"If he did what he said he did, why is he not in jail?
Because, contrary to some opinions, America is not yet a police state, and they still like to have silly things like trials.
And if he didn't do it, why is the FBI saying he did?"
A better question would be "why isn't he saying he didn't?"
You can't charge someone with having killed "someone" unless you name that someone.
Eh, I'm pretty sure you can. Here's one such case
You can't even charge them if you have a name of the murdered, unless you have a time and place named.
Again, that seems pretty unlikely.
Frankly, it's complete bullshit. The systems are completely, physically separate. There is no way to hack the thrust from the in-flight entertainment system because they are not connected to each other.
What are your qualifications to be able to say so?
The systems should be separate. There should be no way to hack into avionics. That doesn't necessarily make it so.
If you really do know, then great, I am more informed than I was previously was.
Shakespeare was an ape, not a monkey. And he didn't have a typewriter.
On Wikipedia's Infinite monkey theorem page, the very first sentence under the heading "Solution" is:
There is a straightforward proof of this theorem.
Another commenter has said that Penzias demonstrated the astronomically vast amount of time such an effort would take, but this is not a disproof of the theorem.
pages 404
Is it bad that my first thought when I read that was: "How could he not find out how many pages it had?"
No, but the bodies will start piling up with greater accuracy.
I'm sure advertising firms will pretend that they paid for that bandwidth and they can do anything they want with it. That you get to use the internet at all is entirely by the blessing of advertisers.
Most Americans have different opinions to me and my wife and are therefore wrong.
FTFY.
The idea that the Internet couldn't support itself with ads is a big lie. Would the Internet change if we all blocked ads, yes. Would the Internet go away, no. It was here, shuffling packets for scientists and engineers long before Google and Yahoo showed up. Can useful services be sustained free of charge without ads? Wikipedia is the biggest example of that, but there are other examples.
What I'm pointing out is that him previously stating that he took control of a virtual plane does not rule out him subsequently taking control of a real plane, though it's not clear from the article just what period "previously" covers, and now I think about it it's vague enough to make little sense whichever way you take it.
Still, his previous denial that he took control of an actual plane does seem to clash a little with his new stance of apparently quite carefully not denying that he took control of an actual plane.
No, according to the article he had previously said he did it in a simulated environment. But now the FBI is claiming he's admitted to doing it on an actual plane.
And his most recent stance seems to be that: "he wouldn’t respond directly to questions about whether he had hacked that previous flight mentioned in the affidavit."
If he (still) didn't do it, he could just say he (still) didn't do it. "Out of context" sounds suspiciously like "yes I did, but..."
he didn't do it (on a real plane).
The "not on a real plane" bit comes from this paragraph of the article:
Roberts had previously told WIRED that he caused a plane to climb during a simulated test on a virtual environment he and a colleague created, but he insisted then that he had not interfered with the operation of a plane while in flight.
That was then. This is now.
The FBI says he admitted to - briefly - taking control of a plane
Mass of the truck?
Not for friction. Friction is massless.
Not sure what you mean by "not for friction." As I understand it the coefficient of friction for two materials doesn't depend on mass, but doesn't the "friction force" depend on the amount of force pressing the materials together? I.e. the weight of the truck? Okay, I said "mass," but I'm pretty sure the incident recounted occurred on Earth.
Anyway, so does that increase in "friction force" then balance the additional intertia of a heavier truck? My tests with empty and fully-laden cereal boxes and a carpeted floor are inconclusive but suggest that this may well be the case, so I am enlightened.
If you knew physics, you'd know that.
Never said I did. That's why I asking questions, and why I started my post with "correct me if I'm wrong," so I'm not sure why you've included that remark, which comes across as a bit condescending.
Perhaps "winding" would then be the best word. No confusion, and same meaning.
But then I wouldn't have been able to make it into an oblique reference to a Family Guy joke.
motor
noun
noun: motor; plural noun: motors
1. a machine, especially [but not exclusively] one powered by electricity or internal combustion, that supplies motive power for a vehicle or for some other device with moving parts.
A car engine is a motor.
I'm a physics major, so I measured the location of where he locked his brakes, and the point he came to a stop. A little high school algebra showed he was moving 80-85 MPH in a 70 MPH zone when he hit his brakes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you need to know rather more than where he locked his brakes and where he stopped? Mass of the truck? Coefficient of friction between tires and road, which will depend on tire pressure, road conditions, temperature...?
Your point that plenty of drivers are woefully inattentive is valid, of course. I've seen the same situation as you describe occur on countless occasions on the windy* roads where I live (where it often helps to look out for reflections of cars on the sides of other cars), though never to the point of there being an accident. Yet.
*Curvy. Not blowy.
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker
