- Jfk reloaded perfect score manual#
- Jfk reloaded perfect score software#
- Jfk reloaded perfect score trial#
The current system of using photography with near-automatic conviction deprives people of privacy.
I'd be okay with photo radar and with red light cameras if they were used to bolster the Prosecution/Plaintiff, like if there were a car accident and the red light camera data were used to show that the cited person (by the officer on the scene) had indeed run the light, and that the officer was correct. Currently one's only out is to request the Plaintiff to produce the calibration records for the system for the day of the ticket and hope that they don't have that data. The cities in my area have switched to digital photography. I'd like them to stop accepting photo radar data.
Jfk reloaded perfect score manual#
So whilst the guy was stupid for buying a manual car when he had gout and couldn't drive it half the time, he does deserve a retrial. It is only as good as the person entering the data, and when they choose to ignore data because it is inconvenient.
Jfk reloaded perfect score software#
The jury was mislead to how good the software was quite clearly, they were lead to believe that the software was infallible. Whilst the expert opinion from someone who used his brain to see what happened described something completely different.
Jfk reloaded perfect score trial#
Indeed, the software was described at the end of the trial as "During closing argument to the jury, the prosecutor described PC-CRASH as aĬomputer program that essentially takes the laws of physics and reduces them to mathematical calculations that can be done over and over again to generate an accurate picture of what happened during a collision based on the tire marks at the scene, based on the physical evidence in the case such as the damage to the car, as well as the conditions that can be observed at the scene.ġ3 Report of Proceedings at 13. Turned out the simulation that was generated that kinda matched what happened had the data entered at random until it matched "Heusser manipulated data by entering arbitrary 'inputs' such as separation speeds as high as 1,114.8 mph, placing the mailbox pole away from where it was actually located, and having the computer occupant models remain in a default resting position after the collision with the mailbox". I read the court transcript because it was quite interesting. And most of the data you would have needed is gone as soon as rescue crews arrive and attempt to move the vehicles out of the way of traffic? Where everything on the road was, and at which time in the "event."Īnd did I mention that the simulation is only as good as the least accurate measurement? At best. But in order to produce any meaningful result you would have to have equally good data about all the occupants in the car.
Yes, that model could be fed into another FEA. Yes, the automaker DOES have a model of the car. All final designes are bolted to a hydrolic ram, filled with test dummies, and shot into a wall or another vehicle. They than take that model and bash it against a series of controlled obstructions.Įven then, those simulations are just used to rule out certain design changes. That information is fed into a finite element analysis model that breaks the car down into ever finer blocks of deformable material. When Ford, or Daimler Benz goes out to design a car, they know where every bolt, nut, rivet, weld, and cup holder are.
0 kommentar(er)
