I assume that the MCAS system design is designed similar to the Stall Protection System (SPS) in most aircraft. The SPS uses both angle-of-attack vane sensor inputs but triggers a stall alert if either of the sensors exceed a limit. So yes, one wrong sensor input would cause an issue but the system is looking at both. Because they are necessarily located on the side of the aircraft, an aircraft in roll will have differing angle-of-attack sensor inputs. Given that a rolling stall was one of the scenarios they were trying to protect against, a miscompare between the two angle-of-attack vane sensors would be expected, especially considering that the system can have tolerances of up to 1.5degrees during the takeoff phase

It appears that they are looking at using the airspeed and inertial sensors to cross-verify, but given that no other sensor is directly measuring angle-of-attack any other method will be limited, as the computed angle-of-attack will be an estimate.

So while I agree that there were issues with design, it is not as simple a fix as cross-comparing both vane sensors in this case

Where I live in Montreal there is no driveway parking in my neighbourhood, and EV owners are dependent on public electric charging terminals. There are simply not enough terminals for the current number of EVs, and if drivers were to all switch to EVs it would be impossible for the city to install one terminal for every parked car for overnight charging, or even one charge terminal for every other car.

Electric vehicles are simply not feasible without having a driveway. And street parking is the norm for residents in in the city center of many major cities, unless you're well off enough to afford an expensive parking space. This is certainly the case in New York, London and Paris, for example. The only people I know who have EV's are suburbanites who have driveways. Hybrid vehicles are the only option for most of us urbanites, unless the dependency of driveway charging is solved.

The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) adding control inputs during flights is not an issue per se. Most commercial aircraft flying today have some form of automated control inputs on the primary control surfaces for stability augmentation. Yaw dampers in the rudder for lateral stability are present in even the smallest regional jets.

A bigger issue is that a single-point of failure in the MCAS can lead to a catastrophic condition, given that the MCAS is dependent on air speed data for its inputs. The pitot tubes that feed airspeed information can be prone to blockages and icing, as happened on the AF447 flight. Any safety-critical system cannot have a single point of failure lead to a catastrophic condition.

The A320 series had the ground clearance necessary to accomodate the new engines without needing to reposition them, hence no stability issues due to the engine placement that might have required an equivalent MCAS system.

The MCAS system was implemented because the 737-MAX engines are placed more forward of the wing which will tend to induce a nose up pitching moment particularly at high angles of attack near stall. This would've probably been a certification issue.

Now the 737 MAX had the engines placed so far forward to enable enough ground clearance. The original 50-year old 737 had low bypass engines which much smaller and could be placed directly under the wings. The newer models already ran into ground clearance issues, and this was initially solved by putting the engine systems to the side of the engine creating a distinct ovoid nacelle shape. With the new GE Leap engines, this fix was no longer sufficient due to larger engine diameter, hence the repositioning forward.

Newer aircraft like the airbus a300 series and the airbus a220 (bombardier cseries) never had this issue because they were designed to accomodate large diameter newer generation engines. The basic design of the 737 has always suffered from this flaw and really Boeing should have invested in a new aircraft design rather than try to re-engine an aircraft that was never designed for it. This was like fitting a V-12 engine into a model T.

for preserving a slice of software history. Not only has he collected a rich historical collection preserving the evolution of spreadsheet software, but from the article he's also interviewed and corresponded with the software pioneers from the field, most of whom are in their 80s and 90s now, preserving their historical testimony. Without him an important part of software history might otherwise have been forgotten. I suspect his collection, and his research into the field, will be an invaluable archive for those interested in computing history. It's a shame that his interest in preserving software history is being met with more mockery than support by the slashdot community.

Given the volatility in Bitcoin prices, and the wild price fluctuations, "all of the above" is the only true answer, as the bitcoin price seems to meet all possible alternatives on any given day.

According to Waymo's latest disengagement report for 2017, their disengagement rate is 1 once per 5600 miles. Considering the average american drives around 13000 miles per year based on DOT statistics, this equates to a disengagement incident every 5 months per vehicle. If the car is fully autonomous without a monitoring driver, each of those disengament incidents would translate into an accident. Any human that had an accident every 5 months would find themselves uninsurable in short order.

I don't think they should be rolling out these vehicles on the road until they can prove that it is not expected to disengage more than once over their lifetime, or once per 200,000 miles. At the current rates, it would be irresponsible to have the vehicles on public roads

As other stories point out, she is an American citizen. And as an American citizen, she cannot be denied entry to the United States. Border patrol's role in searching a citizen when crossing the border is only to determine if you are carrying contraband or illegal goods. As a citizen you have an inherent right to enter the country. Given that the iPhone seized is legally sold in the US, the only reason to seize it is if they had reason to suspect that the data in it was illegal in some form, and for that they should need a warrant.

While some were describing his flight as possessing acrobatic skill, I'd describe it as unstable and erratic flying from the very beginning of the flight. The plane was described by witnesses as taking off with the wheels smoking and with the wings not level during the takeoff roll. The conversation with air traffic control was characterized by ignorance of basic flight operations. And he did not perform the most difficult part of flying, which is the landing.

If anything, I'd say what this showed is how poorly a flight simulator prepared him for real life flying.

Second, the difference was not that big, 0,5% less on the outcome of both cases, mortality and readmission, (or about 4% in relative terms) when treated by a woman, when the biggest difference in outcome, according the numbers by SciAm, was the gender itself, 26% of women will die within a year of a heart attack compared with 19% of men.

This. The difference is very small. If you're in the ER for a heart attack, you should be seen by a doctor - male or female - immediately. Time is of the essence. The sensationalist tone I've seen this reported in the media may lead some women to seek a female doctor over a male one in the ER, and the delay in finding a doctor of the proper gender will lead to a far higher mortality rate than the male-female difference.