Re:It's now clear where M$ is headed to!
on
Recomputing the Sky
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Because Microsoft insists on re-inventing the wheel so that they can force people to use Microsoft(TM) wheels.
Re:It's interesting where a lot of the time went
on
Recomputing the Sky
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
They must have been using Vista Explorer pre SP-1 to do the file copy.
Hmm? Transferring 802 GB over a 1 Gbps link is going to take 1.78 hours as a bare minimum and assuming you lose some time on the overhead and don’t necessarily have 100% of the network’s bandwidth available to you the whole time, 2.5 hours doesn’t seem terribly long.
Re:It's now clear where M$ is headed to!
on
Recomputing the Sky
·
· Score: 1
Not a chance in hell...
*sigh*
Guess I’ll just have to be satisfied with the images from TFA:
Yes. Clarity. You see, familiar compounds are often left unhyphenated, whereas uncommon or potentially confusing ones can be joined with a hyphen.
Right. Because we all know that “car analogies” is a well-known phrase here on Slashdot and “bow analogies” would be too confusing if not hyphenated. Also, “well-known” is too uncommon to leave unhyphenated.
Backing up your misconceptions about car engines by pointing out typos? Good job that's not the only correct argument you have. Oh wait...
Too bad you don’t bother to spell things correctly.
Wow. Way to miss the point completely. Your first reply claimed it would fix the stuck accelerator by breaking the engine which would stop the car.
No, I said it could destroy the engine if the car was still stuck at open throttle, which is partially true and partially an exaggeration. However it certainly doesn’t really help anything unless you’re in dire danger of immediately crashing – in fact it’s more likely just to cause more damage, which is why it is not the FIRST thing I would do if the throttle stuck open.
Good thing it’s so easy to put a Prius into neutral at 60 MPH... all you have to do is shift into reverse (yeah, reverse... a really great idea while traveling at high speeds – except the computer decides that you’re a complete moron and shifts it into neutral instead), or press the park button (once again, the computer decides you’re a moron and opts to go into neutral rather than damaging the transmission), or HOLD the lever in neutral for 3 seconds (because of course the computer figures you’re probably a moron who hit the shift lever accidentally. one mississippi, shift into neutral... two mississippi, yes I’m really sure... three mississippi, just fucking go into neutral already, thanks). Yeah, easy enough – if you know how...
we need an explanation as to why NHTSA is not talking about the extreme wear that they found on the brakes on all the cars (even if the various drivers were not strong enough to use unaided brakes to stop the cars, they should have been strong enough to really mess up the brake pads).
Officer Neibert said he not only could smell the brakes from the Prius but also witnessed Sikes physically lifting his body to apply pressure on the brakes.... "I was on the brakes pretty healthy," Sikes said. "It wasn't stopping, it wasn't doing anything to it... I just stayed on the brakes as much as I could until finally they started smelling really bad and I had metal sounds coming in the car."
Although some have naturally accused the guy of pulling a hoax, the officer did indeed confirm that the brakes were utterly shot, and Toyota admitted that they were mystified as to how it would even be possible to perform this if it was indeed intended to be done as a hoax – you can’t hit the gas and the brakes simultaneously:
Don Esmond, senior vice president of automotive operations for Toyota Motor Sales, says all Priuses are equipped with a computer system that cuts power to the wheels if the brake and gas pedals are depressed at the same time.
"It's tough for us to say if we're skeptical. I'm mystified in how it could happen with the brake override system," he said.
I honestly don’t know. That was just one example of something that could easily cause that sort of problem.
If I had to put money on something, however, I’d put it on an overflow, signed/unsigned mix-up, division by zero or some other similar singularity in the code that should never occur but somehow does under certain bizarre (and rare) circumstances.
As we are unsure whether the cat even exists, or is alive or dead until we have observed it (and some of us would prefer to leave it in that ambiguous situation), it is fairly irrelevant whether or not the cat believes that.
Sure, unless there’s a force-feedback system in place that’s completely flaked out because it divided by zero and is now trying to apply the force equivalent of machine infinity to the brake pedal, which now requires someone with the strength of a body-builder to press it down. Or the register overflowed and ended up at -1. Or any number of bizarre things that I could see happening.
Just last week I was trying to debug a bizarre recurring error in a programmable logic controller. Some timer was set to count up to -75, and the program would immediately crash because it should start at zero and count upward to some positive end value. I would change it back to the correct 30 sec. limit – and it would reset itself right back to -75 as soon as it started running and immediately crash again. Turns out that timer end value was being transferred from a dead communications channel whose holding registers were reading all zeros, and the 16-bit value, which was programmed to range from 3,277 to 16,384 corresponding to a range of 0 to 300, scaled to -75:
A simple greater-than-zero check was enough to prevent the timer’s value from being overwritten by an invalid end value, and that particular error was eliminated although the comm channel was still dead.
