A watch that works for 10 hours?! So you take it off the charger when you get up in the morning at 6am, and it stops working at 4 pm? Or you have to take it off during lunch break so it can recharge?
So basically, you can look at your watch to check your messages, but you end up having to dig your phone out of your pocket to see what time it is because the watch battery went dead? Something tells me they didn't think this through.
Actually, you'll be alerting local crooks you have a smartphone AND a $300 smartwatch. And best of all, they can see it all the time because the thing is on your wrist, visible to everyone, instead of in your pocket most of the time.
Re:The developers are gonna melt, too - or get bli
on
Building Melts Car
·
· Score: 2
He was not confusing the two, he was actually pointing out that value investing is much better and smarter than day trading. He said "smart man" as a compliment. Read the posts again.
Either car will go in reverse direction only if there is any kinetic energy left from the impact.
You are not entirely correct.
When two cars hit each other, there's not just conservation of energy but also conservation of momentum. Momentum doesn't get changed by crumple zones. They will only reduce the bounce, i.e. the relative speed (if any) with which the vehicles will move away from each other after the impact. But if a heavy vehicle hits a lighter vehicle head on at the same speed, the lighter vehicle will always be thrown backward.
Suppose both cars have a speed v, and their masses are m1 and m2, m1 being smaller. Then, if the crumple zones absorb the maximum possible amount of energy they can, the cars will both end up moving at a speed of v*(m2-m1)/(m1+m2) in the direction the heavier car was going in. If less energy was absorbed by the crumple zones, the light car will be going backward faster and the heavier car will be slowed down more or even get thrown backward as well.
Crumple zones do matter, obviously. They are certainly a good thing, but they won't magically bring all cars to a stop if they have different weights. They spread out the impact over a slightly longer period and reduce the amount of bounce, both resulting in less G-forces on the occupants.
Just as an extreme example, imagine a 10 ton vehicla hitting a 1 ton vehicle head-on, both traveling at the same speed. The 10 ton vehicle will just slow down a bit (less than 20%) while the 1 ton vehicle will be catapulted backwards. Just basic conservation of momentum. Which of the two drivers will be better off, you think? The one whose speed was suddenly almost inverted, or the one whose speed was only reduced by less than 20%?
Or let's make it even more extreme: an ocean liner at cruising speed hitting a rubber dingy (the latter having a very nice cushioning protection zone while the former is very rigid and therefore, according to your theory, would kill all of its passengers). Somehow I think the passengers of the ocean liner will be better off.
Obviously these are exaggerated examples, but the math still works for smaller differences in mass. I agree that lots of other parameters matter as well (crumple zones etc.) but the heavier car will have a smaller change in velocity during the initial hit and therefore its passenger will too.
If the car crashes into some very rigid fixed object (a thick concrete wall, for example), the weight of the car won't matter. But it certainly will when crashing into another car.
On the other hand, I prefer police showing a video tape showing that you actually said something, rather than the officer saying "he said that to me" and being believed on his word because, you know, he's a police officer and therefore his statements are not to be questioned. Which is the state of the law right now. When an officer says "I asked him this question and he gave me this answer even though he denies it now", it is legally considered to be a fact (barring a few exceptions, hopefully)
So basically, they should all start wearing these recording glasses, and then the law should be changed so that, when something hasn't been recorded, the word of an officer carries a lot less weight than it does now. Your word against the officer's? No recording? You go free. That would be a big improvement. I don't know what everyone is so scared of. "Oh my, they might record me doing something illegal!" versus "Oh my, they might arrest me and declare to the judge that I did something illegal", what's the big difference? I prefer the former rather than the latter.
Of course, they might go over the tapes afterwards and see all sorts of slightly illegal things that the officer himself didn't notice or wouldn't have bothered to take his time to react to, but really, would they waste this kind of manpower, going over all the tapes, instead of just letting those same people walk the streets and catch more important crimes? I don't think it would be worth the effort.
Yep, I think it's probably a waste of money for the military, but I'm glad they're doing it because the technology will spin off to commercial snowmobiles for civilian use. I'm all for quieter snowmobiles.
Well, that's easy enough to find out with the same method: just decapitate a rat while electrodes are stuck to its skull. I wonder why nobody has done that yet. Solve the mystery once and for all.
So now a random guy in the IT department has the data, as well as the intended recipient, who then forwards it on in plain text to the PA of the guy who wants it
You are assuming they know how to unzip a file, and that they are even allowed to use the required application. And anyway, chances are that any zip attachment will not even make it through the malware filter.
