I can see why too. Using your phone is second nature, because you use it so often. But infotainment screens are built by third parties that have to follow different rules for safety, so they aren't as intuitive. And there's no real incentive to improve, as they aren't in the 'upgrade' market. For the most part, once you have the GPS unit in your car, you don't replace it. Phones get updated every two years, and the software is updated almost monthly (apps are at least). Why use something that is 'hard' to use, not updated, and doesn't work like you expect?
It seems it also has a lot more to do with money. When disarmament is discussed, everyone can agree that it's a good thing (even if it doesn't affect them personally). Companies agree with the politicians and see an opportunity to bid on contracts to help dismantle and dispose of nuclear weapons and eventually make a lot of money. But climate change solutions mean that many industries will have to make significant changes to their business. The coal industry could stand to loose significantly if they are forced to make truly 'clean' coal. They also have the possibility of being shut down completely. These companies respond with 'outraged opposition' to prevent either of the two. If there was no money in things like coal produced electricity, climate change solutions would probably happen much like disarmament did.
The tiles on the leading edge of the wing aren't foam, they are a ceramic material and each tile is designed for a specific location on the wing. Cover the hole up? Not likely with the materials they had. It's not like they have extra leading edge tiles laying around anyway. The only real option would be to get them on another shuttle since the ISS was not accessible.
This is the first roadable aircraft that looks like it could work. No fancy linkages to have one motor run it all, or spiffy folding wings or anything that hasn't been created yet. This actually has demonstrated technologies behind it and looks like it's much further along that a pretty 3D rendering. Even if the UAV portion doesn't work, this application could be useful in more than just the battlefield. This could be used for civilian medivac or other urgent situation where a suitable landing location is easily accessible.
Assuming that the story the guest told was true (and it seems it was, based on the hotel admitting it), how can the hotel possibly win when the reviewer is stating facts? If the review was completely made up, I would assume libel laws would side with the hotel. But when the whole situation is based on facts, and the reviewer is merely passing those facts on to the public, how can the hotel even expect to win?
The article is right, the hotel should have helped him out more from the get go instead of trying to do damage control.
Original story submitter, here. I am an atheist, but I don't believe that death=nonexistence. Her accomplishments, her impacts, and her memories will continue to affect others for a long time. In a way she is still with us, especially to those whom she was closest to. Her final flight is in to our collective memories and our history.
Early command and control systems were considered secure through obscurity and lack of technical ability. Obviously, that isn't the case anymore. I don't know how old the drone design it, but considering that the US is saying all the technology on it is obsolete, then it's probably more than just a year or two old and could be controlled though the 'old school' technique. Now days, command links are encrypted to prevent the bad guys from even eaves dropping on the intel that comes down.
Spy satellites and spy planes don't have 24 hour coverage of the whole world, so they don't spend any time looking for something that they already control. Once they lost control, they no longer had a solid fix on its position. While I'm sure they would have scrambled to find it, finding a moving target of that size would be difficult at best and would take considerable time.
For things to go the way Iran suggests, the US would have had to have been flying over Iran for a long enough time for them to 1) intercept the command and control transmissions, 2) decipher the signals to determine what everything means, 3) design and build a system capable of mimicking the commands and displaying the correct return information, and 4) fielding the system to snatch the plane. The lack of any appreciable damage means they did an awesome job landing the plane, which would be VERY impressive from an untrained pilot. While not impossible, it would display a level of techincal capability that Iran doesn't seem to have.
Based on my experience, I think the most likely scenario is that the pilots lost contact with the plane after it had a serious malfunction. Then the plane wandered off is planned flight path, or even the emergency return path, and ended up crashing in Iran. It happens occasionally; the plane breaks hard and goes dumb. I suspect some sort of misinformation from the Iranians because I doubt they could have taken control of the plane and snatched it. I'd buy them disrupting the command and control links easily, but taking control is a couple orders of magnitude harder.
As a drone pilot, I feel the scare factor of drones are way over rated. Yes, there are issues, but nothing that can't be handled with the proper procedures. People don't bat an eye at flying in clouds with other planes, but put a plane without a person on it in the sky and all of a sudden we have a flight risk. But scary is what sells on the news (and in APOA).
