Sue them for what reason? Have you read Go Daddy's terms of service that people agree to?
You will not use this Site or the Services in a manner (as determined by GoDaddy in its sole and absolute discretion) that: Is illegal, or promotes or encourages illegal activity; Promotes, encourages or engages in terrorism, violence against people, animals, or property;
Corporations are absolutely entitled to have opinions on social matters.
Flying high speed aircraft with meatbags behind the controls will someday disappear.
Anyone want to know how SpaceX controls their very high speed rockets? Answer, entirely with computers. People are too slow, make too many mistakes and are best suited for sitting back in their seats and letting the software run the ship.
Of course any autonomous planes are going to have "farily sophisticated" software. That's a given.
Crew members in the back pass information to the pilot who decides whether to divert. It is trivial to do the same with nobody in the cockpit. Either the decision can be made from the ground or a decision can be made based on the flight crew's recommendation and where the aircraft is on the flight.
Any autonomous aircraft would need the ability to divert to a different airfield, that is what you have to do for many different situations. Again, not a conceptually difficult problem and certainly not a problem people designing autonomous flight systems wouldn't be aware of the need to solve.
Listing all the potential issues a plane might run into isn't an argument against autonomous flight systems.
Yes, I think a computer could have done better than Sullenberger.
Did you miss one of the bigger points of the movie? They were going to blame Sullenberger for not making it to a runway instead of into the river until he convinced them that it took so much time to make the decision to try to make it to a runway that he had no choice but to land in the river.
A computer could have made that same decision far more quickly.
We look at an amazing landing and are amazed, but he didn't do anything amazing to make that landing, he followed procedure. Speed, pitch, etc. Water landings are inherently unpredictable, catch a wave wrong, it can be the difference between a safe landing and a cartwheeling plane with everyone dying. Just because we are amazed he landed it safely is no reason to ascribe it to human skills that are beyond that of a computer.
The concept of maneuvering a DC_10 without any controls except the throttles is a simple problem for a computer to deal with.
Likely with a better outcome than in Sioux City
Pointing at current planes and showing that systems fail and humans have to take over is irrelevant, those planes weren't designed to be flown without pilots.
Using pejoratives like "cobble together" shows an agenda. Computers will surpass humans at flying, it isn't a matter of if but a matter of when.
But don't worry, every pilot I talk to about it denies that reality too. Just as chess players didn't think a computer would surpass them and Go players thought no computer could master Go. How many great chess players are there? If you want 1000 great computer chess players it is merely a matter of building 1000 copies of the hardware and loading the software. It;'s much easier to train one great chess program than to train 1000's of chess players and hope one will turn out to be great.
Human knowledge transfer set us apart from the rest of the animal world.
Computer knowledge transfer is what is setting computers apart from humans.
We got rid of lighthouse keepers long ago, if there had been an internet back then I'm sure we would have heard plenty of people telling how it would be a terrible idea to replace humans with automated lighthouses.
We humans like to think we are really exceptional thinkers who couldn't possibly be replaced by a machine. We're mostly wrong. Heck, even human trolls were mostly replaced by bots during the last election.
AF 447 crashed despite having human pilots on board. The humans were the ones who made the fatal mistake in the end. He failed to follow proper procedures.
The plane was not equipped with autonomous flight software. If it had it would have properly handled the stall, unlike the meatbags flying the plane.
Partly why people are so easy to scam, we trust other humans because they look and talk like us.
Relative safety is something that can be analyzed, trust is not required.
Pilot's don't need brilliance, they need to respond precisely as they've been trained to respond. They don't teach brilliance in the simulator or in flight training, for good reason. Brilliant pilots are probably a greater menace to passengers because they are convinced they are brilliant pilots.
I go on about 200 flights/year. I've never experienced a pilot's brilliance but I have experienced pilots making good, correct decisions based on their training and experience. I have zero interest in flying with a brilliant pilot.
AI could have more rapidly assessed the situation and made the optimal choice more quickly, possibly in time to land at an airport. The process of people thinking at slow speed, communicating with ATC at slow speed with low clarity and finally making decisions was part of the problem with that flight. Computers in the plane detecting the emergency, responding at high speed and simultaneously sending complete status to ATC that can instantly start rerouting other traffic and instantly figuring out the best airport to land at as well as independently figuring out what the most likely possibilities are and best response to each is something far beyond what humans can do.
