DON"T OPEN A POWER SUPPLY UNLESS YOU KNOW THE LARGE CAPACITORS INSIDE ARE DISCHARGED - THEY CAN MAKE YOUR ARM MUSCLES CONTRACT HARD ENOUGH TO BREAK YOUR BONES. .
Only if you're in a 110V country like the USA.
In Australia/UK/EU where it's 230-250V, a stuff-up can mean DEATH.
No, really - 240V will kill you. If you're lucky, you might only get scorched nerves.
The original report blamed it as pilot error. It wasn't until a Royal Commission looked at is a bit closer and found a huge number management screw-ups (including a cover-up by top executives) that was the causal factor in the disaster (I should note that it was airworthy when it hit the ground).
Was this the case for this particular Air France Flight? Perhaps, there are some disputed accounts, but the evidence was strong enough for the captain to be convicted and sentenced.
And of course, we know that the courts are full of aviation experts with a vested interest.
It was later shown that FBW was not at fault. The aicraft sunk too fast anyway and by the time the pilots realised it, it was too late.
Jets take a number of seconds to spool up. If yu find a video with sound, you'll notice that the jets spool up just before it hit the trees - some 5s after the pilots commanded them.
AND, there were a bunch of pilot procedural failures at the same time (e.g. never below 100ft AGL), not to mention poor managerial decisions in allowing the flight plan to go ahead in the first place.
"Engineering is the discipline and profession of applying technical, scientific and mathematical knowledge in order to use natural laws and physical resources to help design and implement materials, structures, machines, devices, systems, and processes that safely realize a desired objective."
When was the last time you saw your structural engineers do their work from first principles taught at uni, as opposed to spreadsheet design or computer simulation?
The next question is, why should they?
I am a "software engineer" by profession, but my basic training is electronics engineering.
Without formal rigour, is software engineering a trade/vocation or a profession? My supervising senior engineer does a lot less maths and formal design than I do (which is mostly for sensor processing, which requires it), yet he solves most software implementation problems more efficiently and cleanly than I do. Does that make him any less of an engineer than me? I think not.
Sometimes I think "software engineer" is a bit of a catch-all title given by HR to those that are required to write software as part of their jobs (and is the main tangible output of their job), when in reality the design that they do could be any number of fields, software or otherwise.
After Intel sold of its ARM errr... arm, it's in its best interest to stifle it's development.
Given the prevalence of VxWorks in hard real-time embedded systems (a space that Linux does not yet occupy, because it's by no means hard real-time), and that x86 is barely used in such applications, one does not need to think very hard as to what is going to happen.
QNX and Green Hills must be watching this very closely.
I don't know anything about Australian copyright law, but under US law you cannot copyright a fact. A train timetable would certainly qualify. This might be one area where we get things right.
In Australia (and I think elsewhere) there is such a thing as a "database right". A rough example would be the phone book. It is a collection of facts: people's names and their phone numbers. However, there is a significant investment in collecting these facts, and so the particular *set of facts* (ie, the database) has an associated database right. So, unless the authors of the app independently collected their own data on when trains pass particular stations (eg, by sitting in every station with a watch -- unlikely), they presumably were using RailCorps' "database" (timetable).
Not sure what they mean by "Instead, they are doing the completely different, and more rigorous, International GCSEs, which are still in demand in Commonwealth countries."
Having taught first-year engineering in one form or another for 7 years at an Australian university, I can say whatever standards are implemented in other Commonwealth nations (like ours) are failing too.
The bright kids are as bright as ever (maybe even brighter), but the median just seems to sink lower, and lower and lower...
Actually, 3 people died, one who couldn't undo her seat belt, a disabled child, but I have forgotten the third. All died of smoke inhalation.
It was the "launch" flight of the first commercial "fly-by-wire" plane, taking paying passengers between cities, albeit with an airshow appearance in between.
The plane was perfectly airworthy when it hit the ground. The myth of a computer glitch in this instance centres on speculation and fear of the pilot no longer having direct control over the hydraulics. The "alpha floor" function of the fly-by-wire system prevents the aircraft from stalling. It didn't actually activate in this instance.
Overall, the pilot was too low, too slow and by the time he realised, too late. Air France management approved the additional joyride as a PR junket, and changed the flight plans at the last minute from a different airfield nearby - which was a mistake in itself.
Actually, many large aircraft that hit the dirt are perfectly airworthy, but the crew have completely lost where they are - they may be in cloud or otherwise have lost their situational awareness.
It's rare that a single factor causes a mishap in a "high reliability system" such as aviation and nuclear power. Analysis generally shows there are at least 7 factors ("latent conditions") that are present before bring down the system.
