Yes, that's all true. The thing that pushed the nose down was a software program. It relies on sensors. Its sensor was bad and the software program didn't know it, it didn't tell the crew, it instead pushed the nose toward the ground. If a make and model of car, occasionally, unprovoked, pull the car firmly to the left, would we think the solution was training? A stopgap measure for the pilots to get one that happens to still be in the air today safely back to earth - yes, Training. Then we land all the planes still in the air. Fix the software, fix the sensors, make it impossible for this failure mode to occur. If we can't, then we implement a better system, that does.
Insightful thoughts. I might add this seems to represent a slight but significant difference in how we process risk. What you've summarized is that the standards and safety agency is willing to risk a certain level of issues/casualties/failures in the interest of keeping the much larger system running. Where we, largely uninterested in 'the system', have much lower tolerance for that risk if we believe it would directly affect us. I think its a little like the difference between the statements "Some people in this room my get hurt" and "You, may get hurt" .
I'm sure you've seen now, Captain Getachew had 8,000 hours. Curious, if a model of car develops, an issue where they sporadically spontaneously steer hard left, would we still think of the resolution as an operator training issue?
To split a hair, in this case, it did exactly that. As a default behavior on _this_ flight. Without notice, provocation or warning to its operators, the machine pointed its own nose to the ground. By default.
That that new 'default' was caused by a system failure somewhere up the line, is immaterial. For the operators of that machine, that day, it on its own, by default, repeatedly pointed its own nose to the ground.
No. The software is at fault. With proper training the poor pilots could have overridden or disabled the software, but it was a fault in the software that caused the plane to repeatedly point is nose to the ground. That software was designed by people, written by people, the system designed and built by people, and tested by people who either missed or ignored a fault that has now killed hundreds of people.
Just to be patently clear, the answer to a design or implementation flaw is not better training to avoid or circumvent the flaw. That action clearly saved the lives of the people onboard the flight just prior to the first disaster, but for us here still the answer is not 'how to work around the flaws.bugs/quirks/failures in the system' it is to design a system free of those or find another solution.
I agree. I only clicked this link because I wondered if I missed something overnight. I've been following the CES info from a dozen sites and scouring youtube and not seen those three names mentioned. Panasonic gave specs on its first Full Frame DSLR, and NVidia introduced a new gpu, a new monitor-gpu standard, and laptop partnering, car companies.. well are car companies. But I've seen no mention of those.
That statement is incorrect. If, and I'm paraphrasing to make the point, 'we are introducing nothing different', then in fact, we could not expect any change. But, in fact, we are releasing something that is not already out there, and hoping that we like the changes it makes.
If I may give words to the thing that you see stuck in our brother's craw, it is: We know that complex systems are complex. We know that we have been, and continue to be surprised by the interactions of complex systems and even moreso by the reactions of complex systems to our intervention. This is true even when we make a careful study of them beforehand.
To describe a bit further, the vitriol you hear grows from long lived frustration. From living with the consequences of a lineage of men in white coats who think it their right to make choices that may hurt or harm hundreds, thousands or millions of their brothers. This vitriol is exasperated by a history of excuses and weak apologies as to how the suffering is noble, for it was for the cause of progress that he and his kin did suffer.
In the nation I was born, we have a quaint notion that men are created equal, and that my right to life and prosperity and may never infringe upon my fellow countrymen. There, every man has a right to conduct grand, sweeping experiments - on himself, and his family, and his land. And then when he has proven the efficacy and safety of his progress, can his countryman, choose to follow suit.
Although it ought not be, a mans confidence is independent of his understanding.
How Is Amazon too big but TimeWarner/Comcast not ?
How is Amazon too big but ABC/Disney is not?
How is Amazon too big but Google not?
How is Amazon too big but Monsanto not?
How is Amazon too big but Pepsico not?
How is Amazon too big but Microsoft not?
How is Amazon too big but Facebook, Inc. not?
How is Amazon too big but Unilever not?
Kraft, Coke, Kellogs, General Mills, Mars, Unilever, P&G and Johnson & Johnson and Nestle - control the vast majority of prepared food in the US.
90% of American Media is owned by 6. GE, News-Corp, Disney, Viacom, TimeWarner and CBS
Walmart has more market share than Target, Homedepot, McDonalds, and Costco combined. Their owners are worth $148 Billion, and many of their employees need public assistance.
If we are to clean house, let's not leave some doors unopened.
A monopoly is a monopoly, and will result in poor pricing at best, price fixing and gouging at worst.
This should go without saying, but since we are all here, it apparently does not.
The system fostered a monopoly, which fostered product stagnation and enabled a 20 year long price fix.
