which is ridiculous because this technology would reduce traffic and accidents (and if less people die what's the problem) while acting as a personal taxi for your family and friends.
B/C everyone things that they are an excellent driver and would have avoided any accident that they didn't actually get into... and that any they did get into was someone else's fault.
I'd still go design here. Airbus allowed a single point of failure (one co-pilot) to down an airplane. Nobody got that the least experienced pilot had the stick glued up until a few seconds form the end.
It says something to me that when the captain arrived he couldn't figure out what was going on. He couldn't see the pitch, he couldn't see the rapid decent, it wasn't obvious to him that the plane was stalled, he didn't see the air speed was 60 kph. Instead the system fooled three pilots with over 20k hours into thinking that there was nothing that could be counted on.
Sorry, one other thing, "But neither Bonin nor Roberts has ever received training in how to deal with an unreliable airspeed indicator at cruise altitude, or in flying the airplane by hand under such conditions." If you don't train a pilot, how surprising is it when they fail? Your comment is no different than if I put you in a race car on the track at speed and then said it was your fault when it hit the wall.
I think it is pretty easy to cluck-cluck about how the pilot responded in an emergency now, but when the plane issues a stall warning every time you push down on the stick, I think you might get the idea it is a bad idea. Pretty amazingly bad human interface if you ask me.
The physical link would have communicated clearly to the other co-pilot what the one with the controls was doing. To me, the idea of averaging two controls is completely moronic. I really can't come up with a situation where you would want to do that. This essentially halves all inputs, drastically changing handling, and should, at a minimum, give an error when they two are at opposite ends of the extremes.
Or, 10 years is way to short. Lots of systems get stuck on old positions, heck I know some people who write vital systems (you would be scared to know) and still get paid to update cobol programs. 10 years is way, way to short to take MS seriously as an business OS vendor.
In the US, if someone knows the info on your check, they can use your identity. Because of this, check security experts such as Frank Abagnale Jr. recommend against using checks whenever possible.
There is also an implied, "do the right thing" clause that, when violated, can get a real nasty backlash. Its human nature, not contract law, get used to it.
Hey, damiangerous, just thought I would tell you here, that you have replied to this post telling some posters that the C in LLC stands for company no fewer than 4 times.
Thanks, did not know that. I only know the federal filing status and I was told s-corp implies LLC (and I'm still not sure if that is the case or not).
"Older cars are more valuable for parts" then you would expect a standing wave with "age x" Hondas and Toyotas being the most popular but it has been stuck at the pre-immobolizer cars for a long time. Having driven a number of these Hondas and Toyotas, there is little joy in driving them.
A certified mechanic takes about 1/2 hour to install an immobilizer unit in my car. Obviously there are some shortcuts (i.e. why unscrew what you can rip out) but if a thief wants to bring $1000 in equipment to my car (necessary immobilizer parts plus programing unit), they will probably want their stuff to work after they have taken the car and so will have to take some care. Some steps also require waiting a minute--not a fun thing to do while sitting in a car you are trying to take.
At that point, I'd rather just crack the hood, disconnect the alarm from the "whooper" and tow it.
Look, cops in my area said carjackings are the best way to steel a car now because of immobilizers, and since they know the crime stats, I'm going to have to go with them.
I realize that you might like to get information from a TV show, but IEEE argues that these devices are potentially very dangerous to safe operation.
"Yet our research has found that these items can interrupt the normal operation of key cockpit instruments, especially Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers, which are increasingly vital to safe landings. Two different studies by NASA further support the idea that passengers' electronic devices dangerously produce interference in a way that reduces the safety margins for critical avionics systems."
BTW, I only know of the test pilot because I used a NASA plane and had to get some electronics certified for flight and the guys got to talking, I'm not going to have a link for you.
Slashdot Mirror
which is ridiculous because this technology would reduce traffic and accidents (and if less people die what's the problem) while acting as a personal taxi for your family and friends.
B/C everyone things that they are an excellent driver and would have avoided any accident that they didn't actually get into... and that any they did get into was someone else's fault.
And getting people to LEO is great because... oh yeah...
I'd still go design here. Airbus allowed a single point of failure (one co-pilot) to down an airplane. Nobody got that the least experienced pilot had the stick glued up until a few seconds form the end.
