Last I checked, "restricted airspace" for drones included some hilariously large areas - check out what appears to be the official map. Note that includes five miles from airports (why I can't legally fly drones at my own house) and anywhere in a national park.
RC Aircraft have flown safely and legally for years at designated areas where those type of vehicles are allowed to fly. Somebody sticks a couple more rotors on an RC aircraft and now somehow people think they ought to be able to fly them anywhere they want?
It's almost like ipads are a stupid, portable toy for rich morons and they don't belong in the real world like for example a workplace. My merchant services vendor massively screwed up my application a few years ago because that dumbass was using an ipad as well. It's almost like tablets are an inferior way to typing data into a computer system or something.
The FAA doesn't care whether you use pencil and paper, a calculator, an ipad or other device for weight and balance calculations. However, when you use a tool that obfuscates the math and just spits out an answer, you do not get the opportunity to sanity check the answer. If it came up with a number that was 13% over such as in this case, the pilot would probably overlook the error. Only if it came out significantly unusual, like half or twice the normal weight, would it be likely to register as a math error to the pilot.
In this case their fingers transposed the 7 for a 6, is the interpretation used here.
They transposed which key they were trying to hit without looking up from their calculations, resulting in hitting the wrong key.
But in the end the total matched the Captains total, so they nodded and carried on.
WolfWings, still here, yes I do check for replies occasionally, no I'm not signing in still to/.
They should lay it out like a calculator keyboard. You wouldn't be able to hit a 6 when going for a 7. This would result in an error so large that the computer would take notice.
They could have just as easily mistyped the weight using the on-board flight management system's keyboard.
Yes, but one would hope that the FMS would make you enter all the numbers individually instead of just a total and have lots of error checking like (gee, are you sure you have a passenger count of 100, but the passenger weight is only 7000 pounds? Or, you have set the destination to BFE, but you did not enter enough fuel weight to get there with the required 45 minute reserve. Or, your luggage weight is several standard deviations off of what is expected given the passenger count.
Depending on the plane, it is not even just a total weight that has to be calculated. Center of Gravity calculations depend not just how many passengers there are, but how far from the center of lift they are, and the same for luggage and fuel.
What they described would be a transcription error. However, I submit that it was probably a CYA error. In other words, the pilot did the calculation wrong and the copilot did not check the pilots work, but saying that you did and just typed it in wrong is merely incompetence and carries less penalty than not doing your job, which is insubordination.
are you a pilot? Is it true that airlines now have to bump people to later flights not because the seats are oversold but because people are so fat that the airline maxes out on weight before everybody gets on board. fat people. what's up with that?
On a regional jet like the ERJ-140, if everybody was 250 pounds and brought a 25 pound bag, they would exceed the maximum payload weight. On larger aircraft like the 737-800, you could be well under maximum payload weight, at least before fuel is added, but then range is limited.
The FAA uses 190 pounds in the summer and 195 in the winter for the weight calculations of passenger plus carryon. The average adult weight in the U.S. is 176.
So we live in a world where perfectly normal right thinking people think that it is only natural that the state should have a picture of what every single person looks like so that they might be identified and removed from a crowd at any given time if the situation warrants.
Unless, of course, you don't want to drive an automobile, in which case you don't need a picture identification.
The FCC regulates phone call pricing. Not completely, but to an extent where an Uber-style congestion based pricing would be a non-starter. Just like local government taxi regulations regulate taxi rates making Uber's congestion based pricing illegal.
I tried to go back through my history and see what sites I visited and where I might have gotten the 64% number. However, I wasn't able to find the site where that number came from. I would have to guess that I was cruising wikipedia, based on the history. Perhaps somebody updated the article. It does show 47% or 49% (depending on which article you read) in the crust as you mention, and also 88% in the ocean and 23% (by mass, 21% by volume) in the atmosphere. The mantle also contains about 41% by mass of Oxygen and is much bigger than the crust. The core does not contain oxygen in any large amount.
" If true, the results suggest that water-rich planets may abound in the universe."
Or if the other theory about asteroids is true, then water-rich planets may abound in the universe. So this changes nothing. Also, both theories explain why all the planets in our solar system are so rich and abundant in water. Except that they are not.
Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, making up about 3/4 of the mass of the universe. Oxygen is the third most common, but the 2nd most common, Helium, takes up almost 1/4 of the mass of the universe. Oxygen makes up about 1/70th as much mass in the universe as hydrogen. However, somewhat unique on Earth, Oxygen makes up about 64% of the mass of Earth. Atmospheric Oxygen in the other planets is negligible, and even Oxygen combined in other compounds on other planets is a much smaller percentage than on Earth. Oddly, Hydrogen is relatively uncommon on Earth when compared to its abundance in the rest of the universe.
It says something about our traffic laws that actually following them is surprising enough to cause accidents.
Aside from the need to fix traffic laws, I think this situation is more an argument in favor of replacing more human drivers with autonomous ones, as soon as the technology is stable enough.
It certainly says that the laws are not written correctly. Following the spirit of the law is safe enough, but following the letter of the law is not as safe (and sometimes impossible). Of course, an AI can ONLY follow the letter of the law, and not the spirit of the law. Unless, of course, the reason behind the law is programmed in, and then the AI can attempt to follow both, but will have to make a decision when they come into conflict with each other.
Maybe in England it's required to go through such a redundant formality, but in America saying "driving too slow" is perfectly correct.
No its not. But the people who write these things are journalists. If they are going to report as experts on subjects about which they know nothing, then knowing the rules of the language hardly seems like a requirement.
They've been in a few accidents, just none was the fault of the Google car.
Many of them were the fault of the google car, but the google car was not found at fault. The google car is not able to make decisions as quickly as a human and cannot understand how traffic really works like a human, and cannot account for unprogrammed situations like a human, so it acts differently than humans and as a result ends up in statistically more accidents than a human would. Then it is found not at fault because it although its behavior led to the accident it did not technically do anything illegal.
If you are in the left lane, then you SHOULD move out of their way unless it is impossible to do so. But also under zero circumstances should anyone ever tailgate. One of the places I am frequently tailgated is coming up to an exchange in my town where the exit ramp is on the left. I like to be prepared for my exit so I am usually in the lane by 1 mile to two miles back. Also, I am usually traveling at about 5 to 10 mph over the speed limit. This frustrates the heck out of the people that I have the audacity to be traveling in an exit lane at only 5 to 10 over the speed limit. It impedes their ability to drive at 20 to 25 over the speed limit in the exit lane and then cut over into the not exiting traffic at the last second ( usually bringing the traffic in exit lane to a stand still while they stop and wait for an opening in the not exiting lanes).
I'm hoping for network aware (or just aware!) autonomous cars that can all start rolling at the same time after a light change.
It will work better than people, but the physics of it require that the car in back not start until the car in front has traveled a safe distance before the car in back starts moving. It will still be the slinky effect, but not as bad as now.
The FEID and SSN are issued from the same range of numbers by different branches of the federal government, but eins do not overlap with SSN, except in rare accidental cases. I am not aware of any systems that attempt to make any use of the hyphen positions as predictors, but undoubtedly some are even though it is not a useful data point and subject to user error.
Back when AOL was still in it's heyday, I was dismayed to discover that not only did one of my real life friends apparently not know how to spell "awesome", but he was somewhere in the mid 600s of people to spell it wrong in the particular manner that he misspelled it.
More than 1 in 10 are associated with multiple people. That is unbelievably poor quality control. You could GUESS at an SSN and 1 out of 3 would not be associated with somebody.
I don't think so. I looked up golfing robots, and although there is one that has a lot of google hits, it does not appear to me that it actually golfs, but merely hits balls on the driving range and trash talks other golfers.
I'd say the CEOs job is pretty safe.
Also, the only point in getting rid of the CEO would be cost reduction, and companies are not actually interested in cost reduction. They just want to do whatever Management Weekly says to do and also keep their cronies and brother-in-laws employed.
That title definitely makes this book sound like it takes a balanced and objective viewpoint of the situation, with both sides of the argument covered.
Be sarcastic if you must, but I think it is still far too centric for my liking. What good does it do for America to lose an American worker in favor of an H1b? We have one less worker paying taxes, one less worker supporting the housing industry, one less worker buying your product, one more worker on the breadlines having to be supported by one less worker. The only upside is that the company can create widgets slightly more cheaply, but sales will go down because of the laid off workers. You can't sell them overseas due to all of the one way restrictions and tariffs that are on U.S. products abroad.
It does nobody any good, including the company that did it.
Slashdot Mirror
Last I checked, "restricted airspace" for drones included some hilariously large areas - check out what appears to be the official map. Note that includes five miles from airports (why I can't legally fly drones at my own house) and anywhere in a national park.
