Slashdot Mirror

Not sure if troll, but you have heard of storing energy?
For instance, and to name but a few of the most recent innovations
http://www.popularmechanics.co...

This particular TBM cost $80 million:
http://www.popularmechanics.co...
They're spending $125 million to fix it. It seems plausible that dismantling it from behind and assembling a new one in place would have cost more than $45 million (plus $80 million for the new TBM).

The 11% figure is from Mythbusters too, there's an actual company, Fastskinz, which builds much more subtle looking coverings which failed to make the grade in one test: Fastskinz Test Drive: Can a Golf Ball Covering Improve MPGs? - Popular Mechanics

Along the way, we periodically checked the fuel-economy readout on the dash display of both vehicles. At 139.9 miles, the Fastskinz Flex was returning 27.2 mpg while the unwrapped Flex showed 28.4 mpg. At 271.1 miles, the Fastskinz Flex was delivering 23.7 mpg and the unwrapped Flex showed 24.1 mpg. We drove until the gaslight glowed in both cars, which turned out to be 430 miles. Back at the gas pump, we filled each Flex in the same manner we did that morning. The Fastskinz Flex returned 24.52 mpg and the unwrapped Flex returned 24.55 mpg. The dash display read 24.8 mpg in the Fastskinz Flex and 25.6 mpg in the unwrapped Flex.

Essentially, in our test, we found no real fuel-economy improvement from the Fastskinz MPG-Plus wrap. And if you trust Ford's MPG displays, the Fastskinz Flex actually delivered slightly worse fuel economy on our loop. So two identical vehicles, on an identical route at identical speeds, with the same drivers, on the same day, returned nearly the same fuel economy. Where did MPG-Plus go wrong?

Hell we we will be out of helium on earth before we are doing anything useful on mars.
http://www.popularmechanics.co...

So at the very least it will be something useful even if horribly expensive.

Even the Roanoak colony had a business plan, Whats the one for Mars ? Sell advertising time to fund the launch ? (Note a heck of better way to spend them than giving them to facebook)

Ever heard of "gliders"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

Useful skills in unusual situations: http://www.popularmechanics.co...

Of course we killed a few in Iraq and Afghanistan...

"A few." snort

because you know. "Terrorists".

Not "terrorists," it is terrorists. They earned the label in the eyes of most people, minus the fringe, fever swamp, and nutters that have to be addressed.

If certain people had their way, there would be numerous OWS casualties as well.

You're assuming the mantle of OWS too? Mercy.

The low down on E10, E15 and ethanol in gas from Popular Mechanics

According to this article:

Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800 it is probably at less than 10 percent."

----

I'm sorry, but jet fuel DOES burn at hot enough temperatures to weaken the steel.

Popular Mechanics agrees. It isn't good for splitting wood that has any tension to stay together.

Williams F1 has been working on this technology for quite awhile now. It's definitely fascinating. This video shows the technology applications.

Porsche also used the same Williams tech for their endurance 911 GT3R.

Nothing really new to see here; another instance of racing tech trickling down to production vehicles.

Any missing footage should result in someone being fired.

Agreed.

There is one plus side to ubiquitous cameras operated by the police: It will be harder for the police to justify denying us the ability to record our interactions with them. Some police departments haven't gotten the memo yet...

Look at this: New 3D Printer by MarkForged Can Print With Carbon Fiber Definitely more companies are going to develop products like these...

Imagine the possibilities it opens for elder and disabled people care. And with the current ageing of the population in developed countries, this will certainly be a huge industry.

Ok, if you go back to the telestrator, Leonard Reiffel gets the credit, from the 1950s. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/4247541 I'm intrigued by the Vancouver connection (Fingerworks)... Vancouver must be 1/3 Chinese/Taiwanese. That may be where the DNA mingled, most of the wealthier display device geeks I met had second homes or family in Vancouver. Interesting, Thanks for the lead.

Coal power plants releases more mercury to power an incandescent bulb than a CFL would over its lifetime even in all the mercury inside was released straight into the atmosphere.

Plus there's no mandate saying you have to use CFLs, LED bulbs have now become a good alternative.

like Area 51 and other such nonsense

Yep, plausible as those UFO nutters' conspiracies. As if the government would keep successful aircraft secret. Bet those imbeciles think the government is spying on every communication too.

No way in hell a grand conspiracy could be rooted in a lesser more plausible tales, they're not urbanized Legends, FFS. I feel sorry for the damn fools, I mean, yeah, I get greeted nearly every damn morning by aliens, demons, and other such monstrosities walking around my room, and am physically immobilized until they disappear by some strange mechanism. Doesn't mean I believe everything I see.

