It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead. The Dallas Police Department used one of its bomb squad robots to kill the suspect in Thursday's sniper shootings that left five police officers dead. Police Chief David Brown explained the decision:
If you read my other comments discussing how we could use robots to disable, not kill, my intent might be clearer. I guess it was poorly written, but my point was that human cops target people of color way too often.
protesters who are not white ammosexuals are ipso facto threats.you can bet that Dallas PD treating them like citizens was not pleasing to this shithead, or to the shitheads who elevated him to his present eminence"see what you get when you treat these animals like people?"
Speaking of hindsight. The police at the time though there were multiple shooters. Who better to provide information about that? The shooter who was executed also claimed to have planted explosive devices. Again, who better to provide information about location and type of bombs. I'm also wondering who may have known this attack was being planned. Maybe, if the perp spent a few decades in prison he might finally name names. Although I don't think prison or the death penalty is much of a deterrent, imho, the thought of getting caught and spending years in prison is a deterrent to some. So, thanks for the thoughtful reply, I hope the police also participate in thoughtful reforms.
Prison or death sentence was not a deterrent. The guy had a death wish and was determined to take as many "white cops" with him as he could.I do agree on the very last sentence. Dallas PD was and is on the forefront of many of these reforms, working with the colored communities, changing their hiring practices, and incorporating sensitivity training. This needs to happen at other PDs across the US.
While I'm at it, who do you think makes all the radio calls to Tower, Departure, enroute radars? Who changes the squawks, resets altimeters, monitors position and performance and engine instruments? Who flies the UAV when it gets vectored off of its preplanned route by ATC? Who gets it back on track and back on time?
What you are really saying is that it has an autopilot and a GPS, like most airplanes that are more complex than a Cessna 172. What I'm saying is that it very much does have a pilot, he/she is just not on board.
Calls to tower? Yup, humans but calls to tower are procedural, not functional.
En route radars? That's pretty much automatic, that's why you have squawk boxes.
Reset squawks, again can be automatic, the use of humans to do so is purely procedural.
Reset of altimeters? Under what circumstances? On the ground that's maintainance, en route, often done as part of the flight programming. Modern GPS altimeters are more accurate and not prone to drift.
Monitoring of position? In modern airliners it is largely automatic and essentially so, humans get it wrong, hence CFiG.
In modern aircraft engine instruments are already monitored automatically and the control interface issues alerts.
Flying the UAV when vectored off? The whole point about a UAV is that you can issue an instruction to change vector - and it will; it will then correct its flight plan to fit with the new profile. The joysticks in the control centre can issue such instructions but they do not need to do so constantly. There are circumstances where you need a pilot but those are called emergencies, Sullenberger situations. The pilot need not have second by second control, only real or virtual presence.
This is the whole point about machine autonomy, humans are only required when human foresight has not provided programmed responses. If I recall correctly there was a report that one of the big problems at Predator control centres is boredom of not having to do a damn thing.
Dude, but you clearly don't have a clue what you are on about. I've been a licensed pilot since 1978, did 20 in the USAF and have 1700 flight hours in F-111 As, Ds and Es, in Europe, SW Asia and North America. Nearly everything you wrote is conjecture (and incorrect) from someone who has more than likely never been in a cockpit. For example:
"Reset of altimeters? Under what circumstances? "
The aircrew sets it on the ground, according to ATIS or field elevation. If you set it to the correct QNH setting as the US generally does, it reads field elevation. If you set it to a QFE setting as Brits sometimes do , it reads zero on the ground at that location. As you takeoff and climb out, you set it to standard day pressure (29.92" Hg or the equivalent in millibars) as you pass transition altitude, which is approximately the lowest usable flight level (typically 4000' in S England, 6000' in Scotland due to terrain, and 18000' throughout the USA). Above transition altitude, every altimeter is set to 29.92, and you fly flight levels, not elevations. Flight levels move up and down with the barometric pressure, but since everybody is on the standard day setting, the aircraft all move up or down in tandem. When you are cleared to descend below the lowest usable flight level, you are given the local QNH, which is altitude above Mean Sea Level. One notable exception is that if you fly a PAR or ASR (NOT an ILS, TACAN, etc.) to a British air base, they will give you a QFE setting such that your altimeter reads zero on touchdown. A PAR flown to a US base uses QNH such that your altimeter reads field elevation on touchdown.
"On the ground that's maintainance, en route, often done as part of the flight programming."
Incorrect in toto.
"Modern GPS altimeters are more accurate and not prone to drift."
GPS triangulates elevation above Mean Sea Level, and while useful as a crosscheck, is not altimetry.
Nearly everything else you've written is equally incorrect, but normally I got paid for explaining how this shit works to people who have a legitimate interest in aviation. I was a flight instructor in three USAF major commands, in the USA and Europe, now retired.
Smoking is allowed in the castle on the veranda?
And attention has been diverted from the two murders committed by police officers last week very neatly.
I hear there's a post-4th of July sale on rocket launchers.
Which group would you prefer they be programmed to kill?
Hey, at least he hasn't mentioned small thermonuclear devices yet.
If you read my other comments discussing how we could use robots to disable, not kill, my intent might be clearer. I guess it was poorly written, but my point was that human cops target people of color way too often.
protesters who are not white ammosexuals are ipso facto threats.you can bet that Dallas PD treating them like citizens was not pleasing to this shithead, or to the shitheads who elevated him to his present eminence"see what you get when you treat these animals like people?"
he seems to have been awfully accurate with that gun, for a "carpenter/block layer type"
Speaking of hindsight. The police at the time though there were multiple shooters. Who better to provide information about that? The shooter who was executed also claimed to have planted explosive devices. Again, who better to provide information about location and type of bombs. I'm also wondering who may have known this attack was being planned. Maybe, if the perp spent a few decades in prison he might finally name names. Although I don't think prison or the death penalty is much of a deterrent, imho, the thought of getting caught and spending years in prison is a deterrent to some. So, thanks for the thoughtful reply, I hope the police also participate in thoughtful reforms.
Yeah, that evil fucker Obama.
Prison or death sentence was not a deterrent. The guy had a death wish and was determined to take as many "white cops" with him as he could.I do agree on the very last sentence. Dallas PD was and is on the forefront of many of these reforms, working with the colored communities, changing their hiring practices, and incorporating sensitivity training. This needs to happen at other PDs across the US.
#robotlivesmatter
While I'm at it, who do you think makes all the radio calls to Tower, Departure, enroute radars? Who changes the squawks, resets altimeters, monitors position and performance and engine instruments? Who flies the UAV when it gets vectored off of its preplanned route by ATC? Who gets it back on track and back on time?
What you are really saying is that it has an autopilot and a GPS, like most airplanes that are more complex than a Cessna 172. What I'm saying is that it very much does have a pilot, he/she is just not on board.
Calls to tower? Yup, humans but calls to tower are procedural, not functional.
En route radars? That's pretty much automatic, that's why you have squawk boxes.
Reset squawks, again can be automatic, the use of humans to do so is purely procedural.
Reset of altimeters? Under what circumstances? On the ground that's maintainance, en route, often done as part of the flight programming. Modern GPS altimeters are more accurate and not prone to drift.
Monitoring of position? In modern airliners it is largely automatic and essentially so, humans get it wrong, hence CFiG.
In modern aircraft engine instruments are already monitored automatically and the control interface issues alerts.
Flying the UAV when vectored off? The whole point about a UAV is that you can issue an instruction to change vector - and it will; it will then correct its flight plan to fit with the new profile. The joysticks in the control centre can issue such instructions but they do not need to do so constantly. There are circumstances where you need a pilot but those are called emergencies, Sullenberger situations. The pilot need not have second by second control, only real or virtual presence.
This is the whole point about machine autonomy, humans are only required when human foresight has not provided programmed responses. If I recall correctly there was a report that one of the big problems at Predator control centres is boredom of not having to do a damn thing.
Dude, but you clearly don't have a clue what you are on about. I've been a licensed pilot since 1978, did 20 in the USAF and have 1700 flight hours in F-111 As, Ds and Es, in Europe, SW Asia and North America. Nearly everything you wrote is conjecture (and incorrect) from someone who has more than likely never been in a cockpit. For example:
"Reset of altimeters? Under what circumstances? "
The aircrew sets it on the ground, according to ATIS or field elevation. If you set it to the correct QNH setting as the US generally does, it reads field elevation. If you set it to a QFE setting as Brits sometimes do , it reads zero on the ground at that location. As you takeoff and climb out, you set it to standard day pressure (29.92" Hg or the equivalent in millibars) as you pass transition altitude, which is approximately the lowest usable flight level (typically 4000' in S England, 6000' in Scotland due to terrain, and 18000' throughout the USA). Above transition altitude, every altimeter is set to 29.92, and you fly flight levels, not elevations. Flight levels move up and down with the barometric pressure, but since everybody is on the standard day setting, the aircraft all move up or down in tandem. When you are cleared to descend below the lowest usable flight level, you are given the local QNH, which is altitude above Mean Sea Level. One notable exception is that if you fly a PAR or ASR (NOT an ILS, TACAN, etc.) to a British air base, they will give you a QFE setting such that your altimeter reads zero on touchdown. A PAR flown to a US base uses QNH such that your altimeter reads field elevation on touchdown.
"On the ground that's maintainance, en route, often done as part of the flight programming."
Incorrect in toto.
"Modern GPS altimeters are more accurate and not prone to drift."
GPS triangulates elevation above Mean Sea Level, and while useful as a crosscheck, is not altimetry.
Nearly everything else you've written is equally incorrect, but normally I got paid for explaining how this shit works to people who have a legitimate interest in aviation. I was a flight instructor in three USAF major commands, in the USA and Europe, now retired.
What could go wrong, I ask you?