Basically, to the software pilot argument, I'd say we don't need pilots any more. The HMI should be simplified to a set of read-only status windows with minimal inputs. You want to pilot a plane? Get yourself in a small single or twin-prop. Otherwise, the computer is going to do a better job of it than you will, and for more than 98% of the time. If the auto-pilot of a particular make was statistically proven to fail in 2% of emergency cases, all of those planes would be grounded indefinitely until a new software patch was applied to improve reliability.
hmmm I don't think so
there's still ample space for good-weather "look out of the window" assessment of the situation, or all-weather communication with the tower, computers are not yet well-placed to handle that kind of data processing
Most good weather VFR is good for training students on older generation planes, and a computer will perform just as well in good-weather as a pilot. IFR, for when the pilot can't see anything, is basically what commercial pilots use pretty much all the time anyway.
are flight computers really as good as humans at visual recognition? Even stuff like "hey, I don't recognize the terrain, we must be in the wrong place?" Or "oh shit there's something on the runway"?
I could totally see my cat eating me if I died on him. I wouldn't really mind though as I would be too dead to care.
I honestly think that my oldest cat would lay down on top of me and be really confused why I wasn't moving and would I assume that I was sick. And I think she'd stay there until help arrived.
And this is something I think about when I'm pondering suicide, and it's pretty effective at getting me to stop thinking about suicide.
It is possible my cat would do the same. He always sleeps on my legs all night when I go to bed.
0
CindersWhose sails were black when it was windyRegistered Userregular
Oh boy, throat is sore and my voice has dropped an octave.
Syndalis also feels you should buy an apple product.
An apple for your phone, an apple for your tablet, an apple for your laptop, and an xbawks for your gaming.
Desktop PC is a bit more flexible depending on needs, but if cash is absolutely no worry for you and the sky is the limit on budget, the new Mac Pro is so sexy. Like, I cannot even comprehend the sexiness of that machine. And it's a beast without being big and ugly.
not enough LEDs, no neon lights, no window, would not buy
Basically, to the software pilot argument, I'd say we don't need pilots any more. The HMI should be simplified to a set of read-only status windows with minimal inputs. You want to pilot a plane? Get yourself in a small single or twin-prop. Otherwise, the computer is going to do a better job of it than you will, and for more than 98% of the time. If the auto-pilot of a particular make was statistically proven to fail in 2% of emergency cases, all of those planes would be grounded indefinitely until a new software patch was applied to improve reliability.
hmmm I don't think so
there's still ample space for good-weather "look out of the window" assessment of the situation, or all-weather communication with the tower, computers are not yet well-placed to handle that kind of data processing
Most good weather VFR is good for training students on older generation planes, and a computer will perform just as well in good-weather as a pilot. IFR, for when the pilot can't see anything, is basically what commercial pilots use pretty much all the time anyway.
are flight computers really as good as humans at visual recognition? Even stuff like "hey, I don't recognize the terrain, we must be in the wrong place?" Or "oh shit there's something on the runway"?
Basically, to the software pilot argument, I'd say we don't need pilots any more. The HMI should be simplified to a set of read-only status windows with minimal inputs. You want to pilot a plane? Get yourself in a small single or twin-prop. Otherwise, the computer is going to do a better job of it than you will, and for more than 98% of the time. If the auto-pilot of a particular make was statistically proven to fail in 2% of emergency cases, all of those planes would be grounded indefinitely until a new software patch was applied to improve reliability.
hmmm I don't think so
there's still ample space for good-weather "look out of the window" assessment of the situation, or all-weather communication with the tower, computers are not yet well-placed to handle that kind of data processing
Most good weather VFR is good for training students on older generation planes, and a computer will perform just as well in good-weather as a pilot. IFR, for when the pilot can't see anything, is basically what commercial pilots use pretty much all the time anyway.
are flight computers really as good as humans at visual recognition? Even stuff like "hey, I don't recognize the terrain, we must be in the wrong place?" Or "oh shit there's something on the runway"?
... or taking instructions from the tower?
There exist terrain matching navigation systems.
Mostly for cruise missiles though, I think, which is why Saddam used to expend a lot of effort moving hills around.
I will shut up about AC3, but I have to say that the Paul Revere ride was one of the most retardedly designed missions I have ever seen. Every single part of that was stupid.
I could totally see my cat eating me if I died on him. I wouldn't really mind though as I would be too dead to care.
I honestly think that my oldest cat would lay down on top of me and be really confused why I wasn't moving and would I assume that I was sick. And I think she'd stay there until help arrived.
And this is something I think about when I'm pondering suicide, and it's pretty effective at getting me to stop thinking about suicide.
It is possible my cat would do the same. He always sleeps on my legs all night when I go to bed.
That's just to sap your warmth while waiting for you to become a meal.