No it's not...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/tests/incandescent-vs-compact-fluorescent-vs-led-ultimate-light-bulb-test

Another key point here (with both devices that we're talking about) is that they both have to fly indoors. Usually when that's the case (especially with that flying bike, holy shit it's HUGE!) it's due to 'wind being an obstacle'.

Just because it has to fly indoors today doesn't mean that it couldn't some day be constructed to allow outdoors use. It's not like there are no "craft" that fly outdoors with large, fragile wings.

The heavier than air craft built by bicycle mechanics I was talking about was not a pedal powered aircraft but rather, a much earlier model of airplane

Also, how many tons of mercury and lead MORE are we as a nation going to mine, refine, transport, and ultimately toss into the local landfill each year using these newer bulbs over the old style ones? Oops, I forgot I wasn't supposed to mention that.

A brochure sent out by my power company said the amount of mercury released due to burning more coal for powering incandescent bulbs is far greater that the amount of mercury used in a CFL that replaces them. Popular Mechanics agrees:

Each [CFL] bulb contains an average of 5 milligrams of mercury,

... Over the 7500-hour average range of one CFL, then, a plant will emit 13.16 mg of mercury to sustain a 75-watt incandescent bulb but only 3.51 mg of mercury to sustain a 20-watt CFL (the lightning equivalent of a 75-watt traditional bulb). Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.

The mercury "issue" is a complete red herring. Using incandescents requires more power. A large chunk of that power comes from coal. Burning coal releases mercury - a lot MORE mercury than would be released if EVERY burned out CFL were just tossed into a landfill. How much mercury do power plants emit to light a CFL? About 50 percent of the electricity produced in the U.S. is generated by coal-fired power plants. When coal burns to produce electricity, mercury naturally contained in the coal releases into the air. In 2006, coal-fired power plants produced 1,971 billion kilowatt hours (kwh) of electricity, emitting 50.7 tons of mercury into the air—the equivalent amount of mercury contained in more than 9 billion CFLs (the bulbs emit zero mercury when in use or being handled). Approximately 0.0234 mg of mercury—plus carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide—releases into the air per 1 kwh of electricity that a coal-fired power plant generates. Over the 7500-hour average range of one CFL, then, a plant will emit 13.16 mg of mercury to sustain a 75-watt incandescent bulb but only 3.51 mg of mercury to sustain a 20-watt CFL (the lightning equivalent of a 75-watt traditional bulb). Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime. http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/reviews/news/4217864

I'm all for being environmentally friendly but CFLs are nasty...look what you gotta do if you break one: http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl
 

How big of a problem is breaking CFL's? In over 10 years of using CFL's, I haven't broken any. but then, the only non-CFL I remember breaking is one where the base was stuck in the sock and the bulb broke when I was twisting it.

Spending 15 minutes in cleanup for something that happens very rarely seems like a small tradeoff. If the longer lifetime of CFL's let's me avoid one bulb change of a bulb that requires me to go out to the garage to get a ladder, then it's already saved me more time that it would take to clean up a CFL.

On the surface, this seems great...much more energy efficient (e.g. less electrical consumption, less energy converted to heat, etc.), good quality of light (finally), and they last a long time, but the mercury threat will spell the demise of these. Unfortunately, it will take a few decades of these being tossed into the waste stream and the obligatory horrific mercury-caused maladies as it "may be toxic to blood, kidneys, liver, brain, peripheral nervous system, central nervous system." Fantastic...environmentalists and politicians making decisions based on emotions rather than on science.

You know what else contains mercury? Coal.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/reviews/news/4217864

Approximately 0.0234 mg of mercury—plus carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide—releases into the air per 1 kwh of electricity that a coal-fired power plant generates. Over the 7500-hour average range of one CFL, then, a plant will emit 13.16 mg of mercury to sustain a 75-watt incandescent bulb but only 3.51 mg of mercury to sustain a 20-watt CFL (the lightning equivalent of a 75-watt traditional bulb). Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.

I get tired of the false meme that "oh, we would have cured disease X already if the results weren't being suppressed in a big conspiracy"

This guy was on to something good. When he was farting around in the lab, he got funding. When he started to get results, the funding vanished. I love his statement in bold below:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/science_news/4273366.html

So how did you get it funded up to this point?

There is some private funding and the university put some funding into it. And also, at early stages when we studied the mechanisms of these mice, we had one Mitchell Cancer Institute grant, several small grants from Cancer Research Institute. But they all stopped funding me. It was kind of a strange situation. I thought it was our common goal to come up with a new weapon to fight cancer, but the moment I announced I had a new weapon to test in real human cancer situations, everybody shied away.

