To be fair, there is a vast difference between intelligence and wisdom; an intelligent and man may know/deduce everything there is to know about thunderstorms, but may not be wise enough to get his ass in out of one.

The State of Utah did this back in 2000 -ish, by converting their technical (ATE) schools into campuses for the then newly-formed Utah College of Applied Technology. UCAT is fully accredited and on the state Board of Regents, but focused exclusively on 2-year Associates' degrees in vocational fields - CompSci (basically programming and systems/network administration), Nursing (up to RN licensing), Diesel Mechanics, Culinary Arts, a basic Business degree, CAD/CAM, and even a Cosmetology certificate (and subsequent state license).

You could then take that AAT degree, and convert it to a 4-year degree at any Utah state college (in fact, each UCAT campus was partnered with the nearest state college - The campus I taught at was allied with Weber State University in Ogden, and I was considered to be faculty and taught a few courses there, albeit while still on the UCAT payroll).

The cool part was that high school students could attend as early as their Junior year, and could, if they applied themselves, have a 2-year degree less than 6 months after graduating high school - all on the government dime, gratis. The classrooms were a mixture of AP-level high school kids and adults, and held day and evening courses.

Have you actually priced these guys? My ex-wife used them back in 2001-2003 to finish up a BSN degree, and paid an obscene amount of cash each month to do it. They also adopted that neat little trick the state colleges have of requiring 'bridge classes' and of discounting certain courses taken (in favor of pricier ones they provide), so sometimes you're taking superfluous classes and in some cases re-taking classes you'd already taken.

One thing I do wonder about though... most of the oft-touted 'free' community college courses are more towards getting an Associates' degree, whereas Phoenix' big advertising push is for folks who want to convert their 2-year degree into a 4-year one, or to convert a Bachelors' into a Masters'.

Personally, I think their biggest competition is the recent growth of small state-accredited colleges going online, expanding their presence, and pushing to provide the same thing Phoenix does. Many of these colleges have provided this sort of thing remotely (albeit not online, but by 'traveling prof') to military members for decades, but have recently decided to get a piece of the civilian market now.

So let's you and I try to come to a consensus here and now as to the next effort to be undertaken in this regard.

I think you've pointed us in the best direction with that current HUD article. It is this: what's with all of the focus on visual information?

A human being is way more than floating eyes; in fact, the eyes are the most cognitively expensive feature. Overlosading it is easy to do, even by accident.

The thing is, a human pilot doesn't need to see most of the gauges. Most of them show numerical information with far greater resolution than is usually necessary. For example, altitude to the foot is not necessary outside of landing scenarios. Being able to see through the plane is completely useless when nothing is there.

But I see a human being sitting in a chair. Not walking, not running, not smelling, not tasting, not feeling a temperature, not being hugged, not being caressed by a loved one. There are so many human faculties -- most of which are wired directly into the human spine, and one wired directly into the human brain -- going almost completely unused. Why not tap into those?

A pilot could easily know where the bandit is by a simulated caress (or vibration) on the relevant part of the body -- upper back, lower back, left shoulder, right shoulder, et cetera. Visual HUD information can be the detail upon request. Here's a thought, how about a gentle pull of the neck towards the bandit. Easily felt, easily overcome.

I've got one of those non-fan heat dishes for my grandmother. It's basically an IR heat-ray. Altitude could certainly be conveyed by the localized temperature in the cockpit, or in the helmet. A ten degree range would be easily understood, and a twenty degree change even more so. Colder at high altitude makes sense.

There are myriad tactile sensory inputs to be used, including a gently squeezing of the upper arm as a fuel gauge. The really amazing thing about any such system is how the brain adjusts memory as a result - with different memory banks for high vs low altitude because of temperature sensation -- something a numerical altimiter can never provide.

In any event, to summarize, I see a few dozen inputs into the human brain, and I see only the visual cortex being used.

Interesting. But my point surrounds situational awareness without invasive technology. I doubt any crop-dusting biplane pilot has any trouble with situational awareness -- it's all wide open. It's the enclosed jet, and the crazy number of jet systems that remove the mind from the situation. That's what I'm saying needs to be addressed -- technologically.

Doing some some PCI compliance certification stuff and a scan shows that the site is not compliant, the reason being that TLSv1 is supported. Turning TLSv1 off kills off support for a number of older browsers, all types of browsers.....