Which may be why Sully ended up in the river in the first place.
But landing in a river is not conceptual hard. It isn't like Sully had experience landing in rivers.
If you got rid of the pilot and co pilot, you would barely see a blip in your ticket price.
Let's do the math.
2 pilots @ $200k each == $400k Training etc for those pilots @ $200k each == $400k 1 trip per day assuming 3 weeks vacation a year: 5 * (52 - 3) == 245 Cost of pilot per trip: $800k / 245 == $3.27k
There are approximately 200 seats on a 737, so that's $3.27k / 200 == $16 per ticket potential savings
Now for an airline, that might make sense on a large scale because they'll reap millions a year in savings, but for consumers it's barely a blip on the radar.
These are with conservative estimates. The salary I took was the highest in the range on glassdoor, I'm assuming all their fancy simulator time doubles their salaries, and most pilots fly short haul flights so they rack up multiple flights a day. Wikipedia confirms the number of seats for a 737, but of course if you have a cabin of first class passengers there are less seats, but still it wouldn't matter.
Additionally, insurance companies will likely charge increased premiums for a pilotless craft, so at the end of day the savings will be considerably less.
The only time you would conceivably see a savings big enough to care would be with a transcontinental flight where you might have four or more pilots (because they sleep in shifts and rotate out). But, compared to the ticket price, I suspect the savings will be marginal.
I suspect there would also be additional overhead as pilots have other functions than flying. For instance, determining if a reroute is necessary or if a passenger is fit to fly.
Additional training and delegation of these duties would most likely raise the cost of other crew.
So, in the end, this is a non issue. Until AI auto pilot comes in a cheap as in uber quad copter that will taxi you where you want on demand, we won't see AI in the sky
The argument that it only saves $x can be said of every other cost saving measure but taken together they amount to quite a bit of money.
There are about 10 million flights per year in the US. Save $3.27k per flight and that is $32.7 Billion. That's real money and pretty close to what the article suggests.
Rerouting is not a difficult task for a computer, or a person on the ground to deal with. Other members of the flight crew are quite able to determine if a passenger is fit to fly, assuming they slip past the people handling boarding the aircraft.
There is no basis for asserting that insurance would be greater for a pilotless aircraft. It is not a great leap to see computers being better pilots than humans. Every bit of learning, either from actual flights or simulations run 24x7 can be easily rolled out to every artificial pilot in the flight as opposed to the slow way humans pass on knowledge and learn.
The belief that humans can't be replaced by computer software is wishful thinking, IMO.
Avis/Hertz/etc already rent gas cars for those RARE times when you need to travel more than 200 miles and there are no fast charge stations on the way. They rent those for a very low price.
Towing a generator is like hauling a horse trailer behind your sedan because you might want to go off road sometime.
Cars don't have to meet 100% of the use cases. For the 1% they don't meet, go rent something suitable.
Why don't you just stop commenting about something you know nothing about.
City driving in an EV gives MUCH better range than highway driving. Somehow the EPA picks up on that as well, with a higher MPGe for city than highway.
That's been my experience over 50,000 miles of EV driving in 3 different EVs.
AC is very efficient as well. Ahttps://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/07/03/1011218/tesla-says-its-model-3-car-will-go-on-sale-on-friday#n hour of driving with the AC on reduces my range by about 4 miles. An insignificant portion of a vehicle's range with > 200 miles of range.
So did mine, it was also a slug and merging onto a freeway was a thrill every time as I wondered if someone was going to rearend me before my slugmobile got up to 75mph.
It had 85 HP
It took close to 12 seconds to get to 60mph and getting to 75 from there wasn't a speedy process
Now you can get 40mph on the straight and level at 65mph from a much more roomy, much faster, much safer compact SUV
I'd say we've come a long ways since those 40mpg Saturns
Many security cameras expose ports to the internet, they are directly connected and exposed. They get hacked by script kiddies.
Devices that don't accept connections but make connections to a secure server and do so with secure authentication aren't a significant risk. They don't get hacked by script kiddies.
How did we survive before {fill in the blank with anything}?
Answer is the same, just fine. But just the same I like my phone even though it has a camera and microphone and GPS that someone can use to track me, hear me and see me.
If I'm off to commit the perfect crime I'll leave my phone at home and not count the loot in front of an Amazon Look.
