If it's just genetic diversity you're worried about, why send the people themselves? It seems to me that sending that many people would be a massive over-expenditure of resources. Why not send much more manageable number of people to run the ship and build the initial settlement along with preserved genetic material for a massively larger population. Breed, predominantly, through artificial insemination for the initial generations until you are back to having the desired diversity in the actual living population.
What I want to know is what percentage of accidents involve at least one vehicle containing at least one passenger beyond the driver of that vehicle. I don't know for certain, but I'd imagine it's something up around 80%-90% or more. I think it's pretty safe to assume that if there is a passenger in the car, the driver probably spends at least some of their concentration paying attention to that person and/or talking to them. Just think of it, we could eliminate almost ALL accidents if we just outlawed the carrying of passengers.../s
"Seems to me that a better solution would be to just make it illegal to access except in a disaster, or even encrypt it with the NTSB (or other 3rd party) holding the keys."
Either of those would be an option, as would having the recording automatically deleted after a certain time period.
* Money: I can believe this as a reason. If the government didn't require the existing "black box", I'm sure the airlines wouldn't bother with it either. That's why you make it a government mandate and don't give the airlines a say in the matter.
* Privacy: This is a non-issue. The existing "black box" systems already record all the audio from the airplane's cabin.
* Efficacy: I don't see a reason why this wouldn't be extremely effective. Assuming the airlines were mandated to keep the equipment in running order at all times (as I certainly hope they are already required to do with the existing "black box" technology) I see no reason this wouldn't function, especially at the altitudes above weather that these planes almost always fly (this wouldn't have been this case with this particular flight, but would have dealt with plenty of other flights that have been lost in the past).
True, but we've had plenty of cases of either not being able to find the "black box" or having it take a very long time to do so. Heck, we've had plenty of cases of almost not being able to find the plane as a whole. My suggestion that such a system be designed so that the passengers and crew couldn't tamper with it was more of a side-note to the idea as a whole.
From my post you responded to: "We've had satellite phone technology for decades now"
Inmarsat (the company in the summary and original story is a satellite telephone/data company with coverage covering everywhere on the planet with the exception of only the poles.
* We've had flight recorders on all major airliners for decades now.
* We've had satellite phone technology for decades now. (since 1979 for Inmarsat)
Remind me again why "black box" style cellular data transmitters aren't required to be transmitting cockpit voice data and full telemetry from every major airliner at all times yet? With a system like that, installed in a way that can't be tampered with by the people in t he plane and runs independently of the rest of the electronics in the aircraft, there's no reason we would know the exact location the plane went down and, most likely, why. Hell, even if they decided to be cheap and only have it transmit the telemetry in once-a-minute updates we'd still would have know where the plane was to withing a handful of miles from the first day it went missing...
Yes, this. Searching hundred's of square miles with a fleet of 18-25 planes, traveling at hundreds of miles per hour each, was such a slow process with a poor statistical chance of success. I'm sure things will speed up when you trade in all those aircraft for a single submersible covering the ocean floor at single digit miles per hour...
You heard the man, it's not important. Now stop talking about it! That way Canonical can more easily save face when they cancel their failed cluster-fuck of a display server and switch back to Wayland...
Actually, reports from people that have used their most recent prototype ("crystal cove") seem to suggest that they've pretty much dealt with the issue of making people sick.
Should be pretty easy for his to work it out. After all, there were two police officers present the entire time he spoke with the reporter. He called them himself for this very reason. I'm sure they're clarify what they heard him say. Of course, I doubt he'll sue like that as my money is on the fact that they'll back up what the reporter says. Personally, I'm pretty certain that he IS the creator of bitcoin and that he just isn't as smart at in-the-moment personal interaction as he is at crypto-currency design. He, almost certainly, just f'd up when talking to the reporter; admitted defeat too early; and is now trying to "close the barn door after the horses have bolted".
At the least, he would be referring to Nakamoto if he chose to sue the reporter. Supposedly, his relatives (including his children, clearly identified him as being a strong believer in libertarian-ism to the point of playing some, frankly, nutty children's games with his daughter where he taught her to be afraid of "the man".)
He admitted to who he was in front of, not just the reporter, but two police officers as well. Frankly, this just reeks of backtracking once he realized he screwed up by admitting the game too early.
Of course, maybe I'm wrong. It, obviously, must be some other misanthropic, privacy obsessed, extremist libertarian, genius, Japanese engineer named Satoshi Nakamoto who is the real inventor of bitcoin... (/s just in case you missed the sarcasm in that statement (/s in case you missed the sarcasm within these parentheses) )
You mean tenuous evidence like admitting to the journalist that he's the bitcoin fiounder in front of while also being witnessed by two police officers. This can all be dealt with pretty easily. He called the cops for a reason, why not put them to use. All he'd need to do is sue the reporter for libel. The cops should be able to back him up on what he really said...assuming he's not just full of shit and backtracking now because he has buyers remorse over admitting that he really is the bitcoin founder...
