Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Maybe (Score 1) 189

by TigerPlish (#49486451) Attached to: The Car That Knows When You'll Get In an Accident Before You Do

I would just be happy if they could make a rearview mirror and side mirrors that don't have blind spots how can I trust them with their technology when they can't even do the basic things

Blind spots don't exist because car design makes for them, blind spots exist because drivers never were taught, or never learned, how to properly set up their car.

I've had old cars and new cars, and none of them have had blind spots. Including the Miata what with it's "huge" c-pillars when top-up, an Rx-8 that people insist had huge blind spots and bad visibility, and a Mini with a small back window and fat c-pillars. All these criticisms are bogus, but people *hate* being told they're wrong.

I could spend many bytes explaining why there is no such thing as blind spots, but you'll likely dismiss my explanation. So here, spend some time educating yourself on the problem and the solution.

One way.

Car and Driver's Way.

This is the one I use, they all mean the same thing anyway.

Comment: Re:Arbitrary judgement of driving style (Score 1) 73

by TigerPlish (#49437531) Attached to: Phone App That Watches Your Driving Habits Leads To Privacy Concerns

Se we should all be mindless sheeple who accelerate so slowly you get passed by a scooter, and corner so peacefully that the keychain barely moves away form vertical?

The insurance industry is suggesting we all drive like scared 80 year olds?

I'd rather die or just give the fuck up and get a driverless car.

Comment: Re:Arbitrary judgement of driving style (Score 1) 73

by TigerPlish (#49437433) Attached to: Phone App That Watches Your Driving Habits Leads To Privacy Concerns

You're welcome to your opinion, but I fail to see how taking off smartly from a light is going to confuse other drivers.

Are you thinking about me tearing off with smoke coming off my tires? No man. That's not at all what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about doing 50 in a 40, I'm not talking about being an obnoxious hoon. You seem to confuse brisk driving with mad, crazy driving.

The behavior I'm calling out is hazardous -- literally crawling out of a light, and doing 10 freaking miles per hours on a wide sweeper of a left turn at an intersection, with a column of cars behind. As if the road was ice. As if even slightly putting any G at all is going to make the car slide off into the curb. I'm not exaggerating, that's how people drive here.

It that the kind of driving your advocating?

Comment: Arbitrary judgement of driving style (Score 1) 73

by TigerPlish (#49436509) Attached to: Phone App That Watches Your Driving Habits Leads To Privacy Concerns

Is someone who briskly takes off from a light -- not doing burnouts or other kinds of hooning, -- automatically less safe than someone who rolls out at snails' pace?

Is someone who goes around a corner with some amount of G automatically less safe than those who take forever to negotiate the same corner?

At least it should catch those who wait until the last moment to brake when approaching a light or other traffic.

This app is going to penalize people that aren't in fact less safe, and it will utterly fail at detecting some truly dangerous driving: Will it detect someone who follows too close? Will it detect eating a double cheeseburger with one hand while applying makeup with
the other? Will it detect someone who's texting while driving? Reaching back to smack the kiddies around? Taking eyes off the road to fuck with the radio or satnav?

Will it detect all those who have their side mirrors way too far in?

No, it won't detect truly dangerous behavior and will penalize those who like to have a little fun with their cars without endangering anyone. Because, you know, not everyone sees cars as a mere conveyance or appliance.

Comment: Re:Sensors wrong (Score 1) 460

by TigerPlish (#49425001) Attached to: Planes Without Pilots

Well then, I respect your credentials, but will still say that I'd like the pilot to have final say.

I"m still WTF on AF 442. Bewildered, if you will. I can't wrap my brain around the fact that entire aircrew disregarded all their other instruments. I expect that out of a rookie like me, perhaps, if I got caught IFR while not being trained for it, but.. eh, I'll just stop right here. It happened, even if I can't comprehend how.

Comment: Re: Sensors wrong (Score 1) 460

by TigerPlish (#49423865) Attached to: Planes Without Pilots

You don't fly by the seat of your pants in IFR.

