They did say "abruptly", which is exactly the word one would use if it went straight to 100% from one reading to the next. I don't know at what frequency they record this value, though.
In fact, I'd say maybe it's a good idea to limit the range reachable by foot of the sensor to less than 100% (95% or so), so that if it suddenly shoots up to a hundred then that clearly is a sensor fault.
I would hope it already does that, and "100%" just means "the maximum that can be achieved by pushing in the pedal". Otherwise whoever designed that system should be fired and forbidden from designing anything ever again.
"researchers found that there were seven to 15 crashes per month in the U.S. caused by pedal application errors. Females were the drivers in nearly two-thirds of the pedal misapplication crashes identified in crash databases and in a media scan used in the study."
Majority voting with three systems has turned out to be dangerous on quite a few occasions. At least with two systems disagreeing, you can decide "I don't know which one is right, so I'll do the safe thing". With two out of three giving an incorrect value, it leads to misplaced confidence in this wrong value.
Examples:
- (human): Primary altimeters different between captain and F/O, standby altimeter agrees with captain, but F/O altimeter was correct. Don't remember the flight number or even the company, but they crashed into a mountain. If they hadn't had the standby altimeter, they would have gone with the lowest of the two indications until they could intercept a glide slope somewhere.
- (automatic): The A320 has independent Angle Of Attack probes, but if you climb through heavy icing, it turns out two can freeze up at the same time. The system sees a confirmed stall (even though it should be impossible given the current speed, attitude and inertial measurements) because two systems agreeing can't ever be wrong, and it pushes the nose down. Even if both pilots pull back on the stick, the nose continues to drop. We now have an official procedure to shut off two of the Air Data Reference units, leaving only one remaining. That's the only way of shaking the absolute confidence of the system in two identical but false signals.
Come on, do you really think their own actual technical logs showed exactly 100%? They saw some value which may or may not be anywhere near "100" and translated it to a human-understandable "100% throttle" meaning "the pedal was pushed all the way down".
They're not really spiders though: they seem to have only six legs. Calling them ants would be more appropriate.
From a behavioral point of view, too: spiders are solitary, and many species just sit still 95% of the time. Tarantulas are about the most boring pets you can have. Ants, on the other hand, hardly ever sit still and work in groups.
Universal Basic Income is starting to become more and more popular and, against all odds, is even getting implemented in a few countries. That ought to make the transition a bit easier: in the beginning people will still have to work quite a bit to be above the minimum standard, but after a while when there are less and less jobs, the new normal will be basic income plus a part time job here and there, and plenty of free time. You'll have all you need, and work to get a few extra things.
We're not quite there yet, but UBI is a step in the right direction. Right now its main advantage is just simplifying administration on existing social security systems, but towards the future it's also much more scalable. People will no longer be forced to take that 9 to 5 day job to work their ass off, they can easily quit without losing their UBI, work a few days here and there without extra administration. The labour market will change quite drastically.
If the masses are poor, the factories will grind to a halt and the rich will see their profits tumble. They depend on the masses after all.
You'll first have to prove that you incurred actual damage because of this. Someone must actually get hacked by a man in the middle before they can sue Asus. Until that happens, they're in the clear.
If you listen to a car going round a race track, the tire noise, engine rpms and gear shifts, all of that together could give you a pretty good idea of the length of the straights, the intensity of the curves, and the smoothness of the road surface in various places. Listen to enough cars, and you may be able to reconstruct the entire track.
The cpu is the race car, the track is the RSA algorithm for that specific key.
Indirectly, yes. Elon Musk named the two drone ships "Just Read the Instructions" and "Of Course I Still Love You" in honor of Iain M. Banks, RIP. They were both names of spaceships in his book "The Player of Games".
They should invent headphones that make engine noises when cars are nearby. Then people like you can wear those while the rest of us can enjoy the silence of modern cars in our cities.
Not just him. All the cars behind him as well. And, if the intersection is so busy that during rush hour all cars have to wait for several green lights, all subsequent cars for the rest of the entire rush hour.
Slashdot Mirror
They did say "abruptly", which is exactly the word one would use if it went straight to 100% from one reading to the next. I don't know at what frequency they record this value, though.
I expect Tesla to start outfitting all new cars with a camera in the footwell.
In fact, I'd say maybe it's a good idea to limit the range reachable by foot of the sensor to less than 100% (95% or so), so that if it suddenly shoots up to a hundred then that clearly is a sensor fault.
I would hope it already does that, and "100%" just means "the maximum that can be achieved by pushing in the pedal". Otherwise whoever designed that system should be fired and forbidden from designing anything ever again.
