<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Should we blame the pilot for the Buffalo crash, or bureaucrats and trial lawyers?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://scripts.mit.edu/~birge/blog/should-we-blame-the-pilot-for-the-buffalo-crash-or-bureaucrats-and-trial-lawyers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://scripts.mit.edu/~birge/blog/should-we-blame-the-pilot-for-the-buffalo-crash-or-bureaucrats-and-trial-lawyers/</link>
	<description>Monkey #121643810 reporting for duty...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:43:49 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Alain</title>
		<link>http://scripts.mit.edu/~birge/blog/should-we-blame-the-pilot-for-the-buffalo-crash-or-bureaucrats-and-trial-lawyers/comment-page-1/#comment-3873</link>
		<dc:creator>Alain</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:09:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scripts.mit.edu/~birge/blog/?p=897#comment-3873</guid>
		<description>Hi Jon,

Me again. I was reading Ken&#039;s comment and it reminded me of a story my uncle told me. He&#039;s an avionics engineer at a research institute at Georgia Tech. We were talking about the advances in computing power found in the F-22. He agreed that the Raptor did pack an impressive amount of computing horsepower but he told me a funny - and by &#039;funny&#039; I mean depressing - story. I guess when Lockheed Martin built the Raptor, rather than use a standard 32-bit processor that was compatible with DoD&#039;s standard programming language - Ada, is it? - Lockheed Martin designed a proprietary processor that was a 33-bit processor. They were able to sell this whole scam to the Air Force by claiming that the non-standard nature of the processor was a &#039;security feature&#039;. Security feature! Yeah - job security for Lockheed Martin.

Alain</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Jon,</p>
<p>Me again. I was reading Ken&#8217;s comment and it reminded me of a story my uncle told me. He&#8217;s an avionics engineer at a research institute at Georgia Tech. We were talking about the advances in computing power found in the F-22. He agreed that the Raptor did pack an impressive amount of computing horsepower but he told me a funny &#8211; and by &#8216;funny&#8217; I mean depressing &#8211; story. I guess when Lockheed Martin built the Raptor, rather than use a standard 32-bit processor that was compatible with DoD&#8217;s standard programming language &#8211; Ada, is it? &#8211; Lockheed Martin designed a proprietary processor that was a 33-bit processor. They were able to sell this whole scam to the Air Force by claiming that the non-standard nature of the processor was a &#8217;security feature&#8217;. Security feature! Yeah &#8211; job security for Lockheed Martin.</p>
<p>Alain</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alain</title>
		<link>http://scripts.mit.edu/~birge/blog/should-we-blame-the-pilot-for-the-buffalo-crash-or-bureaucrats-and-trial-lawyers/comment-page-1/#comment-3872</link>
		<dc:creator>Alain</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:56:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scripts.mit.edu/~birge/blog/?p=897#comment-3872</guid>
		<description>Hi Jon,

Great post, as usual. Unfortunately, given the enthusiasm with which a large segment of the public has embraced &#039;Obamanomics&#039; (as Robert Reich called it in a Wall Street Journal op-ed) I don&#039;t think we are going to ever see government shrink. 

Too many people are too willing to put blind faith in the ability of bureaucrats with little or no stake in the system to solve our society&#039;s problems. All the bureaucrats care about is protecting their bureaucratic feifdoms.

Alain</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Jon,</p>
<p>Great post, as usual. Unfortunately, given the enthusiasm with which a large segment of the public has embraced &#8216;Obamanomics&#8217; (as Robert Reich called it in a Wall Street Journal op-ed) I don&#8217;t think we are going to ever see government shrink. </p>
<p>Too many people are too willing to put blind faith in the ability of bureaucrats with little or no stake in the system to solve our society&#8217;s problems. All the bureaucrats care about is protecting their bureaucratic feifdoms.</p>
<p>Alain</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan</title>
		<link>http://scripts.mit.edu/~birge/blog/should-we-blame-the-pilot-for-the-buffalo-crash-or-bureaucrats-and-trial-lawyers/comment-page-1/#comment-3849</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:33:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scripts.mit.edu/~birge/blog/?p=897#comment-3849</guid>
		<description>Hi, Ken. Damn, that&#039;s a depressing story! It seems there&#039;s been a rash of crashes around the world lately, even discounting the freak bird strike in New York. Maybe it is just reporting bias, since the media gets OCD on things on a rotating basis, it seems. (FedEx went down in Japan following botched landing, and a plane full of kids crashed in Butte on approach.) All seem to have involved loss of control, which is really sad considering one of the few things computers actually do better than humans is control systems for which we have good physical models. An airplane is about as good example as any of this.

