Everybody knows that when you are paid to produce a report it should say what those that paid you want it to say. There are a dozen ways to say that piracy is evil without actually lying.
That means that it is not possible to have a rogue program get at people's passwords. If people knew only to type their password after pressing those keys.
Then, in Windows 8, they gave up on it.
(The password that is stored is hashed. And should have been salted.)
The subs will use officially certified versions. They might be exactly the same as the retail ones, but they sure wont cost $30. Nor $300. But $3,000 would still be a significant saving.
I have wondered about the unintelligent automation, particularly things like Auto throttle.
(When landing a small plane one is constantly monitoring the air speed, and making small adjustments to power to keep it there (simplification). Not very difficult, almost subconscious after a while. But in a heavy one sets the auto throttle to the desired speed, and then it does it for you much like cruise control on a car, and so there is no need monitor the air speed.)
All is good, until for one reason or another the auto throttle is set to the wrong mode, e.g. constant descent instead of constant speed. Incompetent pilots that do not look out the window have then written off good air planes in good weather as a result. There was an Air Asiana at SFO a few years ago, one in India which killed everyone, and it was a cause of the Qantas crash in Bankok, probably many more. It seems like trying to park a car on cruise control.
Autopilot during the cruise is obviously a good idea. But during take off and landing, when the pilots are supposed to be alert anyway. Is it really a good idea?
The trouble is that, as you say, the automation is dumb. The auto throttle has no idea what is really going on. A truly intelligent system could be different -- it would never stall short of a runway. But these aren't.
I suspect the self driving cars will be similar. Unless they can do all the driving (in a given situation, like freeway driving) then they are potentially as dangerous as auto throttle.
Reading magazines? I thought you spent your time chatting to the hostesses.
But it does sound like most of the stuff you do inside the cockpit could be automated, leaving you free to keep your head outside the cockpit.
I am rather surprised that the birds do not see you. Birds are really, really good at flying, and seem to see other (possibly aggressive) birds easily. I have flown with eagles (and an aggressive magpie!) and they certainly knew where I was. Maybe in big flocks they just take on a herd mentality and follow each other without thinking too much.
If pilots in the simulator turned promptly (10 seconds) after losing both engines they easily made it back.
If they were told to wait the full 30 seconds that the actual pilots took to start the turn then they struggled to make it back.
30 seconds is a *long* time to realize that without engines one needs to think about landing. I am surprised the pilots were not criticized for it. (As a light plane pilot, that is always on my mind, and engine failure is something practiced before getting a basic license.)
This is one thing that would have been programmed into any computer system -- how to deal with engine failure after take off. And the plane would have landed back at the air port without fuss.
Actually, the TCAS tells the pilot how to change course, and the pilot normally has to obey. I do not think that TCAS is directly linked to the auto pilot in practice, but it could easily be. Then nothing for the pilot to do.
Things happen so fast at that speed. No way humans cans see and avoid. It is all over in the blink of an eye.
Nonsense
Funny how people believe that, even though they have seen heavy airplanes lumber over the sky. They are fast, but they are also very big, and visibility is a long way.
So your 200 knots is 100m/s, which is bit fast but close enough. CAVOK means 10km visibility (which was the reported whether). Now If the large flock of geese was seen at only 1000m, that give a full 10 seconds to see and avoid. The plane does not need to do a full 360 turn, just change course by a 100m or so in any direction. Easy.
But only easy if the pilots were watching where they were going. But instead they had their heads inside the cockpit working the computers, which is the point. Interestingly, they were not criticized for that.
That is actually somewhat debatable in the industry. Not so much the autopilot for long flights, but the autothrottle for landing. Pilots set the wrong setting, and then do not monitor air speed until disaster strikes. Has led to quite a few crashes, almost all with Asian pilots.
Not quite. Heavies all have TCAS, which is transponder based and will make a loud sound if anything gets to near.
However, large flocks of Canadian Geese do not have transponders and so are not picked up by TCAS, and require human eyes to see. However, human pilots often do not look out the window either, as several people discovered a few years ago when they went for an unexpected swim in the Hudson river.
But it is now possible for relatively cheap robots to pick parts jumbled up in a bin. That requires very clever software, but what is now cheap computing processors.
It is a game changer. No, they will not suddenly become intelligent. But the scope of what they can do will increase an order of magnitude.
And the robots are, of course, largely made by robots. Their price is falling.
The agreement with Amazon will, no doubt, explicitly exclude any liability from loss of sales. It is a problem when companies like Amazon, Google, Facebook become big enough that they essentially make their own law. But no, it is very unlikely Amazon will pay compensation. Nor are they likely to change their practices reduce the likelihood of this happening again. Why should they care?
And do not call people stupid, especially when you make a stupid comment.
Again, from the marketing docs it is hard to know whether Desktop Bridge is just an installer or a crude sandbox. If the latter, no wonder it is not used by MS products.
And how much effort does it really take to make a simple application conform. Their record with One Click and VSTO installers is not good.
Metro apps (a highly restricted sandboxed application) were renamed "Windows Store Apps". It is difficult to know from the marketing hype, but I think that the store only supports Metro except for the exceptions, which would make it largely useless.
It took a simple web page and split it over multiple config files. And it did little to help larger ones. It should never have been used. But has been considered obsolete for some time now.
Yellow page companies had listings from every business. In the early days, they just had to put that online, and offer companies cheap web page creation. Nobody knew how to do that back then, and they could have owned the small business market.
But their job was selling paper directories, and their ossified management could not see beyond that even when the web was screaming in the late 1990s. So they have finally died. The web should also have been gold for newspapers -- they owned the classified ad business, exactly what Google, EBay etc. do now.
Slashdot Mirror
Everybody knows that when you are paid to produce a report it should say what those that paid you want it to say. There are a dozen ways to say that piracy is evil without actually lying.
This is slash dot. And nobody has noticed that robots are becoming smarter.
By about 2100, human beings will be obsolete technology. The robots will no longer need us to program them.
At that point they will deal with human overpopulation for us.
Programs cannot (could not?)trap ctrl-alt-delete.
That means that it is not possible to have a rogue program get at people's passwords. If people knew only to type their password after pressing those keys.
Then, in Windows 8, they gave up on it.
(The password that is stored is hashed. And should have been salted.)
The subs will use officially certified versions. They might be exactly the same as the retail ones, but they sure wont cost $30. Nor $300. But $3,000 would still be a significant saving.
Maybe this is a bit better than John (or maybe not), but John also employs "Learning Heuristics" but just calls them clever code.
I have wondered about the unintelligent automation, particularly things like Auto throttle.
(When landing a small plane one is constantly monitoring the air speed, and making small adjustments to power to keep it there (simplification). Not very difficult, almost subconscious after a while. But in a heavy one sets the auto throttle to the desired speed, and then it does it for you much like cruise control on a car, and so there is no need monitor the air speed.)
All is good, until for one reason or another the auto throttle is set to the wrong mode, e.g. constant descent instead of constant speed. Incompetent pilots that do not look out the window have then written off good air planes in good weather as a result. There was an Air Asiana at SFO a few years ago, one in India which killed everyone, and it was a cause of the Qantas crash in Bankok, probably many more. It seems like trying to park a car on cruise control.
Autopilot during the cruise is obviously a good idea. But during take off and landing, when the pilots are supposed to be alert anyway. Is it really a good idea?
The trouble is that, as you say, the automation is dumb. The auto throttle has no idea what is really going on. A truly intelligent system could be different -- it would never stall short of a runway. But these aren't.
I suspect the self driving cars will be similar. Unless they can do all the driving (in a given situation, like freeway driving) then they are potentially as dangerous as auto throttle.
Reading magazines? I thought you spent your time chatting to the hostesses.
But it does sound like most of the stuff you do inside the cockpit could be automated, leaving you free to keep your head outside the cockpit.
I am rather surprised that the birds do not see you. Birds are really, really good at flying, and seem to see other (possibly aggressive) birds easily. I have flown with eagles (and an aggressive magpie!) and they certainly knew where I was. Maybe in big flocks they just take on a herd mentality and follow each other without thinking too much.
Not quite.
If pilots in the simulator turned promptly (10 seconds) after losing both engines they easily made it back.
If they were told to wait the full 30 seconds that the actual pilots took to start the turn then they struggled to make it back.
30 seconds is a *long* time to realize that without engines one needs to think about landing. I am surprised the pilots were not criticized for it. (As a light plane pilot, that is always on my mind, and engine failure is something practiced before getting a basic license.)
