![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 6:47:43 AM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 10:49:31 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote: So we should impose stealth mode now because somebody might some day write some killer software that might let people know where thermals are and this might turn out to be a bad thing? I've "written specs" for lots of stuff too, like thermal detectors. No reality yet. John Cochrane No, but as a leader in the US Rules Committee one would have thought you would be open-minded enough to at least consider the potential long term impacts of new technologies and at least be prepared for the consequences. It's obvious at this point that you're not, so I'll bow out of this one. As far as the software is concerned, that's the easy part. The Flarm folks did the difficult part by solving the hardware/firmware/collision algorithm problems. Good on them. Some of us are worried about the second order impacts already today (even with limited capability Flarm leeching has started), and it's easy to see it advancing rapidly from here for anyone with 25+ years in software development. Out. P3 Don't like my tone in this post, so I'll edit it. First cut was early a.m. and BC (before coffee). So, Take 2: No, but as a leader in the US Rules Committee I think you need to be open-minded enough to at least consider the potential long term impacts of new technologies and be prepared for the consequences. It's obvious that a number of competitor are concerned and feel strongly on this topic, so hopefully that message is getting through . As far as the software is concerned, that's the easy part. The Flarm folks did the difficult part by solving the hardware/firmware/collision algorithm problems. Good on them. Some of us are worried about the second order impacts already today (even with limited capability Flarm leeching has started), and it's easy to see it advancing rapidly from here. Out. P3 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() No, but as a leader in the US Rules Committee one would have thought you would be open-minded enough to at least consider the potential long term impacts of new technologies and at least be prepared for the consequences. It's obvious at this point that you're not, so I'll bow out of this one.. Message loud and clear, and fear not there will be poll questions and lots of discussion. I apologize if my tone indicated a closed mind, it absolutely is not. I'm just trying to sort through what we're hearing -- is the argument that we should impose stealth because there is a problem now? Or is the argument about potential future technology that must be nipped in the bud? John Cochrane |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Convention - B29 FIFI ------ Stealth Mode Noted!!! | Stetson J.B. Mentzer | Aviation Photos | 0 | December 27th 10 12:07 AM |
Flarm and stealth | John Cochrane[_2_] | Soaring | 47 | November 3rd 10 06:19 AM |
Standard Nationals-Hobbs | BGMIFF | Soaring | 3 | July 21st 04 06:16 PM |
Standard Nationals Need Towplanes | C AnthMin | Soaring | 5 | July 14th 04 12:46 AM |
Standard Class Nationals | Sam Giltner | Soaring | 1 | August 21st 03 01:42 AM |