It's not relaxing. It's compromise. You don't have different regulations for the UK, with more roundabouts, than Holland with more T intersections with lights. So they already compromise for a mix of use cases. The treaty is just saying that the US and EU should compromise across both markets for a single rule. It's not "relaxing" it's compromise. There's a difference. The US is more strict for some things, and less in others. Overall, they are similar for safety. They just need to unify those high standards into one as high or higher, no "relaxing" needed.
Nope. GM and Ford still want unique rules for the US. They believe it reduces competition. The makers are actively trying to drive up costs (As they've already sunk theirs). Capitalism at its finest.
There are often actually conflicting requirements. One market cares more about side impact protection, and another cares more about funcional doors after a specific crash. So if you stiffen the doors to meet the one market, you'll fail the other. You *can't* meet both under current design constraints. So you'd have to fundamentally re-design the doors to be able to support a collision, while still being quick-release after a crash. The treaties are supposed to get regulators from both sides in the same room to unify regulations so there can be agreement on whether side impact or door opening is better.
And I disagree with the wording of the article. It isn't a US car problem. It's a US market problem. When you say US car, people think Big 3. But VW (And others) are represented in the issue. VW builds the "inferior" car for the US. So it's a standards problem. The US probably tests at higher front (flat) tests, because of the higher drive speeds, and the EU tests for more front-side crashes. The tests are different, so the builds are differnt, to optimize for the tests. Unify, come to a single suite of tests for all markets, and all cars will meet them in the next design cycle. It's not hard. But this is politics to try to pressure one side into giving more in negotiations. The US market cars are worse in a non-US test, but there was no mention of how the EU cars perform on the US tests. I heard the real reason the Mercedes A-class isn't sold in the US isn't that it's small, but that it can't pass the tests. Send a few over and let the NHTSA and IIHS test them and compare them to the cars that passed.
Oh, no, that's not how it worked. There's a memo that recognized changes would be needed to meet both markets, and that's being spun as "US cars unsafe".
I once failed a visual inspection for emissions (they don't generally test tailpipe) and so they tested my tailpipe. The results were either poorly calibrated (it was the best machine of its kind in the state), or my 30 year old car met new-car standards. Still failed, as they found a part in the visual inspection that wasn't "approved" (there is no approval process, and the list of approved mods is zero, it's an anti-mod law, not an emissions law).
The myth of "old cars pollute" is false. Bad cars pollute. There's 1%-5% of cars that are bad. The smokers. They often have visible exhaust. They are like the economic 1%. They account for 80% of all pollution "wealth". A well kept car past about '60 is pretty clean.
Better brakes do add more unsprung mass but again help avoid crashes.
Well, better brakes can drop weight. Going from heavy drums to a lighter disk system can drop weight and improving braking at the same time, but most drum systems weren't heavy, they were pretty light and crappy. The 4-wheel drums on my VW bug were pretty light, but so was the car. My rear drums on my 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais were heavy and couldn't stop the car. The car would get noticeable brake fade in a single stop from highway speeds to a stop, especially in things like an off-ramp where it also dropped elevation with the stop.
the Europeans seem to do a much better job engineering cars for crashes than Americans.
I'd disagree with that. The engineers optimize to local regulations. The US has the car execs setting the regulations for NHTSA rules, though lesser for IIHS. So they engineer to their strengths. More realistic tests have always shown the US cars underperforming. That's why Volvo and such did so well in the '80s. There was a perception they were more crash worthy, despite no better crash test results. Oh, and US consumers don't care about rating. They think that they'll buy a bigger car and get safety through mass.
Little do they know that the S-class and A-class are designed in crash tests with each other. So the A-class will protect you as well against larger vehicles. What the US also fails at is bumper heights. The strong pickup lobby has prevented any bumper height unification for passenger vehicles, and the car/truck weight division has moved more people into trucks to avoid car regulations when the rules are applied to cars only.