This little thing is the same thing as a hobby RC plane. I doubt any pilot out there is seriously concerned about RC planes, and this fits in that scale. The problem is this is used for commercial purposes, so it falls under different rules. News Corp fell into the trap that may other commercial entities fall into. They think it's just a big toy, so as long as they follow the RC planes rules, they are fine. The FAA treats commercial flying differently from noncommercial flying, and the hobbyist who suggested this idea to management probably didn't know that. This isn't a precedent, its just par for the course right now.
The FAA is very interested in including drones in their big plan to restructure their systems, and I think in the near future we may see things like this happening legally. But for now, The Daily's is probably going to be grounded.
This is just the result of their policies. They probably designed it this way to make people want to watch/read more FOX news. If you are unsure about something going on today you try to learn more, and you learn what's going on in the world by watching the news, right?
With the proflieration of computers into everyday life, and the never ending advancement of realism in computer animation, it was bound to happen that special effects are taken for granted. The other night, my wife had asked me if I thought the cliff they were driving next to in the last Indiana Jones movie was real or removed by computer. You almost couldn't tell. We are at the point where we expect special effects to give us the movie we want. We expect them to be so seamless that you aren't sure they are computer effects or not.
20 years ago, we clamored for the special effect that 'looked so real' in Terminator 2, but now if we saw a movie with those effects we would be unimpressed because so many people think someone with a camcorder and a computer could whip that up at home. While it may or may not be possible is another matter, but the perception is there and that drives expectations. I think the special effects in Inception were top notch exactly becasue I didn't notice any 'edge' of where the effect starts and where it stops. If I see a movie where I can spot the special effect, I refer to it as 'second rate.' But that's because I know they can do better.
That's just while driving, at which time it would be covered by the radio. Now they can alert you to a tornado, or tsunami, or other horrible event while you are shopping, or at the beach, or anywhere else where you don't have a radio/TV. Sounds like a great idea to me.
Not likely. This project has been around for several years now. Here's a story where they hope to get DARPA to pay for it. And it's was already around for years before that. The problem with it? Real time control. The plane would have to be able to direct it's own flight and research with minimal input from Earth becasue of the time lag in commands. Controlling a Global Hawk or Predator from half way around the world isn't tough. Flying a UAV on another planet? That's tough. Look what happened to poor Spirit.
Its a car that primarily electric driven and uses the gas engine when the batteries/motor can't cut it. Is it really that important what it's called? It's a car designed to be 'green' and that's what it's being sold as. The only thing that GM should be criticized for is the over estimation of the range you can expect. What we call is it pretty moot.
Planes do more than just carry people around. FedEX, UPS, DHL, and a host of other smaller carriers are proof of that. And don't forget search and rescue, border protection, fire fighting, police surveillance (helicopters), wildlife surverys, oceananic and atmospheric research, etc. And you are right, this is all about saving money. Only it's not for passenger airplanes.
Honestly, that's highly unlikely. First of all, you have to get past the feeling that we need a person up front to make sure everything works right. After all, what if the plane has a malfunction, the computer can't correct it right, a human knows how to solve it, but the communication link is down? All those events have happened, but not necessiarly together, and admittedly the chance of that happening is so slim you may have a better chance of winning the lottery. But you know what? People still win the lottery, and that situation will eventually happen. Would you be willing to risk 200 people just to save a little money? The airlines may try it, but Ford was accused of something a little similar and it didn't go well.
Second, you already have a plane full of people. You'd save very little weight by taking one person off a plane. Also, you still give people that warm fuzzy that someone is up front minding the shop even if all he does is press "go" and "stop."
If we eventually get AI to the point that people accept them as capable as a human, then you might get the pilot off the plane, but even then I doubt it.
Now cargo planes... That's another story. I see FedEx and UPS going pilotless in the not to distant future.
I can tell you the answer to that. They are facing stresses that a normal soldier isn't facing. A Predator pilot in Las Vegas has to fight a war for 10 hours a day and deal with all the stress that comes with that, AND THEN go home and deal with all the stress of family life. When deployed you 'turn off' after you fly and recover. Flying from home means you have to constantly deal with much more stress than normal. And you have to separate your military life from your family life even more. You can't talk about the problems you deal with at work with your wife because missions are classified. And you can't talk about your kid failing a math test because you are busy tracking a high priority target. No down time means no recovery. And add all to that this problems mentioned in the article above. Then to top it all off, good luck getting out of an unmanned plane. Without enough training, assignments are lasting much longer than normal. Pilots are getting called back from manned planes to fly drones. It's a no win situation for those who need a break.I did it for a while, and life is rough,
I was a Predator pilot in the AF for 5 years, and I can tell you it's not a pretty picture.
