Such a situation would be pretty easy to diagnose because you would have one squished car in between two other cars. Genius is not required to assess what happened here. In general, it's pretty easy to figure out what caused an accident most of the time. Cars aren't like airplanes, they don't spread themselves over the landscape to such an extent that you can't figure out the basics of what happened (and most of the time the answer is someone was being stupid and/or going to fast).
What the driver was doing at that point is essentially irrelevant; the vehicle was already dead meat, there was just some physical formalities to go through. The black box isn't going to show that the driver sat up all night trying to cyber on IRC and then decided to drive several hundred miles in heavy traffic.
A typical accident starts to happen physically a good 20-30 seconds before anyone involved realises, and in reality an awful lot sooner than that, because the majority of accidents are down to at least one stupid driver.
No, the purpose of Ask Slashdot is to troll the userbase with the dumbest and/or most inciteful question possible and get as many pageviews and ad impressions on the back of that as they can. Oh, sorry. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
You clearly know your stuff when it comes to things that take off:)
Clearly (I hope) I wasn't proposing such levels of anality for every single component of a vehicle. But I don't think it's unreasonable that the software that connects the pedals, gear lever, ignition, engine, and transmission should be provably correct and that the mechanical interfaces should meet some minimum independent standard. I would suspect that most people would be surprised to find out this *isn't* the case.
Component re-use would mean you would only have to certify once, and the cost argument is bullshit, too. Toyota has revenues four or five times larger than Boeing and significantly smaller development costs. The *only* reason we don't do it is the public don't demand it.
Personally, I'd prefer they got the damned system right in the first place. We've known how to do error free software for safety critical applications for a long, long time. We can do this shit for aircraft, why the hell can't we do it for vehicles?
Yes, it probably is. If you've ever seen an NDA, for example, it usually includes (in the UK, anyway) language like "In consideration of the sum of one pound, the receipt of which the parties acknowledge, we agree to stfu etc etc". I am not sure about EULAs: my understanding is it is not that the terms can't form a contract, but that because the buyer often can't see or change the terms before entering into it, it can't be valid.
Never been outside the US, I guess? In English law, it still requires consideration or it is not enforceable. Scots law has a rather different formulation of contract law again.
You are assuming independence. Given they probably all receive similar training and have similar cultural backgrounds, I would reckon Qn has a positive covariance and hence the chances of a fuckup are even worse:p
If they had a contract, it doesn't just magically vanish because they were bought over. The contract still stands. However, if this licence was awarded with no payment (consideration, for the legal types), it almost certainly isn't a valid contract in law and hence it can be altered or withdrawn at will.
None of the studies that find such a correlation control for any of the other factors that lead to people living right next to such power lines, such as behaviours that tend to lead to diseases of various sorts.
Or maybe we could organise agriculture so that everyone can eat more or less what they want. A ridiculous, communist notion to be sure, but I'm just thinking out loud here, you understand.
Yes, but given that there are large numbers of people involved in the derivatives markets, we would expect to see a small number of people to get it right all the time, not by expertise, but by dumb, dumb luck. How do we tell the difference? I would expect the stupid not to succeed, but is Buffet really substantially smarter than almost all other participants? I find it hard to believe.
By the way, it is possible to construct derivatives which have behaviour which cannot be empirically modelled, but can be controlled by the creator. Essentially, you can a href="http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~rongge/derivative.pdf">booby-trap derivatives. Chew that, Warren.
The point isn't that the market instruments (stocks) are unpredictable - the returns are simply proportional to their risk weighting and the risk-free rate. However, the returns of a shareholder in a perfectly efficient market are effectively random, since no-one can have better information or make better use of it than any other. Which raises the age-old question, is Warren Buffet actually a genius or is he just the one lucky guy who hit the extreme right of the long tail?
Interesting, but not fundamental. The discovery of the nature of distributions in many financial transactions was insightful, but of limited practical application, as many quantities of importance in financial mathematics are normally distributed by the central limit theorem.
Yes, you are pretty ignorant, I'm afraid. Don't be ashamed, you're in the larger group. Happily, a dose of economics would sort you out a treat. To sort out your central misunderstanding, neither the amount of wealth or the amount of things that you can buy or the amount of work there is to be done is fixed. They relate to each other in rather complex ways, but the upshot is that we can all become richer - and if you don't believe me, ask your great-great-grandfather, or a Chinese factory worker saving up her wages to pay for an education.
The main reason, not surprisingly, is it is proving quite difficult to explain to German voters why they should have to postpone their retirement age to 67 and bail out Greece, while some Greeks can get out at 53.
