Wait, so if the sensor craps out and MCAS is disabled, the pilots will be unable to prevent a pitch-up when opening up the throttle, unless they manually dial in stabiliser down trim? Somehow that doesn’t make me feel a whole lot better about this fix.
I haven't really had many reliability issues with LEDs. We have many throughout the house and elsewhere. I have had one (1) of them break, a Philips Hue (sadly the most expensive of the lot). I've had a few bad purchases where the bulb would emit a nasty greenish light instead of nice white. Other than that, few issues (and certainly more reliable than incandescent ones)
Try IKEA bulbs. They sell them really cheaply and they've been reliable so far, with good quality light as well. We use them in our rental properties where they are used hard in the common areas.
Hm, so no Android TV? Meh. I like the Apple TV fine, but it is useless for playing locally stored content, and I've replaced my Apple TVs with nVidia Shields which do everything rather well.
So you start small, local, in a setting where a small scale rollout can stand on its own. Like wirelessly charging taxis in a single city. Even if a different wireless EV charging standard emerges a few years down the line, those taxis can either adopt the new system or continue to use the existing infrastructure, neither of which should incur large costs or inconvenience.
Not sure about Tesla, but as I understand it they rolled out their charging network in Europe with the same proprietary connector as used in the US, and supply drivers with an adapter to use other chargers. The Model 3 is supplied here with a CCS connector and Tesla chargers will be fitted with CCS leads as well. However at this time other car brands will not be able to charge there, though that might change according to Tesla: they will need to modify more than just the cable to be fully CCS compliant and let other cars charge there. Though for most drivers that's hardly an issue, there's plenty of chargers as good as the Tesla ones, and in many countries they are more plentiful.
Tesla is continuing to develop its excellent proprietary charging technology, but unless they come up with something that really keeps them far ahead of the curve, I expect them to embrace CCS at some point.
“Peace of mind” and “non-violent” are not the first things that come to mind when trying to describe India and its people’s disposition. That’s fine, each to their own, but let’s not pretend that it’s only the western world that is predominantly violent.
the global explosion of radical Islam
Really poor choice of words there, pal... and a case in point.
iPhone users, read this. There are ways to quickly disable the fingerpint scanner and Face ID using the physical buttons on the phone. Easy to do quickly and quietly in case you get arrested. It can also be done through Siri. And Android phones have a similar mechanism I am told.
In the Netherlands, a judge recently ruled that unlocking a phone with a fingerprint or holding it up to a suspect's face does not constitute self-incrimination. Which actually makes sense if you look at the law (not sure how it compares to the 5th amendment): that law does not exist to protect your private data, it exists to ensure that you cannot be punished for not volunteering self-incriminating evidence. Compare this to a safe with a combination lock versus a safe with a key: you cannot be compelled to provide the combination nor the location of the key, but if the cops search you and find the key on you, they are free to open the safe with that.
There are some legislators who now seek to change the law on the grounds that people not unreasonably expect biometrics to provide the same (legal) protection of private data as passwords do. But that's a matter of privacy rather than self-incrimination.
Opposite the stupid cheering crowd are plenty of knowledgable people saying that we will have to wait a bit longer for true self driving cars. And yes, all of that is rather obvious to anyone looking a little closer at the industry; Cringely is rather late to the party with his “predictions”.
The value is in your data, collecting it is their priority. If not enough people are using a service, or if Google cannot glean enough valuable data from the service, then they will kill it. Monetizing a service means less users and less data, and they are not about to shoot themselves in the foot like that.
That's not unreasonable in itself: the fact that it is cheaper for the manufacturer to put optional features in all of its products at the time of manufacturing, doesn't mean that they are free to develop, nor that they ought to provide those features free of charge. In this case, I'd say Boeing's mistake wasn't that they had left those features as "sold separately", but that they (and the FAA!) failed to address potential issues during certification: what happens if this sensor fails, what are the remedial actions and how will the pilots know how to recognize and correct the problem. Training, lack of indicators, or perhaps design flaws that allowed this chain of events in the first place?