It's not the engineers or car companies can't do it, but they've deliberately designed the rules themselves to make them incompatible with the rest of the world, to help prevent others from selling in the US, and then designed to those inferior rules.
When an SUV hits an SUV, the SUV passengers are more likely to die. It everyone was in a SMART, then everyone would be safer. The one guy in the SUV is safest, at the expense of the safety of everyone else.
It's a form of tragedy of the commons, but harder to explain because the resource isn't grass, but safety. Everyone in SUVs is the worst case for everyone. Everyone in SMART is best for everyone, but when everyone else is in a SMART, the lone defector will see an improvement.
Hmmm, perhaps more a prisoner's dilemma then. The defectors see a benefit over the non-defectors, but if everyone defects, then the defectors see a worse outcome than if nobody defects.
I could make a star map with 6 random points on a drawing. http://earthsky.org/tonight/us... Well, that's 8 stars, but trim two off the dipper handle and you have a "star map" to Polaris. People only see the sky in 2 dimensions, and then, only the visible stars. So using 6 in a pattern found only once in the sky, with the finger pointed at the one you are supposed to go to would work just fine.
Of course there's the plot hole of the Engineers pointing them to a WMD manufacturing site where they weren't even there at the time (from all we can tell). But that drifts off to plot holes, not science holes. Why point out a military base to the group you are planning on attacking with it?
And yes, carbon dating wouldn't work off earth, unless you spent time to measure the local concentrations, but even that wouldn't work unless you knew more about where he came from, as a space traveler would be coming from one planet with one ratio of C14/16 to the planet with a different C14/16 ratio. Carbon dating presumes equilibrium at death, and linear decay after. That said, they would get a reading. It likely wouldn't be accurate, though it should be precise. And there's no reason to think that a reading of 2000 would be broken science, even if inaccurate. If it were last week, or 100,000 years, it wouldn't have mattered to the science. This can be easily put down to stupid characters. They have a carbon dater, but didn't bother to think about the accuracy before using it. They should have just left the "carbon" off the name of the dating technique, and they'd be fine.
And yes a DNA "match" would be silly. I don't "match" my family. So unless the sample they were comparing it with was the twin of the Engineer, it couldn't have been a full match. It could be called a "match" to have it have the same number of chromosomes, with DNA composed of the same base pairs, while being 1-2% different such that they still see us as monkeys.
The surgery wasn't realtime. We can assume it took longer than depicted on screen, and we didn't see all of it. They did repair the underlying tissue, and rehydrate her with fresh plasma, we just didn't see it.
The proof? She was running around fighting squids and engineers shortly after. As you say, it must be done, the difference is, you assume it wasn't and complain, when you could just as easily assume it was, and have no complaint. That makes your complaint trivial and superficial.
I like it. 5/10th majority to pass a single topic bill. 6/10th majority to pass a bill with more than one amendment after it leaves committee. 7/10th majority if the bill contains more than one topic. 8/10th majority if the bill modifies more than one law. 9//10th majority if the bill is "really bad" (leaving that to others to define).
The goal should be many many more bills. Small bills. Each targeting a single law subsection. Like a line-item veto for legislators.
Nope. The corporate veil (designed to protect investors, not employees) does a really good job of shielding employees. So long as the act is a corporate act, you'll be 100% shielded. I say corporate act because if you boss tells you to pick up his dry cleaning, of and while you are out, shoot his wife, that won't be a corporate act, and you'll be personally liable. But "make that latch 10% cheaper, even if we know it'll fail 50% of the time" will never land the engineer in jail. So long as there's a trail to a manager who made the decision.
There's no difference. The celestial bodies are not some abstract thing separate from the rock that makes them up!
Nearly universally, the governments of the Earth disagree with you. When mineral rights and land rights are inseparable, then one might be inclined to agree with your wrong statement, but until then, I'll go with reality over your delusion.
"of celestial bodies" read to the end before frothing. Extracted minerals are owned, but not the celestial bodies. NASA claims ownership of all lunar rocks returned on the Apollo missions. Nobody objected, so this is in line with established property rights in space.
