1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: February 02, 2025, 02:12:00 AM »

Is the audio publically available?

Yes, LD, it is.

Thing is, it does not say anything that Ronj says it says.

He won't post any of it, because he knows it does not.

He is lying, just like Duncass is lying.

I'll just leave this here, demonstrating Ronj is posting BS as usual.

There's nothing wrong with your YouTube audio recording of the tower controller EXCEPT what you don't know is that fixed wing aircraft and helicopters will generally be operating on different frequencies while maneuvering in the vicinity of an airport.  The YouTube only has the audio from the tower talking to the helicopters and the fixed wing aircraft.  You can hear the reply from the fixed wing aircraft but not from the helicopters as they are transmitting on a different frequency that is not being received & recorded on the YouTube you linked.  You need to do more research.  If you do you will find out that helicopters use the frequency 134.35 and you can hear the tower talking back & forth to a Medivac helicopter and PAT 25.  Just before the crash the tower says: "do you have the CRJ in sight" and PAT25 responds: "have the aircraft in sight, request visual separation". 


It's just that simple.  Do your research and come up with the facts.  I have a download of the audio recording between the helicopters and the tower but it's a little confusing because most of transmissions are between the tower and the fixed wing aircraft.  You don't hear any replies from the aircraft at all.  When the tower calls the helicopter only then do you hear both sides of the transmissions.  That's because when the tower talks, they are transmitting on both the tower frequency for the fixed wing aircraft and on the helicopter frequency.  On the receive side you don't hear the aircraft on the fixed wing tower frequency only the helicopters on 134.35.  It all makes sense to me after flying for lots of years & talking to control towers and actually repairing aircraft radios when I had a radio shop at my local airport.       


If you lookup the tower frequencies for Reagan Airport you will find out that they use a number of frequencies.  Arrival is different from departure.  East is different than West.  There are some different ground frequencies for different applications as well.  This is typical for a busy airport like Reagan.  I've never been in there myself as pilot in command but it's the same kind of thing if you are flying into an airport in Chicago or LA which I have been into. 

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: February 01, 2025, 06:13:28 PM »

Yes, it is.  It didn't take me more than a couple of minutes to find the audio and download it.  Anything you say on a radio is public knowledge.  There are some laws regarding cell phones that try to make them more private.  The cops in my area have gone to encrypting their radio traffic so you can't listen to them on a scanner anymore.  I can listen to aircraft radio traffic on my computer and do that fairly often while I'm at home working on a hobby project.  Me being an old 'boomer' I just used AI.  In this case Copilot on my Apple iPhone and asked for the tower audio in question.  The iPhone app responded in seconds and produced what I asked for.  There are many other audio sources as well.  There are actually people who have scanners who listen to the local airport traffic and record what they hear.  If the recordings become historical then they will be placed on a website and then anyone can listen to the radio traffic at a later date.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: February 01, 2025, 05:41:46 PM »

All you have to do is a little of your own research.  If I post it and you don't like what you hear, you will probably say I'm altering the audio somehow and then throw out a bunch of expletives.  I would rather save you the trouble of doing that and keep things a bit more civil on this site.   

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: February 01, 2025, 05:29:34 PM »

Ronj, the helicopter (PAT25) was told to go behind the CRJ.
If all you are going to do is post the usual goddamn piece of bullshit fucking resume and follow that up with a goddamn lie, then please for the love of God, just STFU...

Again, there's no way you could tell who is actually at the controls of the helicopter by listening to the radio.  When I was flying (pilot in command sitting on the left side in the cockpit) the co-pilot (sitting on the right) might be the one who was talking on the radio.  That wouldn't be unusual for a routine flight from point A to point B.  This was a check flight, however, and when I was the one who was being 'checked' I would be doing both, flying and talking on the radio.  That way the check pilot could be certain that, if I was alone in the cockpit, I could do both jobs at the same time.  When I listened to the radio traffic again, I would say that the voice I could hear from PAT25 was a male. He said that He had visual contact with the other aircraft. In any case, the information not available was: Who was pilot in command?  If you are on a check flight and the pilot who is doing the 'checking' decides that the pilot who is flying is screwing things up all that has to be said is: "I've got the aircraft" and then take the controls immediately.  Ultimately it is the senior check pilot who is in command and if there's an accident then that person (male or female) is the one responsible. 

