The same people who think myfitnesspal should be a social network? The kind of people who think a fitbit is a competition to see who walks the most? Without putting my tin foil hat on, there is a reason this shit operates the way it does.
I love video games. The problem I have with recognizing video gaming as a sport is mainly that the rules and playing fields change too often, and with no regulatory bodies to provide checks and balances to these changes. The developer of the game being played can change and patch whatever they want, whenever they want, with no oversight.
Not to mention, the sport being played is essentially whatever the "cool" game is at the time, which changes year after year. It would be difficult to maintain interest in a game for even 2 Olympic cycles, let alone hundreds. Can Starcraft 1 still generate massive world-wide interest in 2013? How will LoL be doing in 2023?
Meanwhile traditional gaming and sports haven't changed a whole lot over the hundreds or even thousands of years we have played them, they have stood the test of time and are still capable of generating massive world-wide interest. Video games cannot claim to have done this.
With that said Im not against awarding visas to pro gamers.
I'm really happy this is happening. Is the static nature of the playing field actually a good thing? Does a single game even need to survive more than 2 Olympics (I also don't think video games need to be incorporated into the Olympics)? The vast majority of skills in video gaming carry over just fine to the next generation of the same genre. Flash was the undisputed god of SC1, and he is fast rising to that spot in SC2 less than a year after switching.
I think the evolution of the playing field is actually a great thing, and something I wish conventional sports did more. A rule change in a physical sport happens so rarely.
The only reason conventional sports remain balanced and interesting to watch at all is because they are nearly 100% symmetrical (ex: 5 on 5, symmetric court/field, tip-off to start, etc). In my opinion, this actually leaves a lot of sports as pretty poorly designed "games" -- any activity that you can assign a score to can turn into a competitive sport under the existing physical sport paradigm. I don't want to pick on any particular sport, but I think a lot of popular sports just ride on past passion, nationalistic/regional pride (rooting for your team), and sponsorship marketing rather than the game itself being intrinsically interesting to watch. Which could be an endless cycle, with schools giving scholarships for those who perform in those sports, and the next generation having the same feelings for them.
More importantly than having a wider viewership for eSports (as a game designer and developer by trade, this is obviously exciting), I'm more excited about how this will affect physical sports, and force them to evolve into becoming more entertaining and fun experiences than they already are, instead of stagnating as they have been for nearly a century.
i think the point though, is that the governing body for soccer has stayed the same, and a soccer player's status continues to be recognized despite a change in the rules. the structure of governance for whatever game is currently popular gets tossed and re-established as soon as a new game gains popularity. The organizations sponsoring these gamers for immigration purposes don't have much in the way of permanence or reliability. it seems like a huge potential for fraud or abuse.
I also have some other problems with "pro gaming" being seen as legitimate due to the insane impact corporate sponsorships have on the landscape of competitive gaming.
Granted, massive corporate sponsorships are nothing new to sports, but there's nothing in other sports quite equal to the situation in console gaming where Microsoft is the official console of competitive Call of Duty gaming. Even though the game can be played on many consoles, to play it as a "sport" you need to be playing it on the Xbox. This goes well beyond the already unfortunate lengths to which corporate sponsorships impact other sports, IMO.
And thanks to Microsoft's hardline "no cross-platform play" guidelines for the Xbox line, this isn't something that can be easily solved even if everyone but Microsoft wanted to do it.
These sorts of arguments often come up when people talk about which games deserve to be considered eSport-worthy. Ultimately, a game's legitimacy can be based on whether people are competing against each other and whether it's possible to be significantly better than another person or team.
Worth noting that with a modification like that, it looks like it actually gives extra space for landing, not less. So that piece probably isn't a factor at all.
Runway 28L at SFO is 10,800 feet long in its current configuration. The spec for the 777 is 5,800 feet of runway for landing[1]. There is obviously a fair amount of weight, wind dependency in determining the minimum required length, but the runway was almost 100% longer than was necessary.
Interesting. I wonder what the Asiana's descent profile looks like compared to the average and some outliers of other safe 777 landings at SFO. Did you generate that image? If not, what was the source?
I saw another image online, which compared the descent profiles of the past week of landings for the same flight. It showed that the July 6th landing was very close to the normal descent profile, and the July 5th landing was actually the outlier -- it had an unusually shallow glide slope.
Unfortunately I can't find the image right now, but perhaps someone else knows where it is and can provide it?
I stand by the parent having some useful data and analysis, and the OP being totally speculation, and in many respects uninformed.