Every law should sunset in 5-10 years, and require it be extended or re-passed or whatever to stay on the books. Yes even murder. Ones like that should be easy to extend. But laws that allow you to buy curtains, but not curtain hangers on Sunday would die.
Over simplifying, the laws generally say that you can't own real estate in the sky, but you can extract minerals from them. Nobody raided NASA to take their share of the moonrocks returned. But NASA has no claim on the moon as the first there. So the first that can mine an asteroid will "own" it in fact, but not in law.
And because these laws are only theoretical, there is no punishment for violating them, so why would someone need to avoid countries where it's theoretically illegal?
That would be applicable if carriers tried to cover an entire country with a single tower. Nope, they do what they do everywere in the world. More towers in more populated places, fewer in less populate areas. The total density of the USA isn't that low, and most of the people and coverage is concentrated in cities, just like the rest of the world.
How do you validate, read the entire engine code for the engine, or take your manager's word for it that Engine Map 17(b) is the proper engine control routine in use on the road, yes, there's 1(a) mentioned elsewhere, but it was the laboratory version and isn't in use in the car.
So it's impossible that two teams of engineers were tasked with optimizing the engine?
One for performance, the other for emissions. Both think their code is the *only* code in the car. Then, after 5 years, a few engineers from one team have moved to the other team. Over the water cooler one mentions that *he* wrote the code used in the Diesel engines. Then, a short discussion later, the realization is that *both* must be in use, one to pass tests, the other so the car doesn't drive like a fat gerbil, with a broken leg.
So you have an engineer asked to develop the best possible engine map for emissions. He does. It's called Map 17(b). A different engineer is asked to build the test program. This is a normal requirement because in testing, traction control is turned off (a requirement of the testing facilities for safety), and in doing so, nearly every maker also "tunes" other things, turning off ABS, because that's not needed (but not required to be turned off) and possibly turning off other things. It wouldn't be unreasonable to ensure an engine control was set to Map XX at the same time, as the program could be constructed in a manner that it's a required variable. Neither engineer would realize that the default for the car is Map 1(a), and that the test is "cheated" with Map 17(b). So which one do you punish? The one that built the test program? Or the one that built the engine control map?
Everyone has test mode. It's a requirement of the testing method. Turning off traction control and such for the test. Having multiple ECU maps is also normal. Having a "hidden" engine map operate when testing is not normal. But 99.9% of the work for it would be done without anyone doing anything untoward. It's the matching of the most "efficient" map to the test mode that's the only thing that's unusual.
And everyone probably knows this, and more than one has gamed the tests before. http://www.justice.gov/archive... or any of the numerous news reports that discuss the 1995 fine againse GM for the Cadillac issues.
Where's the problem with the science in Prometheus? The plot, acting, and such, sure. But the "science" would be the mapping drones, the weapons, the technical details. The snakes and bursters weren't science. Panspermia is science. Is that what you object to?
Sure. Just package chloroplasts into bacteria or algea or something and grow that as a vat of calories. Sun needed. Then vitamins mixed in for "nutrients". Would need to engineer a few strains of bacteria that produce amino acids, but otherwise survivable, until the scurvy kicked in. But for someone who needs to subsist for a few years in an emergency, I can see it working.
Bonus points if the calories and protein is made by the same bacteria, in proper ratios.
Making the complex chemicals required for food would be nearly impossible for a human chemistry set. It's best left to biology. Genetic engineering a bacteria to make it is much quicker and easier than making the chemicals themselves. We've been working on synthetic insulin for many many years, and still don't have it. Well, we have it "solved" and use bacteria to do the heavy lifting, not chemistry.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Flip headlights were effectively made illegal in the US in about 2000 because of pedestrian safety standards.
