While that piece of junk is technically right that "processing food" is an expression too wide to base any descision on (it DOES range from cooking or canning to adding 99% artificial ingredients and still call it food) it completly leaves out the problematic processes. The basic claim is that just because cooking food is also a kind of process, all processing done to food is harmless. Well yeah. sometimes my life would be easier if I was dumb enough to believe such BS.
But what you mentioned is still a good rule of thumb. The more of the "food processing" (from cutting to cooking) is done in your own kitchen, the better control YOU have of the whole process. And the more control you have, the less likely it becomes that you're doing something that would only benefit the manufacturer by reducing quality for the sake of profits. If you do, well, then it's quite stupid, but your own descision.
The less complex processes a food item has gone through, the easier it is for the layman to see if it is a quality enhancing or a profit enhancing process.
Likewise, the "if you can't spell it, don't eat it" is also a good rule of thumb to avoid unneccessary additives. And that even holds through for your Vitamin C example. If it is listed as an additive, it has usually NOT beed added because of its benefits as a vitamin, but as a preservative. And even as it is essential (no doubt about that) you can get more than enough by eating easy to spell food as "fruit" or "bell pepper"
If you really have to take additional vitamin suplements, that's a sign of malnutrition (or medical condition) and you should change your basic diet.
I've never seen people making sexist jokes who expected women to just "go along to get along" with that. There were a few guys here and there who thought that sort of thing was funny (certainly not the norm), but they all had the basic manners to shut up and look embarrassed if one of the women on the floor happened by.
Just to add to that: I've seen those. But they usually were considered jerks by the other guys, too.
What made it more attractive than traditional paper tickets for my last weekend trip to London was the fact that you don't have to know in advance if you'll need a day pass for that day. Per day fares are capped at the price for a day pass, so you basically don't need to worry about all those fare plans.
And then we have Washington DC that adds a penalty of $1 PER TRIP for the atrocity of using paper tickets instead of buying a $10 plastic card (non refundable). Nothing better to radiate that warm welcome to tourists than to add a tax just for not being residents.
Oyster cards at least are refundable (IIRC) or, what's really a nice idea "donateable". After your last tube trip, you can put the whole Oyster card into a colelction box and the reminding fare and card refund will be donated to some charity.
BART (Bay area) also uses a system that saves some monetary amount on your ticket, but uses paper tickets and at least doesn't charge for the ticket printing itself.
Were they not able to reproduce the outcome of an experiment, or were they not able to reproduce the whole experiment (as in "We assume that during a total eclipse in the month of may" or... "to reproduce this, take any old Large Hadron Collider lying around...")
Yes. It would work well if the standard operating procedure wouldn't be mailing copies of documents around - because &%$&"!-Outlook it's so easy to do with Outlook! Thatnks for the integration....
That was my line of thought until I started to use GMail. First, as an option when I was not on my desktop machine. But I got used to it and didn't re-install my mail client at the next windows re-install. Don't miss one till today.
Which is why it was probably okay to use that in the movie, where you have an audience in mind. This is like the obligatory killing of a red short early in a ST:TOS episode. Just to show the audience how dangerous the situation is. In real life, killing an ensign every now and then is NOT going to raise morale.
"The chinese have the same word for risk as they do have for opportunity", "With that attidude of seeing only problems we never would have gotten a man to the moon", "I need visionarys, not objection raisers", "If you are not with my vision, you are agains us", and actually understanding Dilbert cartoons.
Thanks for all those details. I didn't want to go THAT deep for a comparision between the state of autonomous cars and automated planes. (Yes... of course, commercial IFR only)
What I referred to as "uniqpe" flightplan would have considered time as a factor, so that even if tons of planes are flying the same approach, there is one ATC responsible for a certain segment, that makes sure that that doesn't happen at the same time. what you put in its right place as "seperation".
But all that aside (it rreally was an intresting read) : I think your last paragraph sums it up really nice: Automation is the harder, the more human, unautomated events have to be expected.
Both computers and humans have shownthat they're able to fly planes. Ususally safely, even.
The problem starts when computer and human can't agree on a manouver.
We'd need an independant way to find out who of those two parties is screwing up and give full control to the other one. (Like the redundancy already built into an autopilot and into a pilot - it's called co-pilot there) but if those redundant systems are programmed or trained in a similar way, they tend to have similar failure modes.
Redundancy prevents from hardware (wetware...) outages (the proverbial food poisening) but not against flawed conclusions.
