Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Engineer saves man by crashing into him on purpose

seattletimes.nwsource.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 76 posts

Re: Engineer saves man by crashing into him on purpose

#41

Post by philwelch »

cryptoz wrote: post #23

This is an incredible story. But I think it's important for everyone to remember the context of who this hero is. He manages the F22 fighter jet program at Boeing. That means that he's in charge of building gigantic killing machines that are only built so that they can be used to kill or threaten to kill human beings. This man did an incredible thing on the road and I'm not trying to diminish that. But he's not a 100…

The F-22 is primarily designed to shoot down enemy aircraft. It has never been used in combat, and hence has never been used to kill anyone, guilty or innocent. If it were to be used, it would primarily be used to shoot down military aircraft--in other words, to destroy other "gigantic killing machines". (It has some ground attack capability, mainly to satisfy color-of-the-bikeshed criticisms from Congressmen, but that's not it's raison d'etre.)

Re: Engineer saves man by crashing into him on purpose

#42

Post by lotharbot »

cryptoz wrote: post #23

This is an incredible story. But I think it's important for everyone to remember the context of who this hero is. He manages the F22 fighter jet program at Boeing. That means that he's in charge of building gigantic killing machines that are only built so that they can be used to kill or threaten to kill human beings. This man did an incredible thing on the road and I'm not trying to diminish that. But he's not a 100…

Why I downvoted you, in no particular order:

1) it's off topic. It's like if there was a thread about a Marine saving a kid's life at a pool using such-and-such technique and you went off about how Marines are trained to kill and therefore the guy sucks.

2) Even if the thread was about F22 as a weapon, your comment displays remarkable ignorance of what the platform is used for. It's an air superiority fighter; you use it to shoot other fighter aircraft, whose occupants are typically military personnel actively engaged in warfare, not "innocents". And as far as I can tell, it's never been involved in actual combat. So your claim that his work "probably resulted in many deaths of innocent people" is completely off base.

3) I have friends who have worked on this and similar platforms, who are also good people. They all know that their systems are designed to kill, have thought through the ethical and philosophical ramifications of that (as well as the ramifications of deterrence, of Russia or China winning a global war, etc.), and have decided that what they're doing is a good thing. You may not agree with them, but at least have the decency to address them on an adult level instead of with naive platitudes like they're not good because they work on weapons. That's not the sort of statement I expect from someone looking to have a reasoned discussion. (In comparison, my Mennonite friends and military friends have had some very good, mature, respectful conversations about this topic, without making personal attacks like "you're not a good person".)

In summary: your post was off topic, factually incorrect, and moderately trollish. I'd say that is rude and not good for the community.

Re: Engineer saves man by crashing into him on purpose

#43

Post by VladRussian »

IgorPartola wrote: post #31
mey wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine what the insurance would have had to pay out if Pace had not been stopped, T-boned a car in an intersection (mentioned in the article) and killed one or more people. The insurance company would be paying out a bit more then a smashed window and bent bumpers. Insurance if anyone understands risk mitigation. But I agree, they could have been assholes about it, but instead took the honorable route.

I am sure that they thought that it would be a great PR moment. Not that it should detract from their actions. Now I can place all of their ads and commercials in the context of their response to this incident.

"they thought" - that is the key here :)

Re: Engineer saves man by crashing into him on purpose

#44

Post by VladRussian »

IgorPartola wrote: post #31
mey wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine what the insurance would have had to pay out if Pace had not been stopped, T-boned a car in an intersection (mentioned in the article) and killed one or more people. The insurance company would be paying out a bit more then a smashed window and bent bumpers. Insurance if anyone understands risk mitigation. But I agree, they could have been assholes about it, but instead took the honorable route.

I am sure that they thought that it would be a great PR moment. Not that it should detract from their actions. Now I can place all of their ads and commercials in the context of their response to this incident.

"they thought" - that is the key here :)

Re: Engineer saves man by crashing into him on purpose

#46

Post by pak »

The exact same thing happened about three years ago in the middle of the Golden Gate bridge (talk about dramatic!) and apparently the motorist safely guided the unconscious driver's car across two lanes of traffic to the divider.

http://goldengate.org/news/bridge/GoodSamaritan.php

Re: Engineer saves man by crashing into him on purpose

#47

Post by heresy »

cryptoz wrote: post #23

This is an incredible story. But I think it's important for everyone to remember the context of who this hero is. He manages the F22 fighter jet program at Boeing. That means that he's in charge of building gigantic killing machines that are only built so that they can be used to kill or threaten to kill human beings. This man did an incredible thing on the road and I'm not trying to diminish that. But he's not a 100…

I work on software that improves the efficiency of manufacturing, any manufacturing.

It's an interesting problem space, and with many challenges.

Yes, Boeing, Northrop Grumman & Lockheed Martin number among our customers, and our software is used in these programs.

So do NASA and various other companies putting things up into space, things orthogonal to defense.

By your logic, because our software makes it simpler and cheaper to manufacture F-22s and F-35s, I am in some small way culpable as well.

It's the use to which a tool is put.

Re: Engineer saves man by crashing into him on purpose

#48

Post by ynniv »

ynniv wrote: post #33
astrofinch wrote: post #32

I don't understand how this worked. If Pace's foot was still on the accelerator, wouldn't it be difficult to get his truck to slow down?

Yes. Impossible? No. The force that your car is capable of exerting on your tires is far less than the engine is capable of producing. You can see this in performance stats, where 100 to 0 braking always takes much less time than 0 to 100 acceleration. We don't generally quote braking power for cars, but given the increasing attention to safety it is much higher now than it has been historically. Of course, this woul…

The force that your car is capable of exerting on your tires is far less than the engine is capable of producing.

s/less/greater/

I guess people got the gist anyway.

Re: Engineer saves man by crashing into him on purpose

#50

Post by dmoney »

danparsonson wrote: post #13
zdw wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If my math is right, the kinentic energy of 2 ton vehicle going 40 MPH is roughly equivalent to 70kg of TNT. That's the kind of fire this guy was playing with, for his life, the life of his family, the life of the other driver and all the bystanders. Not to understate his heroism, but had this gone horribly wrong he'd probably be a Darwin award candidate.

That's only really a problem if all that energy is transferred to another object (near) instantaneously - for instance if the vehicle hits a stationary object like a car waiting at an intersection. Colliding at a relative speed of only a few miles per hour and then hitting the brakes allowed Innes to dissipate that energy in a more controlled way. Risky, certainly, but I don't think it's as risky as you think it is.…

You wouldn't have to use a spaceship. "meteorite" means it's already hit the ground. You could just walk over to it, assuming it didn't wipe out all life.
Post reply on HN