It's not relaxing. It's compromise. You don't have different regulations for the UK, with more roundabouts, than Holland with more T intersections with lights. So they already compromise for a mix of use cases. The treaty is just saying that the US and EU should compromise across both markets for a single rule. It's not "relaxing" it's compromise. There's a difference. The US is more strict for some things, and less in others. Overall, they are similar for safety. They just need to unify those high standards into one as high or higher, no "relaxing" needed.
Nope. GM and Ford still want unique rules for the US. They believe it reduces competition. The makers are actively trying to drive up costs (As they've already sunk theirs). Capitalism at its finest.
There are often actually conflicting requirements. One market cares more about side impact protection, and another cares more about funcional doors after a specific crash. So if you stiffen the doors to meet the one market, you'll fail the other. You *can't* meet both under current design constraints. So you'd have to fundamentally re-design the doors to be able to support a collision, while still being quick-release after a crash. The treaties are supposed to get regulators from both sides in the same room to unify regulations so there can be agreement on whether side impact or door opening is better.
And I disagree with the wording of the article. It isn't a US car problem. It's a US market problem. When you say US car, people think Big 3. But VW (And others) are represented in the issue. VW builds the "inferior" car for the US. So it's a standards problem. The US probably tests at higher front (flat) tests, because of the higher drive speeds, and the EU tests for more front-side crashes. The tests are different, so the builds are differnt, to optimize for the tests. Unify, come to a single suite of tests for all markets, and all cars will meet them in the next design cycle. It's not hard. But this is politics to try to pressure one side into giving more in negotiations. The US market cars are worse in a non-US test, but there was no mention of how the EU cars perform on the US tests. I heard the real reason the Mercedes A-class isn't sold in the US isn't that it's small, but that it can't pass the tests. Send a few over and let the NHTSA and IIHS test them and compare them to the cars that passed.
Oh, no, that's not how it worked. There's a memo that recognized changes would be needed to meet both markets, and that's being spun as "US cars unsafe".
comparable to a ten year old car.
I once failed a visual inspection for emissions (they don't generally test tailpipe) and so they tested my tailpipe. The results were either poorly calibrated (it was the best machine of its kind in the state), or my 30 year old car met new-car standards. Still failed, as they found a part in the visual inspection that wasn't "approved" (there is no approval process, and the list of approved mods is zero, it's an anti-mod law, not an emissions law).
The myth of "old cars pollute" is false. Bad cars pollute. There's 1%-5% of cars that are bad. The smokers. They often have visible exhaust. They are like the economic 1%. They account for 80% of all pollution "wealth". A well kept car past about '60 is pretty clean.
Better brakes do add more unsprung mass but again help avoid crashes.
Well, better brakes can drop weight. Going from heavy drums to a lighter disk system can drop weight and improving braking at the same time, but most drum systems weren't heavy, they were pretty light and crappy. The 4-wheel drums on my VW bug were pretty light, but so was the car. My rear drums on my 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais were heavy and couldn't stop the car. The car would get noticeable brake fade in a single stop from highway speeds to a stop, especially in things like an off-ramp where it also dropped elevation with the stop.
the Europeans seem to do a much better job engineering cars for crashes than Americans.
I'd disagree with that. The engineers optimize to local regulations. The US has the car execs setting the regulations for NHTSA rules, though lesser for IIHS. So they engineer to their strengths. More realistic tests have always shown the US cars underperforming. That's why Volvo and such did so well in the '80s. There was a perception they were more crash worthy, despite no better crash test results. Oh, and US consumers don't care about rating. They think that they'll buy a bigger car and get safety through mass.
Little do they know that the S-class and A-class are designed in crash tests with each other. So the A-class will protect you as well against larger vehicles. What the US also fails at is bumper heights. The strong pickup lobby has prevented any bumper height unification for passenger vehicles, and the car/truck weight division has moved more people into trucks to avoid car regulations when the rules are applied to cars only.
It's not the engineers or car companies can't do it, but they've deliberately designed the rules themselves to make them incompatible with the rest of the world, to help prevent others from selling in the US, and then designed to those inferior rules.
