SethInMI

I see the analogy a bit differently: In my analogy the parachutist was wearing an aad and had it turned on. Sure he didn't pull his handles, and yes he impacted on a 500ft hill, so the aad would not have saved him, but it still should have fired. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Yeah, we don't know when the woman stepped off the curb and entered the other lane (the dark one), but as soon as she did the car should have slowed down. Even if it braked hard in the second that she was in the car's lane, it would have not have saved her life, but would have demonstrated the superiority of autonomous cars. In Uber's defense, the car had a safety driver because it was not fully ready, and from that perspective I can't fault them since it behaved no worse than a person would have. Still, I await their explanation of what the cars LIDAR sensor recorded and if it acted as they expected and would like it to. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Another article talking about Uber poor performance compared to Google. https://mashable.com/2018/03/23/uber-self-driving-car-problems/#y_ZJAe5GSOq9 Article quotes nyt, Uber is at one intervention required every 13 miles. Google is at 5600 miles per intervention. Uber racing to catch up, may be cutting corners. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I disagree. They mentioned all the relevant information: the woman was crossing mid-street (jaywalking) and came out of the shadows and the car never slowed down. They wonder with the all the sophisticated sensors on the car why it didn't react. I wondered that too in a post a few up from yours. I still wonder. They are demanding the car's sensors live up to the promise to be better than a human. I do think a mention of the limited about of time between when the pedestrian came into the lane and when the car hit them would have been appropriate, and the use of the word "glaring" may be too much, but as this is an opinion piece, I think that is allowed. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I was taught as a child that if I truly accepted Christ into my heart, my name would be written in the book of life, and when I died my soul would be taken by God and he would perfect me. I would be incapable of sinning anymore, and I was able to enter heaven. As a perfect being I would spend the rest of eternity with God living a wonderful existence. One thougt that bothers me, is that if God is 100% good and is capable of making people perfect like he will for the Christians who enter Heaven, why would he not have created Adam and Eve that same way? Why not skip all the misery and pain of the past 1000's of years and just build a world of perfect people? Build the earth in Heaven itself, like some people claim the bible says will happen after the last judgement. It is really really hard in the face of some terrible things that happen on this world to say, no no, this is really a better alternative. When a child dies of cancer, don't you ever wonder, why? If God will eventually construct a world where that can't happen, why this terrible prelude, just do it right the first time. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

If you have never watched this Google Car TED talk, this 7 minutes of video is worth your time, IMHO. This is from 2015, so three years ago. It talks about: 1. Google cars sharing learning data about how cars / cyclists / people look and move around. 2. Google car detecting and handling properly: a. Cyclist raising arm to signal left turn b. Cop directing traffic with arm signals c. School bus stopped with flashers on d. construction zone traffic cones e. cars and cyclists running red lights f. woman in electric wheelchair chasing a duck into the road https://youtu.be/tiwVMrTLUWg?t=7m12s as far as I can tell, the data to make these decisions is coming from the LIDAR sensor, which does not care if it is day or night. I really wonder if a google car would have hit that woman. There is a reason google is the only company on the road without a safety driver, in california they are reporting about 2 interventions required per year (12k miles). Amazing stuff, I just suspect Uber is not there yet. Seth It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Yeah, during the transition period where cars are sometimes in autonomous mode and sometimes manual, I think there will be some accidents caused by people not making the switch. I use my "smart" cruise control in my car so often that I am used to it automatically tracking the car in front of me. When I drive my wife's car, I have to remember that when I have cruise on, I still need to brake if I come up on another car. Once the majority of driving is autonomous, I imagine if people do take the wheel, the novelty of it will make them extra careful. But after a while habit will take over and they could get in trouble. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

That is a good point, black does absorb LIDAR just like it absorbs visible light (LIDAR is infrared). Obviously the more powerful the laser the more it can get back, but black detection range can be 10-30 % of white. here is a data sheet of one of the 2D LIDAR sensors we use. https://www.pepperl-fuchs.com/usa/en/classid_53.htm?view=productdetails&prodid=71259 It detects white to 30m and black to 10m edit to add, it does not make a difference day or night. the sensor is putting out its own laser light, and it needs to get those pulses back to "see" It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

The video has been released. https://youtu.be/P243yeOnKoo this techcrunch article has a good summary of the Uber sensor suite, and I agree with the writers curiosity as to why they were apparently unable to recognize the pedestrian, as LIDAR systems are self-illuminating and therefore work in the dark. https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/19/heres-how-ubers-self-driving-cars-are-supposed-to-detect-pedestrians/ I wonder if the LIDAR detected "something" in the adjacent lane, but since the visual cameras could not resolve it, they just ignored it as an unknown element in a different lane and therefore not a problem? Hopefully we will get an answer as to what the car was "thinking" It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

If I wasn't sure what to do, that means I have not jumped at this DZ before or in a long time, so I probably would just follow down the person in front of me. If it was a DZ I normally jumped at, I would know what to do when someone is landing the wrong way, and I would do that. If the rule is follow the tetrahedron no matter what, I would do that. I would keep an eye on the first person so that I didn't line up my final with his, so basically land not "out" but away from him as reasonably possible. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

