142 replies to this topic

[SwitchFX]

TopDollar, on Jul 14 2010, 02:34 PM, said:

SwitchFX, on Jul 14 2010, 05:24 PM, said:

And what cars are these? Other than the parking ability demonstrated by the Lexus LS, which still isn't as good as a human who parks their car manually.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0AYCUSAMF9U&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0AYCUSAMF9U&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 02:34 PM, said:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/e32yeI1YSI0&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/e32yeI1YSI0&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yDVLUiJfpPw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yDVLUiJfpPw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mebq9vQNrIw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mebq9vQNrIw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Good examples, but these are just a few cars with these computer systems. Which add weight and I'm sure they're very expensive. The idea of computer controlled cars and airplanes for everyone just sounds too expensive, too out there, and too risky if something goes wrong.

Edited by SwitchFX, 14 July 2010 - 08:28 PM.

[Prancer]

THBatMan8, on Jul 14 2010, 08:15 PM, said:

TopDollar, on Jul 14 2010, 09:12 PM, said:

Both of you are suffering from technology nearsightedness.  You have no idea what type of advancements will be made in the field of computers in the future.  Saying it will "never" happen is unbelievably short sighted.

THBatMan8, on Jul 14 2010, 09:12 PM, said:

No one will care when the B52 crashes in the middle of nowhere because the computer failed and the aircraft was pilotless, but a 747 carrying 400+ passengers is a different ballgame.

In order for UAVs to be successful in the commercial industry there needs to be a high enough demand for them, which right now there is none. It would be pointless to build a commercial UAV if no one will buy it.

Actually, in this economy, I imagine if the airlines had the option to scrap the salary of several hundred pilots in return for a small handful of engineers, they'd be all over it faster than you can say 'obsolete.'

And to all the people saying 'what if something goes wrong', what are you so worried about? The aircraft are mostly fully automated today anyway, and I have yet to hear a story of a major incident that was caused because something went wrong with the computers.

Edited by Wampa_Stompa, 14 July 2010 - 08:32 PM.

[SwitchFX]

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 06:29 PM, said:

THBatMan8, on Jul 14 2010, 08:15 PM, said:

TopDollar, on Jul 14 2010, 09:12 PM, said:

Both of you are suffering from technology nearsightedness.  You have no idea what type of advancements will be made in the field of computers in the future.  Saying it will "never" happen is unbelievably short sighted.

THBatMan8, on Jul 14 2010, 09:12 PM, said:

No one will care when the B52 crashes in the middle of nowhere because the computer failed and the aircraft was pilotless, but a 747 carrying 400+ passengers is a different ballgame.

In order for UAVs to be successful in the commercial industry there needs to be a high enough demand for them, which right now there is none. It would be pointless to build a commercial UAV if no one will buy it.

Actually, in this economy, I imagine if the airlines had the option to scrap the salary of several hundred pilots in return for a small handful of engineers, they'd be all over it faster than you can say 'obsolete.'

Most of those heads are old-school, and wouldn't be swift in making such a decision.

[THBatMan8]

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:29 PM, said:

Actually, in this economy, I imagine if the airlines had the option to scrap the salary of several hundred pilots in return for a small handful of engineers, they'd be all over it faster than you can say 'obsolete.'

It actually costs much more to build, buy, operate and maintain a UAV vs the conventional setup; so that argument is flawed.

Edited by THBatMan8, 14 July 2010 - 08:33 PM.

[Prancer]

SwitchFX, on Jul 14 2010, 08:31 PM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 06:29 PM, said:

THBatMan8, on Jul 14 2010, 08:15 PM, said:

TopDollar, on Jul 14 2010, 09:12 PM, said:

Both of you are suffering from technology nearsightedness.  You have no idea what type of advancements will be made in the field of computers in the future.  Saying it will "never" happen is unbelievably short sighted.

THBatMan8, on Jul 14 2010, 09:12 PM, said:

No one will care when the B52 crashes in the middle of nowhere because the computer failed and the aircraft was pilotless, but a 747 carrying 400+ passengers is a different ballgame.

In order for UAVs to be successful in the commercial industry there needs to be a high enough demand for them, which right now there is none. It would be pointless to build a commercial UAV if no one will buy it.

Actually, in this economy, I imagine if the airlines had the option to scrap the salary of several hundred pilots in return for a small handful of engineers, they'd be all over it faster than you can say 'obsolete.'

Most of those heads are old-school, and wouldn't be swift in making such a decision.

Most of those heads only have a few years left before they're replaced, either due to retirement or death.

Quote

It actually costs much more to build, buy, and operate a UAV vs the conventional setup; so that argument is flawed.

Not really if they sell off the more useless conventional aircraft to help make up for the costs.

Again, like it or not, the day is coming. Just like jets replaced the pistons, pilotless aircraft will replace the pilots. The aircraft's crew is gradually going down. It went from four, to three, to two, soon probably to one, then none after that. It will happen.

Edited by Wampa_Stompa, 14 July 2010 - 08:36 PM.

[SwitchFX]

Maybe in 90 years, sure. Even then people will be skeptical of it. People replacing those heads won't be much younger anyway.

[Prancer]

SwitchFX, on Jul 14 2010, 08:38 PM, said:

Maybe in 90 years, sure. Even then people will be skeptical of it. People replacing those heads won't be much younger anyway.

Once again, we went from saying flying was impossible to walking on the moon in less than 70 years. I think you're either being, as Top Dollar said, short sighted, pessimistic, or just in denial.

[THBatMan8]

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:33 PM, said:

Not really if they sell off the more useless conventional aircraft to help make up for the costs.

Again, like it or not, the day is coming. Just like jets replaced the pistons, pilotless aircraft will replace the pilots. The aircraft's crew is gradually going down. It went from four, to three, to two, soon probably to one, then none after that. It will happen.

The day is not coming, and please quit making it sound like you're preaching armageddon. As I said earlier, there needs to be a high enough demand for UAVs in the commercial industry in order for them to sell well, which as of now there isn't. They don't appeal enough to airliners as they don't serve any real uses for their associated costs.

Even if there will someday be a fully automated airliner, it would still require a human babysitter in case of a system malfunction, so the human element will never be completely removed.

[Prancer]

THBatMan8, on Jul 14 2010, 08:44 PM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:33 PM, said:

Not really if they sell off the more useless conventional aircraft to help make up for the costs.

Again, like it or not, the day is coming. Just like jets replaced the pistons, pilotless aircraft will replace the pilots. The aircraft's crew is gradually going down. It went from four, to three, to two, soon probably to one, then none after that. It will happen.

The day is not coming

Yes, it is.   Unless you're one of the people who can see in to the future, there's no way you can look at current trends and not see it's on it's way sooner or later.

[LA_PHX]

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:33 PM, said:

Quote

It actually costs much more to build, buy, and operate a UAV vs the conventional setup; so that argument is flawed.

Not really if they sell off the more useless conventional aircraft to help make up for the costs.

You need a buyer to sell.  Where would you sell all those aircraft?  Without selling, how do you buy?

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 07:13 PM, said:

At the end of the day, it's not your call or mine as to what happens, so we can debate it till the cows come home. But given how much you already trust to computers, the day when air travel is pilotless, as Top Dollar says, is coming, no matter if you like it or not.

And you know that how?  This is all speculation based on the advancement of technology NOW.  We don't know what the future holds and we don't know if people will accept a computer flying hundreds of people across the world with no one there to maintain things and keep an eye on it all.

[Prancer]

http://www.space.com...0607_uavs3.html

Apparently, I'm not the only one who sees it coming, too.

Quote

Airliners already operate largely automatically, particularly when landing in poor weather. As the automation of aviation accelerates, the idea of flying on a pilotless airliner may become fact sooner rather than later.

Quote

You need a buyer to sell. Where would you sell all those aircraft? Without selling, how do you buy?

I'm sure less developed nations still using 50's and 60's era aircraft would love them.

[THBatMan8]

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:46 PM, said:

THBatMan8, on Jul 14 2010, 08:44 PM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:33 PM, said:

Not really if they sell off the more useless conventional aircraft to help make up for the costs.