RC Aircraft have flown safely and legally for years at designated areas where those type of vehicles are allowed to fly. Somebody sticks a couple more rotors on an RC aircraft and now somehow people think they ought to be able to fly them anywhere they want?
I guess they spent too much money advertising on the radio.
It's almost like ipads are a stupid, portable toy for rich morons and they don't belong in the real world like for example a workplace. My merchant services vendor massively screwed up my application a few years ago because that dumbass was using an ipad as well. It's almost like tablets are an inferior way to typing data into a computer system or something.
The FAA doesn't care whether you use pencil and paper, a calculator, an ipad or other device for weight and balance calculations. However, when you use a tool that obfuscates the math and just spits out an answer, you do not get the opportunity to sanity check the answer. If it came up with a number that was 13% over such as in this case, the pilot would probably overlook the error. Only if it came out significantly unusual, like half or twice the normal weight, would it be likely to register as a math error to the pilot.
In this case their fingers transposed the 7 for a 6, is the interpretation used here.
They transposed which key they were trying to hit without looking up from their calculations, resulting in hitting the wrong key.
But in the end the total matched the Captains total, so they nodded and carried on.
WolfWings, still here, yes I do check for replies occasionally, no I'm not signing in still to /.
They should lay it out like a calculator keyboard. You wouldn't be able to hit a 6 when going for a 7. This would result in an error so large that the computer would take notice.
They could have just as easily mistyped the weight using the on-board flight management system's keyboard.
Yes, but one would hope that the FMS would make you enter all the numbers individually instead of just a total and have lots of error checking like (gee, are you sure you have a passenger count of 100, but the passenger weight is only 7000 pounds? Or, you have set the destination to BFE, but you did not enter enough fuel weight to get there with the required 45 minute reserve. Or, your luggage weight is several standard deviations off of what is expected given the passenger count.
Depending on the plane, it is not even just a total weight that has to be calculated. Center of Gravity calculations depend not just how many passengers there are, but how far from the center of lift they are, and the same for luggage and fuel.
What they described would be a transcription error. However, I submit that it was probably a CYA error. In other words, the pilot did the calculation wrong and the copilot did not check the pilots work, but saying that you did and just typed it in wrong is merely incompetence and carries less penalty than not doing your job, which is insubordination.
are you a pilot? Is it true that airlines now have to bump people to later flights not because the seats are oversold but because people are so fat that the airline maxes out on weight before everybody gets on board. fat people. what's up with that?
On a regional jet like the ERJ-140, if everybody was 250 pounds and brought a 25 pound bag, they would exceed the maximum payload weight. On larger aircraft like the 737-800, you could be well under maximum payload weight, at least before fuel is added, but then range is limited. The FAA uses 190 pounds in the summer and 195 in the winter for the weight calculations of passenger plus carryon. The average adult weight in the U.S. is 176.
So we live in a world where perfectly normal right thinking people think that it is only natural that the state should have a picture of what every single person looks like so that they might be identified and removed from a crowd at any given time if the situation warrants.
Unless, of course, you don't want to drive an automobile, in which case you don't need a picture identification.
Anonymous doesn't like having competition.
I've never participated in Black Friday either. I don't see how it is helpful to anybody, poor or otherwise.
The FCC regulates phone call pricing. Not completely, but to an extent where an Uber-style congestion based pricing would be a non-starter. Just like local government taxi regulations regulate taxi rates making Uber's congestion based pricing illegal.
I tried to go back through my history and see what sites I visited and where I might have gotten the 64% number. However, I wasn't able to find the site where that number came from. I would have to guess that I was cruising wikipedia, based on the history. Perhaps somebody updated the article. It does show 47% or 49% (depending on which article you read) in the crust as you mention, and also 88% in the ocean and 23% (by mass, 21% by volume) in the atmosphere. The mantle also contains about 41% by mass of Oxygen and is much bigger than the crust. The core does not contain oxygen in any large amount.
" If true, the results suggest that water-rich planets may abound in the universe."
Or if the other theory about asteroids is true, then water-rich planets may abound in the universe. So this changes nothing. Also, both theories explain why all the planets in our solar system are so rich and abundant in water. Except that they are not.
Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, making up about 3/4 of the mass of the universe. Oxygen is the third most common, but the 2nd most common, Helium, takes up almost 1/4 of the mass of the universe. Oxygen makes up about 1/70th as much mass in the universe as hydrogen. However, somewhat unique on Earth, Oxygen makes up about 64% of the mass of Earth. Atmospheric Oxygen in the other planets is negligible, and even Oxygen combined in other compounds on other planets is a much smaller percentage than on Earth. Oddly, Hydrogen is relatively uncommon on Earth when compared to its abundance in the rest of the universe.
