Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:"WSJ stunt to maximize anti-Clinton engagement" (Score 1) 222

by dunkindave (#49760805) Attached to: WSJ Crowdsources Investigation of Hillary Clinton Emails

The emails that have been released are those that Clinton decided should not be deleted, so unless she made a mistake, there shouldn't be anything incriminating...

That would be nearly impossible to pull off because one is sending email to at least one other person, and unless you are certain the receiver kept nothing nowhere, you are at risk of being exposed.

In any criminal endeavor or breaking of the rules, there is always a risk of bing exposed which is part of the playing field, so the existence of such risk doesn't mean much. That is why people take steps to avoid being exposed, like destroying evidence such as hard disks.

If you were communicating with someone else for the purpose of coordinating the concealment of your involvement in a fiasco, or at least extent of it, then both parties have a great interest in making sure the communications never come to light. Clinton made sure to use a mail server she owned and controlled, so there was little risk of exposure on her end. Who she may have communicated with is now open to speculation, because of her decision to control the selection of which emails were released and then erase the disks so there was no possibility of a second review. Those are the actions of someone acting guilty, not a person with nothing to hide, and that is why this will haunt her. Elections are an exercise in public perception, and while finding incriminating emails would be very bad, what she has done appears to many to be almost as bad.

I agree that she would have an incentive to disclose any communication she had with someone she believed could have their emails discovered, but then she would have known that at the time such a cover-up may have occurred and emails sent so she would only have sent such emails to destinations she believed safe.

Anyhow, it appears that much was usually done by phone instead of email. I suspect she wouldn't put anything urgent or controversial in email.

You would think that, but then Nixon knew he was being recorded yet participated in conversations in the Oval Office to conduct the Watergate cover-up. Sometimes people don't think. They get used to communicating in a certain way and don't think about the consequences. Unfortunately because she erased the disks we will probably never know.

Comment: Re:"WSJ stunt to maximize anti-Clinton engagement" (Score 3, Interesting) 222

by dunkindave (#49755615) Attached to: WSJ Crowdsources Investigation of Hillary Clinton Emails
I say not relevant for a different reason. The emails that have been released are those that Clinton decided should not be deleted, so unless she made a mistake, there shouldn't be anything incriminating left to find. And to make sure, after extracting and turning over all the safe emails, sorry I meant official emails, she wiped the disks. Maybe there was nothing there, but her actions sure look like those of a guilty person, so either she is stupid or she is guilty. I don't want either in the White House (again).

Comment: Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives (Score 1) 615

by dunkindave (#49713211) Attached to: The Economic Consequences of Self-Driving Trucks

You are making the false assumption that the car is not also an automated vehicle. Within the next 10 years, all highway travel is likely to be automated..

While it is an assumption it is not false. The article is about a proposal to automate trucks today and what that would mean. In 10 years there may also be some automated passenger vehicles, but it will not be "all highway travel", unless you believe the government is going to pay everyone who needs to use a highway to throw away their perfectly good car. All 253 million of them. Not going to happen. For quite a long time automated vehicles and manned vehicles are going to have to coexist on the roads.

There is no reason a human needs to be sitting behind the wheel of a car for hours up9n hours in any circumstance.

Other than cost and a lot more technology so automated cars can handle the other 99% of the roads in the US, no.

Comment: Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives (Score 1) 615

by dunkindave (#49707825) Attached to: The Economic Consequences of Self-Driving Trucks

I notice that you've chosen the "truck with hot brakes" versus the car, presumably with cool brakes, for your comparison. That's not only not a fair comparison, riding around in emergency braking situations with hot brakes all the time is the result of either poor maintenance or poor driving.

That is why I didn't say what you claim. I said "a truck going the same speed as a car can take three times the distance to stop". Notice the word "can"? It means I was defining a common upper bound, not claiming it as the norm as your post implies I did. And yes, trucks do often ride around with hot brakes, such as when approaching the bottom of grades, so it is not unreasonable to expect it, nor proof the truck is poorly maintained or the driver is driving poorly. The car driver your should plan for the worst, not the best.

Friction force is a function of the coefficient of friction times the downward force. The simple physics interpretation says that the stopping distance is independent of the "amount of rubber per pound":

Regarding the issue of weight/downward force (normal force) versus total friction, the problem with tires is the road surrface and the tire surface are not uniform causing the tires to natually see more and less surface contact as they travel, some due to bounce, so the force at times decreases. When it does, if the tires begin skidding, the static friction changes to kinetic friction and the game changes. Trucks by the nature of their length and design are much more prone to this, especially bouncing, and therefore skidding. It is why dragsters use big tires on their power axle instead of small ones like your theory would suggest they could (if true it would save weight and therefore the mass the dragster would need to accelerate).

Comment: Re: Won't save most of the 4000 lives (Score 1) 615

by dunkindave (#49706999) Attached to: The Economic Consequences of Self-Driving Trucks

So do truck tires have lower coefficients of static friction or are their brakes undersized? Other than that (and dynamic forces like wheel hop starting a skid) there should be no difference in stopping distance.

