On Mar 3, 11:17*pm, Jim Yanik wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote :





In article
,
wrote:
On Mar 3, 3:18=A0pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
.=
com, wrote:

On Mar 3, 10:54=3DA0am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article
=
ups=3D
..com, wrote:

On Mar 2, 9:01=3D3DA0pm, (Doug Miller)
wrote:
In article ,
=
(D=3D
on =3D3D
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 ove=
rri=3D
de
for the throttle.

I have only one question: WHY IN GOD'S NAME WAS THAT NOT
THERE FR=
OM =3D
THE
BEGINNING?

=3D3DA0*Programming* a throttle override by the brake?
=3D3DA0As =
in rely=3D
ing on =3D3D
lack
of electronic malfunction in order to have the brake reliably
appl=
y a=3D
n
override onto the throttle?

Since the override becomes necessary only in the event of a
throttl=
e
malfunction, for the override to not work would require a
second ma=
lfu=3D
nction.
Clearly two simultaneous malfunctions are *far* less likely
than an=
y s=3D
ingle
malfunction.

That's obviously totally false.

No, in fact, that's an elementary principle of probability
theory: any=
tw=3D
o
events in combination are less likely to occur than either one of
them=
al=3D
one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's false too. =A0 The probability of two events occuring in
combination is only less IF THE TWO ARE INDEPENDENT. =A0 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.

=A0Running on the same computer, those two
events are no longer independent. =A0

Indeed, that is so. But "running on the same computer" is *your*
idea, no=
t
mine.

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.

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

Like I said -- you're arguing against a straw man of your own
creation.

A computer malfunction that
caused full throttle could also result in the same computer not being
able to perform the brake safety function.

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 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.

you debate dishonestly.
You have never mentioned any additional computer or other method of
execution of your additional override code.

--

Thank you Jim. Good to see someone following the discussion agrees.





Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -