|
I saw a low-flying helicopter over a local strip mall and captured this video.
Low-flying Helicopter Over Strip Mall - YouTube[^]
That's the big excitement this week, folks. 
NOTE: Turn on sounds for chopper sounds and commentary.
The chopper really was quite close.
|
|
|
|
|
Helicopters? I did not know Ohio had such technology. 
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like a Robinson (R44?) descending to land. Is there an open space where it was headed, sports field, etc?
As well as sometimes working with firefighting helis, I see and hear enough of them to be able to identify most by sound alone.
Yesterday, from memory, a couple of military Blackhawks, an AW-139, a Huey (or Bell 2xx derivative, didn't get a visual) and an AS-350 Squirrel.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Very cool that you know about helicopters. The only thing I have heard about them is that they are very difficult to fly.
I'm not sure where that helicopter landed. It was quite stunning to see it so low and then descending like that. I believe they are clearing a field behind that strip mall though so maybe that was it.
I will take a drive over there tomorrow and look behind the strip mall and see if I can tell where they might've landed. I'm just so confused about it. 
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: saw a low-flying helicopter over a local strip mall
Peter_in_2780 wrote: Is there an open space where it was headed, sports field, etc?
Mall parking?
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if they actually had all of the permissions for that landing.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: I wonder if they actually had all of the permissions for that landing.
I'm so glad you said that. I thought the same thing. Before I started recording the action, the chopper had circled the parking lot at a very low altitude (low enough that I was comparing it to the lamp-posts). When it finally hovered above the Kroger I decided to record it because it was so odd.
I'm usually too lazy to even turn the phone on and point it. 
Anyways, I thought they were flying way too low in the area and wondered if it was legal too.
|
|
|
|
|
Flying very low just before you touch down is pretty much mandatory. I'd like to see a regulation that prohibited low flying before a landing. π€π
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am surprised by how surprised you were 
I am probably wasted, living in a big town (by Norwegian standards). All the major hospitals in Norway have rescue helicopters, and they are used all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more victims of accidents brought to the hospital by helicopter than by ambulance. One good reason for that is that we have countless inhabited islands along our coast with neither ferry nor bridge to the mainland. We have vast inland areas with no roads for an ambulance to drive (yet with lots of activity, like forestry, hunting, hiking, ...). There are accidents aboard ships, fishing vessels and smaller boats.
Even for road accidents, helicopters are frequently used for patient transportation, to avoid traffic jams. They can go in a straight line to the hospital, and at much higher speed than an ambulance. They have a landing spot at the roof of the hospital.
So, seeing a helicopter over your head is almost as commonplace as seeing an airplane. If you see them landing in some random field, or a highway, or a flat rooftop, it catches about as much attention as the sound of an ambulance siren: Not very much.
Take a look at NORWEGIAN AIR AMBULANCE - BALANCING ON GUARD RAIL - YouTube[^] The rescue helicopter arriving at the site of a car accident finds no suitable landing spot, so it goes down on the guard rail, keeping the rotor spinning for balance.
The pilot became a nationally known hero after that landing. (The story is quite old, from 2013.)
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
I know what you mean - same in London, lots of choppers of various types, often see chinooks but the one time I was surprised was when I saw a Boeing Osprey flying along the Thames - that looked like something out of Quake II
|
|
|
|
|
There are several consumer-owned helicopters in my area. They fly them to/from work, other towns, sporting events, etc. Convenience, yes, but also a bit of "I have money and I'm going to show it" type of thing.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
I am thinking about using a static code analysis to identify security vulnerabilities as I and my team write code. (Like Sonar lint but for security).
I have come across some extentions like
Security code scan[^] or Synk Security[^].
Do you have any experience with such extensions?
If yes do you think they are useful?
Do you have other recommendations?
|
|
|
|
|
You do know that Sonar can help identify security vulnerabilities don't you? If you're using Visual Studio, you can also use security analyzers to help detect OWASP errors. To be honest, and I speak with a lot of experience in this area, SAST can be more dangerous because it gives you a false sense of safety. All SAST tells you is that the code you checked in doesn't have a vulnerability. It's not that great at determining that a dependency of a dependency of a dependency has a known vulnerability, or that you have an unpatched container or OS vulnerability. You need to consider security as a top to bottom thing, so you would be looking to leverage SAST, DAST (the dynamic version of SAST), IAST (the infrastructure version), and so on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We forced to use Checkmarx One - the most annoying thing is that 90% of the 'findings' are BS... For the first time - after that it is 100% BS (if you fix the real problems)
"If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization." β Gerald Weinberg
|
|
|
|
|
I can recommend the free OWASP Dependency-Check.
I found Snyk disappointing, for .NET it only scans NuGet packages and ASP.NET applications are automatically marked as "high security risk".
|
|
|
|
|
GKP1992 wrote: static code analysis...If yes do you think they are useful?
No.
At best it might help junior developers.
At worst it makes senior developers think that is all or even most of what is needed. Or even significant.
|
|
|
|
|
I have experience with Sonar lint and so far I find it pretty annoying.
Lots of annoying micro (more like pico) performance recommendations: use Count/Length > 0 instead of Any() or use TrueForAll instead of All (TrueForAll didn't even exist when I wrote this code).
Sometimes it wants me to make code less readable by changing foreach (var something in somethings) { something.Whatever... } to foreach (var whatever in somethings.Select(s => s.Whatever)) { whatever... } (which kind of negates the prior performance recommendations).
On very few occassions it gave me recommendations that changes the meaning of the code and one time even to code that didn't compile.
I've seen lesser programmers changing JavaScript code to the latest greatest that wasn't supported in client's browsers because Sonar lint told them to.
I've tried hiding some recommendations, but can't get it to work (in the free version).
I haven't seen really good suggestions.
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,067 4/6
β¬β¬β¬β¬β¬
β¬β¬π¨β¬π¨
π©π¨π©β¬β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,067 3/6*
β¬β¬π¨β¬β¬
β¬π¨π©π¨β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,067 4/6
β¬β¬β¬β¬β¬
π¨β¬π¨π¨π¨
β¬π©π©π©π©
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,067 4/6*
β¬β¬β¬β¬β¬
β¬β¬π¨π¨π¨
β¬π©π©π©π©
π©π©π©π©π©
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music. -Frederick Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,067 5/6
β¬π¨π¨β¬β¬
β¬π¨β¬π¨π¨
π¨π¨β¬π¨β¬
β¬π¨β¬π¨β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
Isn't this a proper noun?
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
