Now that is a sensible position, mostly. Put in a qualifier like "some" in front of "Americans" (hell, use "most" if you're feeling pugnacious) and you're on track to making a true statement...that won't make front page news anywhere. Now, spice it up with some statistics from somebody who sounds all important, and now you might be on to something. Something useless.
Yeah, well I got 19/20, and I want to see the numbers on religious identification. I guessed Buddhism, because China is freakin' big, although there is a not-inconsiderable Muslim population there.
Christianity is very wide-spread, but I'm not totally convinced that it's the number-one choice of the new world order.
Born and bred in America. Never even took a geography class.
I can find 90% of my sample to say all kinds of stupid stuff: Doesn't mean that my statistics have anything to do with anything.
How many non-Americans can differentiate Colorado from Wyoming? How many of these hypothetical Masters O' Geography can name Mexican states, for that matter? (I sure can't. I know how to know that, but it's just not something I carry around in my head.) Any of these political entities is similar in size to Hungary, and I don't propose that people who can't tell them apart are stupid.
People who call other populations stupid because of some stupid statistic somebody came up with, are stupid.
Being a good capitalist means serving my customers better than my competitors, not race-to-the-bottom tactics where I provide only slightly less odious service than my competitors.
The businesses that want MY money will meet MY demands.
A) is not an option, because I can't afford it. B) is not an option, because I live in Texas and the produce looks like ass when I can get to the market in the evening, because it is FUCKING HOT in this state. C) is not an option, because I don't know of any around here. D) is not an option, because I kill plants fast.
I work in the best meat market in town, and I can get fish and meat of superb quality without the bullshit. I could also go to the Super WalMart, but their produce section is awful.
Me, I resent like hell having to drive forever just to not get my privacy invaded. It's NOT OK with me.
Which adds, what? Ten minutes to each grocery store visit? This is the same bad idea that hacking your browser ID to get web sites to work stems from: It conceals the problem.
And the thing is, for inventory control, I think they're a great idea. However, the retailer should take it upon themselves to provably disable the tags before I walk out the door with them.
I just don't understand why they can't, or won't, do it.
But come on! You get to pay more money for those features! It's fun! See! Spending money is fun! Especially if you get to go to work to get money to get a game where you have to go to work in the gameto get money in the game to buy stuff in the game!
Can you tell that mmorpg's don't capture my attention too much?
Yeah, I really won't spend money on lightening my bike very much. It is far cheaper to take weight out of my ass.
Maybe when I'm making Lance Armstrong worry about me beating his ass, a lighter bike will be in order. In the meantime, rugged, comfortable, and serviceable makes me happy.
Umm, maybe that was to stop office people from buying the non-protected version?
You might note that the terms "Home" and "Professional" indicate little about the actual utility of the software in the box, and a great deal about your susceptability to marketing ploys.
I do not believe that human pilots can, in all circumstances, be relied upon to make the correct safety decisions: Particularly since, despite the crackdown on flight school enrollment by people who look like terrorists, flying a commercial jet is not an absurdly difficult thing to learn how to do.
When there's a terrorist on the stick, are you going to count on HIM to not drive places where he shouldn't?
I've worked as a software tester, and I am an aeronautical engineer. If somebody can write code that can keep an F-117 with its pointy end into the wind, they can write code to keep nice, stable jumbos away from targets.
Almost certainly, this autopilot would have throttle authority. So if the compromised pilot disables the engine somehow, less power would be available, but most airliners don't have much trouble keeping on course with one engine out.
If there are two engines out (which is not TOTALLY unheard of, but very rare), then the pilot doesn't need to be flying near populated areas anyhow. The aircraft is still a danger, just an inadvertant one. (Yes, there are lots of airports surrounded by residential developments. I'd like to have a conversation with whoever thought that was smart. Those people are in for a bad time, but fortunately, they're not as densely packed as skyscraper dwellers.)
Re: Scenario 2, if the pilot makes two (or three, or some specified number) radical turns in the direction of the protected zone, the system could exercise full authority and ignore the stick completely, and return the airplane to safe airspace with a safe turn.
Airliners don't handle like fighter jets. They take a while to turn, even when you put 'em up on a wing. In practice, I don't believe that you'd be able to stress the wings to failure with only stick inputs.
No, just that a system that is/less likely/ to be compromised or subverted can in fact be designed.
That, I believe, is a true statement.
Now, there is an interesting debate to be had with respect to the question of whether the system outlined above would be cost effective. Lots of people say that it'd be cheaper than rebuilding the twin towers, but I might well argue that it's locking the door after the horse done bailed.
Global Hawk takes off and lands itself, using DGPS. There is no pilot in the loop. Hell, a classmate of mine is competing in a UAV competition where college students build airplanes that land themselves, many using GPS. It is not an insoluble problem.