There are a thousand tools to do this job, but the testing company allowed 1. (or a few, but you get the point)
This allowed the calculator company to freeze prices amid a rapidly falling market, because they had a mandated customer base.
To replace the calculator, we have a computer calculator, which will be again mandated, and charged per click. (or customer, or week, or year).
We've have very carefully, eliminated the middle man, while replacing him with the middler man.
This too should go without saying, but since we are all here, it for obvious reasons does not.
The irony, is that this reasoning comes from groups testing the reasoning of our children.
A wedge for sure..
A plan to normalize software as a service, corporations as the make and seller and approver of all software. iOS was the first sliver in the door. Apple showed us that we could indeed attach the teat-cups of our industrial milking machine to the small-shop software development. A happy side effect was productivity, and income. Consumers bought, developers wrote, the gatekeeper made a fortune. In that process, we trained ‘consumers’ to trust only ‘the store’, we trained developers to submit to the store, we trained both the get on our continual OS upgrade path. The net is so wide, and there are so many fish, they will never really see it. It will appear to them as a ‘discomfort’ as we squeeze them. We are earning now from good will, but those profits are _nothing_ compared to what we will earn from having power. Now we have to let them slowly come around. Soon, we will move them, all of them wherever we want them to go. We own the devices, we own the secret keys to the devices - they are useless without us, we own the operating system and can change it instantly around the globe, at our whim! We don’t own the developers, but we own the entire development cycle, and keep the gate. We dictate what will and wont run and can use that to maximize revenue for the foreseeable future.
"This guy was very insistent that if we did not buy renewals we would be sued [because] our current licenses would be expiring after two years,"
This example isn't a case of getting charged for tech support, or a company ending its support. Its a having software "expire" right from under you.
And a long as software is "licensed" the customer is at the mercy of the vendor and that license.
There was a similar attempted 'expiration' when a certain freeware video conferencing program was finally bought out by a company that had been licensing the technology. Problem is not long before this the buyout, the freewarwe guys released an upgraded program that was on par in key ways with the what the new company was planning to release.
Heres the rub.
The new company tried to declare the freeware software that had already been released, "expired". They then began to try to pressure folks to delete, and pull from their websites software that was packaged with a freeware license.
Who know's whats lurking down in the bottom of those EULA's - I figure the big boys have inserted a legal ace or two in there EULA's for just such an thing, "This license may be terminated when we say so, and you must quit using it and burn your hard drive" and are just figuring out to keep Joe Customer from blowing chunks when they try to push it down his throat.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's all true. The thing that pushed the nose down was a software program. It relies on sensors. Its sensor was bad and the software program didn't know it, it didn't tell the crew, it instead pushed the nose toward the ground. If a make and model of car, occasionally, unprovoked, pull the car firmly to the left, would we think the solution was training? A stopgap measure for the pilots to get one that happens to still be in the air today safely back to earth - yes, Training. Then we land all the planes still in the air. Fix the software, fix the sensors, make it impossible for this failure mode to occur. If we can't, then we implement a better system, that does.
Insightful thoughts. I might add this seems to represent a slight but significant difference in how we process risk. What you've summarized is that the standards and safety agency is willing to risk a certain level of issues/casualties/failures in the interest of keeping the much larger system running. Where we, largely uninterested in 'the system', have much lower tolerance for that risk if we believe it would directly affect us. I think its a little like the difference between the statements "Some people in this room my get hurt" and "You, may get hurt" .
I'm sure you've seen now, Captain Getachew had 8,000 hours. Curious, if a model of car develops, an issue where they sporadically spontaneously steer hard left, would we still think of the resolution as an operator training issue?
To split a hair, in this case, it did exactly that. As a default behavior on _this_ flight. Without notice, provocation or warning to its operators, the machine pointed its own nose to the ground. By default. That that new 'default' was caused by a system failure somewhere up the line, is immaterial. For the operators of that machine, that day, it on its own, by default, repeatedly pointed its own nose to the ground.
No. The software is at fault. With proper training the poor pilots could have overridden or disabled the software, but it was a fault in the software that caused the plane to repeatedly point is nose to the ground. That software was designed by people, written by people, the system designed and built by people, and tested by people who either missed or ignored a fault that has now killed hundreds of people. Just to be patently clear, the answer to a design or implementation flaw is not better training to avoid or circumvent the flaw. That action clearly saved the lives of the people onboard the flight just prior to the first disaster, but for us here still the answer is not 'how to work around the flaws.bugs/quirks/failures in the system' it is to design a system free of those or find another solution.
I agree. I only clicked this link because I wondered if I missed something overnight. I've been following the CES info from a dozen sites and scouring youtube and not seen those three names mentioned. Panasonic gave specs on its first Full Frame DSLR, and NVidia introduced a new gpu, a new monitor-gpu standard, and laptop partnering, car companies.. well are car companies. But I've seen no mention of those.