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: February 01, 2025, 02:14:28 PM »

I was a commercial pilot for decades.  I also listened to a copy of the air traffic controller's radio traffic.  The helicopter was told about the landing airliner and the helicopter pilot said that he had visual contact.  Unfortunately, there was a second airliner in the vicinity, and it appears that the helicopter was maintaining visual contact with the wrong airliner when the collision occurred.  The helicopter was also above his maximum permitted altitude while flying thru the path that any aircraft would have to be on during final approach less than a minute before landing.  At night there is also a confusing number of lights on the ground and the helicopter was wearing night vision goggles that adds some other complexity to the situation.  It all boils down to a mistake made by the helicopter pilot.  He didn't maintain visual separation like he was instructed to do by the air traffic controller.     

6

Technology & Information / Re: Autonomous weapons systems

« on: January 26, 2025, 06:11:59 PM »

More robotics trolling?  Probably so. 
When I asked AI if BINA48 was sentient it responded as I expected.  BINA48 is still a modern-day digital parrot.  An internet connection is used to  generate pre-programmed responses and machine learning algorithms.  Any perceptions of emotions are programmed algorithms designed to mimic certain human behaviors.  All are merely simulations of human emotions.
 
I am not saying that this is bad.  When I am working on a hobby project AI is soooo useful.  It’s a great interface for quickly looking up information.  Back in the day I would spend hours in a library doing the same kind of things I can do now with AI in a few minutes. 


If you go thru some of the references related to BINA48 there was one that suggested it would be better for a robot to be programmed with the intellect of a baby and then start subjecting it to early childhood experiences and then progress toward adulthood.  That might produce a better simulation of sentience than is currently available. 

7

Technology & Information / Re: Autonomous weapons systems

« on: January 23, 2025, 04:21:18 PM »

Machines can self-replicate .

You don't have a 'machine' here.  The starting cell structure was from a frog that wasn't man made.  What you have here is a very primitive 'Frankenstein' monster.  If a cell structure self-replicates to another structure that 'looks' like itself, but that replication can't in-turn self-replicate then the process isn't really completed, and you don't really have self-replication.   If you could put a few of those tiny 'bots' in a dish and check back later and you find 1000's more your case might have a bit more creditability but nowhere did I see that in the video.

I think you may be consulting the wrong version of AI. 
It would be better to use Artificial Intelligence version NOT the Artificial Ignorance one!  We all have to start somewhere, and now that you've made a good start it's now time to upgrade to the better version AI. 
Get it ?  --   Got it ?  --  Gooooood !

8

Technology & Information / Re: Autonomous weapons systems

« on: January 22, 2025, 11:42:56 PM »

I would call it self-replicating if you could drop off a few robots on Mars and come back in a couple thousand years and see a much larger robot population.  Think what would be necessary for that to happen.  The robots would have to find material, mine it, refine it, and then shape it to the right form.  Power plants would have to be designed & built so electricity would be available.  Microprocessors would need to be designed, constructed, and programmed.  The process goes on & on and hopefully there would be no hardware or software malfunctions along the way while the robots are getting things ready to build more of their kind. 


Mankind made that process happen over lots of years while regenerating all along the way.  A cave man could reproduce, amoebas can do it, along will all kinds of other biological species. You see the problems that a robot would face?  Do you really think you will actually see that in the next 1000 years?   Perhaps in the future an alien species will come by that's friendly and give mankind a technological boost to shorten the time span but without that it will take the future generations quite a bit of time to become a robot God.     

9

Technology & Information / Re: Autonomous weapons systems

« on: January 22, 2025, 08:17:12 PM »

Your idea of a self-replicating machine seems to be greatly misunderstood by you.  Perhaps you should use AI to increase your understanding.

