"A lot of misreading going on. Replacing the tower with remote sensing is not replacing the controller. Instead, the controller moves to an area control centre and deals with screens instead of glass windows."
Are you sure about that? The article states that operations will be moved, but it doesn't say a word about the controllers themselves. And even if that's true today, are you sure that once the system is in place it won't be used to increase the ratio of flights-per-controller in the future?
"For the day to day and organization of flights I can see AI being able to handle that brilliantly. For more unusual issues I'd imagine controllers will still be needed though"
Because leaving human intervention *only* for emergencies while automatic systems take care of the 99% of mundane issues, have offered such brilliant results in the past.
"I did not get that they are replacing controllers"
Well, I do so: "The smaller London City airport is removing its tower altogether and deploying a mast with zoom cameras, allowing flights to be managed from the Swanwick control center more than 80 miles away."
They surely will move each and every controller to Swanwick, yeah, sure. And for new deployments, they'll hire just as many controllers as they would do if they were deploying new control towers along new strips, yeah, sure.
"One pilot thought he had clearance to takeoff on a runway that another plane was given clearance to cross. Automated cameras would have detected this problem"
On heavy fog? Doubtful.
As you say, main problem was miscommunication and the after-fact was an update on protocol communications (more strict vocabulary an syntax, mainly).
The problem here is not that technology can't help -it certainly can, but that it's not going to be implemented to increase security but to lower costs: you see, cameras will be deployed so they can save money on another control tower and, you can bet, on tower controllers since now the same people will take responsibility of more runaways. Nice for security, yeah.
"Weren't those won by available content? That's definitely one measure of "better" for a media format."
It certainly is but, then, that was *my* point, not yours. Remember, you said: "I would have thought that an "X killer" would need to be better than X (perhaps quite substantially), not just comparable, for *ALL VALUES OF X*." (emphasis mine).
See? VHS was never better than Beta or 2000 for all values of video media -in fact, it was common knowledge that both Beta and 2000 were technically superior to VHS. It was enough for just *one* feature of VHS to be perceived as better (availability) for VHS to reign alone. A case of "the winner takes all".
"In Barcelona they mark the sidewalks out for bikes and E-Scooters. They alsi have their own lanes in other parts of the city. Seems to work OK there."
On one hand, San Diego possibly has more bike-lane miles than Barcelona. On the other, no, it doesn't seem to work OK, neither at Barcelona nor at San Diego, because laws are not being enforced, specially regarding parking: those e-scooters park wherever they see fit without any respect towards pedestrians and without the local council doing shit to end it up.
"Magnetic navigation is a relic of yesteryear. It only has relevance today in the absence of GPS, which literally everyone has. Nobody uses magnetic compasses anymore."
GPS satellites are within the van Allen belt. What happens to the van Allen belt on magnetic poles reversal scenario is AFAIK not that well understood but if ever those satellites get out of the protection of the van Allen belt, you can possibly say good bye to your GPS system.
"Airbags. Finite element analysis to inform a crash structure that uses 10 types of steel in the same monocoque, making sure a car crumples in just the right way to minimize deceleration for the occupants. ABS, ESP"
You are describing my 2000 car. From then on, evolution went for economy (not that that's a bad thing) and electronic-everything against consumers.
Is not that crazy to think that 30 years from now there will be more cars from the eighties in driving conditions than from 2019.
"The market is merely delivering what consumers want"
That's not the case, and it never was.
Market delivers what profits the producers the most.
Sometimes that involves producing something the consumer wants; sometimes making the consumer think he wants what they offer; sometimes colluding so there's nothing else at the market so the consumer is forced to buy what he can get; sometimes bribing governments so consumers are forced to buy what they produce... and with the optimization of capitalism, the first option is becoming less and less relevant.
"Sooner or later, people will buy junked cars, or even just a crushed frame with a VIN on it, adding crate engines, populating with seats and an interior, and selling them as homemade vehicles, or the make/model with the VIN, even though the body is completely different."