And it only costs $100,000 out of pocket to the patient! Without any proof other than mice studies which may or may not be reliable! And with a known risk of having your guts blow up due to rejection! Where do I sign up?

I get tired of the false meme that "oh, we would have cured disease X already if the results weren't being suppressed in a big conspiracy"

This guy was on to something good. When he was farting around in the lab, he got funding. When he started to get results, the funding vanished. I love his statement in bold below:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/science_news/4273366.html

So how did you get it funded up to this point?

There is some private funding and the university put some funding into it. And also, at early stages when we studied the mechanisms of these mice, we had one Mitchell Cancer Institute grant, several small grants from Cancer Research Institute. But they all stopped funding me. It was kind of a strange situation. I thought it was our common goal to come up with a new weapon to fight cancer, but the moment I announced I had a new weapon to test in real human cancer situations, everybody shied away.

This so much. Both the PS4 and Xbox One are a trip back to the crusty 80s video tape recorder. The aesthetic design of the previous console generation was much more elegant in my opinion.

I think that's actually worse than the Tesla/Nissan Leaf pure battery model. Since you can charge battery cars in far more places.

We would still need hydrocarbons because I doubt our airliners will be hydrogen or battery powered. So it'll be great if we can figure out a practical path for "green energy" (e.g. wind/solar) or nuke to hydrocarbon, and hydrocarbon powered electric cars.

If fuel cells aren't up to it yet, maybe small gas turbine generators could do: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/electric/jaguar-hybrid-micro-turbine-engineering
http://www.thechargingpoint.com/opinions/James-Allen-on-EV-The-Whisper-turbine-charged-electric-car.html

On the Air France 447 crash that is about what happened.

When it got too difficult (or to be fair, beyond its parameters) the computer basically said "you got it", disconnected the autopilot and switched from the more hand holding "normal law" program mode to the freer "alternate law," giving the pilots more control, who then crashed the plane.

When control of the car is handed over to the "Transporter", np, but to mom who has not been doing real driving for a while, yikes.

Story: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877
Full English transcript: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/the-last-harrowing-minutes-inside-air-france-447s-cockpit/article4393626/

Everything possible will be done to ensure that the same thing doesn't happen again, to avoid liability and/or a satire piece (like the Pinto gas tanks) that will kill the model involved. So a autonomous car accident will look more like an airline accident, with an investigative team coming in from wherever, and really nailing what went wrong, because just like an airline crash, hundreds of lives, sales, and big-time law suits will be on the line. That focus will change the numbers.

Look at fatality stats. When are normalized by distance travelled, it is 7.97/0.03 --> 266 times more likely to die in a car today than an airplane. That's where the direction things are going to go, only more so, because airplanes are still driven by humans, and there is an upper limit of reliability of humans that is much lower than can eventually be achieved by automation. So the airline numbers should continue to improve as automation is further refined.

I've got exactly what you need! Tinfoil hats are cheap. They are easy, to make too, it takes less than two minutes. Don't believe the MIT study that debunks the time honored tinfoil hat, it's a government conspiracy you know!

Don't worry, there are support groups for conspiracy theorists! Now I know like any number of other conspiracy theories those pesky facts might get in the way. However, learn from Joseph Goebbels and don't ever let logic, facts or reality get in your way. I know you look like a raving lunatic to any rational person, but not to worry, there is someone even crazier will soon show up to defend you, so cheer up!

Maybe I can help.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The Pentagon
Hunt the Boeing!
911 Debunked - Pentagon Flight 77 Photo Evidence
Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation
Pentagon 9/11

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Flight 93
9/11 investigators tell of piecing together mystery of Penn. crash
Direct Evidence
9/11: The Day of the Attacks
Response and Recovery - Shanksville, Pennsylvania

Maybe I can help.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The Pentagon
Hunt the Boeing!
911 Debunked - Pentagon Flight 77 Photo Evidence
Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation
Pentagon 9/11

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Flight 93
9/11 investigators tell of piecing together mystery of Penn. crash
Direct Evidence
9/11: The Day of the Attacks
Response and Recovery - Shanksville, Pennsylvania

I've got exactly what you need! Tinfoil hats are cheap. They are easy, to make too, it takes less than two minutes. Don't believe the MIT study that debunks the time honored tinfoil hat, it's a government conspiracy you know!