Again, like it or not, the day is coming. Just like jets replaced the pistons, pilotless aircraft will replace the pilots. The aircraft's crew is gradually going down. It went from four, to three, to two, soon probably to one, then none after that. It will happen.

The day is not coming

Yes, it is.   Unless you're one of the people who can see in to the future, there's no way you can look at current trends and not see it's on it's way sooner or later.

What trends? Are you even reading my posts?

[Prancer]

THBatMan8, on Jul 14 2010, 08:50 PM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:46 PM, said:

THBatMan8, on Jul 14 2010, 08:44 PM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:33 PM, said:

Not really if they sell off the more useless conventional aircraft to help make up for the costs.

Again, like it or not, the day is coming. Just like jets replaced the pistons, pilotless aircraft will replace the pilots. The aircraft's crew is gradually going down. It went from four, to three, to two, soon probably to one, then none after that. It will happen.

The day is not coming

Yes, it is.   Unless you're one of the people who can see in to the future, there's no way you can look at current trends and not see it's on it's way sooner or later.

What trends? Are you even reading my posts?

Trend one: The downscaling of crews due to those functions being taken over by the computer. (The navigator and engineer are gone, so the pilots will be next to go.)

Trend two: The spread of popularity in UAVs.

Trend three: Computers growing smarter and in many cases superior to the human brain.

[THBatMan8]

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:53 PM, said:

THBatMan8, on Jul 14 2010, 08:50 PM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:46 PM, said:

THBatMan8, on Jul 14 2010, 08:44 PM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:33 PM, said:

Not really if they sell off the more useless conventional aircraft to help make up for the costs.

Again, like it or not, the day is coming. Just like jets replaced the pistons, pilotless aircraft will replace the pilots. The aircraft's crew is gradually going down. It went from four, to three, to two, soon probably to one, then none after that. It will happen.

The day is not coming

Yes, it is.   Unless you're one of the people who can see in to the future, there's no way you can look at current trends and not see it's on it's way sooner or later.

What trends? Are you even reading my posts?

Trend one: The downscaling of crews due to those functions being taken over by the computer. (The navigator and engineer are gone, so the pilots will be next to go.)

Trend two: The spread of popularity in UAVs.

Trend three: Computers growing smarter and in many cases superior to the human brain.

Trend one - The pilots will never go and I already explained why.

Trend two - UAVs are not popular in the commercial industry for multiple reasons, so I don't know where you're getting that information from.

Trend three - As I also already stated, computers in commercial airplanes are meant to add to the pilots situational awareness and performance and not replace them.

This is why I asked you if you even read my posts as I'm becoming a broken record.

[TopDollar]

Alright, please watch this video on the advancement of robots

http://www.ted.com/t...s_of_robot.html

Still think this is unrelated to the topic?  Well now watch this video on the mating of ideas

http://www.ted.com/t...s_have_sex.html

[Prancer]

THBatMan8, on Jul 14 2010, 08:58 PM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:53 PM, said:

THBatMan8, on Jul 14 2010, 08:50 PM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:46 PM, said:

THBatMan8, on Jul 14 2010, 08:44 PM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:33 PM, said:

Not really if they sell off the more useless conventional aircraft to help make up for the costs.

Again, like it or not, the day is coming. Just like jets replaced the pistons, pilotless aircraft will replace the pilots. The aircraft's crew is gradually going down. It went from four, to three, to two, soon probably to one, then none after that. It will happen.

The day is not coming

Yes, it is.   Unless you're one of the people who can see in to the future, there's no way you can look at current trends and not see it's on it's way sooner or later.

What trends? Are you even reading my posts?

Trend one: The downscaling of crews due to those functions being taken over by the computer. (The navigator and engineer are gone, so the pilots will be next to go.)

Trend two: The spread of popularity in UAVs.

Trend three: Computers growing smarter and in many cases superior to the human brain.

Trend one - The pilots will never go and I already explained why.

Trend two - UAVs are not popular in the commercial industry for multiple reasons, so I don't know where you're getting that information from.

Trend three - As I also already stated, computers in commercial airplanes are meant to add to the pilots situational awareness and performance and not replace them.

