Agreed but even with humans when we have a better understand of what they would want, we still end up with situations where a person's last request conflict with what the legal guardian demands. Sounds even more convoluted when we try to figure out what chimps want.
I'm not saying they don't deserve representation but that representation is a very confusing situation.
"The ruling marks the first time in U.S. history that an animal has been covered by a writ of habeus corpus, which typically allows human prisoners to challenge their detention."
While I question some of the treatment of research animals, what exactly did the chimps ask of the court?
This is why I don't touch brakes. Oil change, battery change, belts and hoses, fine. Brakes, much like gas lines, I could probably handle but I just don't.
If the object is overtaking the ISS it can just heat the facing side up on approach, if the ISS is overtaking the object the ISS can heat up the facing side after passing it. Either should work to reduce orbital velocity, hopefully enough to drop it into the atmosphere. If my weak grasp on orbital mechanics is correct enough...
I am not a scientist but my understanding is this is natural selection, or the adjustment of existing genes to environmental "stresses". Evolution would be the addition of a new gene that never existed before. So my thinking is no.
And the fact you could get software from many publishers, rather than just Microsoft, is why Microsoft has the massive market share over Apple. Guess history is not a good lesson.
I like my cruise control plenty fine but I don't want anything taking my focus off the road. Not to mention if they take the Airbus theory of automation (automation knows better than pilot) rather than the Boeing theory of automation (pilot can override automation at any time), I won't even sit in one of these cars. Of course I've flown in an Airbus but airplanes have a lot better known (or at least consistent) set of conditions than cars do.
Which results in "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.". If you are absolutely certain about anything, it is time to figure out why you are so certain.
Though you are typically expected to understand DO-178b, or at your company should have people who do in order to certify the software. Then the FAA DER audits that software based on DO-178b. At least if the software is considered critical to safety of flight.
We are getting closer to times where computers can handle everything but it is hard to fully hand off control. A computer never makes mistakes when programmed right and the hardware doesn't fail but the computer can't handle unexpected situations. Programming it for all situations before problems happen, or allowing it to adapt to the unexpected, is the hard part.
I've worked on a few types of terrain avoidance equipment and it is pretty good. Though when you are landing somewhere like this http://www.chonday.com/Videos/..., the system would go nuts and need to be overridden. Any time a human can override the system... we'll we are talking about one of the examples.
Yeah I would agree with this. People on the ground are at least independent enough to consider if the situation warrants unlocking the cockpit or if the possibility of terrorist takeover is too high. Regardless though, no human system will ever be perfect. With modern autopilots I would almost like to see the system just turn over control to the auto pilot to land at the nearest available airport. Of course this has it's own issues.
Where I used to live was forced by the state to up the speed limits because they were far lower than the state mandated "75% of the speed all cars are traveling on this road". Then I moved to a smaller country city nearby and they have speed limits slower than where I used to live before they raised the limits. Never seen anyone pulled over on the "strictly enforced" speed limits thought.
15 years driving and I usually use the cruise control at any speed when I have more than a minute of going the same speed. One ticket for missing a stop sign when I wasn't using the cruise control. YMMV.
Slashdot Mirror
In cheezburgers?
... my apologies, I don't know what came over me.
Agreed but even with humans when we have a better understand of what they would want, we still end up with situations where a person's last request conflict with what the legal guardian demands. Sounds even more convoluted when we try to figure out what chimps want.
I'm not saying they don't deserve representation but that representation is a very confusing situation.
Fine, what did the chimps ask their representatives?
"The ruling marks the first time in U.S. history that an animal has been covered by a writ of habeus corpus, which typically allows human prisoners to challenge their detention." While I question some of the treatment of research animals, what exactly did the chimps ask of the court?
Fine, if I'm renting the car they can maintain it for me, at their cost.
This is why I don't touch brakes. Oil change, battery change, belts and hoses, fine. Brakes, much like gas lines, I could probably handle but I just don't.
If the object is overtaking the ISS it can just heat the facing side up on approach, if the ISS is overtaking the object the ISS can heat up the facing side after passing it. Either should work to reduce orbital velocity, hopefully enough to drop it into the atmosphere. If my weak grasp on orbital mechanics is correct enough...
Haven't you been alive long enough to realize that ANY "thing" will be used to destroy, maim and enslave?
Corrected that for you.
Innocent until proven guilty, thought it doesn't look good.
Correct, my bad. What I get for not thinking enough before posting.
Just because racial disparaging was acceptable back then doesn't make it right. Though I would question an arrest for speech.
I am not a scientist but my understanding is this is natural selection, or the adjustment of existing genes to environmental "stresses". Evolution would be the addition of a new gene that never existed before. So my thinking is no.
And the fact you could get software from many publishers, rather than just Microsoft, is why Microsoft has the massive market share over Apple. Guess history is not a good lesson.
I like my cruise control plenty fine but I don't want anything taking my focus off the road. Not to mention if they take the Airbus theory of automation (automation knows better than pilot) rather than the Boeing theory of automation (pilot can override automation at any time), I won't even sit in one of these cars. Of course I've flown in an Airbus but airplanes have a lot better known (or at least consistent) set of conditions than cars do.
Which results in "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.". If you are absolutely certain about anything, it is time to figure out why you are so certain.
Sorry, my monitor is clean and my chair doesn't squeak. Did he get the wrong IP?
The winner writes the histories. This is new since when?
With the stories today I'm sometimes not sure if I should attribute to April Fools and other stories I just wish I could attribute to April Fools...
Though you are typically expected to understand DO-178b, or at your company should have people who do in order to certify the software. Then the FAA DER audits that software based on DO-178b. At least if the software is considered critical to safety of flight.
We are getting closer to times where computers can handle everything but it is hard to fully hand off control. A computer never makes mistakes when programmed right and the hardware doesn't fail but the computer can't handle unexpected situations. Programming it for all situations before problems happen, or allowing it to adapt to the unexpected, is the hard part.
I've worked on a few types of terrain avoidance equipment and it is pretty good. Though when you are landing somewhere like this http://www.chonday.com/Videos/..., the system would go nuts and need to be overridden. Any time a human can override the system... we'll we are talking about one of the examples.
>= 0?
Yeah I would agree with this. People on the ground are at least independent enough to consider if the situation warrants unlocking the cockpit or if the possibility of terrorist takeover is too high. Regardless though, no human system will ever be perfect. With modern autopilots I would almost like to see the system just turn over control to the auto pilot to land at the nearest available airport. Of course this has it's own issues.
Where I used to live was forced by the state to up the speed limits because they were far lower than the state mandated "75% of the speed all cars are traveling on this road". Then I moved to a smaller country city nearby and they have speed limits slower than where I used to live before they raised the limits. Never seen anyone pulled over on the "strictly enforced" speed limits thought.
15 years driving and I usually use the cruise control at any speed when I have more than a minute of going the same speed. One ticket for missing a stop sign when I wasn't using the cruise control. YMMV.