10

Technology & Information / Re: Autonomous weapons systems

« on: January 22, 2025, 08:09:09 PM »

Your guess is incorrect.  I did read all of the linked information on the XAI website and could correlate that information with my own experiences using AI in the real world.  How about YOU.  Do you really understand the technology yourself or maybe you are trying it out to see if it can troll?

11

Technology & Information / Re: Autonomous weapons systems

« on: January 22, 2025, 08:02:26 PM »

I would say that it's more accurate to state that you are severely overestimating the real capabilities of the updated system.  Sure, there have been some improvements, but you seem to think that the baby can now breakdance when it can't even stand up yet. 

12

Technology & Information / Re: Autonomous weapons systems

« on: January 22, 2025, 07:42:46 PM »

Not true.
You didn't really read, or understand, the explanation for XAI that I wrote.

13

Technology & Information / Re: Autonomous weapons systems

« on: January 22, 2025, 07:37:21 PM »

I looked at the XAI concept in the link.  This is a small evolutionary improvement in the overall AI system.  The ‘Training Data’ and ‘New Machine Learning Process’ is still the basic process that you have today.  When new (and old) concepts are studied by humans a website is usually established, and this knowledge is written down and explained.  An AI computer can now access this knowledge via the internet and can copy and catalog this information in an index for future reference.
 
Currently when I use AI, I have a concept that I’m trying to implement but need some information so I can better design a device to execute my ideas.  When I ask AI the proper questions then it presents me with the data, I need to refine my ideas and allow me to better design a device with my specific parameters so it will work as desired.  Usually, I will have to study this information, make some calculations and/or software changes, and then try out these experimental ideas to see if my objectives are obtained.  Generally, I’ll be much nearer to my overall objective but will still need to ask AI some other questions to fix some minor discrepancies and then repeat the process over again.

The new XAI model may improve this process loop by using the data it has available while incorporating my specific objectives to then apply this data and simulate the changes to the design to see if it matches the desired outcome.  If not, then it could automatically try some refinements while telling the ‘User’ (me) that here’s another idea, is this a success, or not? 
Nothing wrong with this whole process, but the XAI system is still basically an automated ‘data miner’ and is using the knowledge that was generated by humans and then placed on the internet.

I have been retired for several years now but still am actively working on my own hobby projects just for fun.  If you want to see what AI can do for you just go out a purchase an Arduino Giga R1 computer board and then see if AI can program it for you.  Sure, you can get it to program the basic ‘Hello World’ program, but all that data is readily available on the internet in the Arduino site.  Give it a more difficult program to produce and see what happens.  Then you see where the current technology is. 

That’s not to say that eventually AI will be better than the average human and a factory won’t be occupied mostly by robot workers, but that’s a long way off.  I would say that AI would be similar to a baby on the day its born into this world.  The baby’s firmware is operational, and it knows how to breath and cry and how to feed off its mother, but little else.  There will be daily improvements as it observes and learns how to interact with the environment, but it will take some time before it could expect to succeed on its own if it left home.  A robot today doesn’t know how to explore for minerals needed for a microprocessor or a battery.  How to build a power plant to power all the mining machines.  How to transport, refine, design, build, ect, ect.  Someday that may happen, but when it does most of the knowledge required will have come from humans over the centuries. 

14

Technology & Information / Re: Autonomous weapons systems

« on: January 21, 2025, 05:18:55 PM »

And you are correct, Ronj. Your experience alone does not qualify you to be an expert in the field of AI capability.

Your answer is interesting.  With lots & lots of years of experience writing code & troubleshooting computer-controlled equipment I do have a pretty good idea of how AI works.  You are probably assuming that I don’t ever use AI myself, which is false.
 
Currently AI is little more than an automated way to quickly look up details about a particular subject you are interested in.  The AI program is constantly scanning the internet and has created a large database of all kinds of basic information on different subjects. 

