That's always a tough call. Statistically flight crew error is the most likely reason for a plane crashing, but by the same token there are rare occasions where there's a sensor malfunction or obscure bug that was never uncovered by QA that causes the autopilot to be worse than useless.
Personally, I'm marginally more comfortable with Boeing's approach to it than Airbus's, but in practice it's rarely if ever been an issue.
Why? They're on record as saying that it's not critical. By which they almost certainly mean that monitoring it is sufficient. What independent 3rd party experts are you going to tap? Most of them work for either the competition or one of the regulatory bodies that's supposed to be keeping tabs on them.
Ultimately as others have pointed out, the amount of damage that this would do if one of those planes fell out of the sky because those cracks caused a wing to fall off would probably be the end of Airbus. Given that they're stress fractures on the wing it's quite likely that they were considered when designing the plane.
The point you're missing is that it's a known problem that can be monitored for and affected planes can be serviced. If the causes weren't known I'd say at 10% they should be grounding the fleet and fixing the problem.
Yes there is a point where it gets to be too costly for the protection given, but that's generally when you don't know the cause and can't keep an eye on it. If they're spending that much to fix the problem then they're probably doing it wrong. In that case they ought to just monitor the problem and replace the particular parts needed rather than the entire fleet.
The things that really scare me are the flight crew and unknown problems.
That's the problem, MS isn't publishing statistics, they're interpreting the statistics and telling people what to think about it. That's a very different situation from providing the statistics and the analysis.
And considering how many problems we've had in the US due to segregation I really don't think that needlessly scaring people away from driving through a particular neighborhood is going to accomplish anything useful. The amount of time that one spends driving through a bad neighborhood just isn't sufficient to worry about in most cases. Now, if you happen to own an unreliable vehicle and are driving through at night, that might warrant avoidance. But in general you're much more likely to get murdered in your own neighborhood than somebody elses.
If you're saying that you've never been to the ghetto. It takes money for those changes to take place, you're not suddenly going to have jobs sprouting up without somebody doing some investment there. And nobody's going to do any investment there unless there's outside funds going there.
It might not be our job to bring money to those businesses, but the consequences of ghettos existing costs us all a significant amount of money.
I'm not contradicting myself at all. It's prudent advice that people in general ought to be cautious when they're out and about. There are few neighborhoods out there that are so dangerous that you shouldn't ever go there or drive through there in the US. Most places if you exercise some degree of caution can be navigated with minimal risk.
Remember most fatalities happen within a few miles of home in large part because one spends such a large amount of time there, detouring around a bad neighborhood or avoiding shopping there just isn't going to make a statistically significant difference.
Sometimes that is the correct solution, however I doubt that's the case with this situation.
The best thing is really to decide on organization ahead of time as you then can keep it organized from the start. Ideally every time one input information that was of general use, one would make some sort of notation about it and create a page linking back to that section of text.
Doing it in retrospect is probably going to be a lot of tedious work as it's unlikely that a simple search is going to reveal all the common information without overwhelming with false positives.
Well, troll, I don't happen to have that much extra disposable income. I live in an expensive part of the US and rent around here is very expensive. This is a recession and a lot of people just don't have the money to pay that much extra for a device so that the idealists can feel good about themselves. It wouldn't be a problem if they were charging something extra, but doubling the price is way too much to justify.
Against MS not people driving. It's one thing to observe that a neighborhood has a disproportionate number of muggings and individually opt not to go there and quite another to publish that without any of the statistics for the use of other people.
More than that, you don't have the granularity to make those sorts of decisions with any accuracy. Just because a neighborhood has a lot of crime doesn't mean that all points during the day and all parts of the neighborhood are equally likely to have violent crime. Around here the peak time in one of our bad neighborhoods is just after the bars close in the morning and the violence is mostly centered around the bars.
Likewise, lighting and landscaping or lack thereof make for places that are more easily used by muggers and various other types of criminals.
Precisely how are those neighborhoods supposed to clean up if people are being constantly scared away by folks like MS? Seriously, it can take years past the point of the problems being cleaned up to where folks acknowledge that the problem has been solved.
The problem is that unless you're a LEO that kind of information isn't particularly helpful as you should be cautious in any neighborhood you're in. A map like that is likely to either have little effect or to push crime into other neighborhoods as people avoid the "bad" ones.
