Aircrew Labor In-Cockpit Automation System (ALIAS)
Shouldn't that be ALICAS? Has a certain ring to it...
459 posts • joined 6 Feb 2015
It took them days to realise scanners are usually closed when scanning stuff to, you know... scan the thing on the bed and not the office ceiling...?
Hands up who's immediate first thought was "wait... scanners have a lid".
Never mind other problems like keeping the drone laser focussed on the scanner sensors in ambient weather conditions, glass distortion, glass coatings, the rather obvious drone hovering outside the office window...
Keep up the good work guys.
Does it fly? Self-drive? That's the 'future' we were all promised back in the 70s and 80s.
This one can't even keep you warm and dry, which has been a solved problem for about 80+ years.
Does it come with a trailer for the kids? Separate soundproof bubble dome... now there's a thought...
He didn't manage it. At all.
Parked my Vectra next to one the other day, and I dare say the "Mini" was wider, taller, and almost as long. "Essential Character" binned the second BMW got their mits on the designs.
In VR, the close-up is dead. Due to the fish-eye lenses that VR cameras use, any actor closer than four feet ends up looking distorted.
This is surely a limitation of the typical and current technology used in VR cameras.
Off the top of my head, a circular array of cameras with decent lenses would solve this. If the market is there, the technology will advance to overcome these minor problems.
And don't call me Shirley.
Lead-lined coat - maybe?
Cat: So why don't we just drop the defensive shields!?!
Kryten: An adroit suggestion, sir, with just two minor flaws. One - we don't have have any defensive shields, and two - we don't have any defensive shields. Now I know technically that's only one flaw, but I thought it was such a big one it was worth mentioning twice.
Have police wear body cams and have them turned on 100% of the time.
It should never be at the officer's discretion, that just invites abuse. And all cops should be required to wear them, and they must be recording with no option to disable, at all times on duty.
Some commenters suggest recording should be shut off in certain sensitive cases. No. Just no! The recording protects both the victim and those attending. Recordings aren't just released freely to any bugger that wants them.
The victim will be photographed in such cases anyway. Being on low-res body-cam doesn't change this.
Mark sensitive recordings as sensitive - a "sensitive" button on the camera is sufficient. Sensitive recordings should not be viewed or released without a fully audited approval and supervision chain. In fact, no recording should ever be released without this, but more so for sensitive recordings.
Having grey areas leads to opportunists gaming the system, and discretionary recording makes the whole exercise pointless.
New York Assemblywoman Aileen M Gunther, who authored the bill, said that she only became aware of the practice after her own mother passed away and a local utility attempted to tack on an extra charge for early termination of her account.
The cynic in me suspects differently: politicos know full well businesses do morally questionable shit like this all the time, but don't care one iota until it impacts them directly. Then cue the moral outrage.
Seems unlikely she wasn't aware of the practice. That would mean none of her constituents complained to her about it. Ever. And New Yorkers love to gripe about anything.
I would contend that playing a harmless game ...
Indeed, so harmless that players unwittingly yet willingly walk into traffic, private property, radiation exclusion zones...
However, I contend this is neither the game nor the publishers' fault, more the result of society getting progressively more stupid. An effect which seems to be accelerating.
Proper, effective security, anonymisation and encryption is hard and expensive .
Making it a criminal offense to point out how shit a government's data protection measures are, is cheap and easy.
This seems all about doing a crap job, saving a few bucks, and preventing embarrassment by force.
It will only impact legitimate research and lead to ever-weakening security. It will have zero impact on criminal activities. Criminals don't give two shits about breaking laws, because duh... criminals.
Sure but can they install or exchange Meters? Are they certified gas and electricity engineers ? No? Well many meter readers have to be because reading meters is just part of their job.
Seems highly unlikely. Why exactly would a trained, qualified sparky slum it reading meters?
The cost of implementation is covered by the cost of savings so I don't see a downside in this.
Then you are not thinking hard enough.
Smart meters are:
a) an attempt to increase profits by eliminating the cost of meter readers. The cost of this will be passed on to consumers, so that 2-3% a tiny minority of consumers might save by having a smart meter will be more than wiped out.
b) a step toward live tracking of the supply costs and variable pricing. No more certainty about how much your electricity and gas bills will be each month. And you can bet your arse that tracked prices will go up as fast - faster - than the supply cost, but fall much slower, if they fall at all.
c) adding the potential for remote cut off from the comfort of the outsourced, offshored control room. No more pesky engineer costs to actually, physically disconnect someone who hasn't paid.
d) the opportunity to mess up millions of peoples' day with a single bad software patch.
