On 03-Jul-16 10:08 AM, T i m wrote:
....
p.s. I wonder how many of what are seen as 'EU' rules were instigated
by us in the first place? I know when my Dad used to attend British
Standard meetings in Europe on any new rules and regs re Industrial
Lifting and Handling equipment, 'some' of the participant countries
appeared less than 'involved' in the whole process. When my Dad asked
them (in private) why this was the case, the general reply was that
they weren't going to take any notice of them in any case. So, do you
think they would be the ones trying to introduce any new safety
related rules or regs? ;-(

I can't find that anybody has looked at that question. However, I
suspect that it will be between us and the Germans as to whom the EU has
most taken inspiration from when framing regulations. :-)

The only ones I know of offhand are the Common Fisheries Policy, which
was largely based upon UK conservation measures (which will probably
come as a nasty shock to all those fishermen who wanted out of the EU
because of the CFP), the trailer side bars already mentioned and the
Medical Devices Directive. When I first heard of the last, I expected a
huge amount of work, but it was almost a straight take from the DoH
guidelines. Of course, ISO 9000, which will be referenced by just about
anything to do with quality control, started out as an almost straight
copy of BS 5750.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 18:06:34 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

On 03-Jul-16 10:08 AM, T i m wrote:
...
p.s. I wonder how many of what are seen as 'EU' rules were instigated
by us in the first place? I know when my Dad used to attend British
Standard meetings in Europe on any new rules and regs re Industrial
Lifting and Handling equipment, 'some' of the participant countries
appeared less than 'involved' in the whole process. When my Dad asked
them (in private) why this was the case, the general reply was that
they weren't going to take any notice of them in any case. So, do you
think they would be the ones trying to introduce any new safety
related rules or regs? ;-(

I can't find that anybody has looked at that question.

Ok.

However, I
suspect that it will be between us and the Germans as to whom the EU has
most taken inspiration from when framing regulations. :-)

So I wonder why some whine and bleat about 'the EU' regulating this
and that when the chances are it's (as you say) partly down to us in
the first place?

The only ones I know of offhand are the Common Fisheries Policy, which
was largely based upon UK conservation measures (which will probably
come as a nasty shock to all those fishermen who wanted out of the EU
because of the CFP),

And I understand many of the Uk fishermen sold their fishing rights to
foreigners in any case!

the trailer side bars already mentioned and the
Medical Devices Directive.

Oooerr? Well, I guess if their sole purpose is to save lives then it
makes sense?

When I first heard of the last, I expected a
huge amount of work, but it was almost a straight take from the DoH
guidelines.

As yet, apart from non-issues, no one has actually come up with a
single example where any EU rule could be considered 'a bad thing'
(and considering we probably introduced many of them in any case).

Of course, ISO 9000, which will be referenced by just about
anything to do with quality control, started out as an almost straight
copy of BS 5750.

Again, Dad produced his companies QA Manual (for BS 5750) and a Co I
worked at was also 5750 accredited.

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 16:26:12 +0100, T i m wrote:

No doubt you are aware there is considerable attention being paid to the
EU glyphosate renewal. It has been highlighted in the press on a
National and Global level.

Yup, that's why I went down the ag suppliers' and bought a shedload of
the stuff before those interfering ****s ban it. Why? Because IT GETS THE
JOB DONE!

Nightjar wrote:
On 03-Jul-16 10:08 AM, T i m wrote:
...
p.s. I wonder how many of what are seen as 'EU' rules were instigated
by us in the first place? I know when my Dad used to attend British
Standard meetings in Europe on any new rules and regs re Industrial
Lifting and Handling equipment, 'some' of the participant countries
appeared less than 'involved' in the whole process. When my Dad asked
them (in private) why this was the case, the general reply was that
they weren't going to take any notice of them in any case. So, do you
think they would be the ones trying to introduce any new safety
related rules or regs? ;-(

I can't find that anybody has looked at that question. However, I
suspect that it will be between us and the Germans as to whom the EU
has most taken inspiration from when framing regulations. :-)

The only ones I know of offhand are the Common Fisheries Policy, which
was largely based upon UK conservation measures (which will probably
come as a nasty shock to all those fishermen who wanted out of the EU
because of the CFP), the trailer side bars already mentioned and the
Medical Devices Directive. When I first heard of the last, I expected
a huge amount of work, but it was almost a straight take from the DoH
guidelines. Of course, ISO 9000, which will be referenced by just
about anything to do with quality control, started out as an almost
straight copy of BS 5750.


I was involved in both BSI and IEC at the time of ISO9000. It is
largely a waste of space. It defined in glorious box ticking terms the
lowest possible standard which you could make a product to and if you
wanted real quality and reliability, you ignored it.

On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 17:55:44 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

Certainly not my experience of dealing with Europe. Perhaps you could
provide a specific example?

Nothing you'd find acceptable, obviously.

On 03/07/2016 22:16, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 16:26:12 +0100, T i m wrote:

No doubt you are aware there is considerable attention being paid to the
EU glyphosate renewal. It has been highlighted in the press on a
National and Global level.

Yup, that's why I went down the ag suppliers' and bought a shedload of
the stuff before those interfering ****s ban it. Why? Because IT GETS THE
JOB DONE!


That was a waste of time as its been approved!
In fact it was done so before the referendum wasn't it?

On 03-Jul-16 10:24 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 17:55:44 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

Certainly not my experience of dealing with Europe. Perhaps you could
provide a specific example?

Nothing you'd find acceptable, obviously.


Why would I need to find it acceptable, whatever that is supposed to mean?

As I said, it is not my experience, but I used to make sterile medical
devices, which were heavily regulated by the Department of Health.
Hence, for me, the involvement of the EU meant that the DoH rules were
replaced by the almost identical Medical Devices Directive and I went
from complying with BS 5750 to the almost identical ISO 9000. As none of
the other businesses I know had any problems either, I was wondering in
which field these apparently quite specific complaints applied.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 03-Jul-16 10:17 PM, Capitol wrote:
....
I was involved in both BSI and IEC at the time of ISO9000. It is
largely a waste of space. It defined in glorious box ticking terms the
lowest possible standard which you could make a product to and if you
wanted real quality and reliability, you ignored it.

I wouldn't disagree with that. As first implemented, ISO 9000 (and
BS5750 before it) would allow you to make complete rubbish, provided
that you carefully documented that was the standard of product you were
making. That was why medical devices had to meet another British
Standard that expanded on BS 5750 and set minimum quality standards. It
wasn't until the 2000 revision that those elements were incorporated
into ISO 9000 and the concept of continuous improvement was added.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 7/3/2016 10:13 PM, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 18:06:34 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

On 03-Jul-16 10:08 AM, T i m wrote:
...
p.s. I wonder how many of what are seen as 'EU' rules were instigated
by us in the first place? I know when my Dad used to attend British
Standard meetings in Europe on any new rules and regs re Industrial
Lifting and Handling equipment, 'some' of the participant countries
appeared less than 'involved' in the whole process. When my Dad asked
them (in private) why this was the case, the general reply was that
they weren't going to take any notice of them in any case. So, do you
think they would be the ones trying to introduce any new safety
related rules or regs? ;-(

I can't find that anybody has looked at that question.

Ok.

However, I
suspect that it will be between us and the Germans as to whom the EU has
most taken inspiration from when framing regulations. :-)

So I wonder why some whine and bleat about 'the EU' regulating this
and that when the chances are it's (as you say) partly down to us in
the first place?

So do I. I think it is mostly just a convenient bogeyman summoned into
existence by those looking for something to campaign on. Rather like
Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood", or Joe McCarthy's communists before that.

I rather enjoyed the Patrick Stewart video where he is told that the
European Human Rights directive is derived from British rules developed
post-Nuremburg.

On Saturday, 2 July 2016 12:39:49 UTC+1, dennis@home wrote:
On 02/07/2016 08:51, Brian Gaff wrote:
From what I heard on the radio it was dazzled, which does seem a bit of a
lame excuse to me. If it had been driving into a very low sun does this mean
it would drive into anything?

Drivers get dazzled more easily than cameras should.
The camera should have a higher dynamic range than the eye.

That wouldn't achieve much.


People need to get this in perspective, many drivers crash in the same
circumstances and that there was a human driver at the wheel who also
crashed the car not just the computer.

why didn't the human take over ?

The problem with computer driven vehicals is that they are still using relatively old technology and software they run AI, the next generation will run CI cognative inteligence one of our lectures left to work on CI at google
it's teh ability pf teh computer to recognoses thiongs like deciding teh differnce between a papper bag and a human when it detects such a thing in front of it and how to work otu what it is ather than it's an object hit the breaks which is pretty much all they do now.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 03-Jul-16 10:17 PM, Capitol wrote:
...
I was involved in both BSI and IEC at the time of ISO9000. It is
largely a waste of space. It defined in glorious box ticking terms the
lowest possible standard which you could make a product to and if you
wanted real quality and reliability, you ignored it.