I hate big planes, too! Airplanes don&#039;t scale well, for the same reason land animals sizes are limited (which I&#039;m sure you understand). Everybody knows that, and yet their damn response is &quot;well, fine, but let&#039;s push it!&quot; Every time I get on a jet, and think about the forces involved, I promise myself I&#039;ll get back into flying and buy a Cessna.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, Ken. Damn, that&#8217;s a depressing story! It seems there&#8217;s been a rash of crashes around the world lately, even discounting the freak bird strike in New York. Maybe it is just reporting bias, since the media gets OCD on things on a rotating basis, it seems. (FedEx went down in Japan following botched landing, and a plane full of kids crashed in Butte on approach.) All seem to have involved loss of control, which is really sad considering one of the few things computers actually do better than humans is control systems for which we have good physical models. An airplane is about as good example as any of this.</p>
<p>I hate big planes, too! Airplanes don&#8217;t scale well, for the same reason land animals sizes are limited (which I&#8217;m sure you understand). Everybody knows that, and yet their damn response is &#8220;well, fine, but let&#8217;s push it!&#8221; Every time I get on a jet, and think about the forces involved, I promise myself I&#8217;ll get back into flying and buy a Cessna.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken</title>
		<link>http://scripts.mit.edu/~birge/blog/should-we-blame-the-pilot-for-the-buffalo-crash-or-bureaucrats-and-trial-lawyers/comment-page-1/#comment-3830</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 03:34:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scripts.mit.edu/~birge/blog/?p=897#comment-3830</guid>
		<description>Why things suck, related:

I knew someone (actually knew someone who knew someone) who was working for NASA.  The job of his dreams - the space program and all that.  He got a project to fix a section of code for the shuttle, which because of the intense commenting, review, proving-correct process would be a pretty long project even though the fix was relatively easy.  

Anyway, he started getting curious about how his project fit into the larger system, but he couldn&#039;t really find anyone willing to tell him.  As it turns out, the entire system wasn&#039;t used anymore.  It was cheaper to pay him (and whoever he was working with, and whoever had to sign off on the work) to do this fix than it would be to go through the official decommissioning process for the system.  The guy ended up quitting and going to private industry.

So, I think simply &quot;being too careful&quot; is another (or the same) reason why Flying Things avoid changes that we&#039;d all like to see implemented.

Also, big planes freak me out.  Things that fucking heavy do not, in most cases, &quot;fly&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why things suck, related:</p>
<p>I knew someone (actually knew someone who knew someone) who was working for NASA.  The job of his dreams &#8211; the space program and all that.  He got a project to fix a section of code for the shuttle, which because of the intense commenting, review, proving-correct process would be a pretty long project even though the fix was relatively easy.  </p>
<p>Anyway, he started getting curious about how his project fit into the larger system, but he couldn&#8217;t really find anyone willing to tell him.  As it turns out, the entire system wasn&#8217;t used anymore.  It was cheaper to pay him (and whoever he was working with, and whoever had to sign off on the work) to do this fix than it would be to go through the official decommissioning process for the system.  The guy ended up quitting and going to private industry.</p>
<p>So, I think simply &#8220;being too careful&#8221; is another (or the same) reason why Flying Things avoid changes that we&#8217;d all like to see implemented.</p>
<p>Also, big planes freak me out.  Things that fucking heavy do not, in most cases, &#8220;fly&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cinda</title>
		<link>http://scripts.mit.edu/~birge/blog/should-we-blame-the-pilot-for-the-buffalo-crash-or-bureaucrats-and-trial-lawyers/comment-page-1/#comment-3658</link>
		<dc:creator>Cinda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:03:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scripts.mit.edu/~birge/blog/?p=897#comment-3658</guid>
		<description>No worries - you don&#039;t have to tone it down for me, but good to know about commuters. As a rule, I do not fly in planes with propellers. I&#039;ve done it once and that was enough!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No worries &#8211; you don&#8217;t have to tone it down for me, but good to know about commuters. As a rule, I do not fly in planes with propellers. I&#8217;ve done it once and that was enough!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan</title>
		<link>http://scripts.mit.edu/~birge/blog/should-we-blame-the-pilot-for-the-buffalo-crash-or-bureaucrats-and-trial-lawyers/comment-page-1/#comment-3650</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:15:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scripts.mit.edu/~birge/blog/?p=897#comment-3650</guid>
		<description>For the most part, anything with a prop. Also, certain smaller regional jets, though I&#039;m not sure which ones have full automation or not. I probably should&#039;ve toned it down, because I don&#039;t want to scare people, and even the commuter planes have a very good record. But it is definitely the case that the large jets are safer, and I think that&#039;s because they fly higher (out of the weather), have better equipment, and more experienced pilots. I started to get nervous about the commuters when my flying friends that I&#039;d get drunk with started getting jobs flying for the airlines. I miss the old days when most of the pilots seemed to be ex-military. Anyway, I&#039;ve changed the sentence to be more specific about simply avoiding them in bad weather, which I do.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For the most part, anything with a prop. Also, certain smaller regional jets, though I&#8217;m not sure which ones have full automation or not. I probably should&#8217;ve toned it down, because I don&#8217;t want to scare people, and even the commuter planes have a very good record. But it is definitely the case that the large jets are safer, and I think that&#8217;s because they fly higher (out of the weather), have better equipment, and more experienced pilots. I started to get nervous about the commuters when my flying friends that I&#8217;d get drunk with started getting jobs flying for the airlines. I miss the old days when most of the pilots seemed to be ex-military. Anyway, I&#8217;ve changed the sentence to be more specific about simply avoiding them in bad weather, which I do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cinda</title>
		<link>http://scripts.mit.edu/~birge/blog/should-we-blame-the-pilot-for-the-buffalo-crash-or-bureaucrats-and-trial-lawyers/comment-page-1/#comment-3649</link>
		<dc:creator>Cinda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:25:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scripts.mit.edu/~birge/blog/?p=897#comment-3649</guid>
		<description>Um, define &quot;commuter&quot;. Can the space shuttle really de-orbit and land itself? How cool!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Um, define &#8220;commuter&#8221;. Can the space shuttle really de-orbit and land itself? How cool!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