Take a hypothetical incident of "pilot error". OK, the pilot stuffed up. But why? Was his training inadequate? Was there a change in schedule that delayed the flight and hence he was more fatigued? Was there a risk-taking culture where management turned a blind eye?
When these individually harmless factors all combine in an unpredictable manner, accidents can occur. The systems are so defensively designed that almost all errors are predicted, both technical and human. Almost.
This accident model is generally known as the Reason Model or the Swiss Cheese model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Cheese_model) and is widely accepted by accident investigators. In investigating every nook and cranny, all these causal factors are usually identified and hopefully mitigated in the future.
That's why the final report can take months or even years to produce. The preliminary report is often a distraction to keep the media at bay while the real reasons are sorted out.
For a good example of this process, take a look at the Air New Zealand crash in Antarctica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_New_Zealand_Flight_901) - a progression from the original accident report though to a royal commission.
Slashdot Mirror
A little history. Darwin was bombed and mostly flattened in 1941 by the Japanese during WWII. And, most likely, the weather station with it.
Hence, it was probably re-built at a different site with different local effects.
Next?
It doesn't surprise me. Whilst many substances are unsafe at any dosage (e.g. mercury), some things are downright deadly in large quantities.
Like Paracetamol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol_toxicity Apparently, it's one of the worst ways to die.
And warafin, an excellent anti-blood clotting agent is also used as rat poison.
DON"T OPEN A POWER SUPPLY UNLESS YOU KNOW THE LARGE CAPACITORS INSIDE ARE DISCHARGED - THEY CAN MAKE YOUR ARM MUSCLES CONTRACT HARD ENOUGH TO BREAK YOUR BONES. .
Only if you're in a 110V country like the USA.
In Australia/UK/EU where it's 230-250V, a stuff-up can mean DEATH.
No, really - 240V will kill you. If you're lucky, you might only get scorched nerves.
Why does everyone keep treating them like a bunch of criminals?
We were all criminals about 200 years ago. The authorities think nothing has changed.
5) Theft. Break-ins do happen and no amount of RAID will protect your data from that.
I almost dismissed this post as a tin foil-hat conspiracy troll, but you may have a stronger argument that you might realise.
A long time ago, an Air NZ flight crashed on a scenic flight to Antarctica. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_New_Zealand_Flight_901
The original report blamed it as pilot error. It wasn't until a Royal Commission looked at is a bit closer and found a huge number management screw-ups (including a cover-up by top executives) that was the causal factor in the disaster (I should note that it was airworthy when it hit the ground).
Was this the case for this particular Air France Flight? Perhaps, there are some disputed accounts, but the evidence was strong enough for the captain to be convicted and sentenced.
And of course, we know that the courts are full of aviation experts with a vested interest.
It was later shown that FBW was not at fault. The aicraft sunk too fast anyway and by the time the pilots realised it, it was too late.
Jets take a number of seconds to spool up. If yu find a video with sound, you'll notice that the jets spool up just before it hit the trees - some 5s after the pilots commanded them.
AND, there were a bunch of pilot procedural failures at the same time (e.g. never below 100ft AGL), not to mention poor managerial decisions in allowing the flight plan to go ahead in the first place.
From Wikipedia:
"Engineering is the discipline and profession of applying technical, scientific and mathematical knowledge in order to use natural laws and physical resources to help design and implement materials, structures, machines, devices, systems, and processes that safely realize a desired objective."
When was the last time you saw your structural engineers do their work from first principles taught at uni, as opposed to spreadsheet design or computer simulation?
The next question is, why should they?
I am a "software engineer" by profession, but my basic training is electronics engineering.
Without formal rigour, is software engineering a trade/vocation or a profession? My supervising senior engineer does a lot less maths and formal design than I do (which is mostly for sensor processing, which requires it), yet he solves most software implementation problems more efficiently and cleanly than I do. Does that make him any less of an engineer than me? I think not.
Sometimes I think "software engineer" is a bit of a catch-all title given by HR to those that are required to write software as part of their jobs (and is the main tangible output of their job), when in reality the design that they do could be any number of fields, software or otherwise.
Atom, IIRC is 0-70degC temperature rated.
-40 to +85degC is much preferred if a device is to have outdoor (or worse, automotive) exposure.
Until such time, may embedded designs will not touch Atom. Let this be a warning to Intel if they try to force VxWorks customers onto their silicon.
Maybe their recent licensing agreement to TSMC may start to address this...
After Intel sold of its ARM errr... arm, it's in its best interest to stifle it's development.