I wouldn't disagree with that. As first implemented, ISO 9000 (and BS5750
before it) would allow you to make complete rubbish, provided that you
carefully documented that was the standard of product you were making.
That was why medical devices had to meet another British Standard that
expanded on BS 5750 and set minimum quality standards. It wasn't until the
2000 revision that those elements were incorporated into ISO 9000 and the
concept of continuous improvement was added.

The problem with that line, which I have no evidence is wrong, is that
Britain can clearly do fine outside the EU in that area, just like it can
by trading under the WTO rules with the EU, just like all of the USA,
China, Japan, India, Australia, Canada etc clearly do right now.

whisky-dave wrote
dennis@home wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

From what I heard on the radio it was dazzled, which does
seem a bit of a lame excuse to me. If it had been driving into
a very low sun does this mean it would drive into anything?

Drivers get dazzled more easily than cameras should.
The camera should have a higher dynamic range than the eye.

That wouldn't achieve much.

People need to get this in perspective, many drivers crash in
the same circumstances and that there was a human driver
at the wheel who also crashed the car not just the computer.

why didn't the human take over ?

Presumably because by the time he had noticed
the problem, he'd lost his head, quite literally.

The problem with computer driven vehicals is that they are still
using relatively old technology and software they run AI, the
next generation will run CI cognative inteligence one of our
lectures left to work on CI at google it's teh ability pf teh computer
to recognoses thiongs like deciding teh differnce between a papper
bag and a human when it detects such a thing in front of it and how
to work otu what it is ather than it's an object hit the breaks which
is pretty much all they do now.

Doesnt help if the sensors dont even notice that there is a ****ing
great artic trailer at right angles in front of the car its driving.

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 11:02:10 +0100, newshound
wrote:

snip

So I wonder why some whine and bleat about 'the EU' regulating this
and that when the chances are it's (as you say) partly down to us in
the first place?

So do I. I think it is mostly just a convenient bogeyman summoned into
existence by those looking for something to campaign on.

Quite.

Rather like
Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood", or Joe McCarthy's communists before that.

I'll take your word for that. ;-)

I rather enjoyed the Patrick Stewart video where he is told that the
European Human Rights directive is derived from British rules developed
post-Nuremburg.

Fancy that eh.

This event (as oppose to any other UK general / local election) really
seems to have been and still is, a farce.

I read what some of the Brexit loons here say and then I compare that
to what I see / hear about it all, both my own thoughts and those of
most 'ordinary people' I meet and those they interview on TV and, in
general, it's only those looking for or trying to justify 'reasons' on
why *they think* leaving the EU is a good idea come across as having
no idea.

All the TV talk shows that are covering it and especially those with
phone in's and even I can spot straight away those who are trying to
blame *everything* on the EU, till the presenter steps in (who in
general are trying to be neutral) and counters their 'errors'.

The most frightening thing is when the Brexiteers come out with
something that even I know and they stumble and say 'they didn't know
that!'

Why TF are they trying to tell us why they think we should all vote to
leave when they obviously don't know the facts?

I stated I wasn't 'political' at the get-go, that I spoiled my paper
and am still to this day open minded about it all, it's just that I
still haven't heard any justification for Leave that isn't instantly
countered / offset (often many fold) by the reasons to stay? ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Monday, 4 July 2016 19:58:07 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
dennis@home wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

From what I heard on the radio it was dazzled, which does
seem a bit of a lame excuse to me. If it had been driving into
a very low sun does this mean it would drive into anything?

Drivers get dazzled more easily than cameras should.
The camera should have a higher dynamic range than the eye.

That wouldn't achieve much.

People need to get this in perspective, many drivers crash in
the same circumstances and that there was a human driver
at the wheel who also crashed the car not just the computer.

why didn't the human take over ?

Presumably because by the time he had noticed
the problem, he'd lost his head, quite literally.

The problem with computer driven vehicals is that they are still
using relatively old technology and software they run AI, the
next generation will run CI cognative inteligence one of our
lectures left to work on CI at google it's teh ability pf teh computer
to recognoses thiongs like deciding teh differnce between a papper
bag and a human when it detects such a thing in front of it and how
to work otu what it is ather than it's an object hit the breaks which
is pretty much all they do now.

Doesnt help if the sensors dont even notice that there is a ****ing
great artic trailer at right angles in front of the car its driving.

