Oh come *on!* It's not too hard to guess, it's the same one in 10 Downing St!

Scr3w7h3pr0le5

Simple - those things have reached a certain degree of maturity - just like microwave ovens, hi-fi, TV/monitors, cars, airplanes, etc. For the most part we're just refining things that existed many decades ago in slightly different forms.

Generally speaking, the only places left to innovate are software ("apps") and integration of All Of The Above -- so really, the only place left for true innovation is the Internet of Things -- and even then.. it's just mashing disparate technologies together using a 40+ year old network.

Every now and then some genuine innovation does come along - smartphones, UCS, SSD, Moonshot, that new intel computer-on-a-usb-stick.

We're doomed. Dooooooomed!

Yeah, when I switched back to iOS that was definitely something that took getting used to. It didn't bother me before I switched to Android, but after coming back to iOS, it was like, "Hey, what's wrong with the shift button?" Neither platform is perfect, though. Android irritated me with some of its quirks, too.

Blind spots don't exist because car design makes for them, blind spots exist because drivers never were taught, or never learned, how to properly set up their car.

I've had old cars and new cars, and none of them have had blind spots. Including the Miata what with it's "huge" c-pillars when top-up, an Rx-8 that people insist had huge blind spots and bad visibility, and a Mini with a small back window and fat c-pillars. All these criticisms are bogus, but people *hate* being told they're wrong.

I could spend many bytes explaining why there is no such thing as blind spots, but you'll likely dismiss my explanation. So here, spend some time educating yourself on the problem and the solution.

One way.

Car and Driver's Way.

This is the one I use, they all mean the same thing anyway.

No, Linus needs to use his finger.

This idea is as ridiculous as the opposite extreme, which is imagining that giving the government more money will lead to better education and other social services.

You're both wrong.

I'll be the first to acknowledge that there are many organizational and institutional issues in government agencies which can blow through influxes of funds without any appreciable improvement in services. Yet it's equally true that there are government agencies and programs which run at efficiency levels which beggar private alternatives in comparison.

Tired aphorisms are never going to be an adequate substitute for an intelligent examination of the actual problems faced and a realistic appraisal of the various strengths and weakness offered by public and private approaches.

Se we should all be mindless sheeple who accelerate so slowly you get passed by a scooter, and corner so peacefully that the keychain barely moves away form vertical?

The insurance industry is suggesting we all drive like scared 80 year olds?

I'd rather die or just give the fuck up and get a driverless car.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I fail to see how taking off smartly from a light is going to confuse other drivers.

Are you thinking about me tearing off with smoke coming off my tires? No man. That's not at all what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about doing 50 in a 40, I'm not talking about being an obnoxious hoon. You seem to confuse brisk driving with mad, crazy driving.

The behavior I'm calling out is hazardous -- literally crawling out of a light, and doing 10 freaking miles per hours on a wide sweeper of a left turn at an intersection, with a column of cars behind. As if the road was ice. As if even slightly putting any G at all is going to make the car slide off into the curb. I'm not exaggerating, that's how people drive here.

It that the kind of driving your advocating?

Is someone who briskly takes off from a light -- not doing burnouts or other kinds of hooning, -- automatically less safe than someone who rolls out at snails' pace?

Is someone who goes around a corner with some amount of G automatically less safe than those who take forever to negotiate the same corner?

At least it should catch those who wait until the last moment to brake when approaching a light or other traffic.

This app is going to penalize people that aren't in fact less safe, and it will utterly fail at detecting some truly dangerous driving: Will it detect someone who follows too close? Will it detect eating a double cheeseburger with one hand while applying makeup with
the other? Will it detect someone who's texting while driving? Reaching back to smack the kiddies around? Taking eyes off the road to fuck with the radio or satnav?

Will it detect all those who have their side mirrors way too far in?

No, it won't detect truly dangerous behavior and will penalize those who like to have a little fun with their cars without endangering anyone. Because, you know, not everyone sees cars as a mere conveyance or appliance.