Well, if I were leading a country and wanted to spy on all my citizens' e-mail, giving them all an easy way to encrypt their mail using keys I provided sure seems like a great way of achieving that goal.
However, the point is that you can securely communicate personal data with the government. In that case, you are not worried about the government being able to read your mail as they are precisely the ones you are communicating with. You just worry about criminals outside of the government. Also, you can safely transmit any data that is already known by the government to any third party. Name, address, credit card numbers, etcetera.
Now, if you want to communicate with your terrorist buddies about how to blow up the Estonian Parliament, encryption with your national ID card is probably not the best idea.
(Note to NSA spies reading this: yes, I know your filter was triggered by the phrase "blow up the Estonian Parliament", sorry about that, false alarm, nothing to see here)
I once made a "Drop Height" application for... err... wait, let me check that NDA I signed... errr, well, let's just say "a popular smartphone device", which measured the height from which you dropped it (useful for calculating the height of a building, for example), but it was rejected because it might damage the user's device.
You actually have to point your activated camera at the terminal, so you can't be hijacked by some rogue transmitter using a zero day flaw to root your phone via the NFC chip when you happen to pass within range.
When the autopilot can't handle something, the pilots usually (almost always) handle the situation correctly. There may be a crash due to human error from time to time, but there would be a lot more if the pilots weren't there to fix things (which they do manage to do in the vast majority of cases). Not long ago there was an incident very similar to the Rio accident, with incorrect airspeed indications leading to the aircraft flight control systems automatically initiating a nose dive and even overriding the pilots' inputs. They would certainly have crashed if the pilots hadn't switched off the air data computers to switch the flight controls to a more basic law where some of the "protections" were disabled. Without that action, the plane would have continued to dive because it thought (incorrectly, this time) that it was stalling. The pilots' common sense and technical knowledge saved the day. But of course this incident, like so many others, won't go into the statistics of crashes caused by humans versus technical failures, because no actual crash occurred.
As a side note, pilots are not just there to take over when the autopilot can't handle something. The autopilot still needs inputs to tell it what to do, it's very good at following orders extremely precisely but it's otherwise surprisingly stupid and it can't react to any unexpected situations by itself. It basically does grunt work and leaves the strategic decisions to the pilots.
That's weird, somehow it only took me two and a half years to get to the right seat of a jet. Just over a year of ATPL theory, 6 months of intensive VFR/IFR/twin engine training, and then onto the type rating. I know it's different in the states, where they require a couple of thousand hours flying in aeroclubs and cheesy cargo operations before even considering you for a jet, but many European companies have ab initio programs that take a lot less time.
Getting an IFR licence is around $100000, a type rating on a jet is about $200000. Give or take a bit.
No civilian aircraft currently in service (or planned in the near future) is able to take off automatically. There have been tests, and it's certainly technically possible, but the decision to continue or abort a take-off is considered too important to leave to a machine. At least for now. Every single take-off is performed manually.
Automatic landings are possible, and are often performed in low visibility conditions, but they are actually more work for the pilots than a manual landing. They have to constantly monitor the autopilots and be ready to take over immediately if anything goes wrong (which does happen from time to time). Special training and regular simulator trainings are required for a pilot to be qualified for automatic landings.
That's a common misconception. Yes, more accidents are due to human error than due to equipment failure. But those statistics don't take into account the number of cases where equipment failed and would have led to a crash if it hadn't been for the pilots taking over. There's a few orders of magnitude more of those. They end up being just minor mishaps, nothing bad happened, the passengers didn't even notice, it's not a crash so it doesn't make the charts. But it would have if the pilots hadn't done their job.
When equipment fails (autopilots, for example, fail quite regularly), pilots can normally handle the situation and nothing bad happens. When pilots mess up, it's usually some gross judgemental error that the airplane's systems can't do anything about. So yes, there may be more accidents due to pilot error than due to equipment failure, but you'd have a *lot* more crashes if you took the pilots out.
I'm a pilot, and I've already experienced several equipment malfunctions that would have led to a crash if we hadn't done our job. That's certainly more than the number of crashes I've caused (none).
Slashdot Mirror
A watch that works for 10 hours?! So you take it off the charger when you get up in the morning at 6am, and it stops working at 4 pm? Or you have to take it off during lunch break so it can recharge?