Given the prevalence of VxWorks in hard real-time embedded systems (a space that Linux does not yet occupy, because it's by no means hard real-time), and that x86 is barely used in such applications, one does not need to think very hard as to what is going to happen.
QNX and Green Hills must be watching this very closely.
"I think there is a world market for about five computers"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson
They were good enough then. Since then, the market has expanded a little.
Why not use autocorrelation of white noise?
I don't know anything about Australian copyright law, but under US law you cannot copyright a fact. A train timetable would certainly qualify. This might be one area where we get things right.
In Australia (and I think elsewhere) there is such a thing as a "database right". A rough example would be the phone book. It is a collection of facts: people's names and their phone numbers. However, there is a significant investment in collecting these facts, and so the particular *set of facts* (ie, the database) has an associated database right. So, unless the authors of the app independently collected their own data on when trains pass particular stations (eg, by sitting in every station with a watch -- unlikely), they presumably were using RailCorps' "database" (timetable).
This is currently been tested in the high court, at least as far as TV Electronic Program Guides. See http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/18/2037216&from=rss for the story.
or even st. johns wort are just as effective as antidepressants for mild-moderate depression
Perhaps true, but St John's Wort and The Pill is a REALLY bad idea....
Why did I first read this as idiot-with-ubuntu rather than i-do-it-with-ubuntu?
Eucalyptus also like dropping branches without warning and for no apparent reason.
For those of us who can actually spend a weekend away from the computer and go camping, it's a good idea not to setup near one...
Shadow minsters **always** think the government has gone too far (or not far enough).
Some would say it's their job.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Cabinet
Not sure what they mean by "Instead, they are doing the completely different, and more rigorous, International GCSEs, which are still in demand in Commonwealth countries."
Having taught first-year engineering in one form or another for 7 years at an Australian university, I can say whatever standards are implemented in other Commonwealth nations (like ours) are failing too.
The bright kids are as bright as ever (maybe even brighter), but the median just seems to sink lower, and lower and lower...
After all, he has before....
http://www.xkcd.com/225/
It's for senior undergraduates, but "Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" by John Anderson progresses from inviscid flow all the way through to tacking the
Navier-Stokes equations using numerical methods. I'm but a humble engineer and looking at those equations hurt my head, so it might be OK for you.
Oh, and you'll get $1M if you so happen to solve the Navier Stokes equations (or simply prove a solution exists).
Randall got it right...
http://xkcd.com/378/
YMMV. Before Shepard, it was near impossible. With it.... merely a few hours of stuffing around.
Actually, 3 people died, one who couldn't undo her seat belt, a disabled child, but I have forgotten the third. All died of smoke inhalation.
It was the "launch" flight of the first commercial "fly-by-wire" plane, taking paying passengers between cities, albeit with an airshow appearance in between.
The plane was perfectly airworthy when it hit the ground. The myth of a computer glitch in this instance centres on speculation and fear of the pilot no longer having direct control over the hydraulics. The "alpha floor" function of the fly-by-wire system prevents the aircraft from stalling. It didn't actually activate in this instance.
Overall, the pilot was too low, too slow and by the time he realised, too late. Air France management approved the additional joyride as a PR junket, and changed the flight plans at the last minute from a different airfield nearby - which was a mistake in itself.
It's one of those cases where everything is not as it seems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296
Actually, many large aircraft that hit the dirt are perfectly airworthy, but the crew have completely lost where they are - they may be in cloud or otherwise have lost their situational awareness.
It has been said that about 1/3 of major accidents are "controlled flight into terrain" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFIT
It's rare that a single factor causes a mishap in a "high reliability system" such as aviation and nuclear power. Analysis generally shows there are at least 7 factors ("latent conditions") that are present before bring down the system.
Take a hypothetical incident of "pilot error". OK, the pilot stuffed up. But why? Was his training inadequate? Was there a change in schedule that delayed the flight and hence he was more fatigued? Was there a risk-taking culture where management turned a blind eye?
When these individually harmless factors all combine in an unpredictable manner, accidents can occur. The systems are so defensively designed that almost all errors are predicted, both technical and human. Almost.
This accident model is generally known as the Reason Model or the Swiss Cheese model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Cheese_model) and is widely accepted by accident investigators. In investigating every nook and cranny, all these causal factors are usually identified and hopefully mitigated in the future.
That's why the final report can take months or even years to produce. The preliminary report is often a distraction to keep the media at bay while the real reasons are sorted out.
For a good example of this process, take a look at the Air New Zealand crash in Antarctica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_New_Zealand_Flight_901) - a progression from the original accident report though to a royal commission.