Except that's not really true when you factor into the equation all of the costs of manufacturing. Sure China has cheap labor and non-existent labor laws, but that's not the only cost. There's the cost of shipping, the cost of redoing shoddy work, the costs related to difficulties in monitoring the process, the different view of how contracts work and the cost of product recalls if there's too much lead or melamine in the product. Even trying to manufacture a product in the US for a EU business can be significantly more costly than producing it locally due to the increased challenge of keeping things monitored and going smoothly.
Consequently one of the things that's starting to happen is for American companies to take their manufacturing lines back from China and set them up back in the US.
That's something that people really ought to keep in mind. It doesn't necessarily excuse emitting too much, but it is something which should be factored into the equation. Ultimately it's the relative change in CO2 levels that people are worried about, not necessarily how much is being emitted. If you emit 1 ton of CO2 by burning lumber but you grow enough lumber to burn that initial material you haven't really changed the total amount at all, or have done so by some other amount related to the energy used to produce the lumber in the first place.
Heat islands have been known and accounted for in the numbers used. At this point climate change is as certain as anything is and I haven't seen any credible scientists disputing the view that climate change is real and largely driven by human development.
It's quite well known what we're emitting and scientists have records that go back a long time that show a general relationship between temperature and atmospheric composition. At this point there's very little question about what's happening and why.
The GP is being reasonable there. We don't all have the disposable income to pay for two so that somebody else can get one for free. It would be nice to be able to afford such things, but many people can't afford to pay double the cost just to feel good.
It's really short sighted of them not to set aside a few units so that they can bump the volume and reduce the price on all of them.
No, the design of the reactor complex was fine, they could also have engineered a taller wall to protect against it as well. At some point you do have to draw a line as to how over engineered you're going to be. Based upon what was understood about the risks they built what they could, and considering that the wave was substantially larger than what they were anticipating things went quite well.
I'm just surprised that they didn't have a secondary backup generator in case something happened that prevented the primary backup generator from working or for periods when they needed to take it apart for maintenance.
The engineering was fine, they just didn't have a backup backup generator that was hardened against tsunami. It surprises me a bit that nobody thought to plan for that eventuality being located where it is, but they didn't. The plant itself survived a significant earthquake and only had troubles because it couldn't cool down when it lost power.
It's been a few years since I was researching it, good to know that it's been overcome. Although not surprising, the technology we get in the US for diesels tends to be somewhat behind the rest of the world as we still have a fear of diesel.
It used to be common practice for farmers to leave their tractors on constantly when not being fueled because they wouldn't be able to get them started again, but then again that was a long time ago.
You do realize that the Israelis have killed far more innocent civilians than the various terrorist groups they're fighting, right? Also, you do realize that Israel regularly violates international laws. Not to mention their pillaging of Palestinian resources and starvation of the people in Gaza.
Of course Israel doesn't use Nuclear weapons, there's no way in hell that the US would continue to prop up their country if they went ballistic. Where exactly do you think they got those nuclear weapons.
At the end of the day it's terrorists versus war criminals anybody that claims some sort of moral high ground for the Israelis really needs to study up on the matter. When all is said and done, they're every bit as evil as the people they claim to fight.
I just feel sorry for whomever it is that's living next door to the thieves when Israel overreacts. Israel isn't exactly known for keeping any sort of perspective on things. Kill one of their citizens and they'll kill dozens of your citizens with little to no concern for innocent civilians.
From what I've read it would be more likely that diesel vehicles would gain popularity than hybrids. Last time I thought about buying a car which was like 8 years ago it was trivial to find a diesel car that could get 40mpg.
That's because leather seats are about aesthetics and people what they like and if they can afford it. A bigger engine doesn't need an article to tell you that it improves acceleration as it's a trivial calculation compared to gas savings with a hybrid.
Precisely, the type of driving you're doing makes a huge impact on the results you get from driving a hybrid. Hybrids are really great in heavy traffic as they'll power down and go electric when you're in stop and go traffic. Regenerating some of the energy lost to braking and not having the engine idling when one is just stopped.
Around here most of our buses are hybrids at this point in one form or another.
Which if you think about it is pretty pathetic. Diesel cars have been able to get that for years. There are definitely places like Minnesota where diesel is a lot less realistic, but hybrids aren't going to make much sense there either as batteries don't like the cold any more than diesel does.