This is why I asked you if you even read my posts as I'm becoming a broken record.

The reason why it sounds like I'm not reading your posts is your posts are based on the idea that you think I'm talking about tommorow they're going to start replacing them.

It will be a gradual phase out when it happens, and it will, given that advance in computer technology.

Let me ask you this, if the computer can fly at the assigned atlititude, route, speed, detect traffic and smartly avoid it, detect problems and take appropriate action, avoid obstacles, fly the assigned traffic patterns, and has back ups in the rare event something does go wrong, why do you even need the old man sitting in the front if he has nothing to do? Why waste the money paying him to do essentially nothing?

[THBatMan8]

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 10:03 PM, said:

THBatMan8, on Jul 14 2010, 08:58 PM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:53 PM, said:

THBatMan8, on Jul 14 2010, 08:50 PM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:46 PM, said:

THBatMan8, on Jul 14 2010, 08:44 PM, said:

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:33 PM, said:

Not really if they sell off the more useless conventional aircraft to help make up for the costs.

Again, like it or not, the day is coming. Just like jets replaced the pistons, pilotless aircraft will replace the pilots. The aircraft's crew is gradually going down. It went from four, to three, to two, soon probably to one, then none after that. It will happen.

The day is not coming

Yes, it is.   Unless you're one of the people who can see in to the future, there's no way you can look at current trends and not see it's on it's way sooner or later.

What trends? Are you even reading my posts?

Trend one: The downscaling of crews due to those functions being taken over by the computer. (The navigator and engineer are gone, so the pilots will be next to go.)

Trend two: The spread of popularity in UAVs.

Trend three: Computers growing smarter and in many cases superior to the human brain.

Trend one - The pilots will never go and I already explained why.

Trend two - UAVs are not popular in the commercial industry for multiple reasons, so I don't know where you're getting that information from.

Trend three - As I also already stated, computers in commercial airplanes are meant to add to the pilots situational awareness and performance and not replace them.

This is why I asked you if you even read my posts as I'm becoming a broken record.

The reason why it sounds like I'm not reading your posts is your posts are based on the idea that you think I'm talking about tommorow they're going to start replacing them.

It will be a gradual phase out when it happens, and it will, given that advance in computer technology.

Let me ask you this, if the computer can fly at the assigned atlititude, route, speed, detect traffic and smartly avoid it, detect problems and take appropriate action, avoid obstacles, fly the assigned traffic patterns, and has back ups in the rare event something does go wrong, why do you even need the old man sitting in the front if he has nothing to do? Why waste the money paying him to do essentially nothing?

Because computers will only do what they are programmed to do. Also autopilot functions are human controlled, not computer controlled. The autopilot even on sophisticated airplanes is nothing more than solenoids and actuators attached to the flight surfaces. The only computer interference comes from reading air data and transferring it to the instruments and the reasoning to that is to reduce instrument error from the conventional setup, which there is a conventional backup onboard also.

Edited by THBatMan8, 14 July 2010 - 09:09 PM.

[TopDollar]

The word never is a pretty ignorant word to use in the scientific field.  For example:

http://www.dailytech...rticle14746.htm

Quote

A new robot developed in the United Kingdom has the ability to conduct research by itself

Researchers have successfully developed a new robot that is able to reason, formulate theories, and work on new scientific breakthroughs without the need of real scientists.

This marks the first time that a robotic system has been able to make its own scientific discovery with minimal intellectual input from humans.  Researchers have been able to create software programs able to analyze data for hypotheses, but this is important because the robot is able to take a scientific experiment from a hypothesis, experiment, reformulated hypothesis -- if necessary -- all without the assistance of humans.  

Despite researchers attempting to give robots human features, U.K. researchers are instead focused on workability and effectiveness, not looks.

"On its own it can think of hypotheses and then do the experiments, and we've checked that it's got the results correct," Aberystwyth University researcher Ross King said during an interview with Reuters.  "People have been working on this since the 1960s.  When we first sent robots to Mars, they really dreamed of the robots doing their own experiments on mars.  After 40 or 50 years, we've now got the capability to do that."

