Well, actually it was resonance, just one fed by wind, not by traffic. My guess is this confusion is because structural engineers think "traffic" when hearing "resonance" and "bridge"? Other disciplines do not have that limitation.
I learned about this bridge 20 years ago, and it was taught as "oscillations induced by wind". Of course, these need to be at or close to a resonance point, or they just get dampened out.
chloride is corrosive to iron, which caused the lead to leach off into the water
On copper pipes? Seriously, this is utter bullshit. The water is corrosive to the tin-lead solder, of course. Who in their right mind would use leaded solder on drinking water pipes is another question.
Not really that much different. There is letting people with no clue contribute involved. Also quite a few contributors to FOSS projects _are_ hired, most not by the project itself, but sometimes even that. But I guess you did not know that little well-known detail.
Really, this is old, well known, easy to avoid. People that make mistakes like this have no business programing. The real problem is very likely though that management hired the cheapest people it could get.
And there this "magic" metal loses its magic. Not a surprise. As so many other "revolutionary" technologies, it may or may not find a niche. It will not change the game anytime soon.
If it was this easy, others would have found this long ago. Hence it likely is not. That "major manufacturers" are testing it says exactly nothing. Manufacturers are testing all kinds of new material all the time, with 99.9...9% not panning out.
There is lying and lying. Unless an independent expert gets access to the software without them being warned before, they can just come up "accidentally" with and "older version" of the software that does indeed pass muster as you say.
Or alternatively, they will just lie about what it does. It has gotten very easy for the police to lie to the public in the US. And even when caught, nothing ever happens to them.
Are you sure they did? I _think_ they did, because mass-surveillance is unsuitable for preventing terrorism or crime, but by now I have really started to wonder whether they are really that incapable.
Simple: This is not about fighting terrorism or crime at all. It is about demonstrating to "do something", justifying all the expenses for "law enforcement" and collecting some nice bit of surveillance data with a good pretext in the bargain.
Actually, it is getting easier and easier to be a criminal, as the bar for that is constantly lowered. It is getting even more easy to be a successful criminal if you are smart, because nothing of these technologies are useful to catch smart criminals. And law enforcement actually likes crime, as it gets them new shiny toys and more power. I am sure they are carefully selecting which criminals they catch, so as to not dry up the supply. They will of course keep catching criminals, otherwise what they do might become too obvious, but they have a host of well-tuned mechanisms to obscure where they truly stand.
Hence your optimism (limited as it may be) is entirely misplaced.
My apologies to all honest cops. I know they exist, but usually they do not raise to power and may just be as appalled at what is going on as I am.
... before doing anything criminal, neatly making this a tool suitable exclusively for mass-surveillance and completely worthless for crime-fighting. But those that want this kind of tech have known that all along, because, rather obviously, mass-surveillance is what they want. My take is this use of the surveillance drone served exclusively to collect data to use for research into mass-surveillance, the actual crime on the ground just provided a nice pretext.
You mistake my stance: I have been following AI research for 30 years, and they consistently and repeatedly hit a concrete wall. That made me think. As it turns out, we cannot explain Intelligence, Consciousness or even life itself in physical terms, unless gross simplifications are applied. To me, these simplifications seem to be far too gross and also seem to hide immense complexity. Now, with regard to physics, there does not seem to be a way to hide this complexity in the outer shape apparent, not enough space. But with modern insights that communication can take very fast and over very long distances with very high bandwidths, there is not actually a reason to believe that what behavior is visible at the outer interface of the box is actually all created and done in there.
Incidentally, I do follow the scientific approach here: As long as there is no hard proof of a limitation or restriction, and not even good specific indication, there is no reason to assume that limitation.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, actually it was resonance, just one fed by wind, not by traffic. My guess is this confusion is because structural engineers think "traffic" when hearing "resonance" and "bridge"? Other disciplines do not have that limitation.
Rather obvious. Whether it is a bridge or a tuning-fork is pretty immaterial, it is a filter.
As to you climate-change denier morons: The only good thing about you people is that future generations will remember you by your extreme stupidity.