100% correct. So you believe your primary instruments: your artificial horizon, your altimeter, variometer, airspeed. You also must use your VOR, DME, ILS, ADF or whatever nav you're using.

So why did AF 447 not do any of that? It's obvious they could not / did not correctly interpret what their panel surely must've shown: Zero airspeed (false), unwinding altimeter (true), high sink rate (true), artificial horizon mostly blue (True)

Why was that?

Comment: Re:Sensors wrong (Score 0) 460

by TigerPlish (#49423295) Attached to: Planes Without Pilots

I did read other sources. I talk to people who read other sources. Enough to know Airbus hides info from pilots -- critical info such as pitch trim, throttles that don't move as autothrottle adjusts power, and provides no tactile feedback to the stick. Airbus isn't a seat-of-the-pants airplane, you almost have to think like a passenger, not a pilot. That's what I got from reading other sources. Was that the conclusion you hoped I gave you? No? Oh well -- that's the conclusion I reached over the years of this accident being known, as well as other Airbus incidents involving their computers.

I cite Wiki because they have a fairly consice and correct account -- despite your objections and claims of rollbacks and edits.

On AF 447 BEA blamed training, cockpit ergonomics and incorrect procedure. They didn't even mention the role FEP had. It seems the French authorities like to shield Airbus from responsibility and scrutiny.

Here's something Wiki doesn't mention but other sources do: The AF 447 pilots thought they were in an overspeed, not stall. They mis-interpreted stall buffeting as a sign of overspeed. In the context of an overspeed their stick actions make sense. But it's not that simple. The Airbus flight controls don't' talk to each other. The left seater can't tell what the right seater was doing. One of them pulled the stick back all the way and kept it there. I read somewhere, forgot where, that the other pilot did the opposite at the same time. Sorry, no citation for that one. Go look for it yourself.

The crew was confused and even panicked for many minutes. They were passengers in an airplane that was perhaps too smart for it's own good.

1. Did they not see the altimeter unwinding?

2. Did they not see the artificial horizon showing more blue than black?

3. Did they not see the variometer showing a high sink rate?

4. Did the airplane hide / misrepresent reality? Or did the crew just completely ignore what the above instruments were showing?

I hate to pull this card, but have you flown? Have you soloed? Have you felt how an airplane shakes as you near a stall? In a small airplane you can even hear how the sound of the whoosh of the air over the wing changes as you approach a stall. The controls get all mushy. Pity, that AF 447's crew couldn't feel the stick go slack on them as they stalled. Or maybe their training was so lacking that they'd also ignore *that* sign. All I have is a few hours, a few solos and a few landings in a rope-and-pulley Cessna -- but that gives me a fair idea of how it feels to fly an honest airplane. I can't even imagine how it must feel (not feel?) to hand-fly something as fast and heavy as an airliner *with no stick feedback!*

As for the Paris Lawnmower, I'd like to think an airplane which would've done what the control inputs asked for would've flown out of that mess. You keep looking away from the fact that Airbus' FEP has screwed more than a few pilots over.

You think Airbus is innocent, I think their design philosophy is presumptuous.

Comment: Re:Sensors wrong (Score 1, Informative) 460

by TigerPlish (#49421901) Attached to: Planes Without Pilots

Did you read the article I quoted? They flew the airplane all the way to the floor in a stall. Every time they pushed the nose down the stall horn started. Every time they (erroneously) pulled *UP*, it silenced. Absent any visual cues and without cross-referencing instruments, they thought they were making things better by maintaining that attitude.

The point I was trying to make is, if the FEP would've allowed the stall horn to sound when at that high alpha, MAYBE they would've kept pushing the nose down, horn be damned, and fly the plane out of the stall. The FEP, to me, was not the cause but definitely a huge contributor.

How about this one? I jokingly call this one the Paris Lawnmower. Airbus A320, during a demo at the Paris Airshow. You know, home court. FEP again got in the way, the pilot asked for more power and up elevator, the computer told him to get bent.

