I think there shouldn't be any displays visible to the driver. Yes, I think that includes moving map displays that are more complex than big arrows that say TURN RIGHT IN 400 FEET.
However, simply having a laptop in the front seat does not imply a visual distraction. There is no reason a passenger should not be forbidden from using a laptop, so long as the driver isn't distracted by it.
I agree with most of your contentions. I do not agree, however, with your assertion that for all times, in all situations, the pilot is always, always, always, the best way to keep the airplane on course, as it was in the beginning, it now and ever shall be, amen.
Right now, today, there is no better system than a trained, secure pilot. However, assuming that this will always be the case is foolhardy. This soft walls idea makes a hell of a lot of sense. If the system works as designed (yes, that's a big if, requiring big piles of money) it will make air travel safer.
Is it feasible to implement? Dunno. Probably not for in-service hydraulically controlled aircraft. For next generation FBW aircraft? Sure. It's another arrow in the quiver. It's another system to help make people safe and secure in the air. Is it a panacea? No. Will it kill people? Absolutely. Will it kill fewer people than the current system? Well, that's what we're looking into.
The knee jerk "WHAT THE HELL ARE THESE PEOPLE THINKING TRYING TO OVERRULE THE PILOT!?" reaction is not productive. Pilots ALWAYS want more control. Most of the time, that's a good thing. Some of the time, it's not. Seems like it would be a good idea to think about the system and help shore up its shortcomings.
Autonomous systems WILL be carrying cargo in the future. In the long term, I wager that there will be an air carrier that flies people without a pilot. It is going to happen. The only questions are: how soon, how safe, how cheap?
Yeah, because most engineers don't take their jobs very seriously at all, and actually sort of like being responsible for the error that killed hundreds of people.
When a pilot makes a mistake, it often kills him. When an engineer makes a mistake, it often destroys him.
Frankly, I'd rather be the pilot. But, I AM the engineer.
You can make up improbable situations that would cause any system to fail.
That's why engineers design systems to fail safe. This soft-walls system is a fail safe (or, arguably, a "fail-soft" system). It's called a fail safe, because when it fails, it's designed to be safe.
I know this is complicated, but stay with me.
The system does not prevent the pilot from commanding any instantaneous command maneuvers. The difficulty of compromising the system would be enormous compared to the difficulty of getting a bad guy with a pointy stick onto the airplane.
And, apparently, your ability to enumerate said layers.
The idea makes sense. It does not cripple the pilot. If you think either of these statements are inaccurate, I don't think you adequately understand how the system is designed to work.
They're also kind of important if a) you don't want the wings to break off and b) you want the pilot to not go night night.
Look, the engineers who design these things aren't stupid. Neither are the pilots. Both groups need to stop thinking the other group is out to murder them. This pissing contest does not make any sense.
Hmm. You mean that a system failed? I don't suppose that's ever happened to a human pilot. I'm sure that every single pilot in the sky has a perfect record of judgement and problem solving. They've NEVER made a mistake, right?
Yes, computer systems have failed. So have pilots. The idea is not to get into a pissing contest about which is more reliable, but to see if a solution can be designed where each component of the control system can fail over and fail safe. Yes, that includes the pilot. That's simply good engineering.
There are many combat aircraft in the sky right now that have no, repeat NO, ability to keep the pointy end into the wind without their "fly-by-wire and fancy computers".
I don't believe the 777 has a backup, hydraulic control system, although I may be mistaken. Suffice it to say that the operation of modern jetliners absolutely depends on having computers that work.
You might think this is a bad idea, but there are lots of very smart engineers who disagree with you. The pilot is an essential part of current systems, but the computer is as well. Having either compromised is a Serious Problem.
Or, golly, you might decide that setting aside preconceptions about any given activity's probabilities of success based on the participants' national origin might not be a bad idea.
Nationalism is usually sloppy thinking. Kind of like any other kind of racism or xenophobia.
There are smart people and dumb people in America, just like everywhere else on the planet. People worldwide have far more in common than most media outlets or politicians want you to believe. Get used to this idea. There will be a quiz.
Wow, and starting at only $26,000 for an Accord...gosh, what a stellar deal.
I'll take a Mazda Six, thanks. Or an RX-8. Honda needs to stop trying to drink from the same boring trough if they want my business.
