Yes, I don't know what's wrong with names like ununseptium, at least you can remember them. It's not like people need catchy names for them when they use them in the kitchen. As far as I know, they only exist (briefly) because scientists like to go "hey, quick, come and look, I managed to make one with 117 protons!"
I tried it today at 36000 feet, and niether my iPhone 5 nor my iPad Air 2 could get a position. Fine on the ground, though, so it's not because of shielding.
Nope, just tried it again today. At 36000 feet over the mediterranean, airplane mode off, my iPhone 5 thought I was still in the hotel and my iPad Air 2 thought I was somewhere south of West Africa (0N, 0E).
To check whether this was due to the signal being too weak in the cockpit, I briefly considered opening a window but then came up with a better idea: I checked again after landing, all doors and windows still closed, and reception was perfect. Airplane mode did have to be off.
OK, thanks, I'll see if it works. Would be nice to be able to identify landmarks instead of just having aeronautical waypoints and airports. Also helps when passengers ask where we are;-)
Try any of those in an airplane at cruising altitude. Nope, no more GPS position.
I don't know why, but they just don't work. Probably a licensing thing, they probably have to pay someone to be allowed to use the GPS system, and pay them a helluva lot more to use it in the air.
And here we are wondering why we haven't seen any alien civiliations that lived longer than us. We've only had nukes for less than a hundred years and some fruitcake with a funny hairdo is getting close to having enough power to destroy half the world. How much longer can we keep this up?
I would find it hard to believe that there would be lots of lifeforms out there, but none of them would have gotten a tiny headstart on us like, say, 10,000 years or so (which is nothing on a cosmological time scale).
Or perhaps they all died already. We already came close to mass extinction with nuclear weapons, and technology continues to improve. Once a single fruitcake can 3D-print a bomb big enough to destroy the planet, it's game over. Are we going to last 10,000 years in such unstable conditions?
And how do those rich people pay for those luxury items? By selling stuff to the masses. Otherwise they couldn't afford those luxury items. The economy is about masses of consumers, not the occasional Ferrari bought by some rich guy. When Wallmart sees a drop in sales, stock indexes go down. There's an old forgotten wisdom that says that if you pay your workers more, they will buy more of your products.
People in Europe are already getting more than $1000 a month when they are unemployed. UBI just changes the way they are paid, with way less administration. And scalability when more and more work starts to get done by robots. The products still get made, you just don't need people to do it anymore, so there's no shortage of products just because people are at home instead of working.
And for motivation, people will actually be more likely to look for work. In today's system, people can actually be worse off when they accept a job, with more expenses for transportation and child care while barely making more than they got from unemployment. Why would you work from 9 to 5, 5 days a week, to get barely more money? And if you accept a job, you can't just quit if you don't like it because you'll have to enter a waiting period again. So that's an extra threshold keeping people from doing certain jobs.
With UBI, people will get an immediate benefit from working. Of course they pay taxes on everything they earn, but the net amount is added directly to their UBI. Low wages are suddenly a lot more attractive. People will be encouraged to take all sorts of temporary jobs instead of sitting at home, without any administrative overhead. Companies will have a much easier time finding temporary workers.
I believe Finland was going to start the experiment for two years starting in 2017, and there are a few local initiatives in the Netherlands and France as well. The Swiss population did reject it, but their proposal was a bit on the high side, I think it was something like 2000 euros per month which is way too high.
With two sensors, you should definitely not follow one of them. You should use a contigency procedure that is safe in all circumstances. For example, with two altimeters, go with the lowest indication. With two gas pedal input values, go idle and turn the four blinkers on.
The problem with 3 sensors is that a discrepancy ought to be treated very carefully, taking the possibility into account that the odd one out might be the correct one, but in practice this is usually not the approach that is taken. And this can actually make a three sensor majority voting system more dangerous than a two sensor system that trusts neither and acts accordingly.
I haven't actually tried it in my Mercedes, but a lot of companies implemented this after the unintended acceleration incidents where people complained that the car continued to accelerate even though they were pressing the brake pedal. To the general public, it seems absurd that you would want to accelerate and brake at the same time. The general public, of course, does not know about doughnuts, handbrake turns, burnouts, left foot braking, etc... They just want the car to be "safe", and the manufacturers are giving them what they want. Same reason why more and more are implementing automatic parking brakes which make handbrake turns impossible. The general public doesn't need handbrake turns.
