I'm not admitting the turmoil would surely appear, neither you or me can really foresee that with any certainity. I admit there's a possibility, but it hasn't really been demonstrated in history. You'd think JFK's assassination would make the markets crash or something. Nothing of the sort happened, and no big scale crash is IMHO likely to happen. Various hotheads will do stupid shit, but in a week it'll be all forgotten about. That's how markets are, usually.
So, all the brouhaha about U.S. president needing to be safe to prevent world turmoil is IMHO overblown, way, way overblown in fact.
That article doesn't mention anything about the stock or other markets, or financials. Those words don't even appear. It seems that NYSE "plunged" about 3% in the afternoon, on the day of assassination. Not a big deal if you ask me.
Rat models for human metabolism and digestion are quite poor. Sure, they may have lucked out in that one case, but I'd not assign much credence to it at the moment. And no, I don't have any stock or other interest in corn syrup anything.
I keep hearing that president's life is protected to protect us all from such a turmoil. How well do we think we know the imaginary turmoil would actually happen? Who gives a hoot if the president is alive? His status (alive or dead) has no practical relevance to the markets of any sort, or really to much anything outside of his family and the process needed to get a replacement elected. That is, unless the traders themselves loose their brains, like they often do. Self fulfilling prophecy it would be, at best, I'd think. There'd be turmoil only because everyone expects there to be turmoil, and people would turn irrational and do stupid shit.
I couldn't agree more. Touch-screens for cabin controls are a man-machine interface disaster from hell. People who design those things should be whacked on the head until it gets to them that it's a bad idea.
As another anecdote, in functional safety engineering, safety integrity level 4 (SIL 4), the highest one, calls for the probability of dangerous failure per hour to be between 10^-9 and 10^-8. Alternatively, if a safety function is called upon only once a year or rarer (think an emergency stop, process shutdown, panic button, etc), the probability of failure on such a demand should be between 10^-5 and 10^-4.
If you'd apply it to a car, say think of your drive-by-wire car's ignition shutdown button used in an emergency situation while driving (expected to be used less than once a year, duh). It would be expected to fail, or not shut down the engine, at most for one in 10,000 drivers who called upon it. I don't know if automotive people use IEC 61508 SIL approach, but that's the automotive analogy.
That would mean that 5% of published research comes up with entirely wrong conclusions, with everyone around nodding approvingly. The "usual standard" is up to the researcher to determine. If one thinks that p=0.05 is sufficient in all cases, or somehow "usual", one only contributes to the problem.
The reasonable and prudent speed for the self driving care doesn't equal one for a human driver. Those things will probably go speed limit most of the time if car-to-car communications happen.
The autopilot didn't fail. The system is designed to disengage various autopilots as sensor data becomes dubious. That's the only sane behavior of such a system. The pilot was no in the loop, was caught off guard, and failed, like they almost all do in such circumstances. Humans seem to be broken that way, at least at the present time.
Finally someone who gets it!!! Thank you. Finally. I thought the comments will end and I'll never see someone who has a clue. Thank you again! We need more of you.
A good driver will notice a dangerous situation and take manual control well before a bad event happens.
Reality would tend to disagree with you. Humans don't work that way. Your fantasized good driver doesn't exist. Sorry to burst your bubble, but accident and mishap reports plainly and simply say otherwise. Yeah, it's counterintuitive perhaps, but you have to get over it and accept the facts as they are. There are things we, as humans, no matter what existing training is applied, are seemingly unable to do. At least at this point in time. Perhaps in the future training will improve to tweak our brains to deal with such scenarios appropriately. So far, the consensus is that we the humans are broken as soon as we're out of the loop. This is also a contributing factor to why big corporations seem often like Titanics going full steam into the iceberg. The higher-ups are so far removed from the operational reality that they are demonstrably unable to take over when it's time. Apparently, the much longer timescales involved are not the matter at all.
Ha ha ha. You must have been asleep and not following state of the art in man-machine interaction, then. Keeping the human out of the loop, in various scenarios, has been shown to be potentially very dangerous and has been linked to mishaps and accidents in aerospace, naval and industrial operations. Automation that makes human's job overly easy, as is the case for example with modern glass cockpits in aircrafts, has been shown to be, counterintuitively, detrimental to safety of the overall man-machine system. The "rapid manual override" is precisely what seems to be a myth when you look at accident and mishap investigation reports. It just doesn't happen when human is not in the loop.
Rimshot:) Such resources already exist in mature organizations like NASA. They have a lessons learned database that is pretty much required reading for any engineer who doesn't want to stagnate.
Huh? To be safe, any self-driving system will have a pre-analyzed path that it keeps updated as it goes. The speed is adjusted continuously to keep this path ahead of the braking distance. When it doesn't know what to do, it has already stopped. It can beep to alert you that you might need to get your car out of the way.
I wouldn't think so, but IANA Auto-car programmer, so I couldn't begin to tell you what logic the thing functions off of. Speaking of which, is Google being very forthcoming with the source? That's something I wouldn't mind taking a look at myself...