You "expect" or you "feel strongly that they ought to"? I assume you meant the latter, because otherwise you would be quite delusional.
You may laugh, but, from the actual article:
"researchers found that there were seven to 15 crashes per month in the U.S. caused by pedal application errors. Females were the drivers in nearly two-thirds of the pedal misapplication crashes identified in crash databases and in a media scan used in the study."
Majority voting with three systems has turned out to be dangerous on quite a few occasions. At least with two systems disagreeing, you can decide "I don't know which one is right, so I'll do the safe thing". With two out of three giving an incorrect value, it leads to misplaced confidence in this wrong value.
Examples:
- (human): Primary altimeters different between captain and F/O, standby altimeter agrees with captain, but F/O altimeter was correct. Don't remember the flight number or even the company, but they crashed into a mountain. If they hadn't had the standby altimeter, they would have gone with the lowest of the two indications until they could intercept a glide slope somewhere.
- (automatic): The A320 has independent Angle Of Attack probes, but if you climb through heavy icing, it turns out two can freeze up at the same time. The system sees a confirmed stall (even though it should be impossible given the current speed, attitude and inertial measurements) because two systems agreeing can't ever be wrong, and it pushes the nose down. Even if both pilots pull back on the stick, the nose continues to drop. We now have an official procedure to shut off two of the Air Data Reference units, leaving only one remaining. That's the only way of shaking the absolute confidence of the system in two identical but false signals.
Come on, do you really think their own actual technical logs showed exactly 100%? They saw some value which may or may not be anywhere near "100" and translated it to a human-understandable "100% throttle" meaning "the pedal was pushed all the way down".
I imagine "100%" means "the value that corresponds to max pedal pressure" and a short circuit will give something like 150%.
I've got the same combination on my luggage!
preposterous!1
Don't post your passwords on Slashdot! Perhaps someone told you they will be replaced by asterisks, but that's not true!
"You chose this path. Now I have a surprise for you. Deploying surprise in five, four..."
I sure hope Siemens has learned its lesson after Stuxnet, or the next botnet could become very frightning indeed!
They're not really spiders though: they seem to have only six legs. Calling them ants would be more appropriate.
From a behavioral point of view, too: spiders are solitary, and many species just sit still 95% of the time. Tarantulas are about the most boring pets you can have. Ants, on the other hand, hardly ever sit still and work in groups.
I hope they have learned their lesson after Stuxnet, or else the next worldwide botnet could become very frightning indeed!
Universal Basic Income is starting to become more and more popular and, against all odds, is even getting implemented in a few countries. That ought to make the transition a bit easier: in the beginning people will still have to work quite a bit to be above the minimum standard, but after a while when there are less and less jobs, the new normal will be basic income plus a part time job here and there, and plenty of free time. You'll have all you need, and work to get a few extra things.
We're not quite there yet, but UBI is a step in the right direction. Right now its main advantage is just simplifying administration on existing social security systems, but towards the future it's also much more scalable. People will no longer be forced to take that 9 to 5 day job to work their ass off, they can easily quit without losing their UBI, work a few days here and there without extra administration. The labour market will change quite drastically.
If the masses are poor, the factories will grind to a halt and the rich will see their profits tumble. They depend on the masses after all.
You'll first have to prove that you incurred actual damage because of this. Someone must actually get hacked by a man in the middle before they can sue Asus. Until that happens, they're in the clear.
There is no way on a real system this would work.
Famous last words.
If you listen to a car going round a race track, the tire noise, engine rpms and gear shifts, all of that together could give you a pretty good idea of the length of the straights, the intensity of the curves, and the smoothness of the road surface in various places. Listen to enough cars, and you may be able to reconstruct the entire track.
The cpu is the race car, the track is the RSA algorithm for that specific key.
Yeah, and black unarmed people get killed by police all the time, could we PLEASE stop having stories about those too?
Changing definitions like that to match incorrect usage by the idiot masses is literally the stupidest thing you can do.
Indirectly, yes. Elon Musk named the two drone ships "Just Read the Instructions" and "Of Course I Still Love You" in honor of Iain M. Banks, RIP. They were both names of spaceships in his book "The Player of Games".
The AI should be able to detect the white cane and make some polite warning sounds in that case.
They should invent headphones that make engine noises when cars are nearby. Then people like you can wear those while the rest of us can enjoy the silence of modern cars in our cities.
Not just him. All the cars behind him as well. And, if the intersection is so busy that during rush hour all cars have to wait for several green lights, all subsequent cars for the rest of the entire rush hour.
The car disproportionately honks at women too.
Nah, that's just a result of its machine learning algorithm.
(ducks...)