> The "random blinking green light" is generally more reliable Yes, but not because of the light itself, but due to the safety steps done before. Which should also have happened before the movement order in any other…
Congratulation you are reinventing 1890 state of the art.
> The only bit of data we are interested in for collision avoidance is the linear offset along the track. So that is naive, but assuming that would be all that you need, with GPS you would also need the positions of all…
That has been true in the last century, but now the classic collisions are way rarer. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschede_train_disaster . I would actually sit in front now. Sometimes you would be able to still…
Why would they trust "a random blinking green light", but not a written and stamped order? Yes, they could do that (and sometimes it will actually prevent an accident), but it will be more being a snowflake, then being…
> a damning indictment of the glaring incompetence of train companies. No, what I describe has nothing to do with the companies, that's the research state. It's just an indictment of you making bold statement about a…
> Why is that? What exactly? A conductor always just gets a movement order. They are not able to assess whether the track is clear, that's the reason why the signalling system exists in the first place. How they get…
Trains are still not able to assess properly where they are, even using satellites and inside train sensors. Of course there is research on that, but it's still an unsolved problem. (Current alternative is to put…
Depends. For example German Zs1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_signals_in_Germany#Zs1...) would give them the full clear outside of stations.
We do not have self-driving cars in all environments that clear the necessary security regulation! Also the socially accepted number of deaths due to trains is way below that for cars. The current accident is just a…
> From the controller to the driver, every single one of them should have said hey we shouldn't just ignore a signal A train driver has zero insight in what is going on and where other trains are. They do need to trust…
It just means that a false positive rate is a as dangerous as a false negative rate. Just issuing a warning doesn't come for free when you are designing a security system.
Sorry, but ordering trains to drive manually after the system locks itself down, is the proper procedure. Of course you are still supposed to only send trains to free sections, but the error is in that step, not that…
I don't get why there is actual complaining about that outcome, because that seemed what the actual intention was. SO made it clear, that they do not want to be a Q&A forum, but a collection of novel and interesting…
> Hang on a sec... Because destructivism doesn't need to be non-human.
Yeah, you can expand "falls" to "in dem Falle, dass".
It's funny, when I do steal something I get called bad, and when I do nothing and turn the blind eye to others stealing, I get called bad too. Morality doesn't solely depend on action or inaction, it also matter what…
> the random maintainer had no idea what they were doing Upstream was involved in it as well. Sure it was a communication problem, but it's not like the maintainer just decided to this unilaterally. Also this WAS…
Why would these public network would allow guest hosts to communicate with each other?
What book are you referring to?
> Pointless to call out a president. I understand this to mean, which administration was ruling at the time, rather than that the president would be personally responsible.
A concept also known as the categoric imperative from Kant or the Golden Rule from the bible.
Would you also say for example, that there was no suppression in the GDR?
Last I checked humans don't consume electricity what's-o-ever.
So an effect that kills are humans wouldn't be real, as long as it kills faster than you can perceive. Are things predating humans not real?
> The "random blinking green light" is generally more reliable Yes, but not because of the light itself, but due to the safety steps done before. Which should also have happened before the movement order in any other…
Congratulation you are reinventing 1890 state of the art.
> The only bit of data we are interested in for collision avoidance is the linear offset along the track. So that is naive, but assuming that would be all that you need, with GPS you would also need the positions of all…
That has been true in the last century, but now the classic collisions are way rarer. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschede_train_disaster . I would actually sit in front now. Sometimes you would be able to still…
Why would they trust "a random blinking green light", but not a written and stamped order? Yes, they could do that (and sometimes it will actually prevent an accident), but it will be more being a snowflake, then being…
> a damning indictment of the glaring incompetence of train companies. No, what I describe has nothing to do with the companies, that's the research state. It's just an indictment of you making bold statement about a…
> Why is that? What exactly? A conductor always just gets a movement order. They are not able to assess whether the track is clear, that's the reason why the signalling system exists in the first place. How they get…
Trains are still not able to assess properly where they are, even using satellites and inside train sensors. Of course there is research on that, but it's still an unsolved problem. (Current alternative is to put…
Depends. For example German Zs1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_signals_in_Germany#Zs1...) would give them the full clear outside of stations.
We do not have self-driving cars in all environments that clear the necessary security regulation! Also the socially accepted number of deaths due to trains is way below that for cars. The current accident is just a…
> From the controller to the driver, every single one of them should have said hey we shouldn't just ignore a signal A train driver has zero insight in what is going on and where other trains are. They do need to trust…
It just means that a false positive rate is a as dangerous as a false negative rate. Just issuing a warning doesn't come for free when you are designing a security system.
Sorry, but ordering trains to drive manually after the system locks itself down, is the proper procedure. Of course you are still supposed to only send trains to free sections, but the error is in that step, not that…
I don't get why there is actual complaining about that outcome, because that seemed what the actual intention was. SO made it clear, that they do not want to be a Q&A forum, but a collection of novel and interesting…
> Hang on a sec... Because destructivism doesn't need to be non-human.
Yeah, you can expand "falls" to "in dem Falle, dass".
It's funny, when I do steal something I get called bad, and when I do nothing and turn the blind eye to others stealing, I get called bad too. Morality doesn't solely depend on action or inaction, it also matter what…
> the random maintainer had no idea what they were doing Upstream was involved in it as well. Sure it was a communication problem, but it's not like the maintainer just decided to this unilaterally. Also this WAS…
Why would these public network would allow guest hosts to communicate with each other?
What book are you referring to?
> Pointless to call out a president. I understand this to mean, which administration was ruling at the time, rather than that the president would be personally responsible.
A concept also known as the categoric imperative from Kant or the Golden Rule from the bible.
Would you also say for example, that there was no suppression in the GDR?
Last I checked humans don't consume electricity what's-o-ever.
So an effect that kills are humans wouldn't be real, as long as it kills faster than you can perceive. Are things predating humans not real?