It's true that the indicator might have prevented the crash, but at this time it's not at all certain that including this feature - which the manufacturer, the regulators and a bunch of airlines deemed optional - is sufficient to address the issues. It does make for a very juicy sensationalist headline, though.
At the least they should be on the hook for those medical bills and covering my expected income, to be continued to be paid to my family when I am dead, as any reasonable court would award. That alone can run in the millions already. But as for mental anguish? A million seems fair, sure I'd take more but if a judge awarded me $1M on top of damages, I wouldn't feel hard done by. Sure, my life would still be ruined, but that's just life. It happens. These gambles take place several times a day, because while people, governments and companies do take pains to prevent mishaps, no one is willing to pay the price for 100% certainty.
Now what if Monsanto knew? If they willfully ignored alarming reports, tried to suppress those reports, bought politicians to ignore the warnings, and so on? I'd still be in the same situation, I'd still take the million... but at the same time demand some seriously hard time for all those involved at Monsanto. The proper punishment isn't to pay more to the victims while the execs go free.
It's not just about evidence of culpability, but also about the insane payouts. GP is 100% right that these are ultimately paid for by the rest of us. Our legal system here might be a bit stingy in that it only awards claims for actual material damages like medical bills or loss of income, with tiny amounts (5 figures perhaps) for "mental anguish" (not having a jury decide such things helps a lot). We do not have anything like punitive damages either; any fines are paid to the state. Now if someone suffered from another one's fault, especially in cases of negligence, carelessness or wilful wrongdoing, I think a reasonable amount of punitive damages ought to be awarded. But $289 million or even $78 million to any single individual is completely insane.
Pretty much. Also, a lot of these studies just look at the averages, but one person's metabolism can be vastly different from another. Do regular health checks and adjust your diet accordingly. My brother needs to watch his cholesterol, but mine always comes out fine and I eat a ton of eggs.
Not "niche issues", for instance the French rejected it precisely for the reason I stated previously. From that Wiki:
The TCE made an effort to simplify jargon and reduce the number of EU legal instruments. However, it is a long document couched in technical terms, which proved unpopular when presented (for example) to French voters in their referendum on the TCE.
The original TCE was already too complicated to be a constitution in the traditional sense. The new treaties made matters even worse.
What's missing from the EU is a clear constitution. The EU does not have one, in the form of a concise document outlining the relations between the nations and the union, between the union and its citizens, and the limits of the union's mandate. What we have now is a pile of deliberately* obfuscated set of legalese, a set of treaties rather than a real constitution. The US one wouldn't have been a bad example for us, actually.
*) Following the referendums rejecting the previous document.
Few people think the EU is the perfect government, though most politicians want to effect change from within. Personally I think things have gone too far for that to be a viable option, but I don't see how we can tear things doen and rebuild it either. EU democracy and government worries me a fair bit. But the EU (and the EEG before it, and the ECSC before that) have done quite a bit for international commerce. For instance: many companies grumbled at having to get their stuff certified against a bunch of new rules before being allowed to sell it in their own country... until they learned that they only had to certify against those rules in order to sell anywhere in the EU, and that they could do so easily without having to deal with customs and tariffs.
Saying "Putin has a big nose", then, isn't an insult, it's just a fact.
Hence the new laws. Pointing out an inconvenient truth about Putin or his cronies might technically not be an insult, but you can be sure it will de deemed "disrespectful to the state" and punished accordingly.
The failure rate makes it a 1 out of 100k component. If the system is comprised of many such components, its failure rate will be much, much worse than 1:100000
In case of buying a puppy, you could submit a picture of the puppy and the receipt as proof. In case of an open contract on a person, proving the person was killed is trivial, but it might be hard proving that it was you who killed him.
It’s not a fallacy. In one study, researchers found that talking to a passenger does increase the risk of accidents, but only slightly. Talking on a cell phone whoever increased it threefold. Interestingly, when they added a camera to show the remote person what was happening on the road, the accident rate dropped by a fair bit. So talking to a passenger is safer, but it appears that it’s safer in part because of the extra pair of eyes on the road and the effect that has on the flow of the conversation. (study )
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, so if the sensor craps out and MCAS is disabled, the pilots will be unable to prevent a pitch-up when opening up the throttle, unless they manually dial in stabiliser down trim? Somehow that doesn’t make me feel a whole lot better about this fix.
