391–400 of 402 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The output for a given input (absent random seeds) may be constant, but is the output deterministically correct?
What does that question even mean?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I fly in this airspace. (KAUS and KSAT and KDFW) > KAUS might be the most classic example of Class C airspace in existence. They only have 3 App/Dep positions with a spare 4th, and the top of the charlie is 4500 feet. I can overfly that in a light sport. > Austin airspace isn't nearly as busy as you make it out to be. Fair enough, local knowledge FTW. I made a suggestion - "it might be time to upgrade to Class B" a…
> If you're flying in and out of KDFW you should have no trouble with a future Class B KAUS :-) Given my experience navigating the already PITA Bravo shelves in DFW (don't bust through those without an explicit clearance) and/or getting a Bravo clearance which adds to significant pilot workload, I'll take just flying over the charlie at 5500 and taking it easy while on flight following :) Also remember that Bravo air…
Amen, I'll second that! :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course not, silly. The airline's owners do.
Really? Apartment safety rather than stock options or yachts? I've got to say I'm a bit skeptical.
You imagine that the something else is something you don't care about or think doesn't matter - like executive compensation. Well, you're like everyone else - we all think we should be running the country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ATC cannot be recorded? Where else is that the case?
Germany. To be clear, they have tapes, you're just not allowed to listen in / record legally if the transmission is "not intended for you".
And it shows a basic misunderstanding of government, if it's paid for by your tax money it clearly involves you.
This is what the USA has over almost every other country - an acknowledgement that ultimately the people charter the government not the other way around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Air traffic controllers do have a union. PATCO, the previous union that was "busted", was a public employee union that chose to hold critical public infrastructure hostage, which is unacceptable. Any union that does that should expect to be stripped of its monopoly on that kind of labor.
No, they did not. Reagan very much wanted to spread that lie, but no infrastructure was held hostage. The laborers who held the skills needed to run that infrastructure declined to work when their compensation negotiations were declined. Reagan's actions have had a profoundly disturbing effect on the American middle class that is still being felt today.
> The laborers who held the skills needed
So did many other people. They conspired to break the law by arranging to violate their employment contracts in a group so as to cause undue difficulty to their employer and they held public infrastructure hostage to prevent anyone else operating it.
> Reagan's actions have had a profoundly disturbing effect on the American middle class
The death of unions is a lot broader of an issue than RR killing the ATCU, and generally much deserved. Unions exist to save lives where the law isn't capable but for every plausibly relevant situation like air-traffic control or deep mining there are a hundred overreaches like trying to unionize Amazon warehouses.
As society and work got safer in general it became less important to have such an option as the right to blockade someone's property and dictate who they can hire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure a one to one comparison here is appropriate, either. The fundamental argument that 1 minute of wasted time is equivalent to 1 minute of life seems tricky. To prove this is easy, simply ask yourself if you'd rather take a day off your life or spend a day waiting in line at the DMV. I think you'll find that most people would rather still be alive and at the DMV. Loss of life is not equivalent to loss of ti…
It is the same thing. Life is finite. You will live every minute, but you better not waste most of them. Last thing you want is to run out of time and not done the things you wanted.
Do you take that deal? Why or why not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But as ... you yourself ... note above, the planes aren't moving in four dimensions. If time is one of the dimensions, all the planes are doing is existing.
A plane (P1)'s past positions and projected future positions form a continuous path in R^4 (four dimensional euclidean space). Another plane (P2)'s travel through various {X,Y,Z} positions at various times forms another path in R^4. If those paths come close to each other then P1 and P2 are close in both space and time - ie. they are very close to a collision. Collision detection and avoidance is problem laid out and…
The path of the plane is a static curve in 4-dimensional space, yes.
But the plane is not located at any point in the 4-dimensional space, and the position in 4-dimensional space that it doesn't have is not changing over time. Both of those things are required before you can describe the plane as "moving" within the space.
There is no secret backup time that will allow you to track the plane's hypothetical motion along an explicit time dimension. That's not a thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Risk will always exist. Our most precious resource is time. Every effort to save it is worth it. What if it causes one accident every 20 years? It saved thousands of years of human time in the meantime.
Based on Google numbers: There’s 16M flights per year, so saving 5 minutes each is 80M minutes, which corresponds to 160 years. A plane crash will kill about 160 people; so if one happens every twenty years, then we’ll have saved lives if the average age is over 50 (within 20 years of natural death) and lost lives otherwise. Personally, seems a bad gamble.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A plane (P1)'s past positions and projected future positions form a continuous path in R^4 (four dimensional euclidean space). Another plane (P2)'s travel through various {X,Y,Z} positions at various times forms another path in R^4. If those paths come close to each other then P1 and P2 are close in both space and time - ie. they are very close to a collision. Collision detection and avoidance is problem laid out and…
Where do you think you're contradicting me? The path of the plane is a static curve in 4-dimensional space, yes. But the plane is not located at any point in the 4-dimensional space, and the position in 4-dimensional space that it doesn't have is not changing over time. Both of those things are required before you can describe the plane as "moving" within the space. There is no secret backup time that will allow you…
I confess. I literally had no idea what you were intending to convey with those two sentences so I restated alternatively what I intended to convey in the hope it might make clear my position (if that was an issue for you) or that I might learn more from your response.
> Where do you think you're contradicting me?
That's not a thought that I thunk. Therefore I have no response.
> But the plane is not located at any point in the 4-dimensional space
Every point along the 4D path trajectory of the plane in {X,Y,Z,T} is a literal {X,Y,Z} location of that plane at time T.
> Both of those things are required before you can describe the plane as "moving" within the space.
I certainly did not describe the plane as "moving" within R^4.
> There is no secret backup time that will allow you to track the plane's hypothetical motion along an explicit time dimension.
I utterly fail to understand what you intend to convey here.
Although I note that the actual (not hypothetical) velocity of the plane projected onto the time axis is very likely to be on the order of approximately one second per second.