I think automated cars would have to cope with far MORE variables and complications.
Planes receive a unique flightplan and detailed instructions for take of and landing that are steered by a central traffic control to make sure that there won't be any other planes nearby. Thats possible because EVERY plane has to receive instructions from them.
So basically, automated planes would not need to consider other planes. They do in a rather simple way (TCASS) but only as a last line of defense. And even if that emergency system triggers, it sends one plane "up" and the other "down", which are obviously no evasion options for cars. (And blindly going "left" and "right" aren't options either as usually on roads, you have to expect curbs, trenches, more cars in more lanes or pedestrians)
Additionally, all information needed for a plane is already available in electronic maps. Pilots hardly have to react to speed limits posted on traffic signs. (Which my be dirty or partly shielded and all that stuff)
The final proof is even in the summary: We already have commercial airplanes that fly almost completly automated! (having to touch the actual controls no more than 5 times between NY and London is almost completly automatic!) whereas automated cars were unthinkable untill a few years ago and today they're not completly from "experimental" to "testing" stages.
But there is ONE THING that makes autonomous cars safer than planes: Cutting of the engine is a safe failure mode. (Espescially if it can be propagated to surrounding cars by radio, so blindly jumping out of your exploding Tesla onto a busy highway is rather safe when information about an emergency stop has been broadcasted to the cars around and they stop, too)
Slashdot Mirror
I have cars that are performance cars and they can handle this easily. I've driven them all my life, I know HOW to handle them too.
Well, just say you've never been in a situation where you couldn't handle them yet.
Call it survivor bias or Dunning–Kruger.
Check out your AD&D Rulebook.
That is the difference between darkvision and nightvision.
While that piece of junk is technically right that "processing food" is an expression too wide to base any descision on (it DOES range from cooking or canning to adding 99% artificial ingredients and still call it food) it completly leaves out the problematic processes. The basic claim is that just because cooking food is also a kind of process, all processing done to food is harmless. Well yeah. sometimes my life would be easier if I was dumb enough to believe such BS.
But what you mentioned is still a good rule of thumb. The more of the "food processing" (from cutting to cooking) is done in your own kitchen, the better control YOU have of the whole process. And the more control you have, the less likely it becomes that you're doing something that would only benefit the manufacturer by reducing quality for the sake of profits. If you do, well, then it's quite stupid, but your own descision.
The less complex processes a food item has gone through, the easier it is for the layman to see if it is a quality enhancing or a profit enhancing process.
Likewise, the "if you can't spell it, don't eat it" is also a good rule of thumb to avoid unneccessary additives. And that even holds through for your Vitamin C example. If it is listed as an additive, it has usually NOT beed added because of its benefits as a vitamin, but as a preservative. And even as it is essential (no doubt about that) you can get more than enough by eating easy to spell food as "fruit" or "bell pepper"
If you really have to take additional vitamin suplements, that's a sign of malnutrition (or medical condition) and you should change your basic diet.
I've never seen people making sexist jokes who expected women to just "go along to get along" with that. There were a few guys here and there who thought that sort of thing was funny (certainly not the norm), but they all had the basic manners to shut up and look embarrassed if one of the women on the floor happened by.
Just to add to that: I've seen those. But they usually were considered jerks by the other guys, too.
What made it more attractive than traditional paper tickets for my last weekend trip to London was the fact that you don't have to know in advance if you'll need a day pass for that day. Per day fares are capped at the price for a day pass, so you basically don't need to worry about all those fare plans.
And then we have Washington DC that adds a penalty of $1 PER TRIP for the atrocity of using paper tickets instead of buying a $10 plastic card (non refundable). Nothing better to radiate that warm welcome to tourists than to add a tax just for not being residents.
Oyster cards at least are refundable (IIRC) or, what's really a nice idea "donateable". After your last tube trip, you can put the whole Oyster card into a colelction box and the reminding fare and card refund will be donated to some charity.
BART (Bay area) also uses a system that saves some monetary amount on your ticket, but uses paper tickets and at least doesn't charge for the ticket printing itself.
I haven't heard complaints about Londons Oyster Card either.
So you'd expect there are existing "more or less of the shelf" solutions for electronic transport tickets.
Were they not able to reproduce the outcome of an experiment, or were they not able to reproduce the whole experiment (as in "We assume that during a total eclipse in the month of may" or... "to reproduce this, take any old Large Hadron Collider lying around...")