Why would yo fold it? Put it in your filing cabinet and maybe put a copy in a firesafe. Plus, one fold isn't going to tear a paper. I've got lots of papers that are folded that aren't torn. Sure some copies will tear, but some passwords get forgotten too. It's not a perfect solution, but it is another option for those who want a fairly high level of security.
I think almost anyone with a lick of sense would realize that. Iran must have seen the problems with hacking into gmail from the recent problems with China and thought "Let's just elminiate the middle man and have a native e-mail service that we can dictate that back doors be included for 'security.'" Of course, 'security' is for the security of the ruling parties, just like every other opressive regime.
Of course, the only people that this will truly affect are those that don't have much to lose because they don't have anything to hide. Everyone else is probably already smart enough to use a proxy and can get through any block that the government is trying to set up. In the end, it will jsut foster more resentment from the common folk and bolster support those seeking to overthrow their opressors.
You also need all the small bits to go with it. Playing a board game on the computer is nothing like the real thing. Moving pieces, holding cards, rolling dice. The tactile part of playing a board game is a huge part of the game. Using all those things is also part of the strategy. Want them to know your loaded? Show your cash/resources. Want to look like you are down and out? Hide or minimize your stash.
Playing on a computer works fine when I play by myself, but when I play with friends, I want to crack open a box, set up the game, talk a little trash and flaunt my moves to make it more fun.
Ahh, the irony. Here you are, posting a comment on the direct derivative of something 'shiny' that DARPA (then just ARPA) ponied up the money for. Ever hear of ARPANET?
Slashdot Mirror
When you zoom out in satellite imagery, the clouds are also realtime cloud cover. Pretty slick.
I can see why too. Using your phone is second nature, because you use it so often. But infotainment screens are built by third parties that have to follow different rules for safety, so they aren't as intuitive. And there's no real incentive to improve, as they aren't in the 'upgrade' market. For the most part, once you have the GPS unit in your car, you don't replace it. Phones get updated every two years, and the software is updated almost monthly (apps are at least). Why use something that is 'hard' to use, not updated, and doesn't work like you expect?
You needed a cite. I fixed it for you.
It seems it also has a lot more to do with money. When disarmament is discussed, everyone can agree that it's a good thing (even if it doesn't affect them personally). Companies agree with the politicians and see an opportunity to bid on contracts to help dismantle and dispose of nuclear weapons and eventually make a lot of money. But climate change solutions mean that many industries will have to make significant changes to their business. The coal industry could stand to loose significantly if they are forced to make truly 'clean' coal. They also have the possibility of being shut down completely. These companies respond with 'outraged opposition' to prevent either of the two. If there was no money in things like coal produced electricity, climate change solutions would probably happen much like disarmament did.
The tiles on the leading edge of the wing aren't foam, they are a ceramic material and each tile is designed for a specific location on the wing. Cover the hole up? Not likely with the materials they had. It's not like they have extra leading edge tiles laying around anyway. The only real option would be to get them on another shuttle since the ISS was not accessible.
This is the first roadable aircraft that looks like it could work. No fancy linkages to have one motor run it all, or spiffy folding wings or anything that hasn't been created yet. This actually has demonstrated technologies behind it and looks like it's much further along that a pretty 3D rendering. Even if the UAV portion doesn't work, this application could be useful in more than just the battlefield. This could be used for civilian medivac or other urgent situation where a suitable landing location is easily accessible.
Assuming that the story the guest told was true (and it seems it was, based on the hotel admitting it), how can the hotel possibly win when the reviewer is stating facts? If the review was completely made up, I would assume libel laws would side with the hotel. But when the whole situation is based on facts, and the reviewer is merely passing those facts on to the public, how can the hotel even expect to win?
The article is right, the hotel should have helped him out more from the get go instead of trying to do damage control.
I was at Edwards AFB yesterday when it landed. I can get to a couple great spots, so I took some great pictures. Here are some of the highlights.
Original story submitter, here. I am an atheist, but I don't believe that death=nonexistence. Her accomplishments, her impacts, and her memories will continue to affect others for a long time. In a way she is still with us, especially to those whom she was closest to. Her final flight is in to our collective memories and our history.
Early command and control systems were considered secure through obscurity and lack of technical ability. Obviously, that isn't the case anymore. I don't know how old the drone design it, but considering that the US is saying all the technology on it is obsolete, then it's probably more than just a year or two old and could be controlled though the 'old school' technique. Now days, command links are encrypted to prevent the bad guys from even eaves dropping on the intel that comes down.
Spy satellites and spy planes don't have 24 hour coverage of the whole world, so they don't spend any time looking for something that they already control. Once they lost control, they no longer had a solid fix on its position. While I'm sure they would have scrambled to find it, finding a moving target of that size would be difficult at best and would take considerable time.
For things to go the way Iran suggests, the US would have had to have been flying over Iran for a long enough time for them to 1) intercept the command and control transmissions, 2) decipher the signals to determine what everything means, 3) design and build a system capable of mimicking the commands and displaying the correct return information, and 4) fielding the system to snatch the plane. The lack of any appreciable damage means they did an awesome job landing the plane, which would be VERY impressive from an untrained pilot. While not impossible, it would display a level of techincal capability that Iran doesn't seem to have.
Based on my experience, I think the most likely scenario is that the pilots lost contact with the plane after it had a serious malfunction. Then the plane wandered off is planned flight path, or even the emergency return path, and ended up crashing in Iran. It happens occasionally; the plane breaks hard and goes dumb. I suspect some sort of misinformation from the Iranians because I doubt they could have taken control of the plane and snatched it. I'd buy them disrupting the command and control links easily, but taking control is a couple orders of magnitude harder.
As a drone pilot, I feel the scare factor of drones are way over rated. Yes, there are issues, but nothing that can't be handled with the proper procedures. People don't bat an eye at flying in clouds with other planes, but put a plane without a person on it in the sky and all of a sudden we have a flight risk. But scary is what sells on the news (and in APOA).
This little thing is the same thing as a hobby RC plane. I doubt any pilot out there is seriously concerned about RC planes, and this fits in that scale. The problem is this is used for commercial purposes, so it falls under different rules. News Corp fell into the trap that may other commercial entities fall into. They think it's just a big toy, so as long as they follow the RC planes rules, they are fine. The FAA treats commercial flying differently from noncommercial flying, and the hobbyist who suggested this idea to management probably didn't know that. This isn't a precedent, its just par for the course right now.
The FAA is very interested in including drones in their big plan to restructure their systems, and I think in the near future we may see things like this happening legally. But for now, The Daily's is probably going to be grounded.
FOX also makes sure to point out any 'controversy' in science stories.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/fox_news_bureau_chief_told_staff_to_cast_doubt_on_climate_change.php?ref=fpb
This is just the result of their policies. They probably designed it this way to make people want to watch/read more FOX news. If you are unsure about something going on today you try to learn more, and you learn what's going on in the world by watching the news, right?
With the proflieration of computers into everyday life, and the never ending advancement of realism in computer animation, it was bound to happen that special effects are taken for granted. The other night, my wife had asked me if I thought the cliff they were driving next to in the last Indiana Jones movie was real or removed by computer. You almost couldn't tell. We are at the point where we expect special effects to give us the movie we want. We expect them to be so seamless that you aren't sure they are computer effects or not.
20 years ago, we clamored for the special effect that 'looked so real' in Terminator 2, but now if we saw a movie with those effects we would be unimpressed because so many people think someone with a camcorder and a computer could whip that up at home. While it may or may not be possible is another matter, but the perception is there and that drives expectations. I think the special effects in Inception were top notch exactly becasue I didn't notice any 'edge' of where the effect starts and where it stops. If I see a movie where I can spot the special effect, I refer to it as 'second rate.' But that's because I know they can do better.
That's just while driving, at which time it would be covered by the radio. Now they can alert you to a tornado, or tsunami, or other horrible event while you are shopping, or at the beach, or anywhere else where you don't have a radio/TV. Sounds like a great idea to me.
Not likely. This project has been around for several years now. Here's a story where they hope to get DARPA to pay for it. And it's was already around for years before that. The problem with it? Real time control. The plane would have to be able to direct it's own flight and research with minimal input from Earth becasue of the time lag in commands. Controlling a Global Hawk or Predator from half way around the world isn't tough. Flying a UAV on another planet? That's tough. Look what happened to poor Spirit.