It's wrong to judge people by their race, creed, or any other similar trait that you have no control over. It it NOT wrong to judge someone by their actions or their words. Your right not to be judged goes away when you "stand up and remove all doubt", as the saying goes. The founder of bitcoin stopped having a right to be left alone by the media when he chose to design, release, and cultivate a digital currency. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too, there are consequences for actions.
You should have been getting ready for that for a while before this if being recorded in a bar was a potential issue for you. We've had more than enough video recording technology (both on the part of the business owners and your fellow patrons) to have made that level of "post privacy future" you are so terrified of a reality for decades now. There has NEVER been a right to privacy from other private citizens while making use of a public place like a restaurant or bar. Any privacy you do or don't enjoy (with the specific exception of places like bathrooms) is entirely at the discretion of the business owner. You've always had the right not to be recorded in such situations as no one is forcing you to go to those businesses in the first place.
Personally, instead of getting hysterical about individual people getting a slightly easier way to record each other in public places. I'd rather spend my pro-privacy energy focusing on things that make a little more sense such as ending the right of government and large corporations to aggregate the video feed of large numbers of cameras into "big data" that they can use to track an individual person's movements over time in ever greater detail without needing an individual warrant (issued by a normal, non-secret, court) for every person they want to track this way and only being able to begin recording AFTER that warrant is earned with a clear legal requirement to destroy such recording a short time after the issue date of the warrant unless they actually file charges against the person being investigated.
The "process" you are advocating is exceedingly stupid on your part. While IANAL, as far as I know throwing ANYTHING (yes, even a bar rag) at someone can be considered real assault (no air quotes needed here) in most places in the US. So, now, in response to an "assault" you're advocating committing assault (note, again, no air quotes here) on someone who you believe is actively in the process of recording you as you commit the act? I'm sure not everyone would take it so far as to call the police and have you arrested/charged, but it doesn't sound that smart to me to give the guy/girl you're pissed off at direct video footage of you committing a crime against them...
I've been on since around 1997 (if I remember correctly) and I don't remember any such time either. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that was OP's subtle attempt at sarcasm.
"Delete the beta source code and fire the devs/managers responsible for designing it" (which is, effectively, what is being said when people post "BETA IS TEH SUKZ" in the numbers that they are IS constructive criticism. The problem is that Dice and/or the Slashdot managers don't want to hear it...
Never underestimate the impact of poor quality web developers with big egos. It doesn't have to be the MBAs pushing it when you have someone who is blindly convinced of the "superiority" of the new version they spent long hours creating...
Slashdot Mirror
Use MongoDB, it's web-scale. They produce kick-ass benchmarks by piping all your data to /dev/null.
If it's just genetic diversity you're worried about, why send the people themselves? It seems to me that sending that many people would be a massive over-expenditure of resources. Why not send much more manageable number of people to run the ship and build the initial settlement along with preserved genetic material for a massively larger population. Breed, predominantly, through artificial insemination for the initial generations until you are back to having the desired diversity in the actual living population.
What I want to know is what percentage of accidents involve at least one vehicle containing at least one passenger beyond the driver of that vehicle. I don't know for certain, but I'd imagine it's something up around 80%-90% or more. I think it's pretty safe to assume that if there is a passenger in the car, the driver probably spends at least some of their concentration paying attention to that person and/or talking to them. Just think of it, we could eliminate almost ALL accidents if we just outlawed the carrying of passengers... /s
AT&T can't meet their customer's demands while making the dramatically increased profits that they desire. There, fixed that for him.
"Seems to me that a better solution would be to just make it illegal to access except in a disaster, or even encrypt it with the NTSB (or other 3rd party) holding the keys."
Either of those would be an option, as would having the recording automatically deleted after a certain time period.
* Money: I can believe this as a reason. If the government didn't require the existing "black box", I'm sure the airlines wouldn't bother with it either. That's why you make it a government mandate and don't give the airlines a say in the matter.
* Privacy: This is a non-issue. The existing "black box" systems already record all the audio from the airplane's cabin.
* Efficacy: I don't see a reason why this wouldn't be extremely effective. Assuming the airlines were mandated to keep the equipment in running order at all times (as I certainly hope they are already required to do with the existing "black box" technology) I see no reason this wouldn't function, especially at the altitudes above weather that these planes almost always fly (this wouldn't have been this case with this particular flight, but would have dealt with plenty of other flights that have been lost in the past).
True, but we've had plenty of cases of either not being able to find the "black box" or having it take a very long time to do so. Heck, we've had plenty of cases of almost not being able to find the plane as a whole. My suggestion that such a system be designed so that the passengers and crew couldn't tamper with it was more of a side-note to the idea as a whole.
From my post you responded to: "We've had satellite phone technology for decades now"
Inmarsat (the company in the summary and original story is a satellite telephone/data company with coverage covering everywhere on the planet with the exception of only the poles.
Ugh, sorry, typos all over the place.
* We've had flight recorders on all major airliners for decades now.
* We've had satellite phone technology for decades now. (since 1979 for Inmarsat)
Remind me again why "black box" style cellular data transmitters aren't required to be transmitting cockpit voice data and full telemetry from every major airliner at all times yet? With a system like that, installed in a way that can't be tampered with by the people in t he plane and runs independently of the rest of the electronics in the aircraft, there's no reason we would know the exact location the plane went down and, most likely, why. Hell, even if they decided to be cheap and only have it transmit the telemetry in once-a-minute updates we'd still would have know where the plane was to withing a handful of miles from the first day it went missing...