Shows that you don't know much about properly engineered safety relevant software. Source is almost useless without all the engineering process documentation behind it. Heck, lack of such engineering process pretty much means the source is junk. Reverse engineering existing source to reproduce all the documentation is usually more work than doing it from scratch but properly this time. You must have requirements, designs, source, tests, validation results and full traceability between all of those. A relatively simple product might have a good 500 to a 1000 pages worth of documentation behind it (full pages). Something like a self driving car would be documented in 10s of thousands of pages, of course with help of automated tools to manage said documentation -- no one checks traceability by hand in a project of that size.
Everyone on the team, including the management structure and responsibilities must be laid down and tracked throughout project/product lifetime. When you have process like that, you can have programmable electronic systems whose failure would be catastrophic, yet you count on them every hour of every day and they fail no more often than designed for, usually less than that. Good luck to you if your ABS computer decided to modulate your brakes into oblivion, or your stability augmentation computer decided to lock all four of your wheels for good measure. Never mind software that will you know drive the whole fucking car.
Systems engineered for safety, like a self-driving car would, come with a book of requirements. A thick book, with thousands of numbered paragraphs. Sure the humans who set it all up could have screwed up, but tell you what, if you think various hazardous situations were not given due thought and analysis, you're deluded. They have likely thought of things neither of us will ever experience on a road, I bet on that.
You must be living in lala land if you seriously think that said account is not how those things are engineered to behave, and how they typically do behave, in fact. Hand in the geek card. Do not pass go. Sigh. That's why driving an old car is insane if you care about your survival and injuries. Even an otherwise decent Volvo from early 1990s doesn't do half of it, yet it's standard on today's cars.
I'd think that in areas where the radar coverage for ATC only uses transponder-reading radar, they may not even notice you;) Not every civilian ATC radar is NORAD-worthy, you know.
What are those fantastic "other safety features that would considerably reduce deaths" that you claim? Care to elaborate? U.S. has been a leader in safety requirements for cars for quite a while I'd think.
Once you detect the need to take immediate action, you need to move your leg to hit the brakes.
That's why automatic transmissions are better: you can keep your left foot on the brake pedal all the time. I've had silly arguments with people who thought that was somehow bad (because their daddy taught them differently, so they'll stick to it, ho hum). Driving with both feet in an slushbox car cuts your reaction time when braking, and allows better speed control when changing lanes, merging, etc. Like, duh.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not admitting the turmoil would surely appear, neither you or me can really foresee that with any certainity. I admit there's a possibility, but it hasn't really been demonstrated in history. You'd think JFK's assassination would make the markets crash or something. Nothing of the sort happened, and no big scale crash is IMHO likely to happen. Various hotheads will do stupid shit, but in a week it'll be all forgotten about. That's how markets are, usually.
So, all the brouhaha about U.S. president needing to be safe to prevent world turmoil is IMHO overblown, way, way overblown in fact.
Couldn't read one sentence down the post, huh? Sigh.
That article doesn't mention anything about the stock or other markets, or financials. Those words don't even appear. It seems that NYSE "plunged" about 3% in the afternoon, on the day of assassination. Not a big deal if you ask me.
Rat models for human metabolism and digestion are quite poor. Sure, they may have lucked out in that one case, but I'd not assign much credence to it at the moment. And no, I don't have any stock or other interest in corn syrup anything.
No, he didn't, but how nice of you to spread the lie.
give pornography fans a more satisfying search experience
Umm, if the search is supposed to be satisfying, you're doing it wrong. Oh, wait.
Hear, hear.
I keep hearing that president's life is protected to protect us all from such a turmoil. How well do we think we know the imaginary turmoil would actually happen? Who gives a hoot if the president is alive? His status (alive or dead) has no practical relevance to the markets of any sort, or really to much anything outside of his family and the process needed to get a replacement elected. That is, unless the traders themselves loose their brains, like they often do. Self fulfilling prophecy it would be, at best, I'd think. There'd be turmoil only because everyone expects there to be turmoil, and people would turn irrational and do stupid shit.
I couldn't agree more. Touch-screens for cabin controls are a man-machine interface disaster from hell. People who design those things should be whacked on the head until it gets to them that it's a bad idea.
As another anecdote, in functional safety engineering, safety integrity level 4 (SIL 4), the highest one, calls for the probability of dangerous failure per hour to be between 10^-9 and 10^-8. Alternatively, if a safety function is called upon only once a year or rarer (think an emergency stop, process shutdown, panic button, etc), the probability of failure on such a demand should be between 10^-5 and 10^-4.
If you'd apply it to a car, say think of your drive-by-wire car's ignition shutdown button used in an emergency situation while driving (expected to be used less than once a year, duh). It would be expected to fail, or not shut down the engine, at most for one in 10,000 drivers who called upon it. I don't know if automotive people use IEC 61508 SIL approach, but that's the automotive analogy.
That would mean that 5% of published research comes up with entirely wrong conclusions, with everyone around nodding approvingly. The "usual standard" is up to the researcher to determine. If one thinks that p=0.05 is sufficient in all cases, or somehow "usual", one only contributes to the problem.