Most of the cheap security cameras are designed to be accessed from the Internet, making them inherently risk.
This device is not designed to be accessed externally. It doesn't expose itself by default to the internet with a default username and password.
I suspect that this thing stands a far better chance. It has a security model closer to the Nest Cam, which is pretty secure and uses good two way authentication and encryption to protect its video.
Sure, you don't want to have your Amazon account account just like you don't want to have your Google account or iCloud account hacked as that gives someone access to pictures you've taken with your phone. But unless extremist terrorists are secretly fashionistas who buy Amazon Looks to see how they look wearing their suicide vests then I doubt the NSA will spend a lot of time trying to figure a way to hack them so they can secretly record suspected terrorists.
It's really not too hard to turn it to face a wall. Heck, you can even unplug it when not in use.
Yes, we understand you are a guy who buys all sorts of tech equipment and talks excitedly about it with your friends and have no fashion sense.
This isn't for you.
Your perceived superiority over those who do want to look fashionable and enjoy clothes as much as you enjoy power supplies is, umm, something you should work on.
Overnight charging is the best way to charge an EV. Utterly painless, takes no time, hardly useless.
For some people, the greater battery capacity of newer EVs means even less need for higher capacity chargers. The greater the battery capacity the less the need to recharge quickly while on the road. Some Bolt EV owners aren't even bothering installing an in home 220V higher capacity EVSE because the 110V EVSE that comes with the car lets them keep their vehicle charged up for their normal driving with plenty of battery capacity for the occasional longer trip.
Slashdot Mirror
Sue them for what reason? Have you read Go Daddy's terms of service that people agree to?
You will not use this Site or the Services in a manner (as determined by GoDaddy in its sole and absolute discretion) that:
Is illegal, or promotes or encourages illegal activity;
Promotes, encourages or engages in terrorism, violence against people, animals, or property;
Corporations are absolutely entitled to have opinions on social matters.
That's according to Boeing.
Flying high speed aircraft with meatbags behind the controls will someday disappear.
Anyone want to know how SpaceX controls their very high speed rockets? Answer, entirely with computers. People are too slow, make too many mistakes and are best suited for sitting back in their seats and letting the software run the ship.
Of course any autonomous planes are going to have "farily sophisticated" software. That's a given.
Crew members in the back pass information to the pilot who decides whether to divert. It is trivial to do the same with nobody in the cockpit. Either the decision can be made from the ground or a decision can be made based on the flight crew's recommendation and where the aircraft is on the flight.
Any autonomous aircraft would need the ability to divert to a different airfield, that is what you have to do for many different situations. Again, not a conceptually difficult problem and certainly not a problem people designing autonomous flight systems wouldn't be aware of the need to solve.
Listing all the potential issues a plane might run into isn't an argument against autonomous flight systems.
Yes, I think a computer could have done better than Sullenberger.
Did you miss one of the bigger points of the movie? They were going to blame Sullenberger for not making it to a runway instead of into the river until he convinced them that it took so much time to make the decision to try to make it to a runway that he had no choice but to land in the river.
A computer could have made that same decision far more quickly.
We look at an amazing landing and are amazed, but he didn't do anything amazing to make that landing, he followed procedure. Speed, pitch, etc. Water landings are inherently unpredictable, catch a wave wrong, it can be the difference between a safe landing and a cartwheeling plane with everyone dying. Just because we are amazed he landed it safely is no reason to ascribe it to human skills that are beyond that of a computer.
The concept of maneuvering a DC_10 without any controls except the throttles is a simple problem for a computer to deal with.
Likely with a better outcome than in Sioux City
Pointing at current planes and showing that systems fail and humans have to take over is irrelevant, those planes weren't designed to be flown without pilots.
Using pejoratives like "cobble together" shows an agenda. Computers will surpass humans at flying, it isn't a matter of if but a matter of when.
But don't worry, every pilot I talk to about it denies that reality too. Just as chess players didn't think a computer would surpass them and Go players thought no computer could master Go. How many great chess players are there? If you want 1000 great computer chess players it is merely a matter of building 1000 copies of the hardware and loading the software. It;'s much easier to train one great chess program than to train 1000's of chess players and hope one will turn out to be great.
Human knowledge transfer set us apart from the rest of the animal world.