Its a car that primarily electric driven and uses the gas engine when the batteries/motor can't cut it. Is it really that important what it's called? It's a car designed to be 'green' and that's what it's being sold as. The only thing that GM should be criticized for is the over estimation of the range you can expect. What we call is it pretty moot.
Planes do more than just carry people around. FedEX, UPS, DHL, and a host of other smaller carriers are proof of that. And don't forget search and rescue, border protection, fire fighting, police surveillance (helicopters), wildlife surverys, oceananic and atmospheric research, etc. And you are right, this is all about saving money. Only it's not for passenger airplanes.
Honestly, that's highly unlikely. First of all, you have to get past the feeling that we need a person up front to make sure everything works right. After all, what if the plane has a malfunction, the computer can't correct it right, a human knows how to solve it, but the communication link is down? All those events have happened, but not necessiarly together, and admittedly the chance of that happening is so slim you may have a better chance of winning the lottery. But you know what? People still win the lottery, and that situation will eventually happen. Would you be willing to risk 200 people just to save a little money? The airlines may try it, but Ford was accused of something a little similar and it didn't go well.
Second, you already have a plane full of people. You'd save very little weight by taking one person off a plane. Also, you still give people that warm fuzzy that someone is up front minding the shop even if all he does is press "go" and "stop."
If we eventually get AI to the point that people accept them as capable as a human, then you might get the pilot off the plane, but even then I doubt it.
Now cargo planes... That's another story. I see FedEx and UPS going pilotless in the not to distant future.
I can tell you the answer to that. They are facing stresses that a normal soldier isn't facing. A Predator pilot in Las Vegas has to fight a war for 10 hours a day and deal with all the stress that comes with that, AND THEN go home and deal with all the stress of family life. When deployed you 'turn off' after you fly and recover. Flying from home means you have to constantly deal with much more stress than normal. And you have to separate your military life from your family life even more. You can't talk about the problems you deal with at work with your wife because missions are classified. And you can't talk about your kid failing a math test because you are busy tracking a high priority target. No down time means no recovery. And add all to that this problems mentioned in the article above. Then to top it all off, good luck getting out of an unmanned plane. Without enough training, assignments are lasting much longer than normal. Pilots are getting called back from manned planes to fly drones. It's a no win situation for those who need a break.I did it for a while, and life is rough,
I was a Predator pilot in the AF for 5 years, and I can tell you it's not a pretty picture.
Why would yo fold it? Put it in your filing cabinet and maybe put a copy in a firesafe. Plus, one fold isn't going to tear a paper. I've got lots of papers that are folded that aren't torn. Sure some copies will tear, but some passwords get forgotten too. It's not a perfect solution, but it is another option for those who want a fairly high level of security.
I think almost anyone with a lick of sense would realize that. Iran must have seen the problems with hacking into gmail from the recent problems with China and thought "Let's just elminiate the middle man and have a native e-mail service that we can dictate that back doors be included for 'security.'" Of course, 'security' is for the security of the ruling parties, just like every other opressive regime.
Of course, the only people that this will truly affect are those that don't have much to lose because they don't have anything to hide. Everyone else is probably already smart enough to use a proxy and can get through any block that the government is trying to set up. In the end, it will jsut foster more resentment from the common folk and bolster support those seeking to overthrow their opressors.
You also need all the small bits to go with it. Playing a board game on the computer is nothing like the real thing. Moving pieces, holding cards, rolling dice. The tactile part of playing a board game is a huge part of the game. Using all those things is also part of the strategy. Want them to know your loaded? Show your cash/resources. Want to look like you are down and out? Hide or minimize your stash.
Playing on a computer works fine when I play by myself, but when I play with friends, I want to crack open a box, set up the game, talk a little trash and flaunt my moves to make it more fun.
Team America.
Seriously.
We all know how well that went...
Starfish aren't fish, either...
The fish took offense to that name, so we call them "sea stars" now. Keep up with the times, you insensitive clod.
Ahh, the irony. Here you are, posting a comment on the direct derivative of something 'shiny' that DARPA (then just ARPA) ponied up the money for. Ever hear of ARPANET?