It’s the little bizarre stuff like that – it’s what you have to watch out for.
at the same time, wouldn't it be better to obey the shift to neutral request, and cut the throttle to the engine (overriding the WOT request)
You’re making too much sense. Stop it.
(Of course, you also have to consider the eventual probability that someone’s elbow bumps the lever into neutral at 70 MPH on the freeway. Is it necessarily safe for the vehicle to respond by cutting the throttle and shifting into neutral?)
That particular quotation was taken directly from here.
While “trip” is not the correct word to use in correlation to a fuse, this isn’t really a fuse – it’s on-chip circuitry:
If certain sub-systems fail, or are taking too long to respond, or are consuming too much power, the chip can instantly change its behavior by 'blowing' an eFUSE. This process does not physically destroy the eFUSE, so it is reversible and repeatable, using JTAG programming.
As such (IMHO, at least), “trip” actually does seem to be a fairly acceptable word for this action.
Disarming a land mine is also probably quite easy to do if you know what you’re doing.
My analogy works because it forces you to think about why the device is rigged to blow. Yes, it is deliberately a counter-example where the device is clearly good rather than bad – and thus a poor analogy, but good in the sense that it draws out this distinction. Several of the people who responded took the logical step of making better analogies, which is exactly what my intention was to pinpoint.
My point was, first you say “it’s the principle of the thing” and then you fixate on the wrong principle.
Your points ABC apply just as well to an airbag system as they do to this eFuse. Airbags get tripped accidentally. They’re “closed” systems – don’t screw around with them. You’ll always have it hanging around... you have to be extra cautious when you’re working around the airbag (which, fortunately, you shouldn’t need to do too often due to the location of the unit) because you really don’t want to set it off accidentally.
The problem is the principle of the purpose of the thing, not just the principle of the thing itself.
Motorola's 'Droid X' (1a) Android based mobile phone (1b) has been fitted with an 'eFuse' (2a) which will blow (2b) if the phone has been tampered with (3), bricking the phone (4).
Vs.
Droid X (1a) Self-Destructs If You Try To Mod
If the eFuse (2a) failes to verify this information then the eFuse receives a command to "blow the fuse" or "trip the fuse" (2b). This results in the booting process becoming corrupted and resulting in a permanent bricking of the Phone (4). This FailSafe is activated anytime the bootloader is tampered with or any of the above three parts of the phone (1b) has been tampered with (3).
Okay, so they didn’t put them in quite the order you wanted them in, nor did they state them quite so concisely as you did. What’s your problem?
P.S. I prefer yours, but the original summary did contain all of the information you asked for. Just saying.
Mandatory car analogy? Try pulling out an airbag system or modding it.
(For those not already aware, an airbag unit is basically a bomb. Don’t fuck with it.)
The main difference in this case is that the “safety” feature is supposed to protect the manufacturer from you, whereas the safety feature in the airbag system is supposed to protect you – the customer – from an accident. This distinction needs to be made clearly so that we know what we are discussing.
Ah, but I didn’t say the simplest correct answer is not always correct. It is, by definition, correct, and adding complexity would violate Occam’s razor. That is the point of the razor.
However you do not know whether an answer is correct until you have examined it in more depth, and the answer that initially seems to be simplest might actually turn out to be incorrect.
Like I said, using the handbrake emphasizes the point that it’s complicated bullshit that you only do because you’re inexperienced to perform the simpler, smoother, more difficult version. Plus it emphasizes the procedure:
0. You are stopped with the car idling in neutral and the foot brake depressed
Simply begin omitting steps 3 and 7 on the hills you feel experienced enough to safely start on without the additional help of the brake.
As opposed to leaving 3 and 7 out but exchanging steps 4 and 6 for novice drivers, which puts the sequence completely out of order. It’s much easier to learn to omit unnecessary steps than it is to learn to do them in a different order entirely.
So, remove foot completely from brake, activate throttle, release clutch, try to catch my now-rolling-backwards car and propel it forward?
Yes. I manage to do it and it doesn’t seem terribly difficult. The key is in sensing how much gas you should be giving it to avoid stalling (“activate throttle” – and it varies depending on how steep the hill is) and then performing the entire maneuver as quickly as possible, which is why beginning drivers shouldn’t be expected to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Because Microsoft insists on re-inventing the wheel so that they can force people to use Microsoft(TM) wheels.
They must have been using Vista Explorer pre SP-1 to do the file copy.
Hmm? Transferring 802 GB over a 1 Gbps link is going to take 1.78 hours as a bare minimum and assuming you lose some time on the overhead and don’t necessarily have 100% of the network’s bandwidth available to you the whole time, 2.5 hours doesn’t seem terribly long.