Don't worry, there are support groups for conspiracy theorists! Now I know like any number of other conspiracy theories those pesky facts might get in the way. However, learn from Joseph Goebbels and don't ever let logic, facts or reality get in your way. I know you look like a raving lunatic to any rational person, but not to worry, there is someone even crazier will soon show up to defend you, so cheer up!

This will get you started.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The Pentagon
Hunt the Boeing!
Pentagon 9/11
911 Debunked - Pentagon Flight 77 Photo Evidence
Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation

If that doesn't do it for you, I would suggest you keep digging.

Again with the "we don't understand" argument.

Isn't that the point of simulating complex systems? To gain understanding of them? Or are you suggesting that we only simulate systems that are well understood, not to understand them, but just for the fuck of it?

Why do we need theories to deal with that level of complexity? Do the laws of physics break down when there's a lot of particles to simulate? How is this not simply an issue of scaling up computing infrastructure to support simulations of larger data sets?

if you think we know essentially nothing about most of the cells in the brain, I find it odd that IBM has been simulating everything from neocortical columns to cat brains in-house. Perhaps you should drop them a line explaining to them that they don't know what they're doing.

Regarding "experimental data", I don't understand why we'd need anything more than an accurate map of the brain's structure, and an understanding of the laws of physics that govern the interaction between the brain's constituent particles. Perhaps you can explain to me why the laws of physics don't apply to the human brain?

Yea, that happened already. Also, I feel like less of a person for linking to Popular Mechanics. I hope you're happy.

We already did the fly brain thing. Apparently now we're at the cat brain scale. Obviously, this isn't the first effort to simulate a brain in silicon. Google is your friend.

Parts.

Your son breaks the arm on your daughter's favourite doll? Scan the pieces, reassemble it in the model editor, print it, stick the new arm on, and the doll is good as new.

Some little button or knob on something breaks? Do the same.

Into classic cars? Need some unobtainium part? Model it up or scan the existing broken one and print it, either for direct use or for making a mold. Jay Leno has been raving for years about how awesome 3D printing is replacing for obscure parts.

This reminds me of this project: Potential Energy (formerly The Darfur Stoves Project)

Popular Mechanics covered it in this article: Low-Tech Stove Saves Lives in Sudan's Darfur Region

And what is the "official" response for why Building 7 magically collapsed again?

It wasn't magic, it was physics. I suppose to some people it might seem like magic. I threw in a few extra links - figured they might be useful to you.

NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report
World Trade Center Disaster Study

The Theory vs. the Facts
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

This comment sounds like Elon Musk himself. There is even a Freudian slip 'we'. http://www.popularmechanics.com/how-to/blog/elon-musk-on-spacex-tesla-and-why-space-solar-power-must-die-13386162

Complete bullshit.

In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/natural-disasters/2315076

The federal government has almost nothing to do with emergency response. It's idiotic to even suggest they should be involved. Local authorities need to have plans and prepare for such events like Florida does. As a last resort the feds show up when it's an unmitigated disaster. Katrina was a category 1 when it made landfall, New Orleans was completely unprepared. Money for levees, flood walls and other precautions was funneled by local politicians to casinos and other local business projects.

Popular Mechanics have a transcript and analysis of the final 10 minutes.

Yes, there are times Godwin's law should be applied. And when your government is reading your mail (email, phone calls, social media). and monitoring your travel (street camers, license plate scanners on police cruisers), and your police are being militarized.

Exhibit 1: Listening to your communication
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/354590/greenwald-nsa-has-trillions-e-mails-and-phone-calls-betsy-woodruff

Exhibit 2: Monitoring your travel
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/07/28/18740565.php

Exhibit 3: Militarization of police
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bradlockwood/2011/11/30/the-militarizing-of-local-police/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/4203345

***

Essentially, the only reason most American's do not realize they are living in a police state is because most American's are decent folk and indoctrinated to submit to authority. As such, very few American's ever conflict with the state on a level to feel the police state.

The deranged genocide of millions is NOT a requirement for a police state. While Hitler and Stalin killed millions, much of the Soviet Republics police state history was not under the auspices of genocide. A police state, by necessity does not need to be a deranged murderous state, in order to be a police state.

So yes, with all of that happening. I think we've reached high time to be justified in enacting Godwin's Law.

