DIYbanter - View Single Post - Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?

Jim Yanik

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article
,
wrote:
On Mar 3, 10:54=A0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
=
..com, wrote:

On Mar 2, 9:01=3DA0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article ,
(D=
on =3D
Klipstein) wrote:
In , Doug Miller wrote:
The thing that really stood out to me was the statement by
Toyota's president that they're going to look into programming
a brake overri=
de
for the throttle.

I have only one question: WHY IN GOD'S NAME WAS THAT NOT THERE
FROM =
THE
BEGINNING?

=3DA0*Programming* a throttle override by the brake? =3DA0As in
rely=
ing on =3D
lack
of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably
apply a=
n
override onto the throttle?

Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a
throttle malfunction, for the override to not work would require
a second malfu=
nction.
Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less likely than
any s=
ingle
malfunction.

That's obviously totally false.

No, in fact, that's an elementary principle of probability theory:
any tw=
o
events in combination are less likely to occur than either one of
them al=
one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's false too. The probability of two events occuring in
combination is only less IF THE TWO ARE INDEPENDENT. You are arguing
that it's perfectly fine to have the same computer that is running the
throttle to also be the safety override and to disengage the throttle
if the brakes are applied.

I said no such thing.

Running on the same computer, those two
events are no longer independent.

Indeed, that is so. But "running on the same computer" is *your* idea,
not mine.

Surely you must know that you
could easily design a computer that controlled both where if the
computer ran amock, it could command full throttle and ignore the
start/stop button that is telling it to shut off the engine. I'm
amazed you would argue such a thing.

I have not done so. You are debating against a straw man of your own
creation.

OTOH,you never mentioned the need to ADD a second computer to run your
extra override code.
Thus,it's natural that we should presume you intended to add extra code to
the existing computer programming and use the existing control channels.

Or perhaps you can tell us just HOW you intended to implement your idea of
brake override programming?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com