A third option, as I explained in my post: "The car has a lot more rubber per pound on the road so stops faster"

both the car and truck have to support the total mass of the vehicle on the tires

The tire support ability is based on the thickness of the rubber, and thereby inflation, so truck tires can support more weight with the same surface contact area than car tires. This helps by reducing rolling friction and saves money in fuel efficiency, tire costs, etc. The consequence is trucks' have less static/dynamic friction to aid in stopping. I guess you could make a truck with a ton of tires to increase the total friction like I have seen in Europe, but then you could do that with cars too.

Comment: Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives (Score 4, Informative) 615

by dunkindave (#49706715) Attached to: The Economic Consequences of Self-Driving Trucks

If there's that much difference in stopping distance then the truck is criminally poorly maintained.

No, the fact a truck going the same speed as a car can take three times the distance to stop is physics. See this chart.. The car weighs around 3000 lbs, and the truck is 40,000-80,000 lbs. The car has a lot more rubber per pound on the road so stops faster. And no matter which driver caused it, when a 40 ton truck hits a 1 to 2 ton car, the car loses. It is the same problem with many motorcycles being able to stop faster than a car.

Comment: Won't save most of the 4000 lives (Score 5, Insightful) 615

by dunkindave (#49706277) Attached to: The Economic Consequences of Self-Driving Trucks
The summary says "in 2012, roughly 4,000 people died in accidents with large trucks, and almost all of the accidents were caused by driver error. Saving most of those lives (and countless injuries) is important." My brother is a truck driver, and from what he has told me, and also what I have seen reported multiple times, and what I have seen myself, the vast majority of accidents involving trucks are caused by car drivers misbehaving around truck. They pull stunts like pulling in front of them at merges then hitting the brakes. An autonomous truck will hit such a car just like a manned truck, so I think the claim that automating the trucks will save most of those lives is wrong.

Comment: Re:Why, why, why. (Score 1) 45

I worked for a while in a facility that required everyone to have a government security clearance. The management once sent out a notice telling people to lock up anything valuable when unattended since there had been some thefts. The notice reminded people that the background checks are designed to determine if the person can be trusted to protect the government's information, not that they in general are honest people. You would hope there is a massive overlap between those two groups, but apparently there are people they feel wouldn't sell out their government, but would sell out their coworkers. Of course if caught, having a criminal record mostly excludes the ability to get or keep the clearance.

Comment: Re:Above the law (Score 1) 148

Only the little people have to obey the law. Snowden, Manning, etc. Big wigs like James Clapper, John Brennan, and David Petraeus never get charged with crimes.

Except Petraeus did get charged and after pleading guilty, got two years probation and a $100,000 fine. Not as much as I think he should have, but it shows that sometimes the big wigs DO get charged.

Comment: Re:Charge him and prosecute him... (Score 1) 148

That's a way too complicated explanation, one put out to deceive and distract.

No that is the law. To convict requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt the person knowingly commited the offense. Given everything they see and are told every day it would be almost impossible to prove they didn't believe what they were saying might not be true which is the standard required. If you think a different standard should apply then you need to petition the government for a change of the law, and possibly even a change of the Constitution. Otherwise if charges were brought in a case like this it would certainly fail and then people would be crying about how it was a mock trial. The discontent will always find something to complain about or someone to blame.

Everything else is a flak screen for the gullible, incompetent, and rule-driven drones like lawyers and bureaucrats.

Like I said.

Comment: Re:Charge him and prosecute him... (Score 4, Interesting) 148

If he lied under oath and there's proof that he did then charge the bastard with perjury and put him on trial and make an example of him to show that you can not lie under oath to congress and get away with it.

There's a reason you almost never see anyone charged with perjury for testifying before a congressional committee, and not the one many here will offer. Legally, it isn't enough to show that what they said was wrong. To prove perjury you need to show beyond a reasonable doubt that they knew what they were saying was not true (plus a few more requirements). And since these people live in a world of constantly seeing and reviewing mounds of conflicting information, proving they knew what they were saying was wrong, and that it wasn't just a mistake, gets very hard. Even if there is evidence they were told one thing, there can easily be evidence they were also told the opposite by someone, and then the issue of reasonable doubt pops up. They may have lied, but reaching the legal requirement for a conviction of perjury can be almost impossible, so don't necessarily blame the officials for not bringing charges when they don't think they will get a guilty verdict.

Comment: They were not Senate computers (Score 1) 1

From what I remember when this story first aired, the CIA provided computers for the Senate officials to use to review the documents they had requested, so the computers the CIA searched (bugged is a better word) were CIA computers, not Senate computers. The problem is the Senate officials therefore felt the CIA was spying on the senate investigation, which they were and what this hearing is about. What the CIA personnel did was wrong, but not quite as wrong as the summary makes it sound.

Entropy isn't what it used to be.

Working...