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