The RSX is a great car. The S2000 is a great motor in the body of a doorstop. Honda needs to get off the dime and start revitalizing their product, or they're not going to be top of the heap for much longer. (Top of the very boring "Cars that almost make you forget you're driving!" heap)
You're new around here, aren't you? If it doesn't say that Apple's price-performance ratio isn't complete dogshit, and anybody with two neurons to bang together would build their own computer from a pile of sand and Linux Torvalds' trash bin, and Apple is the devil,
I would be 100% in favor of dismantling NASA if and only if some other organization was chartered to perform the necessary, difficult, un-profitable basic research and development for new technologies.
Businesses are bad at this, if for no other reason than they like to patent the results and make sure nobody else gets to use them.
I fear that dismantling NASA will destroy whatever momentum we have for exploring and exploiting space, and I think that's a bad idea right now.
NASA is, however, run by career bureaucrats and is doing a massively sub-optimal job. My first choice would be to put some really good engineers in charge, back them up with some top-flight accountants to make the numbers work for the missions (rather than make the missions work for the numbers) and tell them "Get us a sustainable Mars base by 2030, with your current budget. All other objectives are secondary. Go."
Something that's out now and has a proven track record will always be eclipsed by something that's coming out Real Soon Now.
I think you're right in the long run, but the decision horizon for LCOS is longer than people are thinking. I think.
There certainly won't be direct-view big LCoS sets in that timeframe, so we're still talking about a replacement for DLP and LCD projectors/rear projection sets. It's still going to be really cool, though. Someday.
I have a Dee Dog that I beat the everloving crap out of for four years at school. The bag is freakin' invincible.
This from somebody who has demolished every other book-carrying-device he's come into contact with.
There are purpose-designed laptop bags, or you can get a sleeve that goes inside one of their messenger bags. Superior design, superior construction. These folks know what they're about.
Slashdot Mirror
See, now that's a reasonable position.
I think there shouldn't be any displays visible to the driver. Yes, I think that includes moving map displays that are more complex than big arrows that say TURN RIGHT IN 400 FEET.
However, simply having a laptop in the front seat does not imply a visual distraction. There is no reason a passenger should not be forbidden from using a laptop, so long as the driver isn't distracted by it.
Obviously, I don't.
What do you mean?
I agree with most of your contentions. I do not agree, however, with your assertion that for all times, in all situations, the pilot is always, always, always, the best way to keep the airplane on course, as it was in the beginning, it now and ever shall be, amen.
Right now, today, there is no better system than a trained, secure pilot. However, assuming that this will always be the case is foolhardy. This soft walls idea makes a hell of a lot of sense. If the system works as designed (yes, that's a big if, requiring big piles of money) it will make air travel safer.
Is it feasible to implement? Dunno. Probably not for in-service hydraulically controlled aircraft. For next generation FBW aircraft? Sure. It's another arrow in the quiver. It's another system to help make people safe and secure in the air. Is it a panacea? No. Will it kill people? Absolutely. Will it kill fewer people than the current system? Well, that's what we're looking into.
The knee jerk "WHAT THE HELL ARE THESE PEOPLE THINKING TRYING TO OVERRULE THE PILOT!?" reaction is not productive. Pilots ALWAYS want more control. Most of the time, that's a good thing. Some of the time, it's not. Seems like it would be a good idea to think about the system and help shore up its shortcomings.
Autonomous systems WILL be carrying cargo in the future. In the long term, I wager that there will be an air carrier that flies people without a pilot. It is going to happen. The only questions are: how soon, how safe, how cheap?
Yeah, because most engineers don't take their jobs very seriously at all, and actually sort of like being responsible for the error that killed hundreds of people.
When a pilot makes a mistake, it often kills him. When an engineer makes a mistake, it often destroys him.
Frankly, I'd rather be the pilot. But, I AM the engineer.
Nonsense. But ditching into the ocean is preferable to ditching into Manhattan.
Yeah, because it's going to be this one dude, and nobody's going to check his work or anything.
You can make up improbable situations that would cause any system to fail.
That's why engineers design systems to fail safe. This soft-walls system is a fail safe (or, arguably, a "fail-soft" system). It's called a fail safe, because when it fails, it's designed to be safe.
I know this is complicated, but stay with me.
The system does not prevent the pilot from commanding any instantaneous command maneuvers. The difficulty of compromising the system would be enormous compared to the difficulty of getting a bad guy with a pointy stick onto the airplane.
-1 didn't read article.
Come on, people, it's not that hard.
And, apparently, your ability to enumerate said layers.
The idea makes sense. It does not cripple the pilot. If you think either of these statements are inaccurate, I don't think you adequately understand how the system is designed to work.
They're also kind of important if a) you don't want the wings to break off and b) you want the pilot to not go night night.
