Wikipedia Sucks!

Eric Corbett wrote:If Mr Anonymous Blowhard had really worked on "safety critical stuff" then he'd know that no safety critical decisions are left to software alone anyway.

Because I came to the conclusion mister Eric is living somewhere where are no money transactions via the internet, where only are flying airplanes from before the computerising, and where the medical equipment is ready for the museum. And I think even the breweries are still working in the old fashion way there, and have put a bit to much alcohol in his daily beer.

If you are on a high risk section in a hospital Eric, day and night decisions over your life are taken by software, stupide fuck what you are! Watch that little veins in your head, they are vulnerable when you get older, alcohol is very bad for you, also for that stuff under your belt by the way and not only for your brains!

In your foggy airport scenario, for instance, not only would a pilot make the final decision as to whether or not to land - guided by the on-board landing systems - but so would air traffic control.

Um, no. What actually happens is the pilot uses his eyes to ascertain whether he can see the runway at a certain altitude, (as determined by a very basic non-computerised sensor, cross checked with other similar sensors to ensure an accurate reading is being had) and makes the decision whether to proceed or go around (and he has no real choice here, he has to follow what the rule book says he must do). Air traffic control has nothing to do with it, beyond declaring the runway open or shut (for no more reason than they can't physically see a certain distance).

Due to our ongoing fear of handing complete control over to the software, thereby eliminating the pilot authority completely, there are actually still far more accidents during poor weather landings that are attributeable to human error, than would likely happen if full authority were handed over to the software. And often, where software decision making is to blame, it is not really the software, but another system the software depends on being right which it uses to based its decisions on, like sensors.

And while it is tempting to think there are no safety critical situations out there without a human in the loop, the reality is, and not by design obviously, in a potentially unsafe situation, especially if rare, the human is often just a dumb passenger, it is the software, and only the software, that is keeping us safe.

I think a place I hope where non of you ever will come, a high risk department of a modern hospital is a better example. Because the software keeps you alive. Yes, there are angels there, most time female, but the software is watching you. There is a wall of computerised stuff behind you, and the computers are watching everything. Ok, there is a control room day and night, but if the software inform the people there and with that information they take their decisions.
It is all computer technic, computer technic and again computer technic.

O, o, o, a Wiki boyscout!

tarantino, the wiki boyscout wrote:I've moved a bunch of off-topic posts from members attacking each other. If you guys keep it up, I'll remove your ability to post and let Jake sort it out later.

Always welcome here, Vigilant, here you will find new friends and nobody will mute you or delete your posts.