Apparently sarcasm is too subtle for Slashdot. What part of "so hopefully all 737 max pilots have gotten the message now, and will respond quickly and appropriately when their aircraft exhibit a determined effort to dive into the ground" makes you think I have stock in Boeing?
It's a great object lesson for people who think that government financial regulation is bad, such as most of the bitcoin evangelists. Of course, the lesson seems to be utterly lost. As you say, entertaining though.
Seriously though, if you were twenty something, fresh out of college, running your first business nearly solo from your basement, and a bunch of idiots gave you hundreds of millions of dollars, would you not steal them?
Not so small if the sensor design is faulty. The sensor may not have actually been at fault, or maybe the Ethiopian crash was caused by something completely different. It would seem like a good idea to make the MCAS give a warning and disengage if the two AOA sensors don't agree though. And maybe cross check against some other flight data as a backup. Having the MCAS aware of the altitude and not initiate a dive when the plane was near the ground might be a good idea.
There have been some discussions by actual Boeing 737 pilots. Yes, given time you might realize that the plane is screwing with your trim. But consider:
1) You don't know that it can do that because Boeing elected not to tell you 2) The autopilot is off 3) You've just taken off, are low, and in one of the most dangerous phases of flight 4) The cockpit is full of alarms that are telling you you're stalling, and other alarms telling you your angle of attack, air speed and stall warnings are unreliable 5) You keep pulling back, but every ten seconds the computer dials in more trim and you have to pull back more, and the haptic feedback system dials in more opposing force, so you have to pull even harder
Pilots in emergency situations are human. They rely on memorized safety procedures to follow in situations like that. Apparently "turn off the MCAS" is now one of those procedural items. It wasn't before.
It's curious that the pilots on the *previous* Indonesian flight didn't notice the trim acting up, since it sounds like they probably flew most of the flight with it doing so. Or maybe they did notice, and the disengage wasn't working properly.
The Indonesian flight seems to have been due to a training issue: Boeing elected not to include the required procedures for disabling a failing anti-stall system into the variant difference training course because they didn't want to confuse the average pilot.
So hopefully all 737 max pilots have gotten the message now, and will respond quickly and appropriately when their aircraft exhibit a determined effort to dive into the ground.
So your objection is that the UN's definition of extreme poverty reflects... extreme poverty?
You can put the line wherever you feel like. Many of the online tools let you do so interactively. Clearly I did as well, since I said 50%, while the $1/day threshold gives about 7% of the world population. Rosling's institute suggests income groups with level 1 (extreme poverty) less than $2/day, and level 2 $8/day (hey, pretty close to the one you suggested!).
Oddly, that solution doesn't really work very well. Developing your economy, trading freely with the rest of the world and sending children (especially girls) to school seems to do the trick pretty well though.
If you haven't found it yet, gapminder.org is also good.
The question of satisfaction and happiness and income is interesting. Most research shows that once you reach a certain point, more money doesn't make you happier (and can even make you more unhappy), and it varies tremendously with culture and across individuals. I think the peak for the US was around $60 k/year.
The research suggests it's down to improving conditions worldwide. There really isn't a third world anymore, and for the first time in history less than half the people in the world are poor. Improved conditions apply to the developed world as well: most terrorism is domestic.
Police and intelligence are important for heading off the nut jobs that remain, but reducing the number of desperate people with nothing to lose is a more effective strategy in the long run, and doesn't involve police states.
Since the majority of terrorism is domestic, particularly in the US, strong border controls and foreign intelligence doesn't really help much. It's been noted that, going by the numbers, if the US wanted to reduce terrorism by closing their borders, The rest of the US states should close their borders with North Carolina.
You'll sometimes see graphs of terrorism quite a bit higher in the 2010s, but these include incidents in places like Syria and Iraq as terrorism when previously they'd be (more reasonably) counted as civil wars or rebellions.
It's even worse than that. The "pilot error" appears to be faulty angle of attack sensors that cause the unpublished safety system (added to address an aerodynamic design deficiency) to freak out and dive the plane. The pilot error in question is not turning the thing off fast enough.
There aren't really that many Max 8s flying, and they haven't been doing so for very long, so a couple of crashes seems like a bad sign, particularly since they were very similar (immediately after takeoff). The Max also has a lot of new technology and new aerodynamic design, so it's not just a minor upgrade over previous 737s, which do have a long safety record.