When an SUV hits an SUV, the SUV passengers are more likely to die. It everyone was in a SMART, then everyone would be safer. The one guy in the SUV is safest, at the expense of the safety of everyone else.
It's a form of tragedy of the commons, but harder to explain because the resource isn't grass, but safety. Everyone in SUVs is the worst case for everyone. Everyone in SMART is best for everyone, but when everyone else is in a SMART, the lone defector will see an improvement.
Hmmm, perhaps more a prisoner's dilemma then. The defectors see a benefit over the non-defectors, but if everyone defects, then the defectors see a worse outcome than if nobody defects.
Invasion? There is no invasion.
I could make a star map with 6 random points on a drawing. http://earthsky.org/tonight/us... Well, that's 8 stars, but trim two off the dipper handle and you have a "star map" to Polaris. People only see the sky in 2 dimensions, and then, only the visible stars. So using 6 in a pattern found only once in the sky, with the finger pointed at the one you are supposed to go to would work just fine.
Of course there's the plot hole of the Engineers pointing them to a WMD manufacturing site where they weren't even there at the time (from all we can tell). But that drifts off to plot holes, not science holes. Why point out a military base to the group you are planning on attacking with it?
And yes, carbon dating wouldn't work off earth, unless you spent time to measure the local concentrations, but even that wouldn't work unless you knew more about where he came from, as a space traveler would be coming from one planet with one ratio of C14/16 to the planet with a different C14/16 ratio. Carbon dating presumes equilibrium at death, and linear decay after. That said, they would get a reading. It likely wouldn't be accurate, though it should be precise. And there's no reason to think that a reading of 2000 would be broken science, even if inaccurate. If it were last week, or 100,000 years, it wouldn't have mattered to the science. This can be easily put down to stupid characters. They have a carbon dater, but didn't bother to think about the accuracy before using it. They should have just left the "carbon" off the name of the dating technique, and they'd be fine.
And yes a DNA "match" would be silly. I don't "match" my family. So unless the sample they were comparing it with was the twin of the Engineer, it couldn't have been a full match. It could be called a "match" to have it have the same number of chromosomes, with DNA composed of the same base pairs, while being 1-2% different such that they still see us as monkeys.
The surgery wasn't realtime. We can assume it took longer than depicted on screen, and we didn't see all of it. They did repair the underlying tissue, and rehydrate her with fresh plasma, we just didn't see it.
The proof? She was running around fighting squids and engineers shortly after. As you say, it must be done, the difference is, you assume it wasn't and complain, when you could just as easily assume it was, and have no complaint. That makes your complaint trivial and superficial.
I like it. 5/10th majority to pass a single topic bill. 6/10th majority to pass a bill with more than one amendment after it leaves committee. 7/10th majority if the bill contains more than one topic. 8/10th majority if the bill modifies more than one law. 9//10th majority if the bill is "really bad" (leaving that to others to define).
The goal should be many many more bills. Small bills. Each targeting a single law subsection. Like a line-item veto for legislators.
Nope. The corporate veil (designed to protect investors, not employees) does a really good job of shielding employees. So long as the act is a corporate act, you'll be 100% shielded. I say corporate act because if you boss tells you to pick up his dry cleaning, of and while you are out, shoot his wife, that won't be a corporate act, and you'll be personally liable. But "make that latch 10% cheaper, even if we know it'll fail 50% of the time" will never land the engineer in jail. So long as there's a trail to a manager who made the decision.
Space will be that same as the world. You own what you can hold.
There's no difference. The celestial bodies are not some abstract thing separate from the rock that makes them up!
Nearly universally, the governments of the Earth disagree with you. When mineral rights and land rights are inseparable, then one might be inclined to agree with your wrong statement, but until then, I'll go with reality over your delusion.
"of celestial bodies" read to the end before frothing. Extracted minerals are owned, but not the celestial bodies. NASA claims ownership of all lunar rocks returned on the Apollo missions. Nobody objected, so this is in line with established property rights in space.
