Nowhere have I seen any information about tagging the turtles to monitor their progress. It might be impossible given their small size at birth in comparison to their adult size, and the fact that this population takes about 18 years to reach sexual maturity. The LAT has a few more details: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-turtles-20100715,0,2244379.story
I'm pretty sure that it's not secret information that while turning two keys is one way to launch a missile under certain circumstances, there are other conditions that will lead to missiles being launched without keys, or launch commands being ignored despite turning two keys.
Presumably, the instructions are coded into a tape memory bank of a gigantic complex of computers.
Maybe, but it raises the question as to why focus on launch safety, when a failure at any stage of spaceflight can lead to death.
Also, I think it should be considered that the failure rate for a Space Shuttle mission may currently be greater than 2/129 if vulnerabilities are increasing with age (esp. unknown vulnerabilities that cannot be anticipated).
That's what initially surprised me about the argument that sloppiness was good.
However, isn't it (unfortunately) reasonable to assume that even highly trained and disciplined humans will occasionally allow their planes to crash into each other when we are designing air traffic control systems and protocols?
Which leads to the argument that sloppiness on a few-dozen meter scale is actually good for the air traffic control system, finding a compromise between laser accuracy and Big Sky theory that allows for inevitable human failure?
There was an incredibly detailed account of the Brazilian midair collision in September 2006 that identified pilots trying to figure out the flight control systems on their new Legacy 600 as one of the distractions that led to the collision. Some of the controls were on a glass panel display, and there was also a laptop that distracted them. Apparently, as they were clicking around on stuff, they shut off their transponder.
Even more concerning, was the author's argument that the accuracy of GPS guided autopilot systems also contributed. Historically, even if two planes ended up at the same flight level, headed towards each other, the inherent sloppiness in the autopilot systems would actually increase the chance of a miss. Now, with autopilots capable of keeping planes within very close tolerances of their ideal flightpath, the same two planes accidentally occupying the same flight level may have a much higher chance of colliding.
I wish people would treat each other all the time with the level of respect that most of us are capable of achieving.
Unfortunately, people are ridiculous, juvenile, and spiteful, even though most of us aspire to suppress these urges for the good of society.
While I agree with the spirit of making people accountable for their behavior, I also wonder if there may be some benefit from the ability to anonymously indulge undesirable urges.
This is related to my belief that violent video games are likely a good outlet for most people who don't actually believe that killing stuff is a good solution to their problems, even though the primitive parts of their brains argue otherwise.
I found my notice from PayPal on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard."
Maybe so, and for whatever reason, there is not much refining capacity to produce more diesel fuel in the US, which is too bad given the logic of combining the most efficient internal combustion engine with hybrid technology.
Yeah, this is exactly the kind of conversation our committee has had on multiple occasions, maybe I'm being too cynical, but it just seems guaranteed (and therefore should be expected and anticipated) that well-meaning people are capable of inadvertently breaking any security system we come up with, let alone the non-well-meaning people.
I agree completely, and "expected" doesn't equal "acceptable."
As I sometimes tell patients when the Hospital has committed a relatively minor transgression against them: "If it makes you feel any better, we treat everyone this badly."
Somewhat related, I work on an institutional review board that reviews human studies submissions for a large university. One main dichotomy that is used to classify protocols is the concept of "minimal risk" vs. "greater than minimal risk," minimal risk defined somewhat loosely as risks encountered in everyday life.
Accidental sharing of protected health information is considered a risk of many of these studies that collect sensitive information. We continue to subsequently review incidents in which protected health information has been "spilled," leaving us to determine if this was an "expected" or "unexpected" event.
Unfortunately, a la Ian Malcolm, I've come to believe that it is essentially guaranteed (thus expected) that these leaks will occur, making loss of confidentiality now just part of everyday life, therefore "minimal risk" from the point of view of the US federal regulations on human studies.
One unintended concern that has been raised relates to pilots spending too much time trying to solve computer problems, resulting in not enough time spent flying the aircraft in response to changing events.
