Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

31 years later, we found the flight recorders

operationthonapa.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 96 posts

Re: 31 years later, we found the flight recorders

#81

Post by gsnedders »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #78
tamana wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a flaw in media queries, or we devs writing bad queries?

Flaw in media query. They work on resolution and on pixel density as reported by the device but you have no way to know if it's a small size high density screen or a large screen with average density. There are 13" laptops with a resolution which overlaps with the higher end mobile phones and that is where mq falls apart because you can't tell where you are. The real issue is with all browser reporting the same fixed…

> The real issue is with all browser reporting the same fixed dpi, for reason which make sense in context but don't allow to discern all cases.

I'm certainly unaware of browsers doing this, except for a few old ones on desktop and Windows Phone 8's IE, and I can't find anything claiming other browsers do this. Certainly it's never been an issue I've hit.

Re: 31 years later, we found the flight recorders

#82

Post by technofiend »

kylehotchkiss wrote: post #9
aminorex wrote: post #6

even today there are flight recorders. isn't that completely whack and irresponsible? just let everyone turn on their cellphones, and voila, suddenly there are a hundred flight recorders on every flight, streaming real-time. (yes, if you are severely asp-burger you will find that last sentence to be irresistible baiting - sigh.) seriously, relying on a physical device for information security in a physical destructio…

There just isn't adequate satellite internet worldwide to trust that system just yet. Airplanes don't even broadcast their coordinates to satellites in many airlines, despite existing networks likely (ie Iridium) being able to handle the small increase in data (if they kept the packets small - just flight number/lat/lon - and let the satellites figure out where to send and what time the packets come, the total size f…

It doesn't seem to be on Elon Musk's radar (no pun intended) but if his or Amazon's reusable launch platform really does make commodity launches possible then it would make sense for Elon or someone to put up Iridium 2.0. Maybe Google or Facebook will do it to bring internet to the masses.

Re: 31 years later, we found the flight recorders

#83

Post by martindevans »

technofiend wrote: post #82
kylehotchkiss wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There just isn't adequate satellite internet worldwide to trust that system just yet. Airplanes don't even broadcast their coordinates to satellites in many airlines, despite existing networks likely (ie Iridium) being able to handle the small increase in data (if they kept the packets small - just flight number/lat/lon - and let the satellites figure out where to send and what time the packets come, the total size f…

It doesn't seem to be on Elon Musk's radar (no pun intended) but if his or Amazon's reusable launch platform really does make commodity launches possible then it would make sense for Elon or someone to put up Iridium 2.0. Maybe Google or Facebook will do it to bring internet to the masses.

SpaceX are working on a low orbit constellation to provide low latency satellite internet (for consumers). Presumably that could serve the purpose of an "Iridium 2"?

Re: 31 years later, we found the flight recorders

#84

Post by technofiend »

martindevans wrote: post #83
technofiend wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't seem to be on Elon Musk's radar (no pun intended) but if his or Amazon's reusable launch platform really does make commodity launches possible then it would make sense for Elon or someone to put up Iridium 2.0. Maybe Google or Facebook will do it to bring internet to the masses.

SpaceX are working on a low orbit constellation to provide low latency satellite internet (for consumers). Presumably that could serve the purpose of an "Iridium 2"?

Oh I stand corrected then. In my opinion between a lower cost competitor to BGAN, extending higher speed internet to undeveloped and underdeveloped areas I believe there is a great deal of pent-up demand. That's before things like mandatory internet-connected aviation transponders as mooted elsewhere in this thread.

Re: 31 years later, we found the flight recorders

#85

Post by PeterisP »

justinclift wrote: post #35
ryanlol wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>On the other hand, would doing this open up potential remote vulnerabilities for aircraft systems? That could have long term crappy-ness attached. :( Why should it?

If the software that does the sending has vulnerabilities in it, that would be bad. Although we can all think of approaches to try to minimise/exclude that possibility... reality often has ways of showing up things people didn't think of. :(

Why would a transmit-only device expose any vulnerabilities in its software? It shouldn't have the physical capability to receive any remote signals, much less act in any way in response to them.