Computer knowledge transfer is what is setting computers apart from humans.
ATC and the tower will be automated too.
We got rid of lighthouse keepers long ago, if there had been an internet back then I'm sure we would have heard plenty of people telling how it would be a terrible idea to replace humans with automated lighthouses.
We humans like to think we are really exceptional thinkers who couldn't possibly be replaced by a machine. We're mostly wrong. Heck, even human trolls were mostly replaced by bots during the last election.
AF 447 crashed despite having human pilots on board. The humans were the ones who made the fatal mistake in the end. He failed to follow proper procedures.
The plane was not equipped with autonomous flight software. If it had it would have properly handled the stall, unlike the meatbags flying the plane.
Mostly because the pilots insisted on only pilots flying the drones.
Not because of the inability of drones to be flown by non-pilots with equal success.
Trusting things that are like us is a human flaw.
Partly why people are so easy to scam, we trust other humans because they look and talk like us.
Relative safety is something that can be analyzed, trust is not required.
Pilot's don't need brilliance, they need to respond precisely as they've been trained to respond. They don't teach brilliance in the simulator or in flight training, for good reason. Brilliant pilots are probably a greater menace to passengers because they are convinced they are brilliant pilots.
I go on about 200 flights/year. I've never experienced a pilot's brilliance but I have experienced pilots making good, correct decisions based on their training and experience. I have zero interest in flying with a brilliant pilot.
AI could have more rapidly assessed the situation and made the optimal choice more quickly, possibly in time to land at an airport. The process of people thinking at slow speed, communicating with ATC at slow speed with low clarity and finally making decisions was part of the problem with that flight. Computers in the plane detecting the emergency, responding at high speed and simultaneously sending complete status to ATC that can instantly start rerouting other traffic and instantly figuring out the best airport to land at as well as independently figuring out what the most likely possibilities are and best response to each is something far beyond what humans can do.
Which may be why Sully ended up in the river in the first place.
But landing in a river is not conceptual hard. It isn't like Sully had experience landing in rivers.
If you got rid of the pilot and co pilot, you would barely see a blip in your ticket price.
Let's do the math.
2 pilots @ $200k each == $400k
Training etc for those pilots @ $200k each == $400k
1 trip per day assuming 3 weeks vacation a year: 5 * (52 - 3) == 245
Cost of pilot per trip: $800k / 245 == $3.27k
There are approximately 200 seats on a 737, so that's $3.27k / 200 == $16 per ticket potential savings
Now for an airline, that might make sense on a large scale because they'll reap millions a year in savings, but for consumers it's barely a blip on the radar.
These are with conservative estimates. The salary I took was the highest in the range on glassdoor, I'm assuming all their fancy simulator time doubles their salaries, and most pilots fly short haul flights so they rack up multiple flights a day. Wikipedia confirms the number of seats for a 737, but of course if you have a cabin of first class passengers there are less seats, but still it wouldn't matter.
Additionally, insurance companies will likely charge increased premiums for a pilotless craft, so at the end of day the savings will be considerably less.
The only time you would conceivably see a savings big enough to care would be with a transcontinental flight where you might have four or more pilots (because they sleep in shifts and rotate out). But, compared to the ticket price, I suspect the savings will be marginal.
I suspect there would also be additional overhead as pilots have other functions than flying. For instance, determining if a reroute is necessary or if a passenger is fit to fly.
Additional training and delegation of these duties would most likely raise the cost of other crew.
So, in the end, this is a non issue. Until AI auto pilot comes in a cheap as in uber quad copter that will taxi you where you want on demand, we won't see AI in the sky
References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.glassdoor.com/Sala...
Small costs add up
The argument that it only saves $x can be said of every other cost saving measure but taken together they amount to quite a bit of money.
There are about 10 million flights per year in the US. Save $3.27k per flight and that is $32.7 Billion. That's real money and pretty close to what the article suggests.
Rerouting is not a difficult task for a computer, or a person on the ground to deal with. Other members of the flight crew are quite able to determine if a passenger is fit to fly, assuming they slip past the people handling boarding the aircraft.
There is no basis for asserting that insurance would be greater for a pilotless aircraft. It is not a great leap to see computers being better pilots than humans. Every bit of learning, either from actual flights or simulations run 24x7 can be easily rolled out to every artificial pilot in the flight as opposed to the slow way humans pass on knowledge and learn.