- number 1, if you say 'loss of power', makes sense as a possible cause. if you say 'icing in the FOHE', it's like saying the murder was done with a yellow pistol. nothing points to that, no icing conditions (humidity/temperature), and of course not same engine as the previous plane crash attributed to that
- number 2, you can't be unaware of an ILS out of op, you wouldn't be cleared for the ILS approach, you wouldn't be using the ILS on visual approach, you would be cued there's no signal, you wouldn't hear the outer marker, etc. etc.
- number 3, auto-throttle, well again, if you say malfunction in power setting, OK could make sense, if you get as specific as 'confliction with autopilot/auto throttle' that's a purple pistol. Clearly not on cat3 autoland, you're basically saying pilot forgot to set throttle in the right configuration for visual approach and landing.
- number 4, pilot error/bad approach, can't argue with that. the story is what's interesting, eg undiagnosed walleye vision, ate the bad fish etc.
"- number 4, pilot error/bad approach, can't argue with that. the story is what's interesting"
Pilot induced oscillation on a really big scale. Coming in way too hot, slam down, whoops way over corrected, now coming in too low, whoops ran outta air and time to correct. Coming in way too hot, now are you better off trying to salvage or go around and get fired? Different nations airlines have differing policies on this...
I think you might get a call from a chief pilot for an anomalous approach, whether you salvage it at last minute or go around. If there's a pattern of things not going by the book, would guess you get sent for 'retraining' before you get fired... airline version of big data FTW I guess...
water goes to the lowest point since it weighs more than fuel. then if it's not drained properly it gets sucked into the engine at the start of the flight. would be odd to discover water contamination after a long-haul flight.
I kind of assumed the FOHE was something that used external air, it wasn't water in the oil or the fuel. you descend through humid and coolish air ie not summer heat, water condenses and freezes as it's sucked through something from the pressure differential, or from actual icing conditions. but I could be wrong.
>water goes to the lowest point since it weighs more than fuel
While that's true, it takes time, and it won't get enough of the water out of the fuel[0]. Also, the aircraft must not be disturbed for the water to settle out. Operation demands for aircraft don't allow that. Even if they did, some water will remain in the fuel.
While the engines are operating, fuel is constantly circulating which disperses any water within the fuel. Airport fuel supplies at major airports are usually tightly controlled, but it's still be possible for water to get in.
>I kind of assumed the FOHE was something that used external air,
The FOHE is a Heat Exchanger, sort of like the radiator in your car, but instead of engine coolant/air the working fluids are Engine Oil/Jet Feul. Both the fuel and oil systems are closed systems, with one exception. As fuel is consumed in flight, the volume of that fuel must be displaced by outside air. Fuel tank to atmospheric pressure must never exceed some low differential pressure. This is one source of moisture ingress that must be dealt with, and can cause water to accumulate in tanks if left unchecked.
>you descend through humid and coolish air ie not summer heat,
Are you aware that the air temperature at altitude 35,000 ft is around -55C?
"PPrune[2] also had a guy weighing in saying that when he flew for a Korean carrier he saw guys try to do banana-shaped approaches to get a smoother landing. Wouldn't be the first time the Koreans have pulled something like this."
This is comparing one single safe landing to a crash landing. Does that gain us new insights? Not really. For that, we'd need the crash landing compared to the average landing, and also to other (safe and unsafe) extreme landings of the past.
And to get all Tufte of the graphics: Most of this is chart junk. The 3d view only serveres to hide information, and overlaying the paths (in 2d) would actually let us compare more accurately.
Average aircraft approach is a 3º glide slope. And usually all of them look exactly like that (only minor deviations due to the wind). If that chart is true is easy to see that they where high on the (non working) glidslope.
So Shaq, Matt Damon and Steven Seagal participated in SWAT raids. Is this for celebrities only or anyone can sign up?
Not that I would like to participate though.
You have to convince a sheriff to deputize you first. For some reason this is easier for celebrities. Go figure. What does that say about the judgement of the sheriff that approve that sort of thing? Not sure what a sheriff's responsibilities are in the US system, but if that's the same person responsible for deciding that a SWAT team is necessary to investigate a poker game going on in someone's house, it's not surprising to see poor decisions being made in that area too.
>I made the mistake of doing some prior research to find the best price...
Doing research to find the best price is never mistake. It sucks that your surprise is ruined. I dont know if advertisers can know if action is taken on other website.
I guess you should delete cookies to "reset intent" or do research in private tab.
That is not necessarily true. They can easily calculate average worth of FB user (money that user brings them by clicking on ads) on yearly basis and set yearly membership fee above that number.
Example: If average yearly worth of user is $5, they can charge $10 fee. Most of people that would sign up for premium would be users that dont click on ads anyway (their average worth is lower) so FB could earn more.