Re: 31 years later, we found the flight recorders

#86

Post by yankeehue »

technofiend wrote: post #82
kylehotchkiss wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There just isn't adequate satellite internet worldwide to trust that system just yet. Airplanes don't even broadcast their coordinates to satellites in many airlines, despite existing networks likely (ie Iridium) being able to handle the small increase in data (if they kept the packets small - just flight number/lat/lon - and let the satellites figure out where to send and what time the packets come, the total size f…

It doesn't seem to be on Elon Musk's radar (no pun intended) but if his or Amazon's reusable launch platform really does make commodity launches possible then it would make sense for Elon or someone to put up Iridium 2.0. Maybe Google or Facebook will do it to bring internet to the masses.

Iridium NEXT satellites, to be launched by a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, will be hosting Aireon’s ADS-B payloads.

http://aireon.com/2016/06/01/harris-completes-production-of-...

Re: 31 years later, we found the flight recorders

#87

Post by JBReefer »

tamana wrote: post #49
Kronopath wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, what? Last vestige? That's not even close to being correct. Off the top of my head, here are some websites that still have a separate mobile domain: YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, and a whole host of smaller websites as well. Granted, many of these do some kind of automatic redirect, so that you're redirected to the appropriate domain for the device you're using regardless of the link you follow. But…

Reddit has TWO differently shoddy mobile websites: i.reddit.com and the perma Beta m.reddit.com

and the .compact postfix site

Re: 31 years later, we found the flight recorders

#88

Post by LoSboccacc »

gsnedders wrote: post #81
LoSboccacc wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flaw in media query. They work on resolution and on pixel density as reported by the device but you have no way to know if it's a small size high density screen or a large screen with average density. There are 13" laptops with a resolution which overlaps with the higher end mobile phones and that is where mq falls apart because you can't tell where you are. The real issue is with all browser reporting the same fixed…

> The real issue is with all browser reporting the same fixed dpi, for reason which make sense in context but don't allow to discern all cases. I'm certainly unaware of browsers doing this, except for a few old ones on desktop and Windows Phone 8's IE, and I can't find anything claiming other browsers do this. Certainly it's never been an issue I've hit.

all browser have fixed dpi, at 96dpi precisely. it's part of the css3 standard and it's tied to the physical unit - so if you get 1cm as css width, it's the same amount of 'logical' or 'css' pixels irregardless of actual device density. (and of course if you ask 1inch to css you get 96px https://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/#absolute-lengths )

you can use device-pixel-ratio and the likes to have an hint on the pixel density, which doesn't protect you from the extremes (small, very high density devices and large low density screens)

like the galaxy tab 7.7" has a 1280 width, which would trigger desktop line of queries if you break at 1024 like many do.

Re: 31 years later, we found the flight recorders

#89

Post by gsnedders »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #88
gsnedders wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The real issue is with all browser reporting the same fixed dpi, for reason which make sense in context but don't allow to discern all cases. I'm certainly unaware of browsers doing this, except for a few old ones on desktop and Windows Phone 8's IE, and I can't find anything claiming other browsers do this. Certainly it's never been an issue I've hit.

all browser have fixed dpi, at 96dpi precisely. it's part of the css3 standard and it's tied to the physical unit - so if you get 1cm as css width, it's the same amount of 'logical' or 'css' pixels irregardless of actual device density. (and of course if you ask 1inch to css you get 96px https://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/#absolute-lengths ) you can use device-pixel-ratio and the likes to have an hint on the pixel den…

It's actually in 2.1 as well, the fact that 96 CSS pixels equal 1 CSS inch. But that's not what's relevant here, as we're talking about media queries where we have resolution units, and resolution units give the device pixels per some CSS unit.

> you can use device-pixel-ratio and the likes to have an hint on the pixel density, which doesn't protect you from the extremes (small, very high density devices and large low density screens)

> like the galaxy tab 7.7" has a 1280 width, which would trigger desktop line of queries if you break at 1024 like many do.

Oh, right, so the issue here is the fact we have relatively high density screen (197 PPI) but where 1 CSS pixel still equals 1 device pixel? That seems pretty bad generally, given I presume the same is true for the rest of the OS (AFAIK in general Android browsers just follow the OS here)? It seems like to fix this we'd need to add resolution units giving number of CSS pixels per physical length unit, right?

Post reply on HN