how long

[tsgas]

Does it think?

Does it have a drinking problem ?

[tsgas]

Whether it's AC or loblaws, they are incredibly selfish pigs at the trough. They disgust me with their lobbying and greed. You make big wealth, to help others in my book. Period.

Helping your shareholders, the majority of whom are not wealthy, doesn’t count?
Companies are owned by collections of individuals.

No. This is what I do, BTW, and it's gone too far.

Way, way too far, shareholders at the expense of labour.

Your communism always fails in the end. Learn from history what the consequences are.

[Meatservo]

Helping your shareholders, the majority of whom are not wealthy, doesn’t count?
Companies are owned by collections of individuals.

No. This is what I do, BTW, and it's gone too far.

Way, way too far, shareholders at the expense of labour.

Your communism always fails in the end. Learn from history what the consequences are.

That's not actually "Communism" he's talking about. The yanks worked very hard during most of your lifetime to conflate "freedom" and "democracy" with "capitalism"; and "communism" with "socialism". Not to mention other countries that made "socialism" a dirty word just the way that "democracy" ought to be a dirty word (but isn't) based on the number of tin-pot dictatorships that have "the democratic republic of so-and-so" in the name. (if you think the National Socialist German Worker's Party were actually practicing socialists, for instance...) There's no reason a government couldn't put a limit on wealth-hoarding. There's limits on all kinds of things, from how much tax you can deduct for RRSP contributions, to how many square feet your shed can be, to how fast you can sail your mega-yacht in Halifax harbour. None of it is "Communism".

There's no proof that "your" system of choice is gonna work in the long run, either. It's kind of a new one, and is starting to not work so good, either.

[tsgas]

No. This is what I do, BTW, and it's gone too far.

Way, way too far, shareholders at the expense of labour.

Your communism always fails in the end. Learn from history what the consequences are.

That's not actually "Communism" he's talking about. The yanks worked very hard during most of your lifetime to conflate "freedom" and "democracy" with "capitalism"; and "communism" with "socialism". Not to mention other countries that made "socialism" a dirty word just the way that "democracy" ought to be a dirty word (but isn't) based on the number of tin-pot dictatorships that have "the democratic republic of so-and-so" in the name. (if you think the National Socialist German Worker's Party were actually practicing socialists, for instance...) There's no reason a government couldn't put a limit on wealth-hoarding. There's limits on all kinds of things, from how much tax you can deduct for RRSP contributions, to how many square feet your shed can be, to how fast you can sail your mega-yacht in Halifax harbour. None of it is "Communism".

There's no proof that "your" system of choice is gonna work in the long run, either. It's kind of a new one, and is starting to not work so good, either.

You sound like a Trudeau voter.

[Rockie]

I don't have to imagine it, I've seen it first had, more times than I can count, from the front end. My Dad worked CN freight and used to take me with him often. I listened to the hogger, (what railroaders call the engineers), talk about what he was doing when he took up the slack. Same thing when he was braking. That part of the operation can be done by a modern computer, no problem. It's just physics. We could invite Hedley back; he could explain exactly how to code it.

The things the computer won't be able to do are switching and not hitting something on the tracks. Mind you, even the human engineer is pretty much powerless to avoid hitting things on the tracks; The amount of momentum in an average mainline freight takes more distance to stop than the typical visual range of an engineer.

The wannabe could explain the physics but none of the skills involved including judgement which clearly is not taught in computer class, and the engineers who talked to you wasted their breath. You learned the railroad equivalent of “pull back to go up, push forward to go down”.

[Meatservo]

You sound like a Trudeau voter.

Look, everyone! I've Identified *that* post, you know the one where a conversation in "AvCanada" looks like it's going to go OK until someone decides he's had enough and shits in the punch-bowl.

tsgas, you're to be congratulated on your perspicacity.

[tsgas]

You sound like a Trudeau voter.

Look, everyone! I've Identified *that* post, you know the one where a conversation in "AvCanada" looks like it's going to go OK until someone decides he's had enough and shits in the punch-bowl.

tsgas, you're to be congratulated on your perspicacity.

Admit it this is not the place to push your Marxism, comrade.

[iflyforpie]

Lol... anything less than shooting the poor for sport is Marxism from the batshit crazy fringes of the far right.

[Meatservo]

Lol... anything less than shooting the poor for sport is Marxism from the batshit crazy fringes of the far right.

Ha ha you said it.

Having ones' constant oozing of right-wing opinions interrupted briefly with a different one, and then claiming "this isn't the place". Certain people don't seem self-aware enough to see the irony.

[rookiepilot]

Lol... anything less than shooting the poor for sport is Marxism from the batshit crazy fringes of the far right.

LOL.

Tsgas....I'm an ex - Pit trader, moron.......probably the most capitalist occupation you can think of. Google "Chicago Pit Traders" -- watch a video.

First time anyone has labelled me a communist....