Meanwhile, I did some more googling for the exact behavior of the Tesla. Apparently, if you first press the gas and then the brakes, it cuts the gas completely. But in other situations it reduces torque without completely cutting it off. There are conflicting reports, though, and I don't have a Tesla yet, so I'll leave it at that.
No, that was a different situation. On Air France 447, the pitot tubes froze and resulted in incorrect speed indications, with stall warnings and overspeed warnings at the same time. Extremely confusing for the pilots. They ended up stalling the aircraft because they didn't know which information was accurate and which was not, even though the plane was actually perfectly flyable and the airspeed indications had returned to normal operation.
The problem I described is a different one, and is actually the opposite: here the plane is actually convinced it is stalling while it's perfectly obvious to the pilots that it is not. In this case, contrary to AF447, the pilots are right but the plane refuses to obey and pushes the nose down anyway. This has occurred a few times already but fortunately has not resulted in any crashes.
It just goes to show that it's often easy to blame the pilots ("the AF447 pilots should have trusted the stall warning and recovered by pitching down") while in reality the warnings can indeed be false and it's sometimes hard to tell what situation you are really in. Airbus used to claim that stall warnings could never be false, and the Alpha Floor protections would never be activated erroneously, until they were faced with the double AOA probe freezing incidents.
An AOA probe, by the way, is kind of like a weather vane but mounted on a horizontal axis to measure the angle between the airflow and the aircraft (angle of attack). A pilot tube is a horizontal tube with a hole in the front to measure dynamic pressure.
So what happens if you are overtaking a car on a two lane road, another car is coming towards you from the other direction but you judge that you can still make it with room to spare, so you add more gas, and meanwhile your car sees the other car coming towards you, has no idea that you are going to move out of the way, and therefore applies the brakes?
Manufacturers prefer (and should prefer) having a few false negatives where the car does not brake to avoid a collision (it's still your fault after all), rather than have false positives where the car's braking actually causes an accident.
The main purpose is to avoid crashes due to the slow reactions or distractedness of the driver. If the driver suddenly stomps on the gas, that's a different situation and the car should obey. The car should not assume it's smarter than the driver (even though sometimes it might be).
I suppose it's OK if, on login, if the entered password does not match, they try with simpler versions but NOT more complex ones.
For example, if the password is "password", then "Password" and "password]" will be accepted as correct.
However, if the stored password is "passWord]", then "passWord" will not be accepted and neither will "password]"
So basically, the system should try removing capitalization and removing extraneous characters, but not adding them. This would indeed increase user-friendliness without affecting security much. Hackers tend to try the simpler versions first anyway.
Another thing I wish people would implement everywhere, is not counting duplicate login attempts with the same erroneous password or pin towards your allowed number of login attempts. If someone types the wrong pin (not a typo, but just a mistake), he will usually try it a second time before realising it was a different one. Then, on the third attempt, a single typo can block his card. Counting multiple entries of the same code as a single miss will have absolutely no negative effect on security but will make a big difference in user-friendliness.
It does seem strange that they say it will first be used in airplanes, and later in consumer electronics. That's exactly the opposite of how it normally goes: even the latest airplanes are always using technology from at least a decade ago. They need everything to be proven first. It's not uncommon for an airplane to use 3.5 inch floppy discs to update the navigation database, although most are switching to CD-roms now. Most piston engine airplanes still have an oldfashioned carburettor and you need to turn on carb heat from time to time in cold conditions to avoid it freezing up. Fuel injection was only introduced relatively recently. Etcetera.
The big problem is always certification. If something has been certified to work, they're not going to spend money certifying a new replacement system if the old system still works.
So I fully expect these things to make their way into more earth-bound systems before anyone ever uses them in an airplane.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I don't know what's wrong with names like ununseptium, at least you can remember them. It's not like people need catchy names for them when they use them in the kitchen. As far as I know, they only exist (briefly) because scientists like to go "hey, quick, come and look, I managed to make one with 117 protons!"
SwedishCheffium!
I tried it today at 36000 feet, and niether my iPhone 5 nor my iPad Air 2 could get a position. Fine on the ground, though, so it's not because of shielding.
Nope, just tried it again today. At 36000 feet over the mediterranean, airplane mode off, my iPhone 5 thought I was still in the hotel and my iPad Air 2 thought I was somewhere south of West Africa (0N, 0E).
To check whether this was due to the signal being too weak in the cockpit, I briefly considered opening a window but then came up with a better idea: I checked again after landing, all doors and windows still closed, and reception was perfect. Airplane mode did have to be off.
OK, thanks, I'll see if it works. Would be nice to be able to identify landmarks instead of just having aeronautical waypoints and airports. Also helps when passengers ask where we are ;-)
It didn't work last time I tried it, but I'll try again tomorrow then.
Try any of those in an airplane at cruising altitude. Nope, no more GPS position.
I don't know why, but they just don't work. Probably a licensing thing, they probably have to pay someone to be allowed to use the GPS system, and pay them a helluva lot more to use it in the air.
And here we are wondering why we haven't seen any alien civiliations that lived longer than us. We've only had nukes for less than a hundred years and some fruitcake with a funny hairdo is getting close to having enough power to destroy half the world. How much longer can we keep this up?
I would find it hard to believe that there would be lots of lifeforms out there, but none of them would have gotten a tiny headstart on us like, say, 10,000 years or so (which is nothing on a cosmological time scale).
Or perhaps they all died already. We already came close to mass extinction with nuclear weapons, and technology continues to improve. Once a single fruitcake can 3D-print a bomb big enough to destroy the planet, it's game over. Are we going to last 10,000 years in such unstable conditions?
And how do those rich people pay for those luxury items? By selling stuff to the masses. Otherwise they couldn't afford those luxury items. The economy is about masses of consumers, not the occasional Ferrari bought by some rich guy. When Wallmart sees a drop in sales, stock indexes go down. There's an old forgotten wisdom that says that if you pay your workers more, they will buy more of your products.
People in Europe are already getting more than $1000 a month when they are unemployed. UBI just changes the way they are paid, with way less administration. And scalability when more and more work starts to get done by robots. The products still get made, you just don't need people to do it anymore, so there's no shortage of products just because people are at home instead of working.
And for motivation, people will actually be more likely to look for work. In today's system, people can actually be worse off when they accept a job, with more expenses for transportation and child care while barely making more than they got from unemployment. Why would you work from 9 to 5, 5 days a week, to get barely more money? And if you accept a job, you can't just quit if you don't like it because you'll have to enter a waiting period again. So that's an extra threshold keeping people from doing certain jobs.
With UBI, people will get an immediate benefit from working. Of course they pay taxes on everything they earn, but the net amount is added directly to their UBI. Low wages are suddenly a lot more attractive. People will be encouraged to take all sorts of temporary jobs instead of sitting at home, without any administrative overhead. Companies will have a much easier time finding temporary workers.
I believe Finland was going to start the experiment for two years starting in 2017, and there are a few local initiatives in the Netherlands and France as well. The Swiss population did reject it, but their proposal was a bit on the high side, I think it was something like 2000 euros per month which is way too high.
It's not quite there yet. Not by a long shot. But some day, sure, it will.
You have a point there.
User enters "password]"
Does the hash for "password]" match? Nope
Does the hash for "password" match? Yes, acces granted.
No need to reverse the hash.
Not that that is not the approach taken in the paper, theirs is quite a bit more complicated.
With two sensors, you should definitely not follow one of them. You should use a contigency procedure that is safe in all circumstances. For example, with two altimeters, go with the lowest indication. With two gas pedal input values, go idle and turn the four blinkers on.
The problem with 3 sensors is that a discrepancy ought to be treated very carefully, taking the possibility into account that the odd one out might be the correct one, but in practice this is usually not the approach that is taken. And this can actually make a three sensor majority voting system more dangerous than a two sensor system that trusts neither and acts accordingly.
I haven't actually tried it in my Mercedes, but a lot of companies implemented this after the unintended acceleration incidents where people complained that the car continued to accelerate even though they were pressing the brake pedal. To the general public, it seems absurd that you would want to accelerate and brake at the same time. The general public, of course, does not know about doughnuts, handbrake turns, burnouts, left foot braking, etc... They just want the car to be "safe", and the manufacturers are giving them what they want. Same reason why more and more are implementing automatic parking brakes which make handbrake turns impossible. The general public doesn't need handbrake turns.