Shit, if the banks don't make sure they get a patch right, power companies sure as hell won't bother. But who cares...? Their CEOs and directors will not be on smart meters.
Yes but light bulbs may not work in poverty stricken third world countries without electricity, so this candle would be ideal for them.
Poverty stricken... this candle would be ideal...
$100 candle doesn't really qualify as "ideal".
Fair point about the light bulbs and lack of electrickery, but I expect they'd pass in favour of a candle that doesn't cost 100 bucks.
While JWG's timings are clearly suspect, he is correct to say we should be leaving way before Sol dies, not after.
The author can wait here while the inner planets are engulfed in red giant plasma, but if humanity (or whatever we are by that time) is to survive, we need to be long gone before that happens.
Have seen many very intelligent people make some very basic mistakes.
Reasoning ranges from the somewhat understandable "I'm not that kind of mathematician", to egotistical bullshit like "trivial implementation detail" which is somehow beneath them despite it being their job.
Oh and the ever-classic "I'm a genius, it can't be my fault. Must be the software." (although, with Excel formatting it often is the software...)
I believe you've hit the proverbial nail on the head. I agree that electric cars using this kind of liquid battery would be a godsend.
Sadly not so much... It all sounds great until you realise how genuinely crap the energy density of flow batteries is. And for cars, affordable high energy density is what matters (well, and power density if you want decent acceleration).
You need a truly massive volume of electrolyte fluid to make up for the poor energy density. Which is obviously very heavy and makes it all kinda pointless. Would be like towing your own petrol tanker, except it'd be filled with electrolyte.
Flow batteries advantage is they are cheap (relatively), simple, and have a virtually unlimited recharge cycle, and as has been said recharging them is as simple as changing the fluid. This makes them great for static applications like grid-scale storage as grid-scale applications are generally not limited by size, weight or volume. Cost is king!
Sucks for transport applications. Like it or not, petrol is one of the most energy-dense, easily tranported, stored and transferred energy storage medium around.
Not sure this is what they are saying.
Whether that is the underlying cause is another matter, and fundamentally applies everywhere, not just Facebook.
Diversity policies go against sound business practice. If you have to hire less competent people because of their skin colour, that's still discriminatory (just in a way that is inexplicably ok to those insisting on diversity policies). A business full of idiots is a business full of idiots. Doesn't matter that diversity regs have been met; that business is doomed.
The devil in the detail is surely the comp-sci graduate racial/gender distributions, and the applicant racial/gender distribution. If 97% of graduates/applicants are white males, well... doesn't take a genius to work out the hiring distribution will be predominantly white males.
Yet if 97% of graduates/applicants were minorities/female, would we even be having this discussion? Would Facebook get called out on it? I doubt it, because that doesn't fit the PC brigade agenda.
Hiring decisions should always and only be about competence, never about skin colour, gender, sexuality, age or any other bullshit. Diversity policies be damned.
If you're best for the job I will hire you.
If you aren't the best for the job, I won't hire you. End of. Entirely based on competence. PC brigade can bite me.
Bad landing wouldn't matter so much if they'd used a more constant power source like an RTG or two. Philae appeared to be still working even after the bounces, just couldn't get the juice to keep going.
Same for the Rosetta probe; loss of power because solar flux drops too low for its panels to be effective beyond Jupiter just wouldn't be an issue.
A very long mission failed to perform as expected under conditions where a couple of RTGs would be perfectly happy and chug on for years. Loss to science seems to vastly outweigh the slight risk of launching a few chunks of well protected Plutonium...
So have another referendum on the subject every year until there's a decisive outcome. Maybe pair it up with local council elections to save money. Sounds OK to me.
It was decisive. There was a clear majority, albeit a slim one. But still a majority. Not like there were 2 votes in it. Difference of more than a million.
If you start trying to define majority as anything other than side A got more votes than side B, you're trying to rig the system to get the result you want.
You can argue ~28% didn't vote, but they had their chance and couldn't be arsed. Maybe they didn't care, maybe they have become disillusioned with politics and thought "what's the point".
Don't see how your suggestion fixes that, other than watch the turnout get lower and lower each time as more and more people become disillusioned by the whole process, because nothing changes.
Our democracy is already a thin veneer... this will only make it worse.