The 737 Max is unstable at higher angles of attack so Boeing added a bit of software to correct if the angle of attack starts to get dangerous. From the Lion Air crash it sounds like there might be problems with the sensors, causing that system to improperly engage and actually put the plane into a dangerous dive.
Ethiopian Airlines got burned by the 787 battery fire issues too.
Hash chains are extremely useful, and are used all over the place. Git, for example. Their main feature is fast integrity checking.
"Blockchain" is a hash chain with a bunch of "gubmint bad" philosophy attached to it, and resulting technological shenanigans to avoid setting up a central authority. Unsurprisingly, so far that has proven useful in the domains you describe.
Think of the dumpster fire that would be a global stock exchange that can't close, can't halt trading, and offers always-on instant electronic trading of tiny fractions of a stock for cheap, to anybody.
If I go to volunteer at a hospital, for example, it's a bit shady to have a clause in the "employment" contract stating that they own all IP I create, on or off premises, at any time. You may consider it imaginary property, but if I create something valuable at, say, my actual job, and said volunteer organization decides they'd like to patent it, there could be trouble.
I was curious whether you're correct. Wikipedia says Ponzi took his "investors" for $20 million in 1920, and Holmes took hers for $700 million in 2013. Ponzi's take in 2013 dollars would be about $233 million. Presumably Holmes had some actual operating expenses to make the thing look good, but CEOs like to talk about revenue as if it was profit, so I think it's fair to say that by CEO-quality metrics Holmes out-Ponzied Ponzi.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently sarcasm is too subtle for Slashdot. What part of "so hopefully all 737 max pilots have gotten the message now, and will respond quickly and appropriately when their aircraft exhibit a determined effort to dive into the ground" makes you think I have stock in Boeing?
It's a great object lesson for people who think that government financial regulation is bad, such as most of the bitcoin evangelists. Of course, the lesson seems to be utterly lost. As you say, entertaining though.
Seriously though, if you were twenty something, fresh out of college, running your first business nearly solo from your basement, and a bunch of idiots gave you hundreds of millions of dollars, would you not steal them?
Not so small if the sensor design is faulty. The sensor may not have actually been at fault, or maybe the Ethiopian crash was caused by something completely different. It would seem like a good idea to make the MCAS give a warning and disengage if the two AOA sensors don't agree though. And maybe cross check against some other flight data as a backup. Having the MCAS aware of the altitude and not initiate a dive when the plane was near the ground might be a good idea.
There have been some discussions by actual Boeing 737 pilots. Yes, given time you might realize that the plane is screwing with your trim. But consider:
1) You don't know that it can do that because Boeing elected not to tell you
2) The autopilot is off
3) You've just taken off, are low, and in one of the most dangerous phases of flight
4) The cockpit is full of alarms that are telling you you're stalling, and other alarms telling you your angle of attack, air speed and stall warnings are unreliable
5) You keep pulling back, but every ten seconds the computer dials in more trim and you have to pull back more, and the haptic feedback system dials in more opposing force, so you have to pull even harder
Pilots in emergency situations are human. They rely on memorized safety procedures to follow in situations like that. Apparently "turn off the MCAS" is now one of those procedural items. It wasn't before.
It's curious that the pilots on the *previous* Indonesian flight didn't notice the trim acting up, since it sounds like they probably flew most of the flight with it doing so. Or maybe they did notice, and the disengage wasn't working properly.
A crash rate of a bit over 1/350 / year isn't exactly great.
It all happened so fast.
I definitely vetoed the followup strike on the smouldering ruins though!
The Indonesian flight seems to have been due to a training issue: Boeing elected not to include the required procedures for disabling a failing anti-stall system into the variant difference training course because they didn't want to confuse the average pilot.
So hopefully all 737 max pilots have gotten the message now, and will respond quickly and appropriately when their aircraft exhibit a determined effort to dive into the ground.
So your objection is that the UN's definition of extreme poverty reflects... extreme poverty?
You can put the line wherever you feel like. Many of the online tools let you do so interactively. Clearly I did as well, since I said 50%, while the $1/day threshold gives about 7% of the world population. Rosling's institute suggests income groups with level 1 (extreme poverty) less than $2/day, and level 2 $8/day (hey, pretty close to the one you suggested!).
