On Mar 3, 4:11*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

Here is the first post from Don and your reply:

Don:
**Programming* a throttle override by the brake? *As in relying on lack
of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably apply an
override onto the throttle?

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

In the context of the discussion here, it seems very reasonable that
Don's logical meaning was that if you program the brake safety overide
on the same computer that is controlling the throttle, then you're
potentially exposed to the same fault. *

Well, DUH! Obviously.

Well if you now agree that Don's meaning was that he was talking about
the same computer, then your reply was totally wrong, because it was
then up to you to say YOU were talking about 2 different computers.
So, your reply makes no sense.



But *I* never suggested that it would be part of the same computer. That's
*your* assumption.

Your getting yourself confused here. You just agreed above it was
obvious that Don was referring to one computer, ie the same one that
is running the throttle. So, how is it anyone else then supposed to
interpret your comments to be referring to anything other than that
ONE computer?



You could have just said, it's OK if it's programmed into a SEPERATE
independent computer. *

Yes, or could have just NOT ASSUMED that I meant it would be in the same
computer. I never said that. You ASSumed it.

That would have added clarity instead of your
reply, which only made it more confusing.

Confusing only if you make an ASSumption that I never stated, or even
suggested.

*And your statement as made
is WRONG anyway, because the requirement for two simulataneous
malfunctions is only true if the program resides in a SEPERATE
computer. *That qualification you never made.

And if you hadn't immediately made the ASSumption that it necessarily had to
be part of the same system, you wouldn't be confused. And you wouldn't think
that a perfectly true statement about probability is somehow false.

That problem comes from your faulty ASSumptions.


You have a problem admitting when you are wrong. And you've been
wrong three times now in this thread. Once on the parking brake issue
when you first claimed all cars parking brakes use the same pads as
the service break. Then wrong again when you said it was bizarre that
Mercedes would use a seperate brake pad for the parking brake. Several
people spotted it and told you that many cars have brakes where the
parking brakes are seperate. I also was wrong when I first implied
that all cars were that way. The difference is, I admitted it.
Yet you never said you were wrong. And your statement above is
still false:

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


That is true ONLY IF the two computers are independent of each other.
That is a critical missing piece. But you never stated that. It's
not up to others to have to make the correct assumptions to go along
with what you wrote. It's like saying you can easily survive a jump
off the George Washington bridge, but leaving out the part about
having a base jumping parachute. Then when called on it, ragging on
about others making the wrong assumptions. Also what you call
assumptions, I would call paying attention to the thread and following
the context of the discussion. I think what Don who made the post
was referring to was clear from the context. You agreed to that
above, I;ve seen his posts and think he has good sense and knows
that if you have a totally seperate computer programmed as the safety
brake/throttle override, then it's not a problem. It's very likely
he was referring to programming the SAME computer. Yet you came
back and implied he was wrong and if you were talking about 2 seperate
computers, first the response then doens't make sense, and second, it
was up to YOU to say you were talking about two.


You seem to expect
everyone else to spell out all the conditions and qualifiers yet you
yourself leave things vague or confusing and think it's just fine.

Oh, I'm supposed to predict in advance what ASSumptions you're going to make?
Sorry, no can do. My crystal ball is in the shop right now, and it's not due
back til the middle of next week.- Hide quoted text -


Let's see here. Don didn't say whether he meant programming another
computer as the brake safety or the same computer we've been talking
about in this thread that controls the throttle. Yet you ASSume he
meant a seperate computer, which seems less likely given the context,
and that's peachy keen. That is the only way the statements that you
then made would be correct. So, there are one set of rules for Doug
and one for everyone else.