The USA isn't assigning any rights at all, nor ownership of celestial bodies.
Every law should sunset in 5-10 years, and require it be extended or re-passed or whatever to stay on the books. Yes even murder. Ones like that should be easy to extend. But laws that allow you to buy curtains, but not curtain hangers on Sunday would die.
Over simplifying, the laws generally say that you can't own real estate in the sky, but you can extract minerals from them. Nobody raided NASA to take their share of the moonrocks returned. But NASA has no claim on the moon as the first there. So the first that can mine an asteroid will "own" it in fact, but not in law.
And because these laws are only theoretical, there is no punishment for violating them, so why would someone need to avoid countries where it's theoretically illegal?
That would be applicable if carriers tried to cover an entire country with a single tower. Nope, they do what they do everywere in the world. More towers in more populated places, fewer in less populate areas. The total density of the USA isn't that low, and most of the people and coverage is concentrated in cities, just like the rest of the world.
There is no "size" issue.
How do you validate, read the entire engine code for the engine, or take your manager's word for it that Engine Map 17(b) is the proper engine control routine in use on the road, yes, there's 1(a) mentioned elsewhere, but it was the laboratory version and isn't in use in the car.
So it's impossible that two teams of engineers were tasked with optimizing the engine?
One for performance, the other for emissions. Both think their code is the *only* code in the car. Then, after 5 years, a few engineers from one team have moved to the other team. Over the water cooler one mentions that *he* wrote the code used in the Diesel engines. Then, a short discussion later, the realization is that *both* must be in use, one to pass tests, the other so the car doesn't drive like a fat gerbil, with a broken leg.
So you have an engineer asked to develop the best possible engine map for emissions. He does. It's called Map 17(b). A different engineer is asked to build the test program. This is a normal requirement because in testing, traction control is turned off (a requirement of the testing facilities for safety), and in doing so, nearly every maker also "tunes" other things, turning off ABS, because that's not needed (but not required to be turned off) and possibly turning off other things. It wouldn't be unreasonable to ensure an engine control was set to Map XX at the same time, as the program could be constructed in a manner that it's a required variable. Neither engineer would realize that the default for the car is Map 1(a), and that the test is "cheated" with Map 17(b). So which one do you punish? The one that built the test program? Or the one that built the engine control map?
Everyone has test mode. It's a requirement of the testing method. Turning off traction control and such for the test. Having multiple ECU maps is also normal. Having a "hidden" engine map operate when testing is not normal. But 99.9% of the work for it would be done without anyone doing anything untoward. It's the matching of the most "efficient" map to the test mode that's the only thing that's unusual.
And everyone probably knows this, and more than one has gamed the tests before. http://www.justice.gov/archive... or any of the numerous news reports that discuss the 1995 fine againse GM for the Cadillac issues.
Did you not see it with Gravity?
The realistic-looking Sci-Fi gets this attention every time. It's not just about The Martian.
Where's the problem with the science in Prometheus? The plot, acting, and such, sure. But the "science" would be the mapping drones, the weapons, the technical details. The snakes and bursters weren't science. Panspermia is science. Is that what you object to?
Sure. Just package chloroplasts into bacteria or algea or something and grow that as a vat of calories. Sun needed. Then vitamins mixed in for "nutrients". Would need to engineer a few strains of bacteria that produce amino acids, but otherwise survivable, until the scurvy kicked in. But for someone who needs to subsist for a few years in an emergency, I can see it working.
Bonus points if the calories and protein is made by the same bacteria, in proper ratios.
Making the complex chemicals required for food would be nearly impossible for a human chemistry set. It's best left to biology. Genetic engineering a bacteria to make it is much quicker and easier than making the chemicals themselves. We've been working on synthetic insulin for many many years, and still don't have it. Well, we have it "solved" and use bacteria to do the heavy lifting, not chemistry.