> My student society for example
> need to expose critical internal services on the public internet, some of which contain private user data.
The heck? Are they aware of this? Might you get sued for this?
3,901 karma · joined October 15, 2012
> need to expose critical internal services on the public internet, some of which contain private user data.
The heck? Are they aware of this? Might you get sued for this?
Nowhere! Where did I even claim it said that anywhere?!
Are you intentionally twisting this backwards or something? You're basically turning the conversation into something like this:
You: "Penguins are birds, right? What's so exotic about penguins when I see all these birds flying around me?"
Me: "Penguins live in Antarctica... and don't fly... (hence why people find them exotic...)"
You: "But who says birds can't live in Antarctica?? And chickens can't fly either. And penguins are birds. So what's so exotic about penguins?"
Me: {what sane response can I even give you here?!}
________________________________________
But anyway...
> implies that compact dynamic array can't be used for std::deque, when it is used as such
To entertain your new argument here:
Deque requires references to existing elements not to be invalidated when new elements are appended. I don't know how compact dynamic arrays work, but dynamic arrays generally move elements around in memory while maintaining guaranteed worst-case O(1)-time access to them, so it seems kind of impossible for them to meet both requirements.
...Did you come here just to fuel flames and burn people, or are you here to have a legitimate discussion about the subject?
You're totally cool being literally in ad-hominem territory at this point and you're lecturing me about not judging people I never even judged?
The heck? Everyone makes stupid mistakes. Hell, I make more of them than a lot of people I know. That's why there are procedures and checklists and redundancies and automated systems -- to prevent stupid mistakes, evne by the best people. Where was I ever judging the pilot for heaven's sake?! Maybe you could be a little more charitable with how you judge people?
I was thinking of autopilot disengaging, but that's not really important here. I'll go along with what you just said.
> Pilots get updated instructions from the tower - the GPS path of the flight within 10 m is not programmed from the beginning
not in the beginning... so it is later?
> due to weather issues, turbulence, traffic at the terminal ends, etc.
Uhm, "traffic at terminal ends" suggests the real problem is that the correct path is not known in the beginning, or that autopilot might not be able to avoid collision on its own... which is quite a bit different from the plane being unable to locate itself accurately and follow the correct path even if it were known a priori. Are we even discussing the original issue at this point?
> Autopilot landings require a Cat III approach.
I have no idea what that means. I'm not sure what gave you the impression that I know what that means either.
> The autopilot when landing is not using GPS for final approach.
> The person you're trading comments with has said twice that GPS is not responsible for the autolanding portion of the flight.
> You twice try to refute it. And then in your last paragraph you do exactly what he says the software engineers here do and you take offense to!
I think you didn't read my last comment carefully because, as I already said, I understood this. My problem is whether GPS is accurate/reliable enough to lead the plane to the place where the next system can take over, which to me implies GPS is already certified to be accurate and reliable enough to get the plane near the correct runway. Read it again. There shouldn't be a single sentence there where I "refute" the microwave transmissions or claim GPS is actually used on the final approach.
> If you have a system that is designed to cut out the human component, it has to be all or nothing.
Wha..? Autopilot isn't perfect either, and can disengage in various situations that it can't handle, but they approve it and pilots manage to use it just fine. When it's GPS's turn, suddenly it has to be 100% perfect?
And when did I ever suggest you have to cut out the human component? For goodness's sake all I'm asking for is a little display with a map that shows where the plane thinks it's going. That's "cutting out the human component" to you?
But that simply doesn't seem to be the case (in normal weather, which we had here). See my reply to a sibling comment here for a link. It seems that in normal conditions planes are capable of doing it all in one go, which means they are capable of accurately and reliably locating themselves. Nobody is expecting these to work in extreme conditions like bad weather or bird collisions, but in those conditions autopilot can and does already get disengaged (whether automatically or manually), and this could be done the same way. It's not like we forbid autopilot entirely because it isn't 100% perfect, so why not apply the same standards here?
Because you have 1-3 other copilots who also have eyes and could be doing this instead of you...?
> * Multiple pilots looking directly toward the oncoming aircraft, one of whom alerted ATC.
I don't get this.
You're an engineer/pilot/whomever filing for {the current system/pilot/plane/whatever-needs-approval} to get approved. The power-that-be (e.g. FAA) asks you what your safety margins are. You cite "other pilots looking directly at my aircraft in the 30-second span of my mistake" as one of your "safety margins"? ...what?
> Automatic landing systems rely on ground support by way of microwave signals from transmitters installed near autoland-capable runways. There's no general position information, and the airborne part of the system can't operate independently of the part on the ground.
Yes, I understand the landing portion has other kinds of support. However, I don't understand how it can not have the positioning information we need, because {see next response below}.
> Civilian GPS signals are limited in terms of position accuracy, too. I believe the CEP is ten meters. That's not bad, but it's not good enough to land an aircraft. Altitude information from GPS is (IIRC) either nonexistent or severely limited, too. About any aircraft with a glass cockpit is going to support a moving map display, and those do see use - but, as a couple of professional pilots in this thread have noted, during final approach the main concern with regard to aircraft position is relative to the glide slope and the runway, and a moving map has nothing to do with any of that.
This seems to contradict with what I read [1]. See this quote, for example:
Generally, the pilot will handle takeoff and then initiate the autopilot to take over for most of the flight. In some newer aircraft models, autopilot systems will even land the plane.
OK, so I don't have much of an expectation for older plane models, but my interpretation of the above is that in newer models, autopilot need not disengage before landing and require manual intervention in order to align the plane with the correct track (barring bad weather or other unusual situations like bird collisions, etc.). This is supported by the fact that they later explicitly mention that autopilot occasionally disengages. So it seems clear in normal situations autopilot has plenty of positioning available to it, enough to find the runway and locate the plane on a display of some sort. That goes pretty clearly against what you said. Am I missing something?
> On a more general note, it is remarkable to me that so many otherwise apparently sensible software engineers seem to regard aviation as a problem trivially susceptible of perfect solution
I hope this isn't referring to me, because I've been trying pretty hard not to give that impression (which I don't have). I never suggested anything about aviation perfection in general. I'm specifically talking about this particular kind of problem, because it seems to me that with current technology, pilot errors of this kind should be completely avoidable using current technology and, basically, non-problems in the first place. (Again: note that I said these types of pilot errors should be avoidable. I didn't say all faulty landings on the wrong tracks should be unavoidable.)
In other words, nowhere did I suggest that I think airplanes can fly or land themselves perfectly in unfavorable conditions. But this was quite a favorable condition for an automated system. And, as a computer scientist, what seems ridiculous to me is the idea that "Oh, but this system you just described won't work if there is a hurricane and there are turkeys getting rammed through our engines while the pilots are asleep and ATC happens to be on strike in the middle of a nuclear holocaust, so let's "be conservative" and never approve it because it's clearly going to make things worse on average".
[1] http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/26/autopilot-what-the-system-can...
And moreover, even beyond GPS: how the hell can a plane's navigation system be capable of (and certified for!) landing the monster under autopilot, and yet not be able to tell the pilot its own location within the accuracy of a few feet reliably? I literally do not understand how what you're saying makes any sense.
OK, so you're saying airplanes don't already have GPS systems that work better?
Or are you claiming I said "Airbus and Boeing should literally install Google Maps in the cockpit"?
You found the town was proud of its past and hypocritical about the present, and not the school?
I mean I wasn't assuming that was the case either...
Note that that technology has been around since World War II. And fun fact, while we're on that topic, this page is worth a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr