It's not the inserts. It's probably the aggregate functions to display "trends" that was mentioned. Probably recounted on every page load with no indexes.
Do you live in a sovereign state in the US? Does it have open borders with neighbor member-states? You seem to hate it without remembering where they got the idea.
If there was ever a case where eventually-consistent databases instead of straight SQL would be better, this is it. This had nothing to do with images and stylesheets, I'm sure.
You're an idiot. I'm talking about an individual person and their entertainment choice. They could already be using Netflix instead of game streaming. Very rare that the same person would do both at once.
They already had two sensors. But the MCAS doesn't check for a disagreement. And you don't know there's a disagreement when the sensor is disabled and there's no indicator. Even late in flight testing they could have enabled that second sensor across the board - and if they weren't adding a third sensor, they need the light.
There's no question these crashes were probably both preventable. I still place the blame on Boeing. A bad design is a bad design and no amount of checklist will overcome that - you have to have that checklist fully memorized to have time to complete it before a crash. And its similarity to the 737 would make it hard to catch that one small difference in procedure.
You know how you detect if a sensor fails? By having a second sensor that is enabled and not disabled and seeing if they agree. Whether you have a light to indicate that they agree or not. Their mistake was selling this separately.
the base model is one that meets or exceeds every mandated safety feature required by every aviation authority
Except this new plane apparently needed a safety feature that wouldn't normally be needed. And aviation authorities are certainly going to add this to the list for planes like this one. And Boeing was aware of the need for it, but cut corners anyway. Aviation authorities base their standards on deadly crashes, while Boeing worked in the theoretical before even building the plane.
That indication is about the agreement with a second sensor. A second sensor that is disabled without the upgrade. A second sensor that is ignored by MCAS otherwise because you didn't pay for it but would have made it safer.
Flying is relatively save vs. cars. But not vs. this model alone. The MCAS system was compensation for a bad physical design in the first place. This is not blown out of proportion. It's a design that goes against common sense and required an upcharge to mitigate. And a second sensor still isn't the way you deal with something like this. 3 sensors from 3 vendors and take the consensus input. The indicator is secondary to this, just to give pilots a clue. But they were so worried about word getting out about how bad their plane's design was they didn't even publish info on the MCAS system before the crashes.
It would have given a clue why the plane was erratic. You can't disable a system you don't know is running first of all (MCAS was not publicized prior). But at least knowing what input is driving that unknown system may give you a chance to correct for it or disable it.
Except Netflix solved the problem for them. You're not going to stream a movie and a game to the same screen at the same time. And game streaming doesn't actually require more bandwidth than movie streaming. It's all just a tradeoff in picture quality. And I doubt most are going to draw the line where Google did. Wal-Mart's equivalent will be a blurry 1080p and maybe some advanced encoders that prioritize bandwidth for on-screen text (or converts that to an overlay).
Slashdot Mirror
Because this will probably *break* Google Voice or at least make calls show as unverified.
It's not the inserts. It's probably the aggregate functions to display "trends" that was mentioned. Probably recounted on every page load with no indexes.
Or wait, you must be from Texas.
Do you live in a sovereign state in the US? Does it have open borders with neighbor member-states? You seem to hate it without remembering where they got the idea.
If there was ever a case where eventually-consistent databases instead of straight SQL would be better, this is it. This had nothing to do with images and stylesheets, I'm sure.
I'm not sure, but I think Firefly is a little higher on the list of canceled things than Clippy.
Enjoying your schizophasia?
Well then they'd have to update the flight manual to actually say what the MCAS is. As far as I can tell, it's not described there.
I don't think you could ever accurately quantify the uncertainty.
You're an idiot. I'm talking about an individual person and their entertainment choice. They could already be using Netflix instead of game streaming. Very rare that the same person would do both at once.
That's part of the flaw. However, you won't know if that sensor is giving bad data without comparison. And you wouldn't know why MCAS was activating.
Which is the lie?
Don't give me a "disagree" light, which may as well be a "you're about to die" light.
It's cheaper than a third sensor, which is what something this critical really needed.
These Boeing failures have been a bit more catastrophic than buying a car that doesn't have lane departure warnings
Right, this is more like lane departure steering correction. And like Tesla, the car might steer you right into a wall.
They already had two sensors. But the MCAS doesn't check for a disagreement. And you don't know there's a disagreement when the sensor is disabled and there's no indicator. Even late in flight testing they could have enabled that second sensor across the board - and if they weren't adding a third sensor, they need the light.
There's no question these crashes were probably both preventable. I still place the blame on Boeing. A bad design is a bad design and no amount of checklist will overcome that - you have to have that checklist fully memorized to have time to complete it before a crash. And its similarity to the 737 would make it hard to catch that one small difference in procedure.
To detect when the first one is faulty. You only need to use one - but you need to know when not to trust it. Light or no light.
what happens if this sensor fails
You know how you detect if a sensor fails? By having a second sensor that is enabled and not disabled and seeing if they agree. Whether you have a light to indicate that they agree or not. Their mistake was selling this separately.
the base model is one that meets or exceeds every mandated safety feature required by every aviation authority
Except this new plane apparently needed a safety feature that wouldn't normally be needed. And aviation authorities are certainly going to add this to the list for planes like this one. And Boeing was aware of the need for it, but cut corners anyway. Aviation authorities base their standards on deadly crashes, while Boeing worked in the theoretical before even building the plane.
There's still a car analogy. That car analogy is the Tesla that self-drove into a highway barrier because of bad input analysis.
That indication is about the agreement with a second sensor. A second sensor that is disabled without the upgrade. A second sensor that is ignored by MCAS otherwise because you didn't pay for it but would have made it safer.
Flying is relatively save vs. cars. But not vs. this model alone. The MCAS system was compensation for a bad physical design in the first place. This is not blown out of proportion. It's a design that goes against common sense and required an upcharge to mitigate. And a second sensor still isn't the way you deal with something like this. 3 sensors from 3 vendors and take the consensus input. The indicator is secondary to this, just to give pilots a clue. But they were so worried about word getting out about how bad their plane's design was they didn't even publish info on the MCAS system before the crashes.
It would have given a clue why the plane was erratic. You can't disable a system you don't know is running first of all (MCAS was not publicized prior). But at least knowing what input is driving that unknown system may give you a chance to correct for it or disable it.
Except Netflix solved the problem for them. You're not going to stream a movie and a game to the same screen at the same time. And game streaming doesn't actually require more bandwidth than movie streaming. It's all just a tradeoff in picture quality. And I doubt most are going to draw the line where Google did. Wal-Mart's equivalent will be a blurry 1080p and maybe some advanced encoders that prioritize bandwidth for on-screen text (or converts that to an overlay).
No - it will just create content deserts. You're not a big enough market and don't have enough power to stop it.