How do sensors tell the car there is a ****ing great artic trailer
how would it detect it's size it';s artic or anything else, all the sensors has done is detected an object.

That's the differntce need to have a cognative awareness of what sensors see.

Just like our eyes need to be connected to a brain to work out what the impulese recived might mean.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
dennis@home wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

From what I heard on the radio it was dazzled, which does
seem a bit of a lame excuse to me. If it had been driving into
a very low sun does this mean it would drive into anything?

Drivers get dazzled more easily than cameras should.
The camera should have a higher dynamic range than the eye.

That wouldn't achieve much.

People need to get this in perspective, many drivers crash in
the same circumstances and that there was a human driver
at the wheel who also crashed the car not just the computer.

why didn't the human take over ?

Presumably because by the time he had noticed
the problem, he'd lost his head, quite literally.

The problem with computer driven vehicals is that they are still
using relatively old technology and software they run AI, the
next generation will run CI cognative inteligence one of our
lectures left to work on CI at google it's teh ability pf teh computer
to recognoses thiongs like deciding teh differnce between a papper
bag and a human when it detects such a thing in front of it and how
to work otu what it is ather than it's an object hit the breaks which
is pretty much all they do now.

Doesnt help if the sensors dont even notice that there is a ****ing
great artic trailer at right angles in front of the car its driving.

How do sensors tell the car there is a ****ing great artic trailer

Same way it works out that the car is headed for the wall of a building etc.

how would it detect it's size it';s artic or anything else,
all the sensors has done is detected an object.

Keep this **** up and your **** will be ignored.

That's the differntce need to have a
cognative awareness of what sensors see.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Just like our eyes need to be connected to a brain
to work out what the impulese recived might mean.

Nothing like in fact.

On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 23:14:50 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Doesnt help if the sensors dont even notice that there is a ****ing
great artic trailer at right angles in front of the car its driving.

How do sensors tell the car there is a ****ing great artic trailer

Same way it works out that the car is headed for the wall of a building etc.

No it's not.
It's unlikely a wall of a building will be traveling at any appreciable speed.
So a car would have to know that the wall will not move out of it's way.



how would it detect it's size it';s artic or anything else,
all the sensors has done is detected an object.

Keep this **** up and your **** will be ignored.

I do hope so, from you anyway.


That's the differntce need to have a
cognative awareness of what sensors see.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

How can you tell a wall from apice of dog ****, oh you can;t yuo're in tehat paper bag trying to lie your way out of it.



Just like our eyes need to be connected to a brain
to work out what the impulese recived might mean.

Nothing like in fact.

exactly like that a sennor records the distance from the sensor to the closest object and that's it, they aren't even very accurate.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Doesnt help if the sensors dont even notice that there is a ****ing
great artic trailer at right angles in front of the car its driving.

How do sensors tell the car there is a ****ing great artic trailer

Same way it works out that the car is headed for the wall of a building
etc.

No it's not.

Corse it is.

It's unlikely a wall of a building will be traveling at any appreciable
speed.

That artic wasnt.

So a car would have to know that the wall will not move out of it's way.

Even sillier than you usually manage. What matters
is that that artic clearly was not out if the car's way
and the car needed to stop because it wasnt.

That's the differntce need to have a
cognative awareness of what sensors see.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

How can you tell a wall from apice of dog ****,

By the size, ****wit.

Just like our eyes need to be connected to a brain
to work out what the impulese recived might mean.

Nothing like in fact.

On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 11:47:52 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Doesnt help if the sensors dont even notice that there is a ****ing
great artic trailer at right angles in front of the car its driving.

How do sensors tell the car there is a ****ing great artic trailer

Same way it works out that the car is headed for the wall of a building
etc.

No it's not.

Corse it is.

you know nothing. Do you really think all sensors are the same ?
What sort of sensor do you think they use to detect a wall of a building, a short range sensor, the sensor that detects fire/smoke, the sensor that measurses speed or acceleration.


It's unlikely a wall of a building will be traveling at any appreciable
speed.

That artic wasnt.

So the cars software ignored a bloody great artic.


So a car would have to know that the wall will not move out of it's way..

Even sillier than you usually manage. What matters
is that that artic clearly was not out if the car's way
and the car needed to stop because it wasnt.

Why didnt the car stop then ?


That's the differntce need to have a
cognative awareness of what sensors see.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

How can you tell a wall from apice of dog ****,

By the size, ****wit.

what sensor(s) detects size ?


you haven't a clue have you.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Doesnt help if the sensors dont even notice that there is a ****ing
great artic trailer at right angles in front of the car its driving.