So, on one hand you think corporatism is so in control of government as to allow auto industry to move to a rent-only model against consumer's rights but, at the same time, it won't ban unsafe/polluting/non compliant/uninsurable cars?
"You're not wrong. There has been for quite some time now a quiet movement by The Rich to put barriers in the way of everyone who is not The Rich from [becoming The Rich]"
What a surprise!!!
You know, they call it "capitalism" for a reason: capital is the goal and capital is the way to make it happen, so those that control the capital use the capital to make more capital and avoid others to get to the capital (as capital ownership is a relative measure: if everybody had a million, nobody would be millionaire).
"So you think a large 3D printer capable of printing a fully functioning state-of-the-art production car in 20 minutes is completely out of reach? Not technically possible?"
It's certainly not technically possible, neither now, nor in ten years. And even if it were technically possible, it would be financially stupid.
But the real problem is not that 3D printing a car is not technically possible, but that it is irrelevant: the key is not *how* a car is built but *who* does build the car. You can build a (kit) car in your garage right now but you will need to jump trough loops to legally put it on the road -and the only reason it's not outright forbidden is the pathetically low numbers involved.
"The solution is simple - create 3D printers large, fast & sophisticated enough to let a few hundred consumers band together and create their own mini-car-manufacturing plant"
OK. Let's forget for a moment how astoundingly stupid your idea is and let's imagine that it works.
There: here's the car, at the factory's door. Now, what? You don't expect to put it on a public road, right? Where's the crash safeness approval for it? and the anti-pollution one? and the other few dozens you will need?
What the industry is doing is for a (two-fold) reason: because it benefits them and because they can -and you don't.
There's one thing I don't understand, though... I have clear memories of Trump stating it was going Mexico the one to pay for the wall so, what's the problem with the wall not having a line in USA's budget? Wasn't exactly that what Trump expected -and promised?
"If you are developing video games, expect to work very long hours all the time and be very stressed."
This is still not *that* stressing (try doing the same long hours servicing an ER, for instance) and the stress it poses is, for the most part, self-inflicted: you see the unemployment rates, man, grow some balls and just say no when it's no!
"Running windows? Wrong, they don't, they have at least that much of a clue. No paper charts, that's a different story."
Given that knowing where are you in the middle of the sea has been a most important matter for seamen for thousands of years ans still they do such a dumb thing as not having paper charts, what makes you think there remains anything of a clue with them?
Then, what other systems but Windows do you think use Remote Desktop for an access protocol?
I saw the header and I thought: is this about "IT systems on boats" or "Windows on boats"? Then I saw the part about RDP passwords and it became clear. This is, again, about Windows.
Yeah, someone will come here to tell, once more, "oh, if other systems were as popular as Windows, then they would be equally cracked", but somehow, it is still Windows, Windows, Windows.
Even if it only were a bit of "security through obscurity" and it were only to work for a few years, choosing "whatever is not Windows" would still be a nobrainer from a security perspective!
"Working for Apple or purchasing Apple products is a CHOICE in a free enterprise society, skippy."
1. It was there, in my first phrase: "*Every* single corporation chooses communism for its INTERNAL organization", skippy. 2. Living in a country is also a CHOICE, as can ascertain the millions of people that move to a different one for many very different reasons, skippy.
"Under communism, it's NOT a choice."
Check my points again and tell me what's THE CHOICE you have under any given corporation.
"Sounds like facsim as well. I think we are on to something."
Up to the point fascism is also a totalitarian solution, just like by-the-book socialism (or the way "communism" was put in practice in countries under USSR influence) of course yes. You could also say "tomato" and "Ferrari" sound like the same too -they both tend to be red, don't they?
Slashdot Mirror
"I paid my way through school"
You didn't.
"A lot of misreading going on. Replacing the tower with remote sensing is not replacing the controller. Instead, the controller moves to an area control centre and deals with screens instead of glass windows."
Are you sure about that? The article states that operations will be moved, but it doesn't say a word about the controllers themselves. And even if that's true today, are you sure that once the system is in place it won't be used to increase the ratio of flights-per-controller in the future?
That's never been the case, right?
"For the day to day and organization of flights I can see AI being able to handle that brilliantly. For more unusual issues I'd imagine controllers will still be needed though"
Because leaving human intervention *only* for emergencies while automatic systems take care of the 99% of mundane issues, have offered such brilliant results in the past.
"I did not get that they are replacing controllers"
Well, I do so: "The smaller London City airport is removing its tower altogether and deploying a mast with zoom cameras, allowing flights to be managed from the Swanwick control center more than 80 miles away."
They surely will move each and every controller to Swanwick, yeah, sure. And for new deployments, they'll hire just as many controllers as they would do if they were deploying new control towers along new strips, yeah, sure.
"One pilot thought he had clearance to takeoff on a runway that another plane was given clearance to cross. Automated cameras would have detected this problem"
On heavy fog? Doubtful.
As you say, main problem was miscommunication and the after-fact was an update on protocol communications (more strict vocabulary an syntax, mainly).
The problem here is not that technology can't help -it certainly can, but that it's not going to be implemented to increase security but to lower costs: you see, cameras will be deployed so they can save money on another control tower and, you can bet, on tower controllers since now the same people will take responsibility of more runaways. Nice for security, yeah.
Duh!
(by the way, First Post!)
"Weren't those won by available content? That's definitely one measure of "better" for a media format."
It certainly is but, then, that was *my* point, not yours. Remember, you said: "I would have thought that an "X killer" would need to be better than X (perhaps quite substantially), not just comparable, for *ALL VALUES OF X*." (emphasis mine).
See? VHS was never better than Beta or 2000 for all values of video media -in fact, it was common knowledge that both Beta and 2000 were technically superior to VHS. It was enough for just *one* feature of VHS to be perceived as better (availability) for VHS to reign alone. A case of "the winner takes all".
"I would have thought that an "X killer" would need to be better than X (perhaps quite substantially), not just comparable, for all values of X"
Then you'd be utterly wrong, i.e. videotape format wars.
For something to be an X killer, it needs to be perceived as better than X. Key words: "perceived" and the definition for "better".
"Can you imagine the ratings for The Amazing Race: Mars with NASA and SpaceX, both launching their respective astronuts to see who gets there first?"
The point is not going there, but going there are return -safe.
[The US] "should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."
...or, once again, and I lost the count, does it hit "Windows targets"?
"In Barcelona they mark the sidewalks out for bikes and E-Scooters. They alsi have their own lanes in other parts of the city. Seems to work OK there."
On one hand, San Diego possibly has more bike-lane miles than Barcelona. On the other, no, it doesn't seem to work OK, neither at Barcelona nor at San Diego, because laws are not being enforced, specially regarding parking: those e-scooters park wherever they see fit without any respect towards pedestrians and without the local council doing shit to end it up.
"Magnetic navigation is a relic of yesteryear. It only has relevance today in the absence of GPS, which literally everyone has. Nobody uses magnetic compasses anymore."
GPS satellites are within the van Allen belt. What happens to the van Allen belt on magnetic poles reversal scenario is AFAIK not that well understood but if ever those satellites get out of the protection of the van Allen belt, you can possibly say good bye to your GPS system.
"Airbags. Finite element analysis to inform a crash structure that uses 10 types of steel in the same monocoque, making sure a car crumples in just the right way to minimize deceleration for the occupants. ABS, ESP"
You are describing my 2000 car. From then on, evolution went for economy (not that that's a bad thing) and electronic-everything against consumers.
Is not that crazy to think that 30 years from now there will be more cars from the eighties in driving conditions than from 2019.
"The market is merely delivering what consumers want"
That's not the case, and it never was.
Market delivers what profits the producers the most.
Sometimes that involves producing something the consumer wants; sometimes making the consumer think he wants what they offer; sometimes colluding so there's nothing else at the market so the consumer is forced to buy what he can get; sometimes bribing governments so consumers are forced to buy what they produce... and with the optimization of capitalism, the first option is becoming less and less relevant.