(nginx)

    server {
        ssl on;
        #ssl_protocols TLSv1 TLSv1.1 TLSv1.2;
        ssl_protocols TLSv1.1 TLSv1.2; .....
        }
    }

Now I am trying to figure out what to do about this problem, how to detect the clients that do not support TLSv1 and to redirect them to a simple html page instead of the clients pretty much receiving 'connection reset by server' error.

No dice so far, but I thought this was only supposed to happen a year from now (June 2016, not 2015), oh well.

I'd like you to at least give us a chance. I am still running the ship here.

West Virginia doesn't even have access to the ocean or even a very large river, much less a deep water port sufficient for a Naval base.

So, it's been thousands and thousands and thousands of years since the last asteroid strike of any consequence, and there's currently zero no reason to believe that another one is coming any time soon.

And we have diseases, and earthquakes, and deserts, and insufficient water, and insufficient food, and terrible economies, and wars, and we work way too much. But let's start spending money and time on risks we know nothing about.

I'm in full support of spending money and time to research the risks, but not to solve the unknown problem. Let me know when you know what the problem is. For all you know, asteroids are intentionally and maliciously guided by aliens. Let me know when you find out.

Like so many other "tools" these days, this one attempts to provide advantages via some form of automation -- be it in terms of the structural aircraft, or the features within it. Every time anyone ever focuses on such a goal, they reduce the required expertise of the user -- in this case the pilot -- substantially.

Everyone always thinks that's a good thing -- if it can be operated with less learning, then it can be operated by more users. They always forget that every advantage is a sacrifice of some other advantage. If it can be operated with less expertise, then there is less expertise that can be learned.

The end result is almost always the same. A rookie pilot can operate better, sooner, and an expert pilot can do less.

That's fine with self-assemble furniture. It sucks with military applications like this one. I'm always for tools that empower the operator into a god. Imagine a fighter jet, requires many many more hours of learning to master, but that allows the expert pilot to do so much more.

In my head, that's a very lean aircraft, bordering on ultralight. It's also an aircraft with guns that point backwards -- one day someone will explain to me why we love dog fighting so much that we insist on being unable to kill the enemy right behind us. I digress.

I'm confident that an expert pilot doesn't want a fancy helmet HUD at all. He just wants to be able to see -- gauges, backwards, what's going on. And I'm certain that an expert pilot knows most of what's going on without his eyes -- I'm sure his left buttock gives him more information than any HUD ever could.

He may be naming the UK as a locale... up until recently (and in many cases probably still true), the UK's libel laws were a nightmare for whoever found himself as a defendant - even if the defendant told the absolute truth, it may not be enough of an escape from liability depending on circumstance, timing, and delivery.

In the US, if you told the truth (and can prove it), you're generally safe from judgement (though not legal bills). Outside of the US, it may not be so cut-and-dried.

It's not as easy to sneak onto a military base (where, you know, base housing is located) as the TV/movies would have you believe. You do know that, right?

*Most* air-air fights (what few still occur) are done at distance with missiles.

However, many air-air combat aircraft are pressed into air-ground roles, and even otherwise, having a gun handy is very useful when you run out of missiles.

Welcome to Sunk Cost.

Sucks, but breaking that addiction is incredibly hard... doubly so when egos are just as much on the line as money.

Perhaps, though to be fair, much of this can be worked around (for how much? Tons o cash, eh?)

It's fairly standard that smaller/slower aircraft are very often more agile than the bigger boys - you just have to find the aircraft's strengths and play to those. For instance, the tiny T-35/F5 can commonly out-maneuver an F-15... at lower altitudes. At higher altitudes, the F-15 handles itself better in the thinner air of the upper stratosphere.

The F-16 is more than agile in lower altitudes, because it was built to be a combination air/air air/ground fighter, which leads me to believe that maybe these dogfights were conducted at lower altitudes... I am also curious (haven't looked) as to what the flight/fight profile of the F-35 is in the first place. if it's Air Superiority, then that usually means higher altitudes where there may be a better advantage. Anything else appears to be a whole lot of incompetence in design.

All that said, they had to know there were going to be compromises when doing the whole stealth (maneuverability) and STOL/VTOL (engine power) thing.

Or, best bet may be to scrap the damn thing and hold a competition for an aircraft that's worth a damn, and this time make the entrants build a working prototype *first*, without any governmental money up front... like they did in the old days.