It says something to me that when the captain arrived he couldn't figure out what was going on. He couldn't see the pitch, he couldn't see the rapid decent, it wasn't obvious to him that the plane was stalled, he didn't see the air speed was 60 kph. Instead the system fooled three pilots with over 20k hours into thinking that there was nothing that could be counted on.
Sorry, one other thing, "But neither Bonin nor Roberts has ever received training in how to deal with an unreliable airspeed indicator at cruise altitude, or in flying the airplane by hand under such conditions." If you don't train a pilot, how surprising is it when they fail? Your comment is no different than if I put you in a race car on the track at speed and then said it was your fault when it hit the wall.
I think it is pretty easy to cluck-cluck about how the pilot responded in an emergency now, but when the plane issues a stall warning every time you push down on the stick, I think you might get the idea it is a bad idea. Pretty amazingly bad human interface if you ask me.
But giving the extreme (cricket) warning every time the stick is pushed down causes a sort of "avoid that situation" type response.
The physical link would have communicated clearly to the other co-pilot what the one with the controls was doing. To me, the idea of averaging two controls is completely moronic. I really can't come up with a situation where you would want to do that. This essentially halves all inputs, drastically changing handling, and should, at a minimum, give an error when they two are at opposite ends of the extremes.
Do you dislike Sony because of Sony Pictures Classics underwhelming rendition of the Jane Austin novel Persuasion?
Or, 10 years is way to short. Lots of systems get stuck on old positions, heck I know some people who write vital systems (you would be scared to know) and still get paid to update cobol programs. 10 years is way, way to short to take MS seriously as an business OS vendor.
In the US, if someone knows the info on your check, they can use your identity. Because of this, check security experts such as Frank Abagnale Jr. recommend against using checks whenever possible.
Since the affects servers, that would make a lot of sense too.
The FTC cracks down on firms all the time.
Far be it from the government to create social surplus! People might think that it is effective and useful, very dangerous.
There is also an implied, "do the right thing" clause that, when violated, can get a real nasty backlash. Its human nature, not contract law, get used to it.
Walk to the mailbox? Just put it in your mailbox and the carrier will take it. It always goes out that day too.
The longest lived isotopes stay around for seconds.
Hey, damiangerous, just thought I would tell you here, that you have replied to this post telling some posters that the C in LLC stands for company no fewer than 4 times.
Raehl, the s-corp limit is 100 share holders (when I last checked), but are all those limitations really removed for a the n-proprietorships?
Thanks, did not know that. I only know the federal filing status and I was told s-corp implies LLC (and I'm still not sure if that is the case or not).
What do you think C in LLC stands for?
Otherwise known as an S corporation. There are several restrictions on a S corp and its ownership structure, but the owners still must own shares.
"Older cars are more valuable for parts" then you would expect a standing wave with "age x" Hondas and Toyotas being the most popular but it has been stuck at the pre-immobolizer cars for a long time. Having driven a number of these Hondas and Toyotas, there is little joy in driving them.
A certified mechanic takes about 1/2 hour to install an immobilizer unit in my car. Obviously there are some shortcuts (i.e. why unscrew what you can rip out) but if a thief wants to bring $1000 in equipment to my car (necessary immobilizer parts plus programing unit), they will probably want their stuff to work after they have taken the car and so will have to take some care. Some steps also require waiting a minute--not a fun thing to do while sitting in a car you are trying to take.
At that point, I'd rather just crack the hood, disconnect the alarm from the "whooper" and tow it.
Look, cops in my area said carjackings are the best way to steel a car now because of immobilizers, and since they know the crime stats, I'm going to have to go with them.
I have had them ask me to put away a portfolio for landing. Basically a hard cover book plus pen.
I realize that you might like to get information from a TV show, but IEEE argues that these devices are potentially very dangerous to safe operation.
"Yet our research has found that these items can interrupt the normal operation of key cockpit instruments, especially Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers, which are increasingly vital to safe landings. Two different studies by NASA further support the idea that passengers' electronic devices dangerously produce interference in a way that reduces the safety margins for critical avionics systems."
BTW, I only know of the test pilot because I used a NASA plane and had to get some electronics certified for flight and the guys got to talking, I'm not going to have a link for you.