HN user
I just went through an absolute debacle with my phone number being in limbo and no customer reps being able to access the account. Submit a complaint to the better business bureau within a day or two executive services will contact you via email. They resolved my issue, it still took a few more days but it worked without spending even more time chatting to bots and reps who simply do not have the power to resolve the issue.
For anyone using a firewire capture device you can use an abandoned but free piece of software called Scenalyzer to automate the capture process and scene splitting. I used this with a Digital8 Sony Camcorder to transfer 30+ Hi-8 tapes with only minimal intervention required. I haven't compared it to anything like the author used so hard to say if it is better or worse.
No worries. I agree completely that the US can learn plenty from other countries regardless of size on tons of topics. I was just trying to point out the typical over simplification/comparisons that news articles tend to make about technical things especially aviation.
Your words not mine. I said nothing about learning and only about making comparisons.
It works well for them. Keep in mind the US has thousands of more airports and significantly more air traffic. Just like in the tech world something might work for 100 users of an app but may not work at scale. I am not bashing the NAV Canada system just saying the comparisons to the US ATC aren't apples to apples for numerous reasons.
ditto
According to the FAA they have a way to determine what is fake and not. Not sure how they do it but it could involve comparing the signal to an actual radar return.
I find it interesting that match.com which owns okcupid works fine in firefox. So it seems they are making a statement with the smaller site that wont cost them nearly as much in traffic. I could be wrong but that is my 5sec observation.
There are essentially two simulators that the majority of pilots use. Microsoft FSX and Xplane. They both have pretty much all of the airports in the world installed by default. The extras you install are the actual scenery, but the airports are there without any manual installation.
Well done
This would have been key information in your original statement for sure.
^ What he said
This is one of the oldest debates in the pilot world. Single vs Multi and there is no one answer. Ignoring the cost of extra fuel and maintenance for an extra engine. The usual argument against multi is like this - The asymmetrical thrust developed when one engine dies. Basically if one of your engines quits, especially with a high angle of attack (takeoff), you have a very small window to compensate and keep the plane flying. Otherwise you get what is called a Vmc rollover. That is probably the biggest argument against a twin.
But of course if you fly over water to the Bahamas every weekend or the Rocky mountains the pros outweigh the cons right?
My point is it's all relative. Being a relatively low time pilot in NJ I see no need for a twin. Assuming I could afford one in the first place.