Slashdot Mirror
That's always a tough call. Statistically flight crew error is the most likely reason for a plane crashing, but by the same token there are rare occasions where there's a sensor malfunction or obscure bug that was never uncovered by QA that causes the autopilot to be worse than useless.
Personally, I'm marginally more comfortable with Boeing's approach to it than Airbus's, but in practice it's rarely if ever been an issue.
Why? They're on record as saying that it's not critical. By which they almost certainly mean that monitoring it is sufficient. What independent 3rd party experts are you going to tap? Most of them work for either the competition or one of the regulatory bodies that's supposed to be keeping tabs on them.
Ultimately as others have pointed out, the amount of damage that this would do if one of those planes fell out of the sky because those cracks caused a wing to fall off would probably be the end of Airbus. Given that they're stress fractures on the wing it's quite likely that they were considered when designing the plane.
The point you're missing is that it's a known problem that can be monitored for and affected planes can be serviced. If the causes weren't known I'd say at 10% they should be grounding the fleet and fixing the problem.
Yes there is a point where it gets to be too costly for the protection given, but that's generally when you don't know the cause and can't keep an eye on it. If they're spending that much to fix the problem then they're probably doing it wrong. In that case they ought to just monitor the problem and replace the particular parts needed rather than the entire fleet.
The things that really scare me are the flight crew and unknown problems.
That's the problem, MS isn't publishing statistics, they're interpreting the statistics and telling people what to think about it. That's a very different situation from providing the statistics and the analysis.
And considering how many problems we've had in the US due to segregation I really don't think that needlessly scaring people away from driving through a particular neighborhood is going to accomplish anything useful. The amount of time that one spends driving through a bad neighborhood just isn't sufficient to worry about in most cases. Now, if you happen to own an unreliable vehicle and are driving through at night, that might warrant avoidance. But in general you're much more likely to get murdered in your own neighborhood than somebody elses.
If you're saying that you've never been to the ghetto. It takes money for those changes to take place, you're not suddenly going to have jobs sprouting up without somebody doing some investment there. And nobody's going to do any investment there unless there's outside funds going there.
It might not be our job to bring money to those businesses, but the consequences of ghettos existing costs us all a significant amount of money.
I'm not contradicting myself at all. It's prudent advice that people in general ought to be cautious when they're out and about. There are few neighborhoods out there that are so dangerous that you shouldn't ever go there or drive through there in the US. Most places if you exercise some degree of caution can be navigated with minimal risk.
Remember most fatalities happen within a few miles of home in large part because one spends such a large amount of time there, detouring around a bad neighborhood or avoiding shopping there just isn't going to make a statistically significant difference.
Sometimes that is the correct solution, however I doubt that's the case with this situation.
The best thing is really to decide on organization ahead of time as you then can keep it organized from the start. Ideally every time one input information that was of general use, one would make some sort of notation about it and create a page linking back to that section of text.
Doing it in retrospect is probably going to be a lot of tedious work as it's unlikely that a simple search is going to reveal all the common information without overwhelming with false positives.
Well, troll, I don't happen to have that much extra disposable income. I live in an expensive part of the US and rent around here is very expensive. This is a recession and a lot of people just don't have the money to pay that much extra for a device so that the idealists can feel good about themselves. It wouldn't be a problem if they were charging something extra, but doubling the price is way too much to justify.
Against MS not people driving. It's one thing to observe that a neighborhood has a disproportionate number of muggings and individually opt not to go there and quite another to publish that without any of the statistics for the use of other people.
More than that, you don't have the granularity to make those sorts of decisions with any accuracy. Just because a neighborhood has a lot of crime doesn't mean that all points during the day and all parts of the neighborhood are equally likely to have violent crime. Around here the peak time in one of our bad neighborhoods is just after the bars close in the morning and the violence is mostly centered around the bars.
Likewise, lighting and landscaping or lack thereof make for places that are more easily used by muggers and various other types of criminals.
I was mugged by an old person you insensitive clod.
Precisely how are those neighborhoods supposed to clean up if people are being constantly scared away by folks like MS? Seriously, it can take years past the point of the problems being cleaned up to where folks acknowledge that the problem has been solved.
The problem is that unless you're a LEO that kind of information isn't particularly helpful as you should be cautious in any neighborhood you're in. A map like that is likely to either have little effect or to push crime into other neighborhoods as people avoid the "bad" ones.