Oddly, that solution doesn't really work very well. Developing your economy, trading freely with the rest of the world and sending children (especially girls) to school seems to do the trick pretty well though.
If you haven't found it yet, gapminder.org is also good.
The question of satisfaction and happiness and income is interesting. Most research shows that once you reach a certain point, more money doesn't make you happier (and can even make you more unhappy), and it varies tremendously with culture and across individuals. I think the peak for the US was around $60 k/year.
There it is, the unmatched confidence of a Slashdot AC!
Here you are. Ignore that it's a TED talk, they do actually have legit people on occasionally, and Hans Rosling is one of those.
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans...
Edit: adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing.
Sure. The vast majority of stats is adding and subtracting. Square roots are handy though.
The research suggests it's down to improving conditions worldwide. There really isn't a third world anymore, and for the first time in history less than half the people in the world are poor. Improved conditions apply to the developed world as well: most terrorism is domestic.
Police and intelligence are important for heading off the nut jobs that remain, but reducing the number of desperate people with nothing to lose is a more effective strategy in the long run, and doesn't involve police states.
Since the majority of terrorism is domestic, particularly in the US, strong border controls and foreign intelligence doesn't really help much. It's been noted that, going by the numbers, if the US wanted to reduce terrorism by closing their borders, The rest of the US states should close their borders with North Carolina.
"No. Bombings and hijackings were not common in any way in the 1970s or 1980s."
True. Bombings and hijackings, or terrorism of any kind, have never been very common. They were more common than they are today though.
If you think they're more common today, then you're remembering a few high-profile cases. Some stats:
https://www.datagraver.com/cas...
You'll sometimes see graphs of terrorism quite a bit higher in the 2010s, but these include incidents in places like Syria and Iraq as terrorism when previously they'd be (more reasonably) counted as civil wars or rebellions.
You forgot option 3: realize that the world is far safer than it's ever been and options 1 and 2 are paranoia stemming from hype over rare incidents.
It's even worse than that. The "pilot error" appears to be faulty angle of attack sensors that cause the unpublished safety system (added to address an aerodynamic design deficiency) to freak out and dive the plane. The pilot error in question is not turning the thing off fast enough.
OMG, someone invented a router with a VPN connection. Or maybe they just use SSH tunnels?
There aren't really that many Max 8s flying, and they haven't been doing so for very long, so a couple of crashes seems like a bad sign, particularly since they were very similar (immediately after takeoff). The Max also has a lot of new technology and new aerodynamic design, so it's not just a minor upgrade over previous 737s, which do have a long safety record.
The 737 Max is unstable at higher angles of attack so Boeing added a bit of software to correct if the angle of attack starts to get dangerous. From the Lion Air crash it sounds like there might be problems with the sensors, causing that system to improperly engage and actually put the plane into a dangerous dive.
Ethiopian Airlines got burned by the 787 battery fire issues too.
Hash chains are extremely useful, and are used all over the place. Git, for example. Their main feature is fast integrity checking.
"Blockchain" is a hash chain with a bunch of "gubmint bad" philosophy attached to it, and resulting technological shenanigans to avoid setting up a central authority. Unsurprisingly, so far that has proven useful in the domains you describe.
Short answer: absolutely.
Think of the dumpster fire that would be a global stock exchange that can't close, can't halt trading, and offers always-on instant electronic trading of tiny fractions of a stock for cheap, to anybody.
You think algorithmic trading is bad now.
If I go to volunteer at a hospital, for example, it's a bit shady to have a clause in the "employment" contract stating that they own all IP I create, on or off premises, at any time. You may consider it imaginary property, but if I create something valuable at, say, my actual job, and said volunteer organization decides they'd like to patent it, there could be trouble.
Vet schools are hard to get into. Canada has six, IIRC.
I was curious whether you're correct. Wikipedia says Ponzi took his "investors" for $20 million in 1920, and Holmes took hers for $700 million in 2013. Ponzi's take in 2013 dollars would be about $233 million. Presumably Holmes had some actual operating expenses to make the thing look good, but CEOs like to talk about revenue as if it was profit, so I think it's fair to say that by CEO-quality metrics Holmes out-Ponzied Ponzi.
It's illegal to sell your kids. It is not illegal to give someone $10,000. One of these things is unconscionable and outrageous. The other isn't.