I haven't really had many reliability issues with LEDs. We have many throughout the house and elsewhere. I have had one (1) of them break, a Philips Hue (sadly the most expensive of the lot). I've had a few bad purchases where the bulb would emit a nasty greenish light instead of nice white. Other than that, few issues (and certainly more reliable than incandescent ones)
Try IKEA bulbs. They sell them really cheaply and they've been reliable so far, with good quality light as well. We use them in our rental properties where they are used hard in the common areas.
Hm, so no Android TV? Meh. I like the Apple TV fine, but it is useless for playing locally stored content, and I've replaced my Apple TVs with nVidia Shields which do everything rather well.
So you start small, local, in a setting where a small scale rollout can stand on its own. Like wirelessly charging taxis in a single city. Even if a different wireless EV charging standard emerges a few years down the line, those taxis can either adopt the new system or continue to use the existing infrastructure, neither of which should incur large costs or inconvenience.
Not sure about Tesla, but as I understand it they rolled out their charging network in Europe with the same proprietary connector as used in the US, and supply drivers with an adapter to use other chargers. The Model 3 is supplied here with a CCS connector and Tesla chargers will be fitted with CCS leads as well. However at this time other car brands will not be able to charge there, though that might change according to Tesla: they will need to modify more than just the cable to be fully CCS compliant and let other cars charge there. Though for most drivers that's hardly an issue, there's plenty of chargers as good as the Tesla ones, and in many countries they are more plentiful.
Tesla is continuing to develop its excellent proprietary charging technology, but unless they come up with something that really keeps them far ahead of the curve, I expect them to embrace CCS at some point.
the global explosion of radical Islam
Really poor choice of words there, pal... and a case in point.
iPhone users, read this. There are ways to quickly disable the fingerpint scanner and Face ID using the physical buttons on the phone. Easy to do quickly and quietly in case you get arrested. It can also be done through Siri. And Android phones have a similar mechanism I am told.
In the Netherlands, a judge recently ruled that unlocking a phone with a fingerprint or holding it up to a suspect's face does not constitute self-incrimination. Which actually makes sense if you look at the law (not sure how it compares to the 5th amendment): that law does not exist to protect your private data, it exists to ensure that you cannot be punished for not volunteering self-incriminating evidence. Compare this to a safe with a combination lock versus a safe with a key: you cannot be compelled to provide the combination nor the location of the key, but if the cops search you and find the key on you, they are free to open the safe with that.
There are some legislators who now seek to change the law on the grounds that people not unreasonably expect biometrics to provide the same (legal) protection of private data as passwords do. But that's a matter of privacy rather than self-incrimination.
Opposite the stupid cheering crowd are plenty of knowledgable people saying that we will have to wait a bit longer for true self driving cars. And yes, all of that is rather obvious to anyone looking a little closer at the industry; Cringely is rather late to the party with his “predictions”.
The value is in your data, collecting it is their priority. If not enough people are using a service, or if Google cannot glean enough valuable data from the service, then they will kill it. Monetizing a service means less users and less data, and they are not about to shoot themselves in the foot like that.
Even spelled out it isn’t all that clear.
That's not unreasonable in itself: the fact that it is cheaper for the manufacturer to put optional features in all of its products at the time of manufacturing, doesn't mean that they are free to develop, nor that they ought to provide those features free of charge. In this case, I'd say Boeing's mistake wasn't that they had left those features as "sold separately", but that they (and the FAA!) failed to address potential issues during certification: what happens if this sensor fails, what are the remedial actions and how will the pilots know how to recognize and correct the problem. Training, lack of indicators, or perhaps design flaws that allowed this chain of events in the first place?
It's true that the indicator might have prevented the crash, but at this time it's not at all certain that including this feature - which the manufacturer, the regulators and a bunch of airlines deemed optional - is sufficient to address the issues. It does make for a very juicy sensationalist headline, though.