This is one thing that would have been programmed into any computer system -- how to deal with engine failure after take off. And the plane would have landed back at the air port without fuss.
Actually, the TCAS tells the pilot how to change course, and the pilot normally has to obey. I do not think that TCAS is directly linked to the auto pilot in practice, but it could easily be. Then nothing for the pilot to do.
Things happen so fast at that speed. No way humans cans see and avoid. It is all over in the blink of an eye.
Nonsense
Funny how people believe that, even though they have seen heavy airplanes lumber over the sky. They are fast, but they are also very big, and visibility is a long way.
So your 200 knots is 100m/s, which is bit fast but close enough. CAVOK means 10km visibility (which was the reported whether). Now If the large flock of geese was seen at only 1000m, that give a full 10 seconds to see and avoid. The plane does not need to do a full 360 turn, just change course by a 100m or so in any direction. Easy.
But only easy if the pilots were watching where they were going. But instead they had their heads inside the cockpit working the computers, which is the point. Interestingly, they were not criticized for that.
TFA is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So why not read the article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
2,818'
These were big birds, not sparows.
Um, they hit the birds at 3,000' by memory. Plenty of height to yank the plane around.
That is actually somewhat debatable in the industry. Not so much the autopilot for long flights, but the autothrottle for landing. Pilots set the wrong setting, and then do not monitor air speed until disaster strikes. Has led to quite a few crashes, almost all with Asian pilots.
Wont work for me. I generally drive with my eyes closed.
Easy. Just have the auto pilot unexpectedly swerve off the road from time to time. That will keep the driver alert!
Not quite. Heavies all have TCAS, which is transponder based and will make a loud sound if anything gets to near.
However, large flocks of Canadian Geese do not have transponders and so are not picked up by TCAS, and require human eyes to see. However, human pilots often do not look out the window either, as several people discovered a few years ago when they went for an unexpected swim in the Hudson river.
Traditional robots are completely dumb.
But it is now possible for relatively cheap robots to pick parts jumbled up in a bin. That requires very clever software, but what is now cheap computing processors.
It is a game changer. No, they will not suddenly become intelligent. But the scope of what they can do will increase an order of magnitude.
And the robots are, of course, largely made by robots. Their price is falling.
The world is and will change. Faster and faster.
http://www.computersthink.com/
Just think of the automation provided by ancient mainframes compared to doing everything by hand. No resulting unemployment.
Tax law and bureaucratic complexity will simply grow to employ more and more accountants and middle managers. It is the Law of Parkinson.
Automation is the reason we have such complexity today. Without the automation, we could simply not function with the bureaucratic load.
Neural Net = Expert System = Artificial Intellence = Watson
The number of people that understand the differences is insignificant. Maybe a very few on slashdot. But certainly no tech journalists.
The agreement with Amazon will, no doubt, explicitly exclude any liability from loss of sales. It is a problem when companies like Amazon, Google, Facebook become big enough that they essentially make their own law. But no, it is very unlikely Amazon will pay compensation. Nor are they likely to change their practices reduce the likelihood of this happening again. Why should they care?
And do not call people stupid, especially when you make a stupid comment.
Thanks for the clarification.
Again, from the marketing docs it is hard to know whether Desktop Bridge is just an installer or a crude sandbox. If the latter, no wonder it is not used by MS products.
And how much effort does it really take to make a simple application conform. Their record with One Click and VSTO installers is not good.
Metro apps (a highly restricted sandboxed application) were renamed "Windows Store Apps". It is difficult to know from the marketing hype, but I think that the store only supports Metro except for the exceptions, which would make it largely useless.
It took a simple web page and split it over multiple config files. And it did little to help larger ones. It should never have been used. But has been considered obsolete for some time now.
Yellow page companies had listings from every business. In the early days, they just had to put that online, and offer companies cheap web page creation. Nobody knew how to do that back then, and they could have owned the small business market.
But their job was selling paper directories, and their ossified management could not see beyond that even when the web was screaming in the late 1990s. So they have finally died. The web should also have been gold for newspapers -- they owned the classified ad business, exactly what Google, EBay etc. do now.
Wastes from battery plants are not "Nuclear" waste.
And deaths from installing solar equipment are not "Nuclear" accidents.