The crew applied full power and the pilot attempted to climb. However, the elevators did not respond to the pilot's commands, because the A320 computer system engaged its 'alpha protection' mode (meant to prevent the aircraft entering a stall.) Less than five seconds later, the turbines began ingesting leaves and branches as the aircraft skimmed the tops of the trees. The combustion chambers clogged up and the engines failed. The aircraft fell to the ground.[2]

There was a theory floated by some that Airbus messed with the FDR data and threw the pilot under the bus. Airbus denies this. We'll never truly know.

And I should know better than to take your flamebait, but here you go: I'm not just a fan of Boeing, I'm a fan of most airplanes out there, old and new, little and big, from many eras, from many makers. Aviation is one of humanity's most useful, influential and coolest achivements. The DC-3 transformed America, The Jet Age (on the wings of the 707 and DC-8) truly transformed the world.

Wanting to have a pilot have the ultimate say is why I'm not too keen on pilotless aircraft under the current state of the art.

Comment: Re:Sensors wrong (Score 4, Insightful) 460

by TigerPlish (#49421523) Attached to: Planes Without Pilots

AF 447 would've had a better chance if the idiotic Airbus un-overridable Flight Envelope Protection had not silenced the stall horn when the aircraft exceeded what the FEP thought was a valid angle of attack.

The high angle of attack *was* valid, it was reality, it was happening, and whenever the pilots would push the nose down to correct the stall, the stall horn would come on again, so they would pull the nose up again. Which *erroneously* silenced the alarm.

From the Wikipedia article:

The stall warnings stopped, as all airspeed indications were now considered invalid by the aircraft's computer due to the high angle of attack.[27] In other words, the aircraft was oriented nose-up but descending steeply. Roughly 20 seconds later, at 02:12 UTC, the pilot decreased the aircraft's pitch slightly, airspeed indications became valid and the stall warning sounded again and sounded intermittently for the remaining duration of the flight, but stopped when the pilot increased the aircraft's nose-up pitch. From there until the end of the flight, the angle of attack never dropped below 35 degrees.

You see the problem there? The plane thought for the pilot, and it thought wrong.

FWIW, Boeing's FEP can be completely over-ridden, but not Airbus'. Even with all the benefits of FEP, I think the pilot should always have final say.

Comment: What the what?! (Score 1) 353

by TigerPlish (#49366879) Attached to: Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina Near Launching Presidential Bid

Let's see, what could possibly go wrong with entrusting the keeping of the nation's confidence to a CEO that pretty much steered HP right into the iceberg.

No. Just.. no. NO fucking way.

The only way I'd accept this is if she outsources Congress to a call center in India. They can't do any worse than the locals!

Comment: I'll miss the current show (Score 2) 662

by TigerPlish (#49345433) Attached to: Jeremy Clarkson Dismissed From Top Gear

I'll miss the show as it exists now, and not just because of the cars and the trips and the stunts - I'll miss it because Top Gear UK isn't afraid to call a manufacturer out on a bad car. That's something the US version can't, and won't do -- because in the US, you don't badmouth the very people who give you money in exchange for advertising on your show / magazine.

It was good while it lasted, and it's remarkable it lasted this long.

Comment: Re:Retail is dead anyway (Score 1) 110

I did go to Lowes, and Target, and even the hated Walmart - none of them had what I was looking for, so yeah, Amazon had it.

For truly big-ticket items such as washers, dryers, etc - that I would buy at a local store. But vacuums, wine fridges, etc? Amazon. The local selection of those two items, for example, is thin to none. Each store carries the same crap bottom-end vaccums and dyson hi-end, nothing in between. Amazon had the in-between. Wine fridge? None locally. I called. I perused web pages. "Online only." So I did! Just not at that particular store's site.

The last two appliances I bought at local stores were a coffemaker and a toaster. Oh and some power tools from home depot.

It's telling that selection is narrower and inventory much lower than it was 10 years ago. The big-boxes are feeling pain.

Ma Bell is a mean mother!

Working...