Another interesting factor was observed in the 2006 Brazilian midair collision. In past times, two planes accidentally given instructions to fly towards each other by air traffic controllers would be very unlikely to crash. Now, with GPS autopilot systems, planes can very accurately adhere to flight plans that were once full of variance, which actually increased the likelihood that the two aircraft would collide: http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/air_crash200901
It would be ironic if the flight computers contributed to the accident, given the focus on designing them to prevent humans from contributing to accidents.
Interesting video showing an A320 "refusing" to be crashed:
At about 3 minutes, the software prevents roll beyond 67 degrees. At about 4:30, an attempt is made to stall the aircraft, at which time the software overrides the throttle settings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO5l6_d6yck [youtube.com]
At about 3 minutes, the software prevents roll beyond 67 degrees. At about 4:30, an attempt is made to stall the aircraft, at which time the software overrides the throttle settings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO5l6_d6yck [youtube.com]
I agree that this is terrible, but my suspicion is that the perpetrators were kids, or at least very immature, and I know I'm not able to defend everything I've done when I was growing up but I'm glad no one ever shot me for my crimes. Part of the problem here is that the amount of damage a bad decision can lead to has been magnified by the Digital Age (among other Ages). Humans are fallible, immature humans doubly so.
This is what disturbed me about the scene in Blade Runner where Rutger Hauer's character describes his suffering, and also the scene in AI where the child robot is hysterical, begging his mother not to abandon him. To me, the suffering our minds are capable of experiencing could potentially be replicated artificially, which makes me think we would need to treat such an AI as we would a human. Obviously, not everyone agrees, I remember Roger Ebert's review of AI specifically mentioning that he didn't care about the child robot, since by definition it wasn't human.
Slashdot Mirror
Ross Perlin's book presents a fairly comprehensive look at these issues, including illegality, nepotism, classism, etc.
http://www.amazon.com/Intern-Nation-Nothing-Little-Economy/dp/1844676862
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pvmyNnepTk
Nowhere have I seen any information about tagging the turtles to monitor their progress. It might be impossible given their small size at birth in comparison to their adult size, and the fact that this population takes about 18 years to reach sexual maturity. The LAT has a few more details: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-turtles-20100715,0,2244379.story
That actually seems pretty heavy to someone like myself with no aerospace engineering experience. Is this par for the course in satellite design?
More evidence supporting the B Ark theory of human origins...
Interesting, thanks.
I'm pretty sure that it's not secret information that while turning two keys is one way to launch a missile under certain circumstances, there are other conditions that will lead to missiles being launched without keys, or launch commands being ignored despite turning two keys.
Presumably, the instructions are coded into a tape memory bank of a gigantic complex of computers.
Good point.
Anyway, I'd still ride the Shuttle even if the failure rate was 1/10.
Maybe, but it raises the question as to why focus on launch safety, when a failure at any stage of spaceflight can lead to death.
Also, I think it should be considered that the failure rate for a Space Shuttle mission may currently be greater than 2/129 if vulnerabilities are increasing with age (esp. unknown vulnerabilities that cannot be anticipated).
That's what initially surprised me about the argument that sloppiness was good.
However, isn't it (unfortunately) reasonable to assume that even highly trained and disciplined humans will occasionally allow their planes to crash into each other when we are designing air traffic control systems and protocols?
Which leads to the argument that sloppiness on a few-dozen meter scale is actually good for the air traffic control system, finding a compromise between laser accuracy and Big Sky theory that allows for inevitable human failure?
There was an incredibly detailed account of the Brazilian midair collision in September 2006 that identified pilots trying to figure out the flight control systems on their new Legacy 600 as one of the distractions that led to the collision. Some of the controls were on a glass panel display, and there was also a laptop that distracted them. Apparently, as they were clicking around on stuff, they shut off their transponder.
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/air_crash200901
Even more concerning, was the author's argument that the accuracy of GPS guided autopilot systems also contributed. Historically, even if two planes ended up at the same flight level, headed towards each other, the inherent sloppiness in the autopilot systems would actually increase the chance of a miss. Now, with autopilots capable of keeping planes within very close tolerances of their ideal flightpath, the same two planes accidentally occupying the same flight level may have a much higher chance of colliding.