[tsgarp]

The wannabe could explain the physics but none of the skills involved including judgement which clearly is not taught in computer class, and the engineers who talked to you wasted their breath. You learned the railroad equivalent of “pull back to go up, push forward to go down”.

'The wannabe'? That term really can't be applied to anyone in this conversation, even you.

Judgement, is just pattern recognition. Just for the record, I'm not taking credit for coming up with that idea. Google "Gerry Klein" and "Naturalistic Decision Making". The ability of a computer to exercise 'judgement' is a simple function of how many patterns it has been programmed to recognize (look up some basic AI coding techniques for verification of that.) Like it or not, many highly skilled occupations are on the verge of being replaced by computers. In aviation, the trend is obvious. A 1950's era transport required 4 people up-front; 2 Pilots, an Eng and a Nav. The Engs and the Navs are gone because all of their work was based on pattern recognition. Their jobs were the first to be automated out of existence because the patterns with which they dealt were not that complex and not that dynamic.
Pilots got a reprieve because the patterns with which we deal are more dynamic and have more variables. However, computers are almost to the point were they can reliably deal with that level of complexity. It pains me to say it, but the days or the nigh-on god-like superman airline pilot is just about done. Much like our mariner brethren (ships of wood, men of iron) a century before, technology is about to reduce airline pilots to system monitors. Sad.

[Rockie]

Oh yes, wannabe definitely applies to the individual you brought into the discussion.

The navigator was replaced by an IRS and and FMS, which nobody could consider smart. Same with ECAM, EICAS and simplified systems which replaced the flight engineer but are also not smart. Computers do what programmers tell them to do and that’s it. They don’t think, they don’t exercise judgement and they will try and drive you straight through a mountain because some computer genius forgot a comma in one of billions of lines of code. Which to be honest is just a human error, but one a stupid computer is unable to recognize.

No sir, real AI is a long way away, and even when it’s finally developed it’ll be a long time after that anybody trusts it with their life. Well, anybody with a brain in their head anyway, there’s always the occasional moron who leaves the driving to Tesla while they take a nap.

[mixturerich]

All this time and technology and they’ve hardly even made freight trains, trucks, or container ships fully automated, what makes anyone think that planes will be anytime soon?

[photofly]

I could be wrong, but I don't think train engineers or ships' crews are as significant a proportion of costs as pilots.

[Zaibatsu]

In aviation, the trend is obvious. A 1950's era transport required 4 people up-front; 2 Pilots, an Eng and a Nav. The Engs and the Navs are gone because all of their work was based on pattern recognition. Their jobs were the first to be automated out of existence because the patterns with which they dealt were not that complex and not that dynamic.

1950s transports used to have 4 engines too. Then three. Then two.

I can see where that trend is going too, but it sounds more like the punchline of a blonde joke.

[tsgarp]

In aviation, the trend is obvious. A 1950's era transport required 4 people up-front; 2 Pilots, an Eng and a Nav. The Engs and the Navs are gone because all of their work was based on pattern recognition. Their jobs were the first to be automated out of existence because the patterns with which they dealt were not that complex and not that dynamic.

1950s transports used to have 4 engines too. Then three. Then two.

I can see where that trend is going too, but it sounds more like the punchline of a blonde joke.

Argument by analogy, that’s the sort of thing I’d expect from the sort of cis scum bigots who think blonde jokes are acceptable.

[Rockie]

"CIS scum bigot"?

I had to look that one up and I still have no idea what it is or how it applies here.

[digits_]

All this time and technology and they’ve hardly even made freight trains, trucks, or container ships fully automated, what makes anyone think that planes will be anytime soon?

Unless you can automate the ship so it can travel for 2 months without human intervention (system maintenance etc), what's the point? You might as well have someone on borad who is in charge, call him captain and let him push a few buttons every now and then.

An airplane makes much shorter trips in comparison. Freight trains? Good point. The demand might just not be there.

[digits_]

In aviation, the trend is obvious. A 1950's era transport required 4 people up-front; 2 Pilots, an Eng and a Nav. The Engs and the Navs are gone because all of their work was based on pattern recognition. Their jobs were the first to be automated out of existence because the patterns with which they dealt were not that complex and not that dynamic.

1950s transports used to have 4 engines too. Then three. Then two.

I can see where that trend is going too, but it sounds more like the punchline of a blonde joke.

Argument by analogy, that’s the sort of thing I’d expect from the sort of cis scum bigots who think blonde jokes are acceptable.

Did you just assume Zaibatsu's blonde's gender?

[Zaibatsu]

1950s transports used to have 4 engines too. Then three. Then two.

I can see where that trend is going too, but it sounds more like the punchline of a blonde joke.

Argument by analogy, that’s the sort of thing I’d expect from the sort of cis scum bigots who think blonde jokes are acceptable.

Did you just assume Zaibatsu's blonde's gender?

It did assume my gender.

If you don’t want a fallacious argument, don’t make one yourself (slippery slope fallacy).