greatest proportion of contribution of greenhouse gases from civil aviation comes not from the actual flights in the air, but rather from the aircrafts engine running at very inefficient settings whilst taxiing and waiting for takeoff on the ground. As have been proven in numerous scientific studies, by reducing the time between leaving the gates to taking off for each flight to 10 minutes or less, we would reduce a significant amount of pollution generated by the aviation industry. By building a third runway in Heathrow (which as we all know is one of the busiest airports in the world), we would actually reduce the queue time for the planes between leaving their gates and reaching a runway for takeoff. This in fact is a pollution-reducing scheme and should therefore be promoted!
Maybe these people standing around in Heathrow waving banners should have better spend their time in finding the solutions to solving climate change rather than barking at the wrong house.
Lets check out a few facts. Firstly, the aviation industry has undoubtedly contributed to global pollution. However, it is also FACT, that the aviation industry has contributed only a very small proportion to the global pollution as compared with the many other industries also contributing to global warming. Checking on ANY scientific paper written will show clearly that the automotive industry has contributed several times more to global warming than the aviation industry. Surely these people should be marching off to car makers' headquarters demanding for faster development in "greener" cars?
Secondly, it is known fact that the greatest proportion of contribution of greenhouse gases from civil aviation comes not from the actual flights in the air, but rather from the aircrafts engine running at very inefficient settings whilst taxiing and waiting for takeoff on the ground. As have been proven in numerous scientific studies, by reducing the time between leaving the gates to taking off for each flight to 10 minutes or less, we would reduce a significant amount of pollution generated by the aviation industry. By building a third runway in Heathrow (which as we all know is one of the busiest airports in the world), we would actually reduce the queue time for the planes between leaving their gates and reaching a runway for takeoff. This in fact is a pollution-reducing scheme and should therefore be promoted!
Maybe these people standing around in Heathrow waving banners should have better spend their time in finding the solutions to solving climate change rather than barking at the wrong house.
Market Saver or Temp Fix?
The US Federal intervention in the market by decreasing the discount rate seemed to work, but for how long? The Asian markets were all diving with the European market following suit, with a sense of deja vu of the eve of another Asian financial crisis. The Fed came in and turned the tide, resulting in a rise in the US and European market, but was too late to change the outcomes in the Asian markets. So far so good. Will the markets worldwide climb as they open up on Monday morning? Or will the Fed's move a mere quickfix that would not really boost the world economy for this quarter? We will have to wait and see.
Vista, Leopard, Linux etc etc
It just seems like people never get tired of the debate as to which operating system is the best, with large crowds of followers on each camp. As an engineering student I find that at the end of the day all the three main OSs are equally effective and useful, and though each have its own strengths and weaknesses, as long as it can operate efficiently and get the task done (be it word processing, programming, web surfing, engineering calculations), then that is all it counts. Here is my opinion on each of the current major OSs.
MS Win Vista:
Pros:
High hardware compatibility (ignoring legacy hardware), supports vast majority of applications, improved graphics and user interface from XP. Better utilisation of dual/quad core CPUs.
Cons:
Expensive (overpriced?)! Prone to security threats due to the high proportion of users running Windows.
Mac Leopard:
Pros:
User friendly, intuitive and easy user interface. Have efficient tools for graphical work.
Cons:
Supports limited amount of applications. Limited support on other hardware outside of the Apple and affiliates' product line.
Linux:
Pros:
High flexibility. Great stability and security. Free! Open-source program evolves much faster and bugs/exploits gets fixed at a much faster rate. Customisable in nearly any way the user fancies. Great community-based support groups
Cons:
Lack of hardware support. Often difficult to find drivers. Requires greater technical skills/abilities to master (with Ubuntu as the exception).
But as one can observe, as long as the OS can complete the tasks required, with appropriate software (which by the way I have yet to find any task with which there is no application whatsoever that can accomplish it being supported by any one of the major OSs), then any one of the OS is equally useful. Maybe it is time to stop arguing as to which OS is best, but rather to spend our time on collaborating in how to improve the OSs/applications to solve real world problems.
MS Win Vista:
Pros:
High hardware compatibility (ignoring legacy hardware), supports vast majority of applications, improved graphics and user interface from XP. Better utilisation of dual/quad core CPUs.
Cons:
Expensive (overpriced?)! Prone to security threats due to the high proportion of users running Windows.
Mac Leopard:
Pros:
User friendly, intuitive and easy user interface. Have efficient tools for graphical work.
Cons:
Supports limited amount of applications. Limited support on other hardware outside of the Apple and affiliates' product line.
Linux:
Pros:
High flexibility. Great stability and security. Free! Open-source program evolves much faster and bugs/exploits gets fixed at a much faster rate. Customisable in nearly any way the user fancies. Great community-based support groups
Cons:
Lack of hardware support. Often difficult to find drivers. Requires greater technical skills/abilities to master (with Ubuntu as the exception).
But as one can observe, as long as the OS can complete the tasks required, with appropriate software (which by the way I have yet to find any task with which there is no application whatsoever that can accomplish it being supported by any one of the major OSs), then any one of the OS is equally useful. Maybe it is time to stop arguing as to which OS is best, but rather to spend our time on collaborating in how to improve the OSs/applications to solve real world problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