Trouble with this kind of thing is you will never make everyone happy. Given how close this was in the lead-up to polling, 50% of the populus was going to be pissed at the result however it went.
Putting aside whether or not one likes the referendum result, the democratic process was followed, and now the government should be expected to abide by the result. Will of the people etc.
What I find truly disgusting is how some MPs are trying to overrule the process. Didn't work out the way they wanted so they're trying to find ways around it. That kind of elitism and disregard for the democratic process is at least partly why the vote went the way it did.
This kind of shit starts civil wars...
Comparing apples with oranges. The valuations of publically traded businesses are not the same as the amount of taxpayer funds a country has in its economy.
By your logic and FTSE trace, the economy has repeatedly lost then regained way more than £100bn over the last 2 years. Which obviously is a pile of horse shit.
The stock market moves up and down all the time. That does not mean the economy does. All this is, is another market dip which will stabilise like it always does once the dust settles and people get their collective heads around wtf just happened. Already started. Market dip is currently ~4%, half of the ~8% drop from the initial panic.
The rate in which such primordial black holes would form binaries and collide matches with LIGO's observations, the scientists say.
With only two confirmed LIGO observations of gravitational waves, it seems a bit early to be making this assertion.
Not saying they're wrong or right, just commentarding on the apparent number of data points they've used to draw this conclusion. Maybe they more data they've not made public yet...?
You're a dick. Remind us how many other current launchers have been able to successfully land any of their rockets from orbit...
SpaceX is still learning, and coming back from GEO was always going to be much harder than LEO. Any fule kno that. Successful landing was hoped for, but I don't believe it was expected. This is just an engineering problem to work around. And they still manage to launch for way less cost than the encumbents.
I can appreciate the need for increased surveillance in this modern world
Not me. What is needed is better targeted surveillance and actually bothering to do something about the people they already know about, instead of leaving them in the hope of catching an ever bigger fish.
I don't see the world is really much more dangerous than it was 30 years ago. Atrocities then, atrocities now. Only difference is the whack-job group du jour perpetrating them. The odds of being involved in one are still statistically tiny.
More likely to die falling down the stairs. So hey let's monitor everyone's stairs in case someone falls? Won't prevent the falls, but we can increase surveillance coverage in the name of saving lives plus it'll get some laughs on YouTube. And that's about how ridiculous this all is.
Increased surveillance on an Orwellian scale serves no practical purpose, certainly does not make us more secure. Just an exponentially growing haystack obscuring the needles, and an ever-increasing huge scope for abuses of power over the most trivial of civil disobediences.
If you're too busy to go in the kitchen and open the fridge or look at the oven, ffs slow down and relax before you have a stroke.
As for still flogging the tired horse that is "reduce their energy bills"... where's the real, actual, unbiased evidence of these savings? Can they be achieved without significant up-front outlay whose ROI is measured in decades? Otherwise you're just moving the cost around, saving nothing. Maybe even spending more.
And no, I don't mean the typical smart-meter BS about how the unicorns in the magic meter box will somehow reduce your electricity consumption. Real, hard evidence, not produced by anyone with a vested interest in smart meters. Not clear that exists.
I expect BT to invest in their own infrastructure, to modernise it as technology progresses rather than leave us languishing with infrastructure that may be 100 years old.
I certainly expect them to have used the vast amount of public money they've received for broadband rollout to actually use in on that.
Would I be prepared to pay? Yes, if they didn't take the piss and I actually got anything like the expected speeds afterward.
There's fibre to the cabinet at the top of my street, maybe 100 yards away from my house.
If I had to contribute say £100 towards the installation cost I would happily do that. But it's not even an option.
As slow and cheap as they can get away with, ideally someone else's money (milk the taxpayer teat) whilst avoiding anything vaguely difficult or giving poor ROI (dense inner cities, everything rural and/or remote) like the plague.
When they can be arsed. Or until the regulator grows a pair and forces the issue. So in both cases... never.
Perhaps retributive justice would be better served by publishing the names of the people ultimately responsible, along with any embarrassing medical details. If they don't have any, then perhaps some could be strongly implied.
Karmic justice eh? Would be nice, but you'd probably find yourself on the wrong side of a data protection breach and risk being fined. Not to mention, slander, harassment etc.
Breaches like this are almost criminal, so why not go the whole hog and make such negligence a criminal act, with a range of penalties depending on the severity of the breach? Suppose that's awfully close to legislating against stupidity...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019