Researchers behind the new robot, named Adam, admit that on the surface the recent discoveries have been "of a modest kind" so far, but have faith that the complexity of researched conducted in the future will be higher.  To date, Adam has completed research into yeast metabolism, and has the ability to understand the results and plan what to do with the results.

Specifically, Adam was equipped with a yeast metabolism model and a gene and protein database, with human researchers only becoming involved when it was necessary to replace necessary solutions and remove waste.  It developed advanced hypotheses then created experiments possible to test its hypotheses.

This is a vital step towards new research technology where humans do not need to be involved as much as currently necessary for experiments.

The research team is working on the next-generation robot, Eve, which will have higher brain power so it can help compile research on new medicines.

Bet you never thought a computer could take on the roll of a human scientist by forming hypotheses, and testing them by creating its own experiments.  Think this is still unrelated?  Here, I'll post the link to the video on the mating of ideas again:

http://www.ted.com/t...s_have_sex.html

[SwitchFX]

Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 06:41 PM, said:

SwitchFX, on Jul 14 2010, 08:38 PM, said:

Maybe in 90 years, sure. Even then people will be skeptical of it. People replacing those heads won't be much younger anyway.

Once again, we went from saying flying was impossible to walking on the moon in less than 70 years. I think you're either being, as Top Dollar said, short sighted, pessimistic, or just in denial.

I just said we won't see it in our lifetimes. That's all. If that's hard to understand, and that it has to fall under one of those three, then what do I have to say to you? You're being too stubborn to accept someone's concerns and ram "what the future will be" down their throat.

It's all cost and demand. I can't see companies selling their aircraft for something that will be more expensive than a new aircraft.

Edited by SwitchFX, 14 July 2010 - 09:14 PM.

[THBatMan8]

TopDollar, on Jul 14 2010, 10:09 PM, said:

The word never is a pretty ignorant word to use in the scientific field.  For example:

http://www.dailytech...rticle14746.htm

Quote

A new robot developed in the United Kingdom has the ability to conduct research by itself

Researchers have successfully developed a new robot that is able to reason, formulate theories, and work on new scientific breakthroughs without the need of real scientists.

This marks the first time that a robotic system has been able to make its own scientific discovery with minimal intellectual input from humans.  Researchers have been able to create software programs able to analyze data for hypotheses, but this is important because the robot is able to take a scientific experiment from a hypothesis, experiment, reformulated hypothesis -- if necessary -- all without the assistance of humans.  

Despite researchers attempting to give robots human features, U.K. researchers are instead focused on workability and effectiveness, not looks.

"On its own it can think of hypotheses and then do the experiments, and we've checked that it's got the results correct," Aberystwyth University researcher Ross King said during an interview with Reuters.  "People have been working on this since the 1960s.  When we first sent robots to Mars, they really dreamed of the robots doing their own experiments on mars.  After 40 or 50 years, we've now got the capability to do that."

Researchers behind the new robot, named Adam, admit that on the surface the recent discoveries have been "of a modest kind" so far, but have faith that the complexity of researched conducted in the future will be higher.  To date, Adam has completed research into yeast metabolism, and has the ability to understand the results and plan what to do with the results.

Specifically, Adam was equipped with a yeast metabolism model and a gene and protein database, with human researchers only becoming involved when it was necessary to replace necessary solutions and remove waste.  It developed advanced hypotheses then created experiments possible to test its hypotheses.

This is a vital step towards new research technology where humans do not need to be involved as much as currently necessary for experiments.

The research team is working on the next-generation robot, Eve, which will have higher brain power so it can help compile research on new medicines.

Bet you never thought a computer could take on the roll of a human scientist by forming hypotheses, and testing them by creating its own experiments.  Think this is still unrelated?  Here, I'll post the link to the video on the mating of ideas again:

http://www.ted.com/t...s_have_sex.html

As I said, a robot will never replace a pilot and for multiple reasons, but the main one is due to a mechanical defect. Replace the flight crew and you might as well be signing a death warrant to every passenger onboard the airplane when a part breaks.

Edited by THBatMan8, 14 July 2010 - 09:14 PM.