Yes, this. Searching hundred's of square miles with a fleet of 18-25 planes, traveling at hundreds of miles per hour each, was such a slow process with a poor statistical chance of success. I'm sure things will speed up when you trade in all those aircraft for a single submersible covering the ocean floor at single digit miles per hour...
You heard the man, it's not important. Now stop talking about it! That way Canonical can more easily save face when they cancel their failed cluster-fuck of a display server and switch back to Wayland...
Actually, reports from people that have used their most recent prototype ("crystal cove") seem to suggest that they've pretty much dealt with the issue of making people sick.
Should be pretty easy for his to work it out. After all, there were two police officers present the entire time he spoke with the reporter. He called them himself for this very reason. I'm sure they're clarify what they heard him say. Of course, I doubt he'll sue like that as my money is on the fact that they'll back up what the reporter says. Personally, I'm pretty certain that he IS the creator of bitcoin and that he just isn't as smart at in-the-moment personal interaction as he is at crypto-currency design. He, almost certainly, just f'd up when talking to the reporter; admitted defeat too early; and is now trying to "close the barn door after the horses have bolted".
At the least, he would be referring to Nakamoto if he chose to sue the reporter. Supposedly, his relatives (including his children, clearly identified him as being a strong believer in libertarian-ism to the point of playing some, frankly, nutty children's games with his daughter where he taught her to be afraid of "the man".)
He admitted to who he was in front of, not just the reporter, but two police officers as well. Frankly, this just reeks of backtracking once he realized he screwed up by admitting the game too early.
Of course, maybe I'm wrong. It, obviously, must be some other misanthropic, privacy obsessed, extremist libertarian, genius, Japanese engineer named Satoshi Nakamoto who is the real inventor of bitcoin... (/s just in case you missed the sarcasm in that statement (/s in case you missed the sarcasm within these parentheses) )
You mean tenuous evidence like admitting to the journalist that he's the bitcoin fiounder in front of while also being witnessed by two police officers. This can all be dealt with pretty easily. He called the cops for a reason, why not put them to use. All he'd need to do is sue the reporter for libel. The cops should be able to back him up on what he really said...assuming he's not just full of shit and backtracking now because he has buyers remorse over admitting that he really is the bitcoin founder...
It's wrong to judge people by their race, creed, or any other similar trait that you have no control over. It it NOT wrong to judge someone by their actions or their words. Your right not to be judged goes away when you "stand up and remove all doubt", as the saying goes. The founder of bitcoin stopped having a right to be left alone by the media when he chose to design, release, and cultivate a digital currency. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too, there are consequences for actions.
You should have been getting ready for that for a while before this if being recorded in a bar was a potential issue for you. We've had more than enough video recording technology (both on the part of the business owners and your fellow patrons) to have made that level of "post privacy future" you are so terrified of a reality for decades now. There has NEVER been a right to privacy from other private citizens while making use of a public place like a restaurant or bar. Any privacy you do or don't enjoy (with the specific exception of places like bathrooms) is entirely at the discretion of the business owner. You've always had the right not to be recorded in such situations as no one is forcing you to go to those businesses in the first place.
Personally, instead of getting hysterical about individual people getting a slightly easier way to record each other in public places. I'd rather spend my pro-privacy energy focusing on things that make a little more sense such as ending the right of government and large corporations to aggregate the video feed of large numbers of cameras into "big data" that they can use to track an individual person's movements over time in ever greater detail without needing an individual warrant (issued by a normal, non-secret, court) for every person they want to track this way and only being able to begin recording AFTER that warrant is earned with a clear legal requirement to destroy such recording a short time after the issue date of the warrant unless they actually file charges against the person being investigated.
The "process" you are advocating is exceedingly stupid on your part. While IANAL, as far as I know throwing ANYTHING (yes, even a bar rag) at someone can be considered real assault (no air quotes needed here) in most places in the US. So, now, in response to an "assault" you're advocating committing assault (note, again, no air quotes here) on someone who you believe is actively in the process of recording you as you commit the act? I'm sure not everyone would take it so far as to call the police and have you arrested/charged, but it doesn't sound that smart to me to give the guy/girl you're pissed off at direct video footage of you committing a crime against them...
I've been on since around 1997 (if I remember correctly) and I don't remember any such time either. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that was OP's subtle attempt at sarcasm.
We're discussing why the beta suck, not why Slashdotters don't have girlfriends. Try to stay on topic.
"Delete the beta source code and fire the devs/managers responsible for designing it" (which is, effectively, what is being said when people post "BETA IS TEH SUKZ" in the numbers that they are IS constructive criticism. The problem is that Dice and/or the Slashdot managers don't want to hear it...
And the Slashdot Beta, don't forget the Slashdot Beta.
Never underestimate the impact of poor quality web developers with big egos. It doesn't have to be the MBAs pushing it when you have someone who is blindly convinced of the "superiority" of the new version they spent long hours creating...