That scenario was based on the Ford Pinto. Ford made a decision that it would be cheaper to pay damages than it would be rework the Pinto design, so it went ahead with the Pinto:

"But at the time, management's attitude was to get the product out the door as fast as possible. So, Ford did a cost-benefit analysis. To fix the problems would cost an additional $11 per vehicle, and Ford weighed that $11 against the projected injury claims for severe burns, repair-costs claim rate and mortality. The total would have been approximately $113 million (including the engineering, the production delays and the parts for tens of thousands of cars), but damage payouts would cost only about $49 million, according to Ford's math. So the fix was nixed, and the Pinto went into production in September 1970."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/industry/top-automotive-engineering-failures-ford-pinto-fuel-tanks

With the speed those rotors are turning, I don't think there'd be much in the way of ground effects generated.

Just an old helicopter mechanic tho, not an aeronautical engineer So I might be completely wrong..

Typically about 1.5 rotor diameters are where it stops helping a traditional helicopeter. In this case, at 10 feet up with a 30 foot diameter, the slow rotor speed notwithstanding it will make a significant contribution. The air below the rotors can't freely move downward until the momentum of the wind dissipates; this energy creates lift.

Ben Berry from Gamera was actually a previous coworker before he went to work on their HPV project.

Source: Aero engineer, rules of thumb there are from asking around at Sikorsky years ago. Also, I don't like how they say this at all, but it at least says the ground effect is significant:

Three years ago, as Staruk and his UMD team began building their first iteration of Gamera, they quickly encountered the boundaries of current aerodynamic understanding. To rise off the ground, human-powered helicopters are helped by a phenomenon called ground effect, in which wings close to the surface of the earth experience a sharp reduction in drag. It's very helpful in getting off the ground but difficult to model. "Ground effect is a very complex phenomenon; there are all sorts of vortices," Chopra says. "You can only validate experimentally. There isn't much theory."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/diy-flying/two-teams-one-dream-the-human-powered-helicopter-15354870-2

For some people nothing says "appeal to emotion" like FBI arrest reports I guess.

Here are some great resources for anyone confused by information at "911truth.org" and would like more information.

'Debunking 9/11 Myths': Nano-thermite dust found near Ground Zero (Photos)
Debunking 9/11 Myths: conspiracy plots are sheer fantasy

NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report
World Trade Center Disaster Study

Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

Resources for debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Debunking 9/11 Bomb Theories

The Truthers Are Out There

9/11 Conspiracy Theories: The 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective

Debunking Conspiracy Theories In 'Voodoo Histories'

For some people nothing says "appeal to emotion" like FBI arrest reports I guess.

Here are some great resources for anyone confused by information at "911truth.org" and would like more information.

'Debunking 9/11 Myths': Nano-thermite dust found near Ground Zero (Photos)
Debunking 9/11 Myths: conspiracy plots are sheer fantasy

NIST Releases Final WTC 7 Investigation Report
World Trade Center Disaster Study

Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

Resources for debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Debunking 9/11 Bomb Theories

The Truthers Are Out There

9/11 Conspiracy Theories: The 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective

Debunking Conspiracy Theories In 'Voodoo Histories'

Actually I was wrong and it was Popular Mechanics http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593#slide-1

Show both the pros and the cons and seems very well balanced.

In 1980, the American Helicopter Society International created a $25,000 prize for the first aviator to stay airborne for 60 seconds, reach an altitude of more than 10 feet, and hover without drifting more than 1,076 square feet—all in a machine powered by nothing other than the human body.

(emphasis mine)

The "drift" requirement is that the craft has to stay within an area of 10 sq meters. That's 107.6 square feet, so TFA is off by an order of magnitude. According to the Popular Mechanics piece which I read a few weeks ago, this "fine print" requirement has turned out to be surprisingly hard for the Maryland team, since their pilots are spinning with both hands and both feet and thus aren't able to steer. The Canadians think they have an advantage on that one.

Also, the altitude requirement is 3 meters, or 9.8 feet rather than 10.

Sources recount a different story. It received a design approval for 330-min ETOPS, apparently it got no more.

From what I've heard in the industry, it is. This BBC article is a little dated but is a good outline of some of the key points. Popular Mechanics did a good piece on the issue a few years back, if you're up for a longer read.

Wired.com did a test...

It was Popular Mechanics that did the test... likely Wired picked up the story. USPS does indeed treat your packages the kindest.

From what I read a few years ago, Airbus absolutely limits what the pilot can do

Take a look at what happened to AF447 the Airbus that crashed over the Atlantic a few years back. Indeed the standard operating procedure from Airbus limits what the pilot can do. However, when the system detects problems (e.g. faulty speed sensors) it goes into a more permissive mode. In this mode the airplane gives full(er) control to the pilot.
I won't introduce any spoilers, but a take a look at the account of the end of the flight. Worth a read to know how things work (when they don't) in the cockpit.