That statement is incorrect. If, and I'm paraphrasing to make the point, 'we are introducing nothing different', then in fact, we could not expect any change. But, in fact, we are releasing something that is not already out there, and hoping that we like the changes it makes. If I may give words to the thing that you see stuck in our brother's craw, it is: We know that complex systems are complex. We know that we have been, and continue to be surprised by the interactions of complex systems and even moreso by the reactions of complex systems to our intervention. This is true even when we make a careful study of them beforehand. To describe a bit further, the vitriol you hear grows from long lived frustration. From living with the consequences of a lineage of men in white coats who think it their right to make choices that may hurt or harm hundreds, thousands or millions of their brothers. This vitriol is exasperated by a history of excuses and weak apologies as to how the suffering is noble, for it was for the cause of progress that he and his kin did suffer. In the nation I was born, we have a quaint notion that men are created equal, and that my right to life and prosperity and may never infringe upon my fellow countrymen. There, every man has a right to conduct grand, sweeping experiments - on himself, and his family, and his land. And then when he has proven the efficacy and safety of his progress, can his countryman, choose to follow suit. Although it ought not be, a mans confidence is independent of his understanding.
Kraft, Coke, Kellogs, General Mills, Mars, Unilever, P&G and Johnson & Johnson and Nestle - control the vast majority of prepared food in the US.
90% of American Media is owned by 6. GE, News-Corp, Disney, Viacom, TimeWarner and CBS
Walmart has more market share than Target, Homedepot, McDonalds, and Costco combined. Their owners are worth $148 Billion, and many of their employees need public assistance.
If we are to clean house, let's not leave some doors unopened.
A monopoly is a monopoly, and will result in poor pricing at best, price fixing and gouging at worst. This should go without saying, but since we are all here, it apparently does not. The system fostered a monopoly, which fostered product stagnation and enabled a 20 year long price fix. There are a thousand tools to do this job, but the testing company allowed 1. (or a few, but you get the point) This allowed the calculator company to freeze prices amid a rapidly falling market, because they had a mandated customer base. To replace the calculator, we have a computer calculator, which will be again mandated, and charged per click. (or customer, or week, or year). We've have very carefully, eliminated the middle man, while replacing him with the middler man. This too should go without saying, but since we are all here, it for obvious reasons does not. The irony, is that this reasoning comes from groups testing the reasoning of our children.
A wedge for sure.. A plan to normalize software as a service, corporations as the make and seller and approver of all software. iOS was the first sliver in the door. Apple showed us that we could indeed attach the teat-cups of our industrial milking machine to the small-shop software development. A happy side effect was productivity, and income. Consumers bought, developers wrote, the gatekeeper made a fortune. In that process, we trained ‘consumers’ to trust only ‘the store’, we trained developers to submit to the store, we trained both the get on our continual OS upgrade path. The net is so wide, and there are so many fish, they will never really see it. It will appear to them as a ‘discomfort’ as we squeeze them. We are earning now from good will, but those profits are _nothing_ compared to what we will earn from having power. Now we have to let them slowly come around. Soon, we will move them, all of them wherever we want them to go. We own the devices, we own the secret keys to the devices - they are useless without us, we own the operating system and can change it instantly around the globe, at our whim! We don’t own the developers, but we own the entire development cycle, and keep the gate. We dictate what will and wont run and can use that to maximize revenue for the foreseeable future.
APP: Opera for PC
TECHNIQUE:
BACK: <RIGHT-CLICK-N-HOLD> - <LEFT-CLICK>
FORWARD:<LEFT-CLICK-N-HOLD> - <RIGHT-CLICK>
App: Opera for PC
Technique:
BACK :
FORWARD :
"This guy was very insistent that if we did not buy renewals we would be sued [because] our current licenses would be expiring after two years,"
This example isn't a case of getting charged for tech support, or a company ending its support. Its a having software "expire" right from under you. And a long as software is "licensed" the customer is at the mercy of the vendor and that license. There was a similar attempted 'expiration' when a certain freeware video conferencing program was finally bought out by a company that had been licensing the technology. Problem is not long before this the buyout, the freewarwe guys released an upgraded program that was on par in key ways with the what the new company was planning to release.
Heres the rub. The new company tried to declare the freeware software that had already been released, "expired". They then began to try to pressure folks to delete, and pull from their websites software that was packaged with a freeware license.
Who know's whats lurking down in the bottom of those EULA's - I figure the big boys have inserted a legal ace or two in there EULA's for just such an thing, "This license may be terminated when we say so, and you must quit using it and burn your hard drive" and are just figuring out to keep Joe Customer from blowing chunks when they try to push it down his throat.