It is interesting to wonder what type of avoidance algorithms are in place, or eventually should be in place. There are tons of hypotheticals: 1. Person steps in front of car, but far enough ahead that car can avoid them but not stop before hitting them. Avoiding them means: a. driving onto the sidewalk and (optional scenarios) hitting a parking meter and a small / large tree, or possibly (with varying certainty) hitting sidewalk pedestrians. b. driving into a brush filled ditch with unknown depth c. driving off onto the shoulder. Should the car leave the travel lane? One could argue that since the pedestrian is in the wrong, protecting the vehicle occupants and sidewalk pedestrians should be paramount, and taking the car out of the travel lane should only be done when it can be done safely. It would be an awesome display of pro-automation to see an incident where a car manages to very deliberately just miss everything, the jaywalking pedestrian, the tree and the sidewalk pedestrian, in a way that is obvious few humans could. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

You are saying exactly what I was taught as a kid, and firmly believed up through college. But once you set it aside for awhile and take another look, it does not make enough sense. I suspect many more leave the church as adults as come to it, simply because the hurdle to believing the story requires well, a big leap of faith. And the bible has some cover for these impossible conundrums, like I Corinthians 13:12 "For now we see in a mirror, darkly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known." Basically this is often taken to mean, "we know it does not make sense, but just go with it, we (the bible writers) know what we are talking about." It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

The real point of this thread is so someone could post Monty Python's Christmas in Heaven. It's got a stairway, it's got Heaven, it's got boobies, it's Christmas, every single day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70h9cyRTxXs It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

That is the point of "divinely inspired" books like the Bible, they are supposed to give a picture into God's mind, for those that believe the writing in the book. Personally, I like to think there are as many "religions" as their are religious people on earth, as each person has in their imagination a unique picture of what God is like, what the afterlife is like, and who will be there. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

yeah that is what I was trying to say. No one believes Steven is going to heaven. Christians believe non-believers won't be there, non-believers don't believe it exists at all. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Aww. "It's full of stars!" ----------------------------------------- as a fellow atheist, my answer to "what happens to you when you die?" is you live on in the memories of the living. By that measure, Steven will have an afterlife that will far exceed most others of our time. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I get the humor of wheelchair and stairs, but the pedantic part of me says: 1. As an atheist, he is going down not up. 2. As an spirit, he would leave his body behind and just be his "normal" self. People in heaven don't have wheelchairs. so it is hard to be insulted about something that does not make any sense. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

this talk of evidence and video got me thinking, and I wish one of the lawyers was still around to give 2c on this HYPOTHETICAL: Steve is fun jumping at a boogie. He chats up a tandem pax, sees that she has no video, and decides after landing to get a shot of her landing. He is not in a great position, but gets the approach and landing. The landing is bad, the pax is seriously injured. No one noticed Steve shooting. He puts the camera away and heads to the packing tent. Now as I understand it, Steve can't delete the video, even as a disinterested person, because he reasonably would think he has evidence that may be required in a lawsuit. Is this true? Does he need to volunteer that he has it? How long would he have to keep it? Would a lawyer get the entire list of boogie attendees and depose them all to see if any one saw / recorded anything? It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

With canopy collisions there are a few variables that make it hard to get a firm answer, but it is definitely worth some thought. If you attend safety day and can find a CRW dog or dogs who is also attending, having them talk through the different scenarios would be a good idea, as dealing with canopy collisions is something they train for and deal with. there are two kinds: 1. a wrap, where one jumper is covered in lines or canopy fabric and the other jumper is (usually) clear. 2. an entanglement, where the canopies are entangled but the jumpers are free, one jumper usually spinning around the other. with canopy collisions, the 1st rule is to talk it out altitude permitting, but below 1k ft you altitude is NOT permitting, and that make it very hard to know what to do. Many wraps can clear themselves, what your descent rate is factors in. cutting away from a rapidly spinning / descending entanglement is different decision than in a wrap that is more stable. If I was above 600 ft I would probably cut away if I was clear. I would probably have to get into a collision at 1000 ft because I would burn 400 ft trying to figure out what is going on. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Yeah to me, the 1000' ft line is a convenient if conservative line. Reserves are supposed to open within 3sec or 300 ft, so cutting away from a rapidly descending mal at 900 or 700 ft is a good idea, esp with a MARD or standard RSL. You really don't have much time once you get below that 1k line, and I think if you thought cutting away at higher altitudes was a bad idea and things have not changed, at 1k you need to think about things differently, and if you can't cutaway, you should just deploy the reserve anyway. To me, hard deck and decision alti are the same, the alti where you stop trying to get the main properly deployed and flying, and go to the reserve, and the 1k line is where you acknowledge you are fucked, you pause from trying to fix why you can't cutaway, deploy your reserve, and then go back to trying to fix why you can't cutaway. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Show me where it says that. The tandem BSR refers to age limits with "5) All student tandem skydives must be conducted in accordance with the specific manufacturer’s age requirements for the tandem system used for that jump" I can't imagine Mike intentionally violating a BSR, and if he is not using a tandem system that has a 18 age requirement, he isn't. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

I live in west Michigan, and have a female friend who only wants to jump with female TI. anyone know a dz that has a one on staff? Chicago area, east side of MI would be options... thanks Seth It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

[inline "B26 crew with parachute.jpg"] It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

its a 360 camera like the GoPro Fusion. keeping the student in frame was done in video editing software after landing by just cutting out parts of the 360 degree shot. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

That's how I see it. Skydiving is a motor sport. As is tunnel flying. In that case, you would need to declare downhill skiing is a motor sport, because the lifts are motorized. According to the news yesterday, the Olympic downhill ski race had a vertical drop of >2700 ft. That is enough height to do a accuracy comp, and almost enough for a swoop comp. It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".