Except that's not really true when you factor into the equation all of the costs of manufacturing. Sure China has cheap labor and non-existent labor laws, but that's not the only cost. There's the cost of shipping, the cost of redoing shoddy work, the costs related to difficulties in monitoring the process, the different view of how contracts work and the cost of product recalls if there's too much lead or melamine in the product. Even trying to manufacture a product in the US for a EU business can be significantly more costly than producing it locally due to the increased challenge of keeping things monitored and going smoothly.
Consequently one of the things that's starting to happen is for American companies to take their manufacturing lines back from China and set them up back in the US.
That's something that people really ought to keep in mind. It doesn't necessarily excuse emitting too much, but it is something which should be factored into the equation. Ultimately it's the relative change in CO2 levels that people are worried about, not necessarily how much is being emitted. If you emit 1 ton of CO2 by burning lumber but you grow enough lumber to burn that initial material you haven't really changed the total amount at all, or have done so by some other amount related to the energy used to produce the lumber in the first place.
Heat islands have been known and accounted for in the numbers used. At this point climate change is as certain as anything is and I haven't seen any credible scientists disputing the view that climate change is real and largely driven by human development.
It's quite well known what we're emitting and scientists have records that go back a long time that show a general relationship between temperature and atmospheric composition. At this point there's very little question about what's happening and why.
The GP is being reasonable there. We don't all have the disposable income to pay for two so that somebody else can get one for free. It would be nice to be able to afford such things, but many people can't afford to pay double the cost just to feel good.
It's really short sighted of them not to set aside a few units so that they can bump the volume and reduce the price on all of them.
No, the design of the reactor complex was fine, they could also have engineered a taller wall to protect against it as well. At some point you do have to draw a line as to how over engineered you're going to be. Based upon what was understood about the risks they built what they could, and considering that the wave was substantially larger than what they were anticipating things went quite well.
I'm just surprised that they didn't have a secondary backup generator in case something happened that prevented the primary backup generator from working or for periods when they needed to take it apart for maintenance.
The engineering was fine, they just didn't have a backup backup generator that was hardened against tsunami. It surprises me a bit that nobody thought to plan for that eventuality being located where it is, but they didn't. The plant itself survived a significant earthquake and only had troubles because it couldn't cool down when it lost power.
It's been a few years since I was researching it, good to know that it's been overcome. Although not surprising, the technology we get in the US for diesels tends to be somewhat behind the rest of the world as we still have a fear of diesel.
It used to be common practice for farmers to leave their tractors on constantly when not being fueled because they wouldn't be able to get them started again, but then again that was a long time ago.
You do realize that the Israelis have killed far more innocent civilians than the various terrorist groups they're fighting, right? Also, you do realize that Israel regularly violates international laws. Not to mention their pillaging of Palestinian resources and starvation of the people in Gaza.
Of course Israel doesn't use Nuclear weapons, there's no way in hell that the US would continue to prop up their country if they went ballistic. Where exactly do you think they got those nuclear weapons.
At the end of the day it's terrorists versus war criminals anybody that claims some sort of moral high ground for the Israelis really needs to study up on the matter. When all is said and done, they're every bit as evil as the people they claim to fight.
I just feel sorry for whomever it is that's living next door to the thieves when Israel overreacts. Israel isn't exactly known for keeping any sort of perspective on things. Kill one of their citizens and they'll kill dozens of your citizens with little to no concern for innocent civilians.
From what I've read it would be more likely that diesel vehicles would gain popularity than hybrids. Last time I thought about buying a car which was like 8 years ago it was trivial to find a diesel car that could get 40mpg.
That's because leather seats are about aesthetics and people what they like and if they can afford it. A bigger engine doesn't need an article to tell you that it improves acceleration as it's a trivial calculation compared to gas savings with a hybrid.
Precisely, the type of driving you're doing makes a huge impact on the results you get from driving a hybrid. Hybrids are really great in heavy traffic as they'll power down and go electric when you're in stop and go traffic. Regenerating some of the energy lost to braking and not having the engine idling when one is just stopped.
Around here most of our buses are hybrids at this point in one form or another.
Which if you think about it is pretty pathetic. Diesel cars have been able to get that for years. There are definitely places like Minnesota where diesel is a lot less realistic, but hybrids aren't going to make much sense there either as batteries don't like the cold any more than diesel does.