So basically, you can look at your watch to check your messages, but you end up having to dig your phone out of your pocket to see what time it is because the watch battery went dead? Something tells me they didn't think this through.
Actually, you'll be alerting local crooks you have a smartphone AND a $300 smartwatch. And best of all, they can see it all the time because the thing is on your wrist, visible to everyone, instead of in your pocket most of the time.
Don't look at building with remaining eye!
Seems like they're just looking for "continuity" after Steve Ballmer...
Nobody is going to make you a car out of this
Maybe a hyperloop, though?
It's certainly flat now.
He was not confusing the two, he was actually pointing out that value investing is much better and smarter than day trading. He said "smart man" as a compliment. Read the posts again.
Either car will go in reverse direction only if there is any kinetic energy left from the impact.
You are not entirely correct.
When two cars hit each other, there's not just conservation of energy but also conservation of momentum. Momentum doesn't get changed by crumple zones. They will only reduce the bounce, i.e. the relative speed (if any) with which the vehicles will move away from each other after the impact. But if a heavy vehicle hits a lighter vehicle head on at the same speed, the lighter vehicle will always be thrown backward.
Suppose both cars have a speed v, and their masses are m1 and m2, m1 being smaller. Then, if the crumple zones absorb the maximum possible amount of energy they can, the cars will both end up moving at a speed of v*(m2-m1)/(m1+m2) in the direction the heavier car was going in. If less energy was absorbed by the crumple zones, the light car will be going backward faster and the heavier car will be slowed down more or even get thrown backward as well.
Crumple zones do matter, obviously. They are certainly a good thing, but they won't magically bring all cars to a stop if they have different weights. They spread out the impact over a slightly longer period and reduce the amount of bounce, both resulting in less G-forces on the occupants.
You are wrong.
Just as an extreme example, imagine a 10 ton vehicla hitting a 1 ton vehicle head-on, both traveling at the same speed. The 10 ton vehicle will just slow down a bit (less than 20%) while the 1 ton vehicle will be catapulted backwards. Just basic conservation of momentum. Which of the two drivers will be better off, you think? The one whose speed was suddenly almost inverted, or the one whose speed was only reduced by less than 20%?
Or let's make it even more extreme: an ocean liner at cruising speed hitting a rubber dingy (the latter having a very nice cushioning protection zone while the former is very rigid and therefore, according to your theory, would kill all of its passengers). Somehow I think the passengers of the ocean liner will be better off.
Obviously these are exaggerated examples, but the math still works for smaller differences in mass. I agree that lots of other parameters matter as well (crumple zones etc.) but the heavier car will have a smaller change in velocity during the initial hit and therefore its passenger will too.
If the car crashes into some very rigid fixed object (a thick concrete wall, for example), the weight of the car won't matter. But it certainly will when crashing into another car.
On the other hand, I prefer police showing a video tape showing that you actually said something, rather than the officer saying "he said that to me" and being believed on his word because, you know, he's a police officer and therefore his statements are not to be questioned. Which is the state of the law right now. When an officer says "I asked him this question and he gave me this answer even though he denies it now", it is legally considered to be a fact (barring a few exceptions, hopefully)
So basically, they should all start wearing these recording glasses, and then the law should be changed so that, when something hasn't been recorded, the word of an officer carries a lot less weight than it does now. Your word against the officer's? No recording? You go free. That would be a big improvement. I don't know what everyone is so scared of. "Oh my, they might record me doing something illegal!" versus "Oh my, they might arrest me and declare to the judge that I did something illegal", what's the big difference? I prefer the former rather than the latter.
Of course, they might go over the tapes afterwards and see all sorts of slightly illegal things that the officer himself didn't notice or wouldn't have bothered to take his time to react to, but really, would they waste this kind of manpower, going over all the tapes, instead of just letting those same people walk the streets and catch more important crimes? I don't think it would be worth the effort.
Yep, I think it's probably a waste of money for the military, but I'm glad they're doing it because the technology will spin off to commercial snowmobiles for civilian use. I'm all for quieter snowmobiles.
Well, that's easy enough to find out with the same method: just decapitate a rat while electrodes are stuck to its skull. I wonder why nobody has done that yet. Solve the mystery once and for all.
So now a random guy in the IT department has the data, as well as the intended recipient, who then forwards it on in plain text to the PA of the guy who wants it
using hotmail.
You are assuming they know how to unzip a file, and that they are even allowed to use the required application. And anyway, chances are that any zip attachment will not even make it through the malware filter.