"Sooner or later, people will buy junked cars, or even just a crushed frame with a VIN on it, adding crate engines, populating with seats and an interior, and selling them as homemade vehicles, or the make/model with the VIN, even though the body is completely different."
So, on one hand you think corporatism is so in control of government as to allow auto industry to move to a rent-only model against consumer's rights but, at the same time, it won't ban unsafe/polluting/non compliant/uninsurable cars?
"You're not wrong. There has been for quite some time now a quiet movement by The Rich to put barriers in the way of everyone who is not The Rich from [becoming The Rich]"
What a surprise!!!
You know, they call it "capitalism" for a reason: capital is the goal and capital is the way to make it happen, so those that control the capital use the capital to make more capital and avoid others to get to the capital (as capital ownership is a relative measure: if everybody had a million, nobody would be millionaire).
"So you think a large 3D printer capable of printing a fully functioning state-of-the-art production car in 20 minutes is completely out of reach? Not technically possible?"
It's certainly not technically possible, neither now, nor in ten years. And even if it were technically possible, it would be financially stupid.
But the real problem is not that 3D printing a car is not technically possible, but that it is irrelevant: the key is not *how* a car is built but *who* does build the car. You can build a (kit) car in your garage right now but you will need to jump trough loops to legally put it on the road -and the only reason it's not outright forbidden is the pathetically low numbers involved.
"The solution is simple - create 3D printers large, fast & sophisticated enough to let a few hundred consumers band together and create their own mini-car-manufacturing plant"
OK. Let's forget for a moment how astoundingly stupid your idea is and let's imagine that it works.
There: here's the car, at the factory's door. Now, what? You don't expect to put it on a public road, right? Where's the crash safeness approval for it? and the anti-pollution one? and the other few dozens you will need?
What the industry is doing is for a (two-fold) reason: because it benefits them and because they can -and you don't.
"Thats why walls work"
There's one thing I don't understand, though... I have clear memories of Trump stating it was going Mexico the one to pay for the wall so, what's the problem with the wall not having a line in USA's budget? Wasn't exactly that what Trump expected -and promised?
"If you are developing video games, expect to work very long hours all the time and be very stressed."
This is still not *that* stressing (try doing the same long hours servicing an ER, for instance) and the stress it poses is, for the most part, self-inflicted: you see the unemployment rates, man, grow some balls and just say no when it's no!
"Running windows? Wrong, they don't, they have at least that much of a clue.
No paper charts, that's a different story."
Given that knowing where are you in the middle of the sea has been a most important matter for seamen for thousands of years ans still they do such a dumb thing as not having paper charts, what makes you think there remains anything of a clue with them?
Then, what other systems but Windows do you think use Remote Desktop for an access protocol?
"Don't run ships on Windows"
I saw the header and I thought: is this about "IT systems on boats" or "Windows on boats"? Then I saw the part about RDP passwords and it became clear. This is, again, about Windows.
Yeah, someone will come here to tell, once more, "oh, if other systems were as popular as Windows, then they would be equally cracked", but somehow, it is still Windows, Windows, Windows.
Even if it only were a bit of "security through obscurity" and it were only to work for a few years, choosing "whatever is not Windows" would still be a nobrainer from a security perspective!
"Sounds like Soviet communism to me. It explains a lot, including how corporations fail, just like Stalinist communist states."
The point is that companies that success are not any less USSR-like than the ones that fail.
"Working for Apple or purchasing Apple products is a CHOICE in a free enterprise society, skippy."
1. It was there, in my first phrase: "*Every* single corporation chooses communism for its INTERNAL organization", skippy.
2. Living in a country is also a CHOICE, as can ascertain the millions of people that move to a different one for many very different reasons, skippy.
"Under communism, it's NOT a choice."
Check my points again and tell me what's THE CHOICE you have under any given corporation.
"Sounds like facsim as well. I think we are on to something."
Up to the point fascism is also a totalitarian solution, just like by-the-book socialism (or the way "communism" was put in practice in countries under USSR influence) of course yes. You could also say "tomato" and "Ferrari" sound like the same too -they both tend to be red, don't they?