Meanwhile, I did some more googling for the exact behavior of the Tesla. Apparently, if you first press the gas and then the brakes, it cuts the gas completely. But in other situations it reduces torque without completely cutting it off. There are conflicting reports, though, and I don't have a Tesla yet, so I'll leave it at that.
No, that was a different situation. On Air France 447, the pitot tubes froze and resulted in incorrect speed indications, with stall warnings and overspeed warnings at the same time. Extremely confusing for the pilots. They ended up stalling the aircraft because they didn't know which information was accurate and which was not, even though the plane was actually perfectly flyable and the airspeed indications had returned to normal operation.
The problem I described is a different one, and is actually the opposite: here the plane is actually convinced it is stalling while it's perfectly obvious to the pilots that it is not. In this case, contrary to AF447, the pilots are right but the plane refuses to obey and pushes the nose down anyway. This has occurred a few times already but fortunately has not resulted in any crashes.
It just goes to show that it's often easy to blame the pilots ("the AF447 pilots should have trusted the stall warning and recovered by pitching down") while in reality the warnings can indeed be false and it's sometimes hard to tell what situation you are really in. Airbus used to claim that stall warnings could never be false, and the Alpha Floor protections would never be activated erroneously, until they were faced with the double AOA probe freezing incidents.
An AOA probe, by the way, is kind of like a weather vane but mounted on a horizontal axis to measure the angle between the airflow and the aircraft (angle of attack). A pilot tube is a horizontal tube with a hole in the front to measure dynamic pressure.
So what happens if you are overtaking a car on a two lane road, another car is coming towards you from the other direction but you judge that you can still make it with room to spare, so you add more gas, and meanwhile your car sees the other car coming towards you, has no idea that you are going to move out of the way, and therefore applies the brakes?
Manufacturers prefer (and should prefer) having a few false negatives where the car does not brake to avoid a collision (it's still your fault after all), rather than have false positives where the car's braking actually causes an accident.
The main purpose is to avoid crashes due to the slow reactions or distractedness of the driver. If the driver suddenly stomps on the gas, that's a different situation and the car should obey. The car should not assume it's smarter than the driver (even though sometimes it might be).
Keep in mind that the US has very, very few cars with manual transmissions. So 47 is probably a pretty large percentage compared to the other numbers.
I suppose it's OK if, on login, if the entered password does not match, they try with simpler versions but NOT more complex ones.
For example, if the password is "password", then "Password" and "password]" will be accepted as correct.
However, if the stored password is "passWord]", then "passWord" will not be accepted and neither will "password]"
So basically, the system should try removing capitalization and removing extraneous characters, but not adding them. This would indeed increase user-friendliness without affecting security much. Hackers tend to try the simpler versions first anyway.
Another thing I wish people would implement everywhere, is not counting duplicate login attempts with the same erroneous password or pin towards your allowed number of login attempts. If someone types the wrong pin (not a typo, but just a mistake), he will usually try it a second time before realising it was a different one. Then, on the third attempt, a single typo can block his card. Counting multiple entries of the same code as a single miss will have absolutely no negative effect on security but will make a big difference in user-friendliness.
It does seem strange that they say it will first be used in airplanes, and later in consumer electronics. That's exactly the opposite of how it normally goes: even the latest airplanes are always using technology from at least a decade ago. They need everything to be proven first. It's not uncommon for an airplane to use 3.5 inch floppy discs to update the navigation database, although most are switching to CD-roms now. Most piston engine airplanes still have an oldfashioned carburettor and you need to turn on carb heat from time to time in cold conditions to avoid it freezing up. Fuel injection was only introduced relatively recently. Etcetera.
The big problem is always certification. If something has been certified to work, they're not going to spend money certifying a new replacement system if the old system still works.
So I fully expect these things to make their way into more earth-bound systems before anyone ever uses them in an airplane.
If something had dropped on the pedal, I'm sure it would have slid right off as the car accelerated. It was a P90D, it accelerates with about 1g.
For it to get mechanically stuck, it would have had to be pushed in all the way first. Not very likely either.
I'd guess it's an 80% chance of her pressing the wrong pedal. 20% chance someone screwed up big time by not putting enough redundancy into the pedal.
And according to the article, apparently two thirds are women.
The Tesla cuts out the accelerator if you press both pedals at the same time, and issues a warning message. So do most other modern cars.