Basically, to the software pilot argument, I'd say we don't need pilots any more. The HMI should be simplified to a set of read-only status windows with minimal inputs. You want to pilot a plane? Get yourself in a small single or twin-prop. Otherwise, the computer is going to do a better job of it than you will, and for more than 98% of the time. If the auto-pilot of a particular make was statistically proven to fail in 2% of emergency cases, all of those planes would be grounded indefinitely until a new software patch was applied to improve reliability.
hmmm I don't think so
there's still ample space for good-weather "look out of the window" assessment of the situation, or all-weather communication with the tower, computers are not yet well-placed to handle that kind of data processing
Most good weather VFR is good for training students on older generation planes, and a computer will perform just as well in good-weather as a pilot. IFR, for when the pilot can't see anything, is basically what commercial pilots use pretty much all the time anyway.
are flight computers really as good as humans at visual recognition? Even stuff like "hey, I don't recognize the terrain, we must be in the wrong place?" Or "oh shit there's something on the runway"?
... or taking instructions from the tower?
They're probably not able to tell you the difference between the bottom of a coffee mug and a doughnut, but they're really good at collision detection. They even have sensors for better "visibilty" (radar, eoir, etc) than a human's eye can detect. Processing of most of these things isn't as intense as needed because the resolution doesn't need to be that good for commercial purposes. The commercial aircraft isn't trying to figure out if it is a car or an elephant on the runway; it just knows that a thing is in the way.
Instructions from the tower is trivial. Infact, that's what the big uproar 20(ish) years back was about. Ground control tower operators were scheduled to be replaced by a purely automated solution because it was proven more efficient. The union basically went ape-shit, and that whole roll-out was delayed.
Instructions from the tower is trivial. Infact, that's what the big uproar 20(ish) years back was about. Ground control tower operators were scheduled to be replaced by a purely automated solution because it was proven more efficient. The union basically went ape-shit, and that whole roll-out was delayed.
Is Fallen Enchantress: Legendary Heroes any good? I haven't played a 4x game in years.
It is a well done but really ugly Heroes of Might and Magic. I hear good things though.
you ain't lying when you said it's ugly, game has no alibi
+1
thatassemblyguyJanitor of Technical Debt.Registered Userregular
Also, there are lots of signals that are used to help find runways - a failure to use one of these is what caused the collision in SFO; a broadcast signal from the airport wasn't working...
Human pilot fubar'ed the landing in clear weather.
0
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
Instructions from the tower is trivial. Infact, that's what the big uproar 20(ish) years back was about. Ground control tower operators were scheduled to be replaced by a purely automated solution because it was proven more efficient. The union basically went ape-shit, and that whole roll-out was delayed.
No, that's not what it was about. At all.
What was it about
Is there a Wikipedia search term I could use?
I don't really care about the automation discussion but the sociology of the rollout sounds interesting
0
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
Hrm, i hate this.
i'm hung up on trying to remember what i was thinking about 5 minutes ago... and i can't...
Instructions from the tower is trivial. Infact, that's what the big uproar 20(ish) years back was about. Ground control tower operators were scheduled to be replaced by a purely automated solution because it was proven more efficient. The union basically went ape-shit, and that whole roll-out was delayed.
No, that's not what it was about. At all.
What was it about
Is there a Wikipedia search term I could use?
I don't really care about the automation discussion but the sociology of the rollout sounds interesting
Before we get carried away, it wasn't only about unions protecting human jobs from computer replacement, but that was a large part of it.
Basically, to the software pilot argument, I'd say we don't need pilots any more. The HMI should be simplified to a set of read-only status windows with minimal inputs. You want to pilot a plane? Get yourself in a small single or twin-prop. Otherwise, the computer is going to do a better job of it than you will, and for more than 98% of the time. If the auto-pilot of a particular make was statistically proven to fail in 2% of emergency cases, all of those planes would be grounded indefinitely until a new software patch was applied to improve reliability.
hmmm I don't think so
there's still ample space for good-weather "look out of the window" assessment of the situation, or all-weather communication with the tower, computers are not yet well-placed to handle that kind of data processing
Most good weather VFR is good for training students on older generation planes, and a computer will perform just as well in good-weather as a pilot. IFR, for when the pilot can't see anything, is basically what commercial pilots use pretty much all the time anyway.
are flight computers really as good as humans at visual recognition? Even stuff like "hey, I don't recognize the terrain, we must be in the wrong place?" Or "oh shit there's something on the runway"?
... or taking instructions from the tower?
There exist terrain matching navigation systems.
Mostly for cruise missiles though, I think, which is why Saddam used to expend a lot of effort moving hills around.
The difficulty there is that adding extra instruments or capabilities increases your inter reliance and complexity in exponential ways. If an instrument just won't work it's not usually a big deal, but if it's misreading? Holy hell can that cause chaos with heuristics.