I learned about this bridge 20 years ago, and it was taught as "oscillations induced by wind". Of course, these need to be at or close to a resonance point, or they just get dampened out.
Seems to be a non-story.
Depends on the craftsmanship. If some is running inside, then you can get quite a bit larger exposure.
Well, that would explain some things about the US population in comparison to some other countries. Lead makes people violent and stupid.
That is pretty bad. Lead does really, really nasty things to peoples minds.
No surprise that you think that. Lead poisoning lowers your IQ.
chloride is corrosive to iron, which caused the lead to leach off into the water
On copper pipes? Seriously, this is utter bullshit. The water is corrosive to the tin-lead solder, of course. Who in their right mind would use leaded solder on drinking water pipes is another question.
What incredible idiots use leaded solder on pipes for potable water?
Not really that much different. There is letting people with no clue contribute involved. Also quite a few contributors to FOSS projects _are_ hired, most not by the project itself, but sometimes even that. But I guess you did not know that little well-known detail.
All paid government shills with the intelligence of a peanut?
Really, this is old, well known, easy to avoid. People that make mistakes like this have no business programing. The real problem is very likely though that management hired the cheapest people it could get.
There is a sucker born every minute...
And there this "magic" metal loses its magic. Not a surprise. As so many other "revolutionary" technologies, it may or may not find a niche. It will not change the game anytime soon.
If it was this easy, others would have found this long ago. Hence it likely is not. That "major manufacturers" are testing it says exactly nothing. Manufacturers are testing all kinds of new material all the time, with 99.9...9% not panning out.
There is lying and lying. Unless an independent expert gets access to the software without them being warned before, they can just come up "accidentally" with and "older version" of the software that does indeed pass muster as you say.
Or alternatively, they will just lie about what it does. It has gotten very easy for the police to lie to the public in the US. And even when caught, nothing ever happens to them.
Are you sure they did? I _think_ they did, because mass-surveillance is unsuitable for preventing terrorism or crime, but by now I have really started to wonder whether they are really that incapable.
Simple: This is not about fighting terrorism or crime at all. It is about demonstrating to "do something", justifying all the expenses for "law enforcement" and collecting some nice bit of surveillance data with a good pretext in the bargain.
Actually, it is getting easier and easier to be a criminal, as the bar for that is constantly lowered. It is getting even more easy to be a successful criminal if you are smart, because nothing of these technologies are useful to catch smart criminals. And law enforcement actually likes crime, as it gets them new shiny toys and more power. I am sure they are carefully selecting which criminals they catch, so as to not dry up the supply. They will of course keep catching criminals, otherwise what they do might become too obvious, but they have a host of well-tuned mechanisms to obscure where they truly stand.
Hence your optimism (limited as it may be) is entirely misplaced.
My apologies to all honest cops. I know they exist, but usually they do not raise to power and may just be as appalled at what is going on as I am.
... before doing anything criminal, neatly making this a tool suitable exclusively for mass-surveillance and completely worthless for crime-fighting. But those that want this kind of tech have known that all along, because, rather obviously, mass-surveillance is what they want. My take is this use of the surveillance drone served exclusively to collect data to use for research into mass-surveillance, the actual crime on the ground just provided a nice pretext.
I try not to say utterly stupid things to mirrors. The results tend to annoy me.
You mistake my stance: I have been following AI research for 30 years, and they consistently and repeatedly hit a concrete wall. That made me think. As it turns out, we cannot explain Intelligence, Consciousness or even life itself in physical terms, unless gross simplifications are applied. To me, these simplifications seem to be far too gross and also seem to hide immense complexity. Now, with regard to physics, there does not seem to be a way to hide this complexity in the outer shape apparent, not enough space. But with modern insights that communication can take very fast and over very long distances with very high bandwidths, there is not actually a reason to believe that what behavior is visible at the outer interface of the box is actually all created and done in there.
Incidentally, I do follow the scientific approach here: As long as there is no hard proof of a limitation or restriction, and not even good specific indication, there is no reason to assume that limitation.
Obvious troll is obvious.
That would make sense.