Relax. I was in a jury for a civil trial a few years ago, and I think most of us agreed from the moment we started deliberations, but we took a few hours to make sure that we understood the facts, made sure the claims didn't meet the requirements set forth in the law, talked about our impressions of the expert testimony, talked about different viewpoints, etc. It was time well spent. Some people had picked up on things that others hadn't, and it was worth taking the time to ensure we made the correct decision. I'd expect to do at least as much diligence for a criminal trial. Of the 7 days total I was involved in that trial which should have taken 3 days, I didn't regret the few hours of deliberations.

As I recall, they had actually gone several months before applying for the food stamps - i.e., on savings. You know you probably could look up the article and get the info for yourself.

Well then, I respect your credentials, but will still say that I'd like the pilot to have final say.

I"m still WTF on AF 442. Bewildered, if you will. I can't wrap my brain around the fact that entire aircrew disregarded all their other instruments. I expect that out of a rookie like me, perhaps, if I got caught IFR while not being trained for it, but.. eh, I'll just stop right here. It happened, even if I can't comprehend how.

100% correct. So you believe your primary instruments: your artificial horizon, your altimeter, variometer, airspeed. You also must use your VOR, DME, ILS, ADF or whatever nav you're using.

So why did AF 447 not do any of that? It's obvious they could not / did not correctly interpret what their panel surely must've shown: Zero airspeed (false), unwinding altimeter (true), high sink rate (true), artificial horizon mostly blue (True)

Why was that?

I did read other sources. I talk to people who read other sources. Enough to know Airbus hides info from pilots -- critical info such as pitch trim, throttles that don't move as autothrottle adjusts power, and provides no tactile feedback to the stick. Airbus isn't a seat-of-the-pants airplane, you almost have to think like a passenger, not a pilot. That's what I got from reading other sources. Was that the conclusion you hoped I gave you? No? Oh well -- that's the conclusion I reached over the years of this accident being known, as well as other Airbus incidents involving their computers.

I cite Wiki because they have a fairly consice and correct account -- despite your objections and claims of rollbacks and edits.

On AF 447 BEA blamed training, cockpit ergonomics and incorrect procedure. They didn't even mention the role FEP had. It seems the French authorities like to shield Airbus from responsibility and scrutiny.

Here's something Wiki doesn't mention but other sources do: The AF 447 pilots thought they were in an overspeed, not stall. They mis-interpreted stall buffeting as a sign of overspeed. In the context of an overspeed their stick actions make sense. But it's not that simple. The Airbus flight controls don't' talk to each other. The left seater can't tell what the right seater was doing. One of them pulled the stick back all the way and kept it there. I read somewhere, forgot where, that the other pilot did the opposite at the same time. Sorry, no citation for that one. Go look for it yourself.

The crew was confused and even panicked for many minutes. They were passengers in an airplane that was perhaps too smart for it's own good.

1. Did they not see the altimeter unwinding?

2. Did they not see the artificial horizon showing more blue than black?

3. Did they not see the variometer showing a high sink rate?

4. Did the airplane hide / misrepresent reality? Or did the crew just completely ignore what the above instruments were showing?

I hate to pull this card, but have you flown? Have you soloed? Have you felt how an airplane shakes as you near a stall? In a small airplane you can even hear how the sound of the whoosh of the air over the wing changes as you approach a stall. The controls get all mushy. Pity, that AF 447's crew couldn't feel the stick go slack on them as they stalled. Or maybe their training was so lacking that they'd also ignore *that* sign. All I have is a few hours, a few solos and a few landings in a rope-and-pulley Cessna -- but that gives me a fair idea of how it feels to fly an honest airplane. I can't even imagine how it must feel (not feel?) to hand-fly something as fast and heavy as an airliner *with no stick feedback!*

As for the Paris Lawnmower, I'd like to think an airplane which would've done what the control inputs asked for would've flown out of that mess. You keep looking away from the fact that Airbus' FEP has screwed more than a few pilots over.

You think Airbus is innocent, I think their design philosophy is presumptuous.

That's why I said and highlighted "erroneous" in my second post.

From the first scraps of info that I heard on this flight when it happened, my first thought, and that of an aviation geek friend, was "Don't they teach basic stall recovery? Don't they teach cross-referencing airspeed vs. altitude?"