How do sensors tell the car there is a ****ing great artic trailer

Same way it works out that the car is headed for the wall of a building
etc.

No it's not.

Corse it is.

you know nothing.

We'll see...

Do you really think all sensors are the same ?

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

What sort of sensor do you think they use to detect a wall
of a building, a short range sensor, the sensor that detects
fire/smoke, the sensor that measurses speed or acceleration.

I told you what would happen to **** like this.

It's unlikely a wall of a building will be
traveling at any appreciable speed.

That artic wasnt.

So the cars software ignored a bloody great artic.

Because the ****wit who wrote it didnt manage something
that could distinguish between a ****ing great overhead sign
and an artic, even tho the artic is MUCH closer to the ground
than a ****ing great overhead sign in a gantry or a railway
underpass etc.

So a car would have to know that the wall will not move out of it's way.

Even sillier than you usually manage. What matters
is that that artic clearly was not out if the car's way
and the car needed to stop because it wasnt.

Why didnt the car stop then ?

Because who ever wrote the software ****ed up completely.

That's the differntce need to have a
cognative awareness of what sensors see.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

How can you tell a wall from apice of dog ****,

By the size, ****wit.

what sensor(s) detects size ?

Can't imagine for the life of me.

On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 20:21:11 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Doesnt help if the sensors dont even notice that there is a ****ing
great artic trailer at right angles in front of the car its driving.

How do sensors tell the car there is a ****ing great artic trailer

Same way it works out that the car is headed for the wall of a building
etc.

No it's not.

Corse it is.

you know nothing.

We'll see...

yes we have done.



Do you really think all sensors are the same ?

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

So you do then a sensor senses stuff and that's how you buy then.

So there;s no differnce in use or technology between differnt types of sensor from IR to untrasonic.

So come on genoius tell me which one was used to detect "****ing great artic trailer" you refer to.

https://www.proto-pic.co.uk/sensors.html

where is the "****ing great artic" sensor and where yuo you put it ?



What sort of sensor do you think they use to detect a wall
of a building, a short range sensor, the sensor that detects
fire/smoke, the sensor that measurses speed or acceleration.

I told you what would happen to **** like this.

yes you'd ignore it because yet again it is well above your level of understanding.


It's unlikely a wall of a building will be
traveling at any appreciable speed.

That artic wasnt.

So the cars software ignored a bloody great artic.

Because the ****wit who wrote it didnt manage something
that could distinguish between a ****ing great overhead sign
and an artic,

and how would software recognise that without the hardware ?


even tho the artic is MUCH closer to the ground
than a ****ing great overhead sign in a gantry or a railway
underpass etc.

Is a wall closer to the gound than the "****ing great artic"
and what relivance does that have anyway.


So a car would have to know that the wall will not move out of it's way.

Even sillier than you usually manage. What matters
is that that artic clearly was not out if the car's way
and the car needed to stop because it wasnt.

Why didnt the car stop then ?

Because who ever wrote the software ****ed up completely.

How did they **** up then. if they ****ed up then something is obviouly wrong with the software, unless the hardware was faulty which is why you need to know what sensor was used.


That's the differntce need to have a
cognative awareness of what sensors see.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

How can you tell a wall from apice of dog ****,

By the size, ****wit.

what sensor(s) detects size ?

Can't imagine for the life of me.

yes that's the problem you can't tell a piece of dog **** from a wall or a ****ing great artic trailer, if you can't tell the differnce your hardly qualified to say someone ****ed up with the software.

Some drunken ****wit desperately cowering behind
whisky-dave wrote just what
you'd expect from a desperately cowering drunken ****wit.

On Thursday, 7 July 2016 12:19:19 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
Some drunken ****wit desperately cowering behind
whisky-dave wrote just what
you'd expect from a desperately cowering drunken ****wit.

Do you know how to detect drunkeness as yuo don;t seem to know of to tell a turd from a wall from an artic.

Some drunken ****wit desperately cowering behind
whisky-dave wrote just what
you'd expect from a desperately cowering drunken ****wit.

On 03/07/2016 12:25 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/07/16 03:48, RayL12 wrote:
Brian, I have always relied on those 'friends' who cannot wait for new
tech so they can buy in.

And I have always relied on those who can wait, but still bought it.

If, after 5 years it's still stable, I consider buying it.




Yep, same rationale.