Look, the engineers who design these things aren't stupid. Neither are the pilots. Both groups need to stop thinking the other group is out to murder them. This pissing contest does not make any sense.
Hmm. You mean that a system failed? I don't suppose that's ever happened to a human pilot. I'm sure that every single pilot in the sky has a perfect record of judgement and problem solving. They've NEVER made a mistake, right?
Yes, computer systems have failed. So have pilots. The idea is not to get into a pissing contest about which is more reliable, but to see if a solution can be designed where each component of the control system can fail over and fail safe. Yes, that includes the pilot. That's simply good engineering.
Fly by wire is a fact of life.
There are many combat aircraft in the sky right now that have no, repeat NO, ability to keep the pointy end into the wind without their "fly-by-wire and fancy computers".
I don't believe the 777 has a backup, hydraulic control system, although I may be mistaken. Suffice it to say that the operation of modern jetliners absolutely depends on having computers that work.
You might think this is a bad idea, but there are lots of very smart engineers who disagree with you. The pilot is an essential part of current systems, but the computer is as well. Having either compromised is a Serious Problem.
That's why engineers are trying to solve it.
Or, golly, you might decide that setting aside preconceptions about any given activity's probabilities of success based on the participants' national origin might not be a bad idea.
Nationalism is usually sloppy thinking. Kind of like any other kind of racism or xenophobia.
There are smart people and dumb people in America, just like everywhere else on the planet. People worldwide have far more in common than most media outlets or politicians want you to believe. Get used to this idea. There will be a quiz.
If a distraction is a distraction, we also need to ban radios, food, and children in cars.
That'll make the world safe for democracy.
"Authorization" has five syllables. I think you're being optimistic.
Oh, but this yokel is a LEGITIMATE bulk emailer. Gosh. Makes me want to give him a big ol' hug.
Uh, hello! I live in Texas. There aren't boringer drives than Dallas to Waco. Except for Shreveport to Alexandria in Louisiana.
I STILL like a car that communicates to me what's going on on the road below me.
Fortunately, I can get 'em. Honda just doesn't bother to make 'em. : )
Wow, and starting at only $26,000 for an Accord...gosh, what a stellar deal.
I'll take a Mazda Six, thanks. Or an RX-8. Honda needs to stop trying to drink from the same boring trough if they want my business.
The RSX is a great car. The S2000 is a great motor in the body of a doorstop. Honda needs to get off the dime and start revitalizing their product, or they're not going to be top of the heap for much longer. (Top of the very boring "Cars that almost make you forget you're driving!" heap)
You're new around here, aren't you? If it doesn't say that Apple's price-performance ratio isn't complete dogshit, and anybody with two neurons to bang together would build their own computer from a pile of sand and Linux Torvalds' trash bin, and Apple is the devil,
Then it isn't Slashdot.
I would be 100% in favor of dismantling NASA if and only if some other organization was chartered to perform the necessary, difficult, un-profitable basic research and development for new technologies.
Businesses are bad at this, if for no other reason than they like to patent the results and make sure nobody else gets to use them.
I fear that dismantling NASA will destroy whatever momentum we have for exploring and exploiting space, and I think that's a bad idea right now.
NASA is, however, run by career bureaucrats and is doing a massively sub-optimal job. My first choice would be to put some really good engineers in charge, back them up with some top-flight accountants to make the numbers work for the missions (rather than make the missions work for the numbers) and tell them "Get us a sustainable Mars base by 2030, with your current budget. All other objectives are secondary. Go."
Something that's out now and has a proven track record will always be eclipsed by something that's coming out Real Soon Now.
I think you're right in the long run, but the decision horizon for LCOS is longer than people are thinking. I think.
There certainly won't be direct-view big LCoS sets in that timeframe, so we're still talking about a replacement for DLP and LCD projectors/rear projection sets. It's still going to be really cool, though. Someday.
Yeah, and we see how well that's worked. *rolls eyes*
Yeah, because people who try to sell you stuff always give their honest opinion of the product's performance.
Timbuk2 waterproof canvas is teh roolz. I love the way it's worn in. Looks extremely cool.
Love my bag. You can pry it from my cold, dead hands.
I have a Dee Dog that I beat the everloving crap out of for four years at school. The bag is freakin' invincible.
This from somebody who has demolished every other book-carrying-device he's come into contact with.
There are purpose-designed laptop bags, or you can get a sleeve that goes inside one of their messenger bags. Superior design, superior construction. These folks know what they're about.
Because it would be the size of a small dog?