The reasonable and prudent speed for the self driving care doesn't equal one for a human driver. Those things will probably go speed limit most of the time if car-to-car communications happen.
The autopilot didn't fail. The system is designed to disengage various autopilots as sensor data becomes dubious. That's the only sane behavior of such a system. The pilot was no in the loop, was caught off guard, and failed, like they almost all do in such circumstances. Humans seem to be broken that way, at least at the present time.
Finally someone who gets it!!! Thank you. Finally. I thought the comments will end and I'll never see someone who has a clue. Thank you again! We need more of you.
Huh?
A good driver will notice a dangerous situation and take manual control well before a bad event happens.
Reality would tend to disagree with you. Humans don't work that way. Your fantasized good driver doesn't exist. Sorry to burst your bubble, but accident and mishap reports plainly and simply say otherwise. Yeah, it's counterintuitive perhaps, but you have to get over it and accept the facts as they are. There are things we, as humans, no matter what existing training is applied, are seemingly unable to do. At least at this point in time. Perhaps in the future training will improve to tweak our brains to deal with such scenarios appropriately. So far, the consensus is that we the humans are broken as soon as we're out of the loop. This is also a contributing factor to why big corporations seem often like Titanics going full steam into the iceberg. The higher-ups are so far removed from the operational reality that they are demonstrably unable to take over when it's time. Apparently, the much longer timescales involved are not the matter at all.
Ha ha ha. You must have been asleep and not following state of the art in man-machine interaction, then. Keeping the human out of the loop, in various scenarios, has been shown to be potentially very dangerous and has been linked to mishaps and accidents in aerospace, naval and industrial operations. Automation that makes human's job overly easy, as is the case for example with modern glass cockpits in aircrafts, has been shown to be, counterintuitively, detrimental to safety of the overall man-machine system. The "rapid manual override" is precisely what seems to be a myth when you look at accident and mishap investigation reports. It just doesn't happen when human is not in the loop.
Rimshot :) Such resources already exist in mature organizations like NASA. They have a lessons learned database that is pretty much required reading for any engineer who doesn't want to stagnate.
Huh? To be safe, any self-driving system will have a pre-analyzed path that it keeps updated as it goes. The speed is adjusted continuously to keep this path ahead of the braking distance. When it doesn't know what to do, it has already stopped. It can beep to alert you that you might need to get your car out of the way.
I wouldn't think so, but IANA Auto-car programmer, so I couldn't begin to tell you what logic the thing functions off of. Speaking of which, is Google being very forthcoming with the source? That's something I wouldn't mind taking a look at myself...
Shows that you don't know much about properly engineered safety relevant software. Source is almost useless without all the engineering process documentation behind it. Heck, lack of such engineering process pretty much means the source is junk. Reverse engineering existing source to reproduce all the documentation is usually more work than doing it from scratch but properly this time. You must have requirements, designs, source, tests, validation results and full traceability between all of those. A relatively simple product might have a good 500 to a 1000 pages worth of documentation behind it (full pages). Something like a self driving car would be documented in 10s of thousands of pages, of course with help of automated tools to manage said documentation -- no one checks traceability by hand in a project of that size.
Everyone on the team, including the management structure and responsibilities must be laid down and tracked throughout project/product lifetime. When you have process like that, you can have programmable electronic systems whose failure would be catastrophic, yet you count on them every hour of every day and they fail no more often than designed for, usually less than that. Good luck to you if your ABS computer decided to modulate your brakes into oblivion, or your stability augmentation computer decided to lock all four of your wheels for good measure. Never mind software that will you know drive the whole fucking car.
Systems engineered for safety, like a self-driving car would, come with a book of requirements. A thick book, with thousands of numbered paragraphs. Sure the humans who set it all up could have screwed up, but tell you what, if you think various hazardous situations were not given due thought and analysis, you're deluded. They have likely thought of things neither of us will ever experience on a road, I bet on that.
You must be living in lala land if you seriously think that said account is not how those things are engineered to behave, and how they typically do behave, in fact. Hand in the geek card. Do not pass go. Sigh. That's why driving an old car is insane if you care about your survival and injuries. Even an otherwise decent Volvo from early 1990s doesn't do half of it, yet it's standard on today's cars.
I'd think that in areas where the radar coverage for ATC only uses transponder-reading radar, they may not even notice you ;) Not every civilian ATC radar is NORAD-worthy, you know.
What are those fantastic "other safety features that would considerably reduce deaths" that you claim? Care to elaborate? U.S. has been a leader in safety requirements for cars for quite a while I'd think.
Once you detect the need to take immediate action, you need to move your leg to hit the brakes.
That's why automatic transmissions are better: you can keep your left foot on the brake pedal all the time. I've had silly arguments with people who thought that was somehow bad (because their daddy taught them differently, so they'll stick to it, ho hum). Driving with both feet in an slushbox car cuts your reaction time when braking, and allows better speed control when changing lanes, merging, etc. Like, duh.