It says something about our traffic laws that actually following them is surprising enough to cause accidents. Aside from the need to fix traffic laws, I think this situation is more an argument in favor of replacing more human drivers with autonomous ones, as soon as the technology is stable enough.
It certainly says that the laws are not written correctly. Following the spirit of the law is safe enough, but following the letter of the law is not as safe (and sometimes impossible). Of course, an AI can ONLY follow the letter of the law, and not the spirit of the law. Unless, of course, the reason behind the law is programmed in, and then the AI can attempt to follow both, but will have to make a decision when they come into conflict with each other.
Maybe in England it's required to go through such a redundant formality, but in America saying "driving too slow" is perfectly correct.
No its not. But the people who write these things are journalists. If they are going to report as experts on subjects about which they know nothing, then knowing the rules of the language hardly seems like a requirement.
They've been in a few accidents, just none was the fault of the Google car.
Many of them were the fault of the google car, but the google car was not found at fault. The google car is not able to make decisions as quickly as a human and cannot understand how traffic really works like a human, and cannot account for unprogrammed situations like a human, so it acts differently than humans and as a result ends up in statistically more accidents than a human would. Then it is found not at fault because it although its behavior led to the accident it did not technically do anything illegal.
If you are in the left lane, then you SHOULD move out of their way unless it is impossible to do so. But also under zero circumstances should anyone ever tailgate. One of the places I am frequently tailgated is coming up to an exchange in my town where the exit ramp is on the left. I like to be prepared for my exit so I am usually in the lane by 1 mile to two miles back. Also, I am usually traveling at about 5 to 10 mph over the speed limit. This frustrates the heck out of the people that I have the audacity to be traveling in an exit lane at only 5 to 10 over the speed limit. It impedes their ability to drive at 20 to 25 over the speed limit in the exit lane and then cut over into the not exiting traffic at the last second ( usually bringing the traffic in exit lane to a stand still while they stop and wait for an opening in the not exiting lanes).
I'm hoping for network aware (or just aware!) autonomous cars that can all start rolling at the same time after a light change.
It will work better than people, but the physics of it require that the car in back not start until the car in front has traveled a safe distance before the car in back starts moving. It will still be the slinky effect, but not as bad as now.
The FEID and SSN are issued from the same range of numbers by different branches of the federal government, but eins do not overlap with SSN, except in rare accidental cases. I am not aware of any systems that attempt to make any use of the hyphen positions as predictors, but undoubtedly some are even though it is not a useful data point and subject to user error.
Not by it's cover, by it's title. Which is not unreasonable.
And apparently, you can reasonably accurately judge the book by it's title. Thanks slashdot, indeed.
Back when AOL was still in it's heyday, I was dismayed to discover that not only did one of my real life friends apparently not know how to spell "awesome", but he was somewhere in the mid 600s of people to spell it wrong in the particular manner that he misspelled it.
More than 1 in 10 are associated with multiple people. That is unbelievably poor quality control. You could GUESS at an SSN and 1 out of 3 would not be associated with somebody.
So, slashdot tells me americans HATE the idea of a centralized, unique ID number. Yet, they have a de-facto standard "unique" ID number, the SSN.
Can somebody explain?
It's not unique. 40 million people share one with somebody else according to the article.
I don't think so. I looked up golfing robots, and although there is one that has a lot of google hits, it does not appear to me that it actually golfs, but merely hits balls on the driving range and trash talks other golfers.
I'd say the CEOs job is pretty safe.
Also, the only point in getting rid of the CEO would be cost reduction, and companies are not actually interested in cost reduction. They just want to do whatever Management Weekly says to do and also keep their cronies and brother-in-laws employed.
That title definitely makes this book sound like it takes a balanced and objective viewpoint of the situation, with both sides of the argument covered.
Be sarcastic if you must, but I think it is still far too centric for my liking. What good does it do for America to lose an American worker in favor of an H1b? We have one less worker paying taxes, one less worker supporting the housing industry, one less worker buying your product, one more worker on the breadlines having to be supported by one less worker. The only upside is that the company can create widgets slightly more cheaply, but sales will go down because of the laid off workers. You can't sell them overseas due to all of the one way restrictions and tariffs that are on U.S. products abroad.
It does nobody any good, including the company that did it.