Agreed. I had Saturns for years. My first one, a 93 SC1 had 284,000 miles on it when I traded it in. In all those miles, I never even had to replace a light bulb in the dang car. It also regularly got 40-42 mpg.
5 miles? Really? Perhaps you should do a little research. The Fisker Karma is a hybrid vehicle. In other words... IT RUNS ON GAS OR ELECTRIC!!! It has a range of at least 300 miles.
The Tesla Model S on the other hand has a base range of 160 miles (with optional upgrades to 230 and 300 miles) and charges to 80% in 45 minutes. A full charge from empty takes 6 hours.
Please do your research before you post nonsense comments... it just makes you look bad.
"Frankly, if you cannot discern that SAAB was very different from the above brands,
you don't know much about cars."
Yeah, right... Saab is GM just like most of the other's I mentioned. In fact, YOU need to check out how many of Saab's "very different" cars are actually just rebadged versions of the cars I just mentioned above.
Now, in the US they sell 3 cars, the 9-3, 9-5 and the 9-7. Two of the three models that Saab currently sells in the US are simply rebranded GM cars. (9-3 = Opel Vectra, 9-7=Chevrolet TrailBlazer) The last one (9-5) is actually unique to them. However, it is being replaced with a car based on the GM Eplison platform (Buick Lacross, and previously on the Pontiac G-6 and Saturn Aura). Again, nothing unique to it.
They quit selling the little 9-2 a couple years ago, which was, get this... a rebranded Subaru.
Now, genius, please tell me again how I don't know what I am talking about.
Really? Does this belong on/.? Where is all the fanfare for Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Plymouth & Saturn? Companies come and go. New ones will come along and replace them.
I've got an idea... how about everybody who liked Saabs go out and order a Fisker Karma or the Tesla Model S!
You're right about the training the pilot, he did act the way he was trained. Personally, I wouldn't call it improperly, as that is actually the normal recovery technique that most pilots would use. In fact, the report did a survey and noted that 11 out of 33 respondants acted the same way when their aircraft incountered similar situations. I can't fault him for that. His actions were aggressive, however, I think that was due to insufficient feedback from the aircraft. (I would bet $100 that he learned to fly in a tail dragger, where you learn to use the rudder aggressively like that.)
Anyway, as for the Rudder Travel Limit System, if you read 2.5 in that report, it specifically states what that system does. The report also talks about the differences between this type and other aircraft in the same category. Specifically, it shows how little pressure and how much deflection is generated by the design of this aircraft.
Now, if you read the conclusions, #11, 13 and 14 all talk about the design's contributions to this accident and that certification standards should be implemented to avoid it. A simple software change to the Rudder Travel Limiter System to change the amount of feedback (pressure and travel stops) would solve the problem on this series of aircraft and bring it in line with the way most other aircraft, including the follow on A3XX series, work.
Specific NTSB direction to the FAA on this is as follows:
"Review the options for modifying the Airbus A300-600 and the Airbus
A310 to provide increased protection from potentially hazardous rudder
pedal inputs at high airspeeds and, on the basis of this review, require
modifications to the A300-600 and A310 to provide increased protection
from potentially hazardous rudder pedal inputs at high airspeeds.
(A-04-58)"
"because the alternative is to hire thousands of people to do tedious calculations"
Interestingly enough, in the old days before we had these fance gadgets to do the tedious work, we used to hire a bunch of people to do it on paper... guess what we called them? "Computers!"
Actually, there is a computer involved that supplies the force feedback to the rudder pedals through a system called the "Rudder Travel Limiter System." In the condition of flight that the AA A300 was in, it did not provide sufficient feedback to the co-pilot as to what his actions were. It also did not prevent catastrauphic damage from occuring.
The software was incorrect because it allowed the co-pilots inputs to physically break the aircraft. Normal certification guidelines call for the ability of a pilot to be able to have full control deflections without damaging the aircraft. The maximum speed at which that can occur is called VA or Maneuvering Speed. The AA A300 was flying well below VA at the time of the accident.
Actually, I can't think of a single instance of a composite wing structure failing in flight for a commercial aircraft. Aluminum, however, has a fatigue life limit, and several planes have fallen to spar failures (Boeing 707) or cabin structure failures (De Havilland Comet).
Now, there is the instance of the composite vertical stabilizer separating from the aircraft on an American Airbus A300, but that was attributed to the forces applied to it by the co-pilot and the lack of correct software control.
Which, of course, have already been addressed by the respective companies. Only unpatched systems would be affected.
This is actualy a stupid article, as it doensn't even bother to describe the platform which has the vulnerability in it. It's not a platform or database issue if it's a SQL Injection, so it must be some app that is common... like a CMS package or blog engine... something like that.
The light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus. Everybody knows that!
Except for the fact that JoikuBoost doesn't manage the power utilization like Cool-Tether does. Also, this is actually a follow on to their previous invention called "Combine" which was announced in 2007. JoikuBoost appears to be a very recent (October 1, 2009) product.
Actually, they would have had to add more code to disable the specific processor in question.
You see, the Atom is an X86 (or, on some, X86-64) based processor, so they didn't have to change their code at all for it to work on it in the first place. Now, they must look at the Processor ID and specifically disable support.
Nah... by the time it get's back to earth, the gravitational pull on it will break it into at least 4 pieces, each with a one in a million chance of impacting terra ferma.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. I had Saturns for years. My first one, a 93 SC1 had 284,000 miles on it when I traded it in. In all those miles, I never even had to replace a light bulb in the dang car. It also regularly got 40-42 mpg.
Bill
5 miles? Really? Perhaps you should do a little research. The Fisker Karma is a hybrid vehicle. In other words... IT RUNS ON GAS OR ELECTRIC!!! It has a range of at least 300 miles.
The Tesla Model S on the other hand has a base range of 160 miles (with optional upgrades to 230 and 300 miles) and charges to 80% in 45 minutes. A full charge from empty takes 6 hours.
Please do your research before you post nonsense comments... it just makes you look bad.
Bill
"Frankly, if you cannot discern that SAAB was very different from the above brands, you don't know much about cars."
Yeah, right... Saab is GM just like most of the other's I mentioned. In fact, YOU need to check out how many of Saab's "very different" cars are actually just rebadged versions of the cars I just mentioned above.
Now, in the US they sell 3 cars, the 9-3, 9-5 and the 9-7. Two of the three models that Saab currently sells in the US are simply rebranded GM cars. (9-3 = Opel Vectra, 9-7=Chevrolet TrailBlazer) The last one (9-5) is actually unique to them. However, it is being replaced with a car based on the GM Eplison platform (Buick Lacross, and previously on the Pontiac G-6 and Saturn Aura). Again, nothing unique to it.
They quit selling the little 9-2 a couple years ago, which was, get this... a rebranded Subaru.
Now, genius, please tell me again how I don't know what I am talking about.
Bill
Really? Does this belong on /.? Where is all the fanfare for Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Plymouth & Saturn? Companies come and go. New ones will come along and replace them.
I've got an idea... how about everybody who liked Saabs go out and order a Fisker Karma or the Tesla Model S!
Bill
Anyway, as for the Rudder Travel Limit System, if you read 2.5 in that report, it specifically states what that system does. The report also talks about the differences between this type and other aircraft in the same category. Specifically, it shows how little pressure and how much deflection is generated by the design of this aircraft.
Now, if you read the conclusions, #11, 13 and 14 all talk about the design's contributions to this accident and that certification standards should be implemented to avoid it. A simple software change to the Rudder Travel Limiter System to change the amount of feedback (pressure and travel stops) would solve the problem on this series of aircraft and bring it in line with the way most other aircraft, including the follow on A3XX series, work.
Specific NTSB direction to the FAA on this is as follows:
"Review the options for modifying the Airbus A300-600 and the Airbus A310 to provide increased protection from potentially hazardous rudder pedal inputs at high airspeeds and, on the basis of this review, require modifications to the A300-600 and A310 to provide increased protection from potentially hazardous rudder pedal inputs at high airspeeds. (A-04-58)"
Bill
"because the alternative is to hire thousands of people to do tedious calculations"
Interestingly enough, in the old days before we had these fance gadgets to do the tedious work, we used to hire a bunch of people to do it on paper... guess what we called them? "Computers!"
Bill
Actually, there is a computer involved that supplies the force feedback to the rudder pedals through a system called the "Rudder Travel Limiter System." In the condition of flight that the AA A300 was in, it did not provide sufficient feedback to the co-pilot as to what his actions were. It also did not prevent catastrauphic damage from occuring.
The software was incorrect because it allowed the co-pilots inputs to physically break the aircraft. Normal certification guidelines call for the ability of a pilot to be able to have full control deflections without damaging the aircraft. The maximum speed at which that can occur is called VA or Maneuvering Speed. The AA A300 was flying well below VA at the time of the accident.
Bill
Actually, I can't think of a single instance of a composite wing structure failing in flight for a commercial aircraft. Aluminum, however, has a fatigue life limit, and several planes have fallen to spar failures (Boeing 707) or cabin structure failures (De Havilland Comet).
Now, there is the instance of the composite vertical stabilizer separating from the aircraft on an American Airbus A300, but that was attributed to the forces applied to it by the co-pilot and the lack of correct software control.
Bill
No, considering that Boeing has 870 orders already for it!
Bill
I see it as the head of a little lizzard. Must be something with your browser. Try upgrading it to IE8. (Which is what I am using!) :-)
Bill
So this is how you make money with F/OSS.
1.) Write F/OSS.
2.) File Lawsuits against infringers.
3.) ???
4.) Profit!!!
I'm curious... how much money would he have made from the software if he didn't sue?
Bill
Must be hosted on AT&Ts network! Go figure!
Bill
I wish Slashdot would allow you to edit a previous post.
Before any Spelling Nazis get a hold of it, it is "Ladle!"
Bill
It is because they resemble a dipping ladel. (Which is generally referred to as a "Dipper" in the US.)
Bill
Wait a minute... I thought Mizar was the middle star! :) (It is, afterall, the brightest of the cluster.)
Bill
Which, of course, have already been addressed by the respective companies. Only unpatched systems would be affected.
This is actualy a stupid article, as it doensn't even bother to describe the platform which has the vulnerability in it. It's not a platform or database issue if it's a SQL Injection, so it must be some app that is common... like a CMS package or blog engine... something like that.
Bill
The light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus. Everybody knows that!
Bill
"The child appears to own a Robosapien named 'Robot'."
Damn... and all this time I thought his name was "Robbie!!!"
Bill
Except for the fact that JoikuBoost doesn't manage the power utilization like Cool-Tether does. Also, this is actually a follow on to their previous invention called "Combine" which was announced in 2007. JoikuBoost appears to be a very recent (October 1, 2009) product.
Bill
One question, potential damages to who?
Bill
Actually, they would have had to add more code to disable the specific processor in question.
You see, the Atom is an X86 (or, on some, X86-64) based processor, so they didn't have to change their code at all for it to work on it in the first place. Now, they must look at the Processor ID and specifically disable support.
Bill
It happens every day here on /. I like to call it "Slashdot: Yesterday's news, Today!"
Bill
This is already being done!!! Check this out: VirtualHUD
Bill
Yet again, copying one of our designs!
Bill
Nah... by the time it get's back to earth, the gravitational pull on it will break it into at least 4 pieces, each with a one in a million chance of impacting terra ferma.
Bill