Not a chance in hell...
*sigh*
Guess I’ll just have to be satisfied with the images from TFA:
Image before/after integrating images from mosaic
Screenshot viewing horsehead nebula
I believe he meant normal image files of this “TeraPixel sky map”, not just any picture of the sky in general.
Yes. Clarity. You see, familiar compounds are often left unhyphenated, whereas uncommon or potentially confusing ones can be joined with a hyphen.
Right. Because we all know that “car analogies” is a well-known phrase here on Slashdot and “bow analogies” would be too confusing if not hyphenated. Also, “well-known” is too uncommon to leave unhyphenated.
Backing up your misconceptions about car engines by pointing out typos?
Good job that's not the only correct argument you have. Oh wait...
Too bad you don’t bother to spell things correctly.
Wow. Way to miss the point completely.
Your first reply claimed it would fix the stuck accelerator by breaking the engine which would stop the car.
No, I said it could destroy the engine if the car was still stuck at open throttle, which is partially true and partially an exaggeration. However it certainly doesn’t really help anything unless you’re in dire danger of immediately crashing – in fact it’s more likely just to cause more damage, which is why it is not the FIRST thing I would do if the throttle stuck open.
Good thing it’s so easy to put a Prius into neutral at 60 MPH... all you have to do is shift into reverse (yeah, reverse... a really great idea while traveling at high speeds – except the computer decides that you’re a complete moron and shifts it into neutral instead), or press the park button (once again, the computer decides you’re a moron and opts to go into neutral rather than damaging the transmission), or HOLD the lever in neutral for 3 seconds (because of course the computer figures you’re probably a moron who hit the shift lever accidentally. one mississippi, shift into neutral... two mississippi, yes I’m really sure... three mississippi, just fucking go into neutral already, thanks). Yeah, easy enough – if you know how...
I’m sure plenty of them are caused by the drivers. However if any of them were caused by the vehicle, it’s a serious problem.
we need an explanation as to why NHTSA is not talking about the extreme wear that they found on the brakes on all the cars (even if the various drivers were not strong enough to use unaided brakes to stop the cars, they should have been strong enough to really mess up the brake pads).
You mean like this?
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Runaway-Prius-Needs-Help-to-StopCHP-86965487.html
Officer Neibert said he not only could smell the brakes from the Prius but also witnessed Sikes physically lifting his body to apply pressure on the brakes. ... "I was on the brakes pretty healthy," Sikes said. "It wasn't stopping, it wasn't doing anything to it ... I just stayed on the brakes as much as I could until finally they started smelling really bad and I had metal sounds coming in the car."
Although some have naturally accused the guy of pulling a hoax, the officer did indeed confirm that the brakes were utterly shot, and Toyota admitted that they were mystified as to how it would even be possible to perform this if it was indeed intended to be done as a hoax – you can’t hit the gas and the brakes simultaneously:
http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-news-jamessikesinvestigated0311,0,4677651.story
Don Esmond, senior vice president of automotive operations for Toyota Motor Sales, says all Priuses are equipped with a computer system that cuts power to the wheels if the brake and gas pedals are depressed at the same time.
"It's tough for us to say if we're skeptical. I'm mystified in how it could happen with the brake override system," he said.
I honestly don’t know. That was just one example of something that could easily cause that sort of problem.
If I had to put money on something, however, I’d put it on an overflow, signed/unsigned mix-up, division by zero or some other similar singularity in the code that should never occur but somehow does under certain bizarre (and rare) circumstances.
As we are unsure whether the cat even exists, or is alive or dead until we have observed it (and some of us would prefer to leave it in that ambiguous situation), it is fairly irrelevant whether or not the cat believes that.
Sure, unless there’s a force-feedback system in place that’s completely flaked out because it divided by zero and is now trying to apply the force equivalent of machine infinity to the brake pedal, which now requires someone with the strength of a body-builder to press it down. Or the register overflowed and ended up at -1. Or any number of bizarre things that I could see happening.
Just last week I was trying to debug a bizarre recurring error in a programmable logic controller. Some timer was set to count up to -75, and the program would immediately crash because it should start at zero and count upward to some positive end value. I would change it back to the correct 30 sec. limit – and it would reset itself right back to -75 as soon as it started running and immediately crash again. Turns out that timer end value was being transferred from a dead communications channel whose holding registers were reading all zeros, and the 16-bit value, which was programmed to range from 3,277 to 16,384 corresponding to a range of 0 to 300, scaled to -75:
(0 - 3277) / (16384 - 3277) * (300 - 0) = -75.00572213321126
A simple greater-than-zero check was enough to prevent the timer’s value from being overwritten by an invalid end value, and that particular error was eliminated although the comm channel was still dead.