This system is designed because, in the case of a hijacking, the pilot can not be relied upon as the fail safe, since the pilot may be dead, under duress, or a hijacker sitting in the left seat.
I understand the pilot's reluctance to accept such a system. However, from an engineering (and safety) perspective, it is clear that a pilot IS NOT the be-all end-all of airline safety. Yes, pilot judgement is an essential component of making sure that people get on the ground safely, but that judgement is no more infallible than any other man-made system.
It's a complicated problem, and the solution is almost certainly going to piss some people off. But what's the alternative? Give pilots guns and a Kevlar door? I don't really think that's going to help. Do you?
Uh, if you disable the hydraulics, you can't turn the aircraft. Period.
And, I'd assume that things like AIRPORTS would probably be outside of the protected zone. So as long as you're on a course to fly to one of these so-called airports, you're probably not going to run into the soft walls.
You know what? I'll bet you a quarter that the engineers designing this system are going to make it smart enough to tell the difference between motion due to turbulence (that is, uncommanded motion) and motion due to a pilot's control movements.
This system need NEVER initiate a rapid maneuver. It simply needs to turn the plane gently (so gently, I'd imagine, that it would be nigh-imperceptible to the passengers) to avoid the bubble.
The reason it's called "soft walls" is because it's a graduated system. There's not a line in space where the plane says "WHOA FUCK! WE GOTTA GET OUT OF HERE!" There's a zone in which the plane is commanded to turn, safely and gently, away from the protected airspace.
But, hey, spout off against it all you want. It is/. after all.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that is a sensible position, mostly. Put in a qualifier like "some" in front of "Americans" (hell, use "most" if you're feeling pugnacious) and you're on track to making a true statement...that won't make front page news anywhere. Now, spice it up with some statistics from somebody who sounds all important, and now you might be on to something. Something useless.
How do you figure, O Arbiter of All Wisdom?
Yeah, well I got 19/20, and I want to see the numbers on religious identification. I guessed Buddhism, because China is freakin' big, although there is a not-inconsiderable Muslim population there.
Christianity is very wide-spread, but I'm not totally convinced that it's the number-one choice of the new world order.
Born and bred in America. Never even took a geography class.
They didn't ask me.
I am an American.
I can find Hungary on a map.
I can find 90% of my sample to say all kinds of stupid stuff: Doesn't mean that my statistics have anything to do with anything.
How many non-Americans can differentiate Colorado from Wyoming? How many of these hypothetical Masters O' Geography can name Mexican states, for that matter? (I sure can't. I know how to know that, but it's just not something I carry around in my head.) Any of these political entities is similar in size to Hungary, and I don't propose that people who can't tell them apart are stupid.
People who call other populations stupid because of some stupid statistic somebody came up with, are stupid.
I am so tired of hearing how stupid Americans are. Get over it. Hell, I even went to public schools.
What a tired, idiotic stereotype.
Being a good capitalist means serving my customers better than my competitors, not race-to-the-bottom tactics where I provide only slightly less odious service than my competitors.
The businesses that want MY money will meet MY demands.
A) is not an option, because I can't afford it.
B) is not an option, because I live in Texas and the produce looks like ass when I can get to the market in the evening, because it is FUCKING HOT in this state.
C) is not an option, because I don't know of any around here.
D) is not an option, because I kill plants fast.
I work in the best meat market in town, and I can get fish and meat of superb quality without the bullshit. I could also go to the Super WalMart, but their produce section is awful.
Me, I resent like hell having to drive forever just to not get my privacy invaded. It's NOT OK with me.
Which adds, what? Ten minutes to each grocery store visit? This is the same bad idea that hacking your browser ID to get web sites to work stems from: It conceals the problem.
I'd rather be able to vote with my dollars.
Not exactly.
They raise prices for those who will not allow their purchase patterns to be tracked. Not the same thing.
And the thing is, for inventory control, I think they're a great idea. However, the retailer should take it upon themselves to provably disable the tags before I walk out the door with them.
I just don't understand why they can't, or won't, do it.
You mean like I can freely choose to not go to grocery stores that butt-rape you on price if you don't have one of their "savings cards"?
Well, no, I can't, because all the grocery stores in my town use them.
Bet the RFID tags will be the same way.
But come on! You get to pay more money for those features! It's fun! See! Spending money is fun! Especially if you get to go to work to get money to get a game where you have to go to work in the gameto get money in the game to buy stuff in the game!
Can you tell that mmorpg's don't capture my attention too much?
Yeah, I really won't spend money on lightening my bike very much. It is far cheaper to take weight out of my ass.
Maybe when I'm making Lance Armstrong worry about me beating his ass, a lighter bike will be in order. In the meantime, rugged, comfortable, and serviceable makes me happy.