Slashdot Mirror
Such a situation would be pretty easy to diagnose because you would have one squished car in between two other cars. Genius is not required to assess what happened here. In general, it's pretty easy to figure out what caused an accident most of the time. Cars aren't like airplanes, they don't spread themselves over the landscape to such an extent that you can't figure out the basics of what happened (and most of the time the answer is someone was being stupid and/or going to fast).
Actually, most accidents are caused by insufficiently alert drivers. More breaks would be a good thing.
A typical accident starts to happen physically a good 20-30 seconds before anyone involved realises, and in reality an awful lot sooner than that, because the majority of accidents are down to at least one stupid driver.
No, the purpose of Ask Slashdot is to troll the userbase with the dumbest and/or most inciteful question possible and get as many pageviews and ad impressions on the back of that as they can. Oh, sorry. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
It incited you to post, didn't it?
Clearly (I hope) I wasn't proposing such levels of anality for every single component of a vehicle. But I don't think it's unreasonable that the software that connects the pedals, gear lever, ignition, engine, and transmission should be provably correct and that the mechanical interfaces should meet some minimum independent standard. I would suspect that most people would be surprised to find out this *isn't* the case.
Component re-use would mean you would only have to certify once, and the cost argument is bullshit, too. Toyota has revenues four or five times larger than Boeing and significantly smaller development costs. The *only* reason we don't do it is the public don't demand it.
Personally, I'd prefer they got the damned system right in the first place. We've known how to do error free software for safety critical applications for a long, long time. We can do this shit for aircraft, why the hell can't we do it for vehicles?
Because the mechanical system fails just as often as the electronic? Sorry, try again.
Hah. I found a book in my library the other day called "Real World Haskell". I was laughing so much, I had to be told to be quiet.
Yes, it probably is. If you've ever seen an NDA, for example, it usually includes (in the UK, anyway) language like "In consideration of the sum of one pound, the receipt of which the parties acknowledge, we agree to stfu etc etc". I am not sure about EULAs: my understanding is it is not that the terms can't form a contract, but that because the buyer often can't see or change the terms before entering into it, it can't be valid.
Never been outside the US, I guess? In English law, it still requires consideration or it is not enforceable. Scots law has a rather different formulation of contract law again.
You are assuming independence. Given they probably all receive similar training and have similar cultural backgrounds, I would reckon Qn has a positive covariance and hence the chances of a fuckup are even worse :p
If they had a contract, it doesn't just magically vanish because they were bought over. The contract still stands. However, if this licence was awarded with no payment (consideration, for the legal types), it almost certainly isn't a valid contract in law and hence it can be altered or withdrawn at will.
None of the studies that find such a correlation control for any of the other factors that lead to people living right next to such power lines, such as behaviours that tend to lead to diseases of various sorts.
Or maybe we could organise agriculture so that everyone can eat more or less what they want. A ridiculous, communist notion to be sure, but I'm just thinking out loud here, you understand.
Huh. If they were smart, they would read Schneier. They obviously don't.
By the way, it is possible to construct derivatives which have behaviour which cannot be empirically modelled, but can be controlled by the creator. Essentially, you can a href="http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~rongge/derivative.pdf">booby-trap derivatives. Chew that, Warren.
The point isn't that the market instruments (stocks) are unpredictable - the returns are simply proportional to their risk weighting and the risk-free rate. However, the returns of a shareholder in a perfectly efficient market are effectively random, since no-one can have better information or make better use of it than any other. Which raises the age-old question, is Warren Buffet actually a genius or is he just the one lucky guy who hit the extreme right of the long tail?
Interesting, but not fundamental. The discovery of the nature of distributions in many financial transactions was insightful, but of limited practical application, as many quantities of importance in financial mathematics are normally distributed by the central limit theorem.
I don't understand your premise, argument, or concluding question. Help.
Would that be because time series analysis is a quite separate discipline to simple inference?
Yes, you are pretty ignorant, I'm afraid. Don't be ashamed, you're in the larger group. Happily, a dose of economics would sort you out a treat. To sort out your central misunderstanding, neither the amount of wealth or the amount of things that you can buy or the amount of work there is to be done is fixed. They relate to each other in rather complex ways, but the upshot is that we can all become richer - and if you don't believe me, ask your great-great-grandfather, or a Chinese factory worker saving up her wages to pay for an education.
The main reason, not surprisingly, is it is proving quite difficult to explain to German voters why they should have to postpone their retirement age to 67 and bail out Greece, while some Greeks can get out at 53.
No. It ain't that bad.