A cruise missile only needs to work once, and we don't use that many. So 1/1,000,000 chance of mis-routing might never even be discovered. A 1/1,000,000 chance of a passenger plane mis-routing would be catastrophic. It would be a mis-route once every two weeks or something.
Instructions from the tower is trivial. Infact, that's what the big uproar 20(ish) years back was about. Ground control tower operators were scheduled to be replaced by a purely automated solution because it was proven more efficient. The union basically went ape-shit, and that whole roll-out was delayed.
No, that's not what it was about. At all.
What was it about
Is there a Wikipedia search term I could use?
I don't really care about the automation discussion but the sociology of the rollout sounds interesting
It was about how the FAA was fucking the ATCs out of their pensions.
(I take this one personally, because I'm the son of a PATCO striker.)
Decemviri is a word on it's own, so I guess that leaves Sesqui as a word alone at the start. So. "One and a half ten men." Weird. It's probably their word for what the shapeshifter character is? Just trying to work out the root of it. :P
Oh brilliant
0
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Decemviri is a word on it's own, so I guess that leaves Sesqui as a word alone at the start. So. "One and a half ten men." Weird. It's probably their word for what the shapeshifter character is? Just trying to work out the root of it. :P
15 men?
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Posts
Brain parasites. Also you get use to smells over an extended period of time.
I can smell even super clean cat apartments the moment I walk in. But they don't notice the smell since they are use to it.
He does have terrible breath, though.
are flight computers really as good as humans at visual recognition? Even stuff like "hey, I don't recognize the terrain, we must be in the wrong place?" Or "oh shit there's something on the runway"?
... or taking instructions from the tower?
so hard
It is possible my cat would do the same. He always sleeps on my legs all night when I go to bed.
not enough LEDs, no neon lights, no window, would not buy
I suddenly want to write a barely coherent editorial full of babbling rage and insanity
No. Machine vision is really, really hard.
There exist terrain matching navigation systems.
Mostly for cruise missiles though, I think, which is why Saddam used to expend a lot of effort moving hills around.
why do you hate america
That's just to sap your warmth while waiting for you to become a meal.
It is a well done but really ugly Heroes of Might and Magic. I hear good things though.
It's decent fun. Not terribly different from any other 4x game, though, other than setting.
Ack! I am sorry! I hope you are not getting sick!
Actually, I got the flu after visiting my family....
They're probably not able to tell you the difference between the bottom of a coffee mug and a doughnut, but they're really good at collision detection. They even have sensors for better "visibilty" (radar, eoir, etc) than a human's eye can detect. Processing of most of these things isn't as intense as needed because the resolution doesn't need to be that good for commercial purposes. The commercial aircraft isn't trying to figure out if it is a car or an elephant on the runway; it just knows that a thing is in the way.
Instructions from the tower is trivial. Infact, that's what the big uproar 20(ish) years back was about. Ground control tower operators were scheduled to be replaced by a purely automated solution because it was proven more efficient. The union basically went ape-shit, and that whole roll-out was delayed.
but i only need half of it cuz it is 2x the size i need
but i will probably eat it all
It's in this trophy description for Skullgirls; a sesquidecemvir of seven simulacra synergizing simultaneously.
Which I think means do a combo as the shape shifter involving all 7 other characters. But whu?
No, that's not what it was about. At all.
it feels like a genre that was "perfected" a long time ago so people don't want to change too much
but I haven't spent all that much time with anything in the genre, just poked around here and there
I wish I could find the story again
but there was some post where the user asked for a "server update" script
and some joker told him to use something like
dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/hda
it does have turn-based tactical combat, which is a notable difference
but that's about it
you ain't lying when you said it's ugly, game has no alibi
Human pilot fubar'ed the landing in clear weather.
What was it about
Is there a Wikipedia search term I could use?
I don't really care about the automation discussion but the sociology of the rollout sounds interesting
i'm hung up on trying to remember what i was thinking about 5 minutes ago... and i can't...
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Before we get carried away, it wasn't only about unions protecting human jobs from computer replacement, but that was a large part of it.
Saying "not at all" is not at all accurate.
The difficulty there is that adding extra instruments or capabilities increases your inter reliance and complexity in exponential ways. If an instrument just won't work it's not usually a big deal, but if it's misreading? Holy hell can that cause chaos with heuristics.
A cruise missile only needs to work once, and we don't use that many. So 1/1,000,000 chance of mis-routing might never even be discovered. A 1/1,000,000 chance of a passenger plane mis-routing would be catastrophic. It would be a mis-route once every two weeks or something.
--LeVar Burton
It was about how the FAA was fucking the ATCs out of their pensions.
(I take this one personally, because I'm the son of a PATCO striker.)
Decemviri is a word on it's own, so I guess that leaves Sesqui as a word alone at the start. So. "One and a half ten men." Weird. It's probably their word for what the shapeshifter character is? Just trying to work out the root of it. :P
15 men?
This is Civilization.