At the least they should be on the hook for those medical bills and covering my expected income, to be continued to be paid to my family when I am dead, as any reasonable court would award. That alone can run in the millions already. But as for mental anguish? A million seems fair, sure I'd take more but if a judge awarded me $1M on top of damages, I wouldn't feel hard done by. Sure, my life would still be ruined, but that's just life. It happens. These gambles take place several times a day, because while people, governments and companies do take pains to prevent mishaps, no one is willing to pay the price for 100% certainty.
Now what if Monsanto knew? If they willfully ignored alarming reports, tried to suppress those reports, bought politicians to ignore the warnings, and so on? I'd still be in the same situation, I'd still take the million... but at the same time demand some seriously hard time for all those involved at Monsanto. The proper punishment isn't to pay more to the victims while the execs go free.
It's not just about evidence of culpability, but also about the insane payouts. GP is 100% right that these are ultimately paid for by the rest of us. Our legal system here might be a bit stingy in that it only awards claims for actual material damages like medical bills or loss of income, with tiny amounts (5 figures perhaps) for "mental anguish" (not having a jury decide such things helps a lot). We do not have anything like punitive damages either; any fines are paid to the state. Now if someone suffered from another one's fault, especially in cases of negligence, carelessness or wilful wrongdoing, I think a reasonable amount of punitive damages ought to be awarded. But $289 million or even $78 million to any single individual is completely insane.
Pretty much. Also, a lot of these studies just look at the averages, but one person's metabolism can be vastly different from another. Do regular health checks and adjust your diet accordingly. My brother needs to watch his cholesterol, but mine always comes out fine and I eat a ton of eggs.
The TCE made an effort to simplify jargon and reduce the number of EU legal instruments. However, it is a long document couched in technical terms, which proved unpopular when presented (for example) to French voters in their referendum on the TCE.
The original TCE was already too complicated to be a constitution in the traditional sense. The new treaties made matters even worse.
What's missing from the EU is a clear constitution. The EU does not have one, in the form of a concise document outlining the relations between the nations and the union, between the union and its citizens, and the limits of the union's mandate. What we have now is a pile of deliberately* obfuscated set of legalese, a set of treaties rather than a real constitution. The US one wouldn't have been a bad example for us, actually.
*) Following the referendums rejecting the previous document.
Few people think the EU is the perfect government, though most politicians want to effect change from within. Personally I think things have gone too far for that to be a viable option, but I don't see how we can tear things doen and rebuild it either. EU democracy and government worries me a fair bit. But the EU (and the EEG before it, and the ECSC before that) have done quite a bit for international commerce. For instance: many companies grumbled at having to get their stuff certified against a bunch of new rules before being allowed to sell it in their own country... until they learned that they only had to certify against those rules in order to sell anywhere in the EU, and that they could do so easily without having to deal with customs and tariffs.
Saying "Putin has a big nose", then, isn't an insult, it's just a fact.
Hence the new laws. Pointing out an inconvenient truth about Putin or his cronies might technically not be an insult, but you can be sure it will de deemed "disrespectful to the state" and punished accordingly.
Win some, lose a lot.
The failure rate makes it a 1 out of 100k component. If the system is comprised of many such components, its failure rate will be much, much worse than 1:100000
In case of buying a puppy, you could submit a picture of the puppy and the receipt as proof. In case of an open contract on a person, proving the person was killed is trivial, but it might be hard proving that it was you who killed him.
And why would it? Especially after that movie “Spotlight”.
It’s not a fallacy. In one study, researchers found that talking to a passenger does increase the risk of accidents, but only slightly. Talking on a cell phone whoever increased it threefold. Interestingly, when they added a camera to show the remote person what was happening on the road, the accident rate dropped by a fair bit. So talking to a passenger is safer, but it appears that it’s safer in part because of the extra pair of eyes on the road and the effect that has on the flow of the conversation. (study )
Some regular bikers do that as well, except they’ll break your rear view mirror as punishment instead of issuing a fine.
Those are great for texting drivers. If they crash, the airbag in the steering wheel will slam the device into their face. Seems fitting...