If clipless bicycle pedals and cleats don't make you enjoy cycling more, you're not riding hard enough.
That's just my opinion. But it's right. : )
And if the pilot went blind and had his arms and legs cut off and he had big big earmuffs on his head, he'd probably panic too.
Or, maybe, the pilot in your situation would look at his compass and his chart, and do IFR navigation the way people have been doing it for 40 years.
1) Pilots who belong in passenger aircraft do not panic when lights come on in the cockpit.
2) Smart people are designing this system.
You are making up crazy shit.
Umm, maybe that was to stop office people from buying the non-protected version?
You might note that the terms "Home" and "Professional" indicate little about the actual utility of the software in the box, and a great deal about your susceptability to marketing ploys.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree.
I do not believe that human pilots can, in all circumstances, be relied upon to make the correct safety decisions: Particularly since, despite the crackdown on flight school enrollment by people who look like terrorists, flying a commercial jet is not an absurdly difficult thing to learn how to do.
When there's a terrorist on the stick, are you going to count on HIM to not drive places where he shouldn't?
I agree with you in principle.
In practice, I believe in engineers more than I believe in politicians.
Here's hoping...
I've worked as a software tester, and I am an aeronautical engineer. If somebody can write code that can keep an F-117 with its pointy end into the wind, they can write code to keep nice, stable jumbos away from targets.
Almost certainly, this autopilot would have throttle authority. So if the compromised pilot disables the engine somehow, less power would be available, but most airliners don't have much trouble keeping on course with one engine out.
If there are two engines out (which is not TOTALLY unheard of, but very rare), then the pilot doesn't need to be flying near populated areas anyhow. The aircraft is still a danger, just an inadvertant one. (Yes, there are lots of airports surrounded by residential developments. I'd like to have a conversation with whoever thought that was smart. Those people are in for a bad time, but fortunately, they're not as densely packed as skyscraper dwellers.)
Re: Scenario 2, if the pilot makes two (or three, or some specified number) radical turns in the direction of the protected zone, the system could exercise full authority and ignore the stick completely, and return the airplane to safe airspace with a safe turn.
Airliners don't handle like fighter jets. They take a while to turn, even when you put 'em up on a wing. In practice, I don't believe that you'd be able to stress the wings to failure with only stick inputs.
No, just that a system that is /less likely/ to be compromised or subverted can in fact be designed.
That, I believe, is a true statement.
Now, there is an interesting debate to be had with respect to the question of whether the system outlined above would be cost effective. Lots of people say that it'd be cheaper than rebuilding the twin towers, but I might well argue that it's locking the door after the horse done bailed.
...and that is, in principle, exactly what this soft wall system does.
It denies the pilot the option to fly towards a protected site.
Global Hawk takes off and lands itself, using DGPS. There is no pilot in the loop. Hell, a classmate of mine is competing in a UAV competition where college students build airplanes that land themselves, many using GPS. It is not an insoluble problem.
This system is designed because, in the case of a hijacking, the pilot can not be relied upon as the fail safe, since the pilot may be dead, under duress, or a hijacker sitting in the left seat.
I understand the pilot's reluctance to accept such a system. However, from an engineering (and safety) perspective, it is clear that a pilot IS NOT the be-all end-all of airline safety. Yes, pilot judgement is an essential component of making sure that people get on the ground safely, but that judgement is no more infallible than any other man-made system.
It's a complicated problem, and the solution is almost certainly going to piss some people off. But what's the alternative? Give pilots guns and a Kevlar door? I don't really think that's going to help. Do you?
Uh, if you disable the hydraulics, you can't turn the aircraft. Period.
And, I'd assume that things like AIRPORTS would probably be outside of the protected zone. So as long as you're on a course to fly to one of these so-called airports, you're probably not going to run into the soft walls.
You know what? I'll bet you a quarter that the engineers designing this system are going to make it smart enough to tell the difference between motion due to turbulence (that is, uncommanded motion) and motion due to a pilot's control movements.
/. after all.
This system need NEVER initiate a rapid maneuver. It simply needs to turn the plane gently (so gently, I'd imagine, that it would be nigh-imperceptible to the passengers) to avoid the bubble.
The reason it's called "soft walls" is because it's a graduated system. There's not a line in space where the plane says "WHOA FUCK! WE GOTTA GET OUT OF HERE!" There's a zone in which the plane is commanded to turn, safely and gently, away from the protected airspace.
But, hey, spout off against it all you want. It is
Do you have any idea how few mid-air collisions occur?
Hint: It's fewer than the number of airplanes hijacked.
It's an interesting idea, and there's no reason that it couldn't accept rapid "emergency" inputs and then return the aircraft to a safe heading.