There's an interesting (for many reasons) video on the Chandrayaan site:
http://www.isro.org/chandrayaan/htmls/resources_videoCrater.htm
In it, they allude to India as having the second highest number of scientists in the world.
Overall, a successful mission, given the difficulty and chance of failure (Item 20 in their FAQ):
http://www.isro.org/chandrayaan/htmls/faqs.htm
I wish people would treat each other all the time with the level of respect that most of us are capable of achieving.
Unfortunately, people are ridiculous, juvenile, and spiteful, even though most of us aspire to suppress these urges for the good of society.
While I agree with the spirit of making people accountable for their behavior, I also wonder if there may be some benefit from the ability to anonymously indulge undesirable urges.
This is related to my belief that violent video games are likely a good outlet for most people who don't actually believe that killing stuff is a good solution to their problems, even though the primitive parts of their brains argue otherwise.
I found my notice from PayPal on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying
"Beware of the Leopard."
Maybe so, and for whatever reason, there is not much refining capacity to produce more diesel fuel in the US, which is too bad given the logic of combining the most efficient internal combustion engine with hybrid technology.
Yeah, this is exactly the kind of conversation our committee has had on multiple occasions, maybe I'm being too cynical, but it just seems guaranteed (and therefore should be expected and anticipated) that well-meaning people are capable of inadvertently breaking any security system we come up with, let alone the non-well-meaning people.
I agree completely, and "expected" doesn't equal "acceptable."
As I sometimes tell patients when the Hospital has committed a relatively minor transgression against them: "If it makes you feel any better, we treat everyone this badly."
Somewhat related, I work on an institutional review board that reviews human studies submissions for a large university. One main dichotomy that is used to classify protocols is the concept of "minimal risk" vs. "greater than minimal risk," minimal risk defined somewhat loosely as risks encountered in everyday life.
Accidental sharing of protected health information is considered a risk of many of these studies that collect sensitive information. We continue to subsequently review incidents in which protected health information has been "spilled," leaving us to determine if this was an "expected" or "unexpected" event.
Unfortunately, a la Ian Malcolm, I've come to believe that it is essentially guaranteed (thus expected) that these leaks will occur, making loss of confidentiality now just part of everyday life, therefore "minimal risk" from the point of view of the US federal regulations on human studies.
'Cause I'm ready for my own Semi-Autonomous Guard Unit.
One unintended concern that has been raised relates to pilots spending too much time trying to solve computer problems, resulting in not enough time spent flying the aircraft in response to changing events. Another interesting factor was observed in the 2006 Brazilian midair collision. In past times, two planes accidentally given instructions to fly towards each other by air traffic controllers would be very unlikely to crash. Now, with GPS autopilot systems, planes can very accurately adhere to flight plans that were once full of variance, which actually increased the likelihood that the two aircraft would collide: http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/air_crash200901
It would be ironic if the flight computers contributed to the accident, given the focus on designing them to prevent humans from contributing to accidents. Interesting video showing an A320 "refusing" to be crashed: At about 3 minutes, the software prevents roll beyond 67 degrees. At about 4:30, an attempt is made to stall the aircraft, at which time the software overrides the throttle settings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO5l6_d6yck [youtube.com]
At about 3 minutes, the software prevents roll beyond 67 degrees. At about 4:30, an attempt is made to stall the aircraft, at which time the software overrides the throttle settings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO5l6_d6yck [youtube.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
I agree that this is terrible, but my suspicion is that the perpetrators were kids, or at least very immature, and I know I'm not able to defend everything I've done when I was growing up but I'm glad no one ever shot me for my crimes. Part of the problem here is that the amount of damage a bad decision can lead to has been magnified by the Digital Age (among other Ages). Humans are fallible, immature humans doubly so.
This is what disturbed me about the scene in Blade Runner where Rutger Hauer's character describes his suffering, and also the scene in AI where the child robot is hysterical, begging his mother not to abandon him. To me, the suffering our minds are capable of experiencing could potentially be replicated artificially, which makes me think we would need to treat such an AI as we would a human. Obviously, not everyone agrees, I remember Roger Ebert's review of AI specifically mentioning that he didn't care about the child robot, since by definition it wasn't human.