Well, if I were leading a country and wanted to spy on all my citizens' e-mail, giving them all an easy way to encrypt their mail using keys I provided sure seems like a great way of achieving that goal.
However, the point is that you can securely communicate personal data with the government. In that case, you are not worried about the government being able to read your mail as they are precisely the ones you are communicating with. You just worry about criminals outside of the government. Also, you can safely transmit any data that is already known by the government to any third party. Name, address, credit card numbers, etcetera.
Now, if you want to communicate with your terrorist buddies about how to blow up the Estonian Parliament, encryption with your national ID card is probably not the best idea.
(Note to NSA spies reading this: yes, I know your filter was triggered by the phrase "blow up the Estonian Parliament", sorry about that, false alarm, nothing to see here)
I once made a "Drop Height" application for... err... wait, let me check that NDA I signed... errr, well, let's just say "a popular smartphone device", which measured the height from which you dropped it (useful for calculating the height of a building, for example), but it was rejected because it might damage the user's device.
You could add a camera to the terminal, and just display codes on the phone's screen to send data in the other direction.
You tried to sell the heroin to them?
You actually have to point your activated camera at the terminal, so you can't be hijacked by some rogue transmitter using a zero day flaw to root your phone via the NFC chip when you happen to pass within range.
Moore's law during 20-30 years doubling every 18 months makes a multiplication by 10000-1000000. Seems to be in the right ball park, then.
Or even simpler, a garage door opener next door. Check the neighbour's work schedule.
When the autopilot can't handle something, the pilots usually (almost always) handle the situation correctly. There may be a crash due to human error from time to time, but there would be a lot more if the pilots weren't there to fix things (which they do manage to do in the vast majority of cases). Not long ago there was an incident very similar to the Rio accident, with incorrect airspeed indications leading to the aircraft flight control systems automatically initiating a nose dive and even overriding the pilots' inputs. They would certainly have crashed if the pilots hadn't switched off the air data computers to switch the flight controls to a more basic law where some of the "protections" were disabled. Without that action, the plane would have continued to dive because it thought (incorrectly, this time) that it was stalling. The pilots' common sense and technical knowledge saved the day. But of course this incident, like so many others, won't go into the statistics of crashes caused by humans versus technical failures, because no actual crash occurred.
As a side note, pilots are not just there to take over when the autopilot can't handle something. The autopilot still needs inputs to tell it what to do, it's very good at following orders extremely precisely but it's otherwise surprisingly stupid and it can't react to any unexpected situations by itself. It basically does grunt work and leaves the strategic decisions to the pilots.
That's weird, somehow it only took me two and a half years to get to the right seat of a jet. Just over a year of ATPL theory, 6 months of intensive VFR/IFR/twin engine training, and then onto the type rating. I know it's different in the states, where they require a couple of thousand hours flying in aeroclubs and cheesy cargo operations before even considering you for a jet, but many European companies have ab initio programs that take a lot less time.
Getting an IFR licence is around $100000, a type rating on a jet is about $200000. Give or take a bit.
No civilian aircraft currently in service (or planned in the near future) is able to take off automatically. There have been tests, and it's certainly technically possible, but the decision to continue or abort a take-off is considered too important to leave to a machine. At least for now. Every single take-off is performed manually.
Automatic landings are possible, and are often performed in low visibility conditions, but they are actually more work for the pilots than a manual landing. They have to constantly monitor the autopilots and be ready to take over immediately if anything goes wrong (which does happen from time to time). Special training and regular simulator trainings are required for a pilot to be qualified for automatic landings.
That's a common misconception. Yes, more accidents are due to human error than due to equipment failure. But those statistics don't take into account the number of cases where equipment failed and would have led to a crash if it hadn't been for the pilots taking over. There's a few orders of magnitude more of those. They end up being just minor mishaps, nothing bad happened, the passengers didn't even notice, it's not a crash so it doesn't make the charts. But it would have if the pilots hadn't done their job.
When equipment fails (autopilots, for example, fail quite regularly), pilots can normally handle the situation and nothing bad happens. When pilots mess up, it's usually some gross judgemental error that the airplane's systems can't do anything about. So yes, there may be more accidents due to pilot error than due to equipment failure, but you'd have a *lot* more crashes if you took the pilots out.
I'm a pilot, and I've already experienced several equipment malfunctions that would have led to a crash if we hadn't done our job. That's certainly more than the number of crashes I've caused (none).