It’s the little bizarre stuff like that – it’s what you have to watch out for.
at the same time, wouldn't it be better to obey the shift to neutral request, and cut the throttle to the engine (overriding the WOT request)
You’re making too much sense. Stop it.
(Of course, you also have to consider the eventual probability that someone’s elbow bumps the lever into neutral at 70 MPH on the freeway. Is it necessarily safe for the vehicle to respond by cutting the throttle and shifting into neutral?)
That particular quotation was taken directly from here.
While “trip” is not the correct word to use in correlation to a fuse, this isn’t really a fuse – it’s on-chip circuitry:
If certain sub-systems fail, or are taking too long to respond, or are consuming too much power, the chip can instantly change its behavior by 'blowing' an eFUSE. This process does not physically destroy the eFUSE, so it is reversible and repeatable, using JTAG programming.
As such (IMHO, at least), “trip” actually does seem to be a fairly acceptable word for this action.
Disarming a land mine is also probably quite easy to do if you know what you’re doing.
My analogy works because it forces you to think about why the device is rigged to blow. Yes, it is deliberately a counter-example where the device is clearly good rather than bad – and thus a poor analogy, but good in the sense that it draws out this distinction. Several of the people who responded took the logical step of making better analogies, which is exactly what my intention was to pinpoint.
I miss BadAnalogyGuy...
Good bomb vs. bad bomb. It’s not the principle of the bomb... it’s the principle of why it’s there.
...and now we’re both talking about the correct principle.
Okay, I came across wrong I guess.
My point was, first you say “it’s the principle of the thing” and then you fixate on the wrong principle.
Your points ABC apply just as well to an airbag system as they do to this eFuse. Airbags get tripped accidentally. They’re “closed” systems – don’t screw around with them. You’ll always have it hanging around... you have to be extra cautious when you’re working around the airbag (which, fortunately, you shouldn’t need to do too often due to the location of the unit) because you really don’t want to set it off accidentally.
The problem is the principle of the purpose of the thing, not just the principle of the thing itself.
Nanites?
Motorola's 'Droid X' (1a) Android based mobile phone (1b) has been fitted with an 'eFuse' (2a) which will blow (2b) if the phone has been tampered with (3), bricking the phone (4).
Vs.
Droid X (1a) Self-Destructs If You Try To Mod
If the eFuse (2a) failes to verify this information then the eFuse receives a command to "blow the fuse" or "trip the fuse" (2b). This results in the booting process becoming corrupted and resulting in a permanent bricking of the Phone (4). This FailSafe is activated anytime the bootloader is tampered with or any of the above three parts of the phone (1b) has been tampered with (3).
Okay, so they didn’t put them in quite the order you wanted them in, nor did they state them quite so concisely as you did. What’s your problem?
P.S. I prefer yours, but the original summary did contain all of the information you asked for. Just saying.
Eh? It’s just another safety feature.
Mandatory car analogy? Try pulling out an airbag system or modding it.
(For those not already aware, an airbag unit is basically a bomb. Don’t fuck with it.)
The main difference in this case is that the “safety” feature is supposed to protect the manufacturer from you, whereas the safety feature in the airbag system is supposed to protect you – the customer – from an accident. This distinction needs to be made clearly so that we know what we are discussing.
Excellent post.
The first thing I’d want to do would be turn the engine off, not shift it into neutral while it was racing.
Ah, but I didn’t say the simplest correct answer is not always correct. It is, by definition, correct, and adding complexity would violate Occam’s razor. That is the point of the razor.
However you do not know whether an answer is correct until you have examined it in more depth, and the answer that initially seems to be simplest might actually turn out to be incorrect.
Like I said, using the handbrake emphasizes the point that it’s complicated bullshit that you only do because you’re inexperienced to perform the simpler, smoother, more difficult version. Plus it emphasizes the procedure:
0. You are stopped with the car idling in neutral and the foot brake depressed
1. Depress clutch
2. Shift into 1st gear
3. Apply handbrake
4. Release foot brake
5. Apply accelerator
6. Release clutch
7. Release handbrake
Simply begin omitting steps 3 and 7 on the hills you feel experienced enough to safely start on without the additional help of the brake.
As opposed to leaving 3 and 7 out but exchanging steps 4 and 6 for novice drivers, which puts the sequence completely out of order. It’s much easier to learn to omit unnecessary steps than it is to learn to do them in a different order entirely.
But it usually is.
I’d be willing to give you “often”.
So, remove foot completely from brake, activate throttle, release clutch, try to catch my now-rolling-backwards car and propel it forward?
Yes. I manage to do it and it doesn’t seem terribly difficult. The key is in sensing how much gas you should be giving it to avoid stalling (“activate throttle” – and it varies depending on how steep the hill is) and then performing the entire maneuver as quickly as possible, which is why beginning drivers shouldn’t be expected to do it.