The belief that humans can't be replaced by computer software is wishful thinking, IMO.
Their fonts are software which is licensed and protected by copyright law.
Nothing to do with tiff files
You should be able to stealth your VPN behind a legit appearing website.
Same IP, same port
I disagree
Terrible idea
Avis/Hertz/etc already rent gas cars for those RARE times when you need to travel more than 200 miles and there are no fast charge stations on the way. They rent those for a very low price.
Towing a generator is like hauling a horse trailer behind your sedan because you might want to go off road sometime.
Cars don't have to meet 100% of the use cases. For the 1% they don't meet, go rent something suitable.
Imagine how terrible it looks if you put it in terms of monthly income.
Cars last more than a year.
Why don't you just stop commenting about something you know nothing about.
City driving in an EV gives MUCH better range than highway driving. Somehow the EPA picks up on that as well, with a higher MPGe for city than highway.
That's been my experience over 50,000 miles of EV driving in 3 different EVs.
AC is very efficient as well. Ahttps://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/07/03/1011218/tesla-says-its-model-3-car-will-go-on-sale-on-friday#n hour of driving with the AC on reduces my range by about 4 miles. An insignificant portion of a vehicle's range with > 200 miles of range.
Same boat as you, 2012 quad 16GB mini. Upgraded since purchased to an SSD and it runs like a champ.
Apple has zero interest in selling a $600 box that you can hook to your own $300 4k 28" monitor, they want you to buy a $3000 iMac.
My 6 sec 0-60 car isn't a crackerbox and it is more fuel efficient than 99% of the cars available.
Not sure why you want to tax it 40% just because it isn't slow
So did mine, it was also a slug and merging onto a freeway was a thrill every time as I wondered if someone was going to rearend me before my slugmobile got up to 75mph.
It had 85 HP
It took close to 12 seconds to get to 60mph and getting to 75 from there wasn't a speedy process
Now you can get 40mph on the straight and level at 65mph from a much more roomy, much faster, much safer compact SUV
I'd say we've come a long ways since those 40mpg Saturns
Many security cameras expose ports to the internet, they are directly connected and exposed. They get hacked by script kiddies.
Devices that don't accept connections but make connections to a secure server and do so with secure authentication aren't a significant risk. They don't get hacked by script kiddies.
I see lots of forums where people discuss motherboards, CPUs, power supplies, etc.
They can't even make decisions about their tech purchases any more without consulting the groupmind?
How did we survive before {fill in the blank with anything}?
Answer is the same, just fine. But just the same I like my phone even though it has a camera and microphone and GPS that someone can use to track me, hear me and see me.
If I'm off to commit the perfect crime I'll leave my phone at home and not count the loot in front of an Amazon Look.
Most of the cheap security cameras are designed to be accessed from the Internet, making them inherently risk.
This device is not designed to be accessed externally. It doesn't expose itself by default to the internet with a default username and password.
I suspect that this thing stands a far better chance. It has a security model closer to the Nest Cam, which is pretty secure and uses good two way authentication and encryption to protect its video.
Sure, you don't want to have your Amazon account account just like you don't want to have your Google account or iCloud account hacked as that gives someone access to pictures you've taken with your phone. But unless extremist terrorists are secretly fashionistas who buy Amazon Looks to see how they look wearing their suicide vests then I doubt the NSA will spend a lot of time trying to figure a way to hack them so they can secretly record suspected terrorists.
It's really not too hard to turn it to face a wall. Heck, you can even unplug it when not in use.
Yes, we understand you are a guy who buys all sorts of tech equipment and talks excitedly about it with your friends and have no fashion sense.
This isn't for you.
Your perceived superiority over those who do want to look fashionable and enjoy clothes as much as you enjoy power supplies is, umm, something you should work on.
J1772 is slow
J1772 isn't useless
Overnight charging is the best way to charge an EV. Utterly painless, takes no time, hardly useless.
For some people, the greater battery capacity of newer EVs means even less need for higher capacity chargers. The greater the battery capacity the less the need to recharge quickly while on the road. Some Bolt EV owners aren't even bothering installing an in home 220V higher capacity EVSE because the 110V EVSE that comes with the car lets them keep their vehicle charged up for their normal driving with plenty of battery capacity for the occasional longer trip.