Well, that's what I have to say kudos to Google for: dataliberation.org
They have a team dedicated to avoid vendor lock in.
Yes. It would work well if the standard operating procedure wouldn't be mailing copies of documents around - because &%$&"!-Outlook it's so easy to do with Outlook! Thatnks for the integration....
The sad thing is, many people think of it as a good (if not the only) EMAIL client, just it is the best (and probably indeed only) Exchange client.
Which makes sense. In this combination!
That was my line of thought until I started to use GMail. First, as an option when I was not on my desktop machine. But I got used to it and didn't re-install my mail client at the next windows re-install. Don't miss one till today.
And while I detest Google's threaded system,
You know that you can turn of the threading in your GMail settings?
Same goes for MS Office.
Googel Docs at least has a built in version history and document sharing, so you even get the (very) basic VCS for free.
Why would you want to use VBA if you could use Apps Script instead?
(Yes, Google Docs HAs a built in scripting language, too)
perhaps. but those companies usually produce ACTUAL dog food.
I've yet to see a car company that use their competitors cars as company cars or don't encourage employees into buying them with huge discounts
Which is why it was probably okay to use that in the movie, where you have an audience in mind. This is like the obligatory killing of a red short early in a ST:TOS episode. Just to show the audience how dangerous the situation is. In real life, killing an ensign every now and then is NOT going to raise morale.
Warning signs for that culture include:
"The chinese have the same word for risk as they do have for opportunity",
"With that attidude of seeing only problems we never would have gotten a man to the moon",
"I need visionarys, not objection raisers",
"If you are not with my vision, you are agains us",
and actually understanding Dilbert cartoons.
If you want X to be understood as Y, then just say Y!
That's not rocket science...
Thanks for all those details. I didn't want to go THAT deep for a comparision between the state of autonomous cars and automated planes. (Yes... of course, commercial IFR only)
What I referred to as "uniqpe" flightplan would have considered time as a factor, so that even if tons of planes are flying the same approach, there is one ATC responsible for a certain segment, that makes sure that that doesn't happen at the same time. what you put in its right place as "seperation".
But all that aside (it rreally was an intresting read) : I think your last paragraph sums it up really nice: Automation is the harder, the more human, unautomated events have to be expected.
Of course!
usually human action is only neccessary when the machines already failed.
Both computers and humans have shownthat they're able to fly planes. Ususally safely, even.
The problem starts when computer and human can't agree on a manouver.
We'd need an independant way to find out who of those two parties is screwing up and give full control to the other one. (Like the redundancy already built into an autopilot and into a pilot - it's called co-pilot there) but if those redundant systems are programmed or trained in a similar way, they tend to have similar failure modes.
Redundancy prevents from hardware (wetware...) outages (the proverbial food poisening) but not against flawed conclusions.
I think automated cars would have to cope with far MORE variables and complications.
Planes receive a unique flightplan and detailed instructions for take of and landing that are steered by a central traffic control to make sure that there won't be any other planes nearby. Thats possible because EVERY plane has to receive instructions from them.
So basically, automated planes would not need to consider other planes. They do in a rather simple way (TCASS) but only as a last line of defense. And even if that emergency system triggers, it sends one plane "up" and the other "down", which are obviously no evasion options for cars. (And blindly going "left" and "right" aren't options either as usually on roads, you have to expect curbs, trenches, more cars in more lanes or pedestrians)
Additionally, all information needed for a plane is already available in electronic maps. Pilots hardly have to react to speed limits posted on traffic signs. (Which my be dirty or partly shielded and all that stuff)
The final proof is even in the summary: We already have commercial airplanes that fly almost completly automated! (having to touch the actual controls no more than 5 times between NY and London is almost completly automatic!) whereas automated cars were unthinkable untill a few years ago and today they're not completly from "experimental" to "testing" stages.
But there is ONE THING that makes autonomous cars safer than planes: Cutting of the engine is a safe failure mode. (Espescially if it can be propagated to surrounding cars by radio, so blindly jumping out of your exploding Tesla onto a busy highway is rather safe when information about an emergency stop has been broadcasted to the cars around and they stop, too)
Hmm, I wonder what kind of memes this might spawn.
"Hot prehistoric Asiain Girls"
or some highly inapropriate LotR-fanfic..
Wouldn't german have been the obvious language to start with?
http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com/cgi-bin/seigmiaow.pl