When you ask a question, AI can quickly access its database and compile a synopsis of the desired information and present it as an answer to your question.  AI doesn’t, by itself, generate answers, it’s basically a parrot that’s squawking out what’s been recorded in its database that’s been previously generated by experts in their respective fields. I really like it because it saves me countless hours going thru books & manuals looking up details about a software or hardware issue that I'm having.  It may not immediately give me the exact answer I'm looking for, but it usually quickly narrows down the other places I may need to look for a specific answer to my question. 

Want to do a little AI experiment?  Ask it if the earth is flat.

15

Technology & Information / Re: Autonomous weapons systems

« on: January 20, 2025, 05:38:22 PM »

Looks like I'll have to stfu. 
My only evidence (experience) is writing my first code back in 1966 and then off/on until just last week.  Guess that doesn't qualify me, according to someone, to understand the latest issues regarding computer controlled autonomous weapons systems and what it would take for them to become dangerous to the average human walking down the street.     

16

Technology & Information / Re: Autonomous weapons systems

« on: January 20, 2025, 03:01:22 PM »

Computers can still only execute code that humans programmed them to do.  Even when computers can write their own code, who wrote the code that enables them to do that? Humans.   Computers are nowhere near thinking for themselves yet.  Their infrastructure is completely human enabled and until that changes robots will never be able to weaponize themselves and autonomously  go out and start killing humans.  I’m not saying that would not be possible sometime in the future, but we are nowhere even close to that happening yet.

17

Technology & Information / Re: Autonomous weapons systems

« on: January 19, 2025, 06:47:46 PM »

Currently, an autonomous weapons system can only execute computer code that was programmed and then extensively tested by humans.   So far there are no computers that have an independent consciousness that can take over an autonomous weapons system and start killing humans.  If a plant in Ohio starts building autonomous systems, it will only be capable of executing what the programmers tell it to do before it’s launched into the environment.  I wouldn’t be a bit afraid of becoming a stockholder of such a corporation if I thought it was a good financial opportunity and certainly wouldn't worry about the robots they produced coming around to kill me.

18

Technology & Information / Re: Autonomous weapons systems

« on: January 18, 2025, 10:21:10 PM »

There have been autonomous underwater drones in existence for quite a while.  The drones have to be told what the mission is before they are launched.  There is a communications limit to any underwater vessel and unless the robot has been programmed to surface and make some kind of satellite or other WiFi connection to a central control every operation is done autonomously.  An underwater drone could be weaponized but before it was launched the internal computer would have to be programmed with specific instructions to tell the drone what to do if it encounters the enemy.  The enemy would have to be very specifically defined so the drone could tell the difference between the enemy and friendly forces.   

19

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment

« on: January 01, 2025, 07:31:36 PM »

I also don't believe the majority of self-proclaimed FE'ers sincerely believe that the Earth is flat. Instead I believe that flat earth provides them with an avenue of expressing their contempt--disdain--skepticism with things like science, institutions, government agencies, or that which they might not fully understand.

Perhaps there was some initial contempt and/or disdain for science & government at the start for a few of the flat earthers but the ones who jumped all in it also became a career opportunity.  I think it’s a bit strange, but you must admire their entrepreneurial spirit. What’s even stranger is that the round earth community is indirectly helping them out.  Controversy is the needed thing to keep things going.  The ‘final experiment’ did fan those flames a bit and will ultimately help their cause.  Some of the more popular flat earth deniers probably are doing OK for themselves as well.  My hat is off to both sides in that aspect.  I did take a look at the 'Behind The Curve' movie and you can see that the flat earth stars seem to really enjoy their lifestyle.  They can be self-employed and discuss their side of the earth's shape and make a living doing so.  The more they can promote controversy the better things will be for them.  Both sides need their 'fan boys' for support and to keep websites, like this one active.  Both sides need each other to keep things going.  The 'Final Experiment' kind of reminds me of a bull fight.  The bull needs a matador, and the matador needs a bull.  Ole!

20

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment

« on: December 20, 2024, 04:10:25 PM »

It looks like at least one of the flat earthers has wised up after his trip to Antartica. 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/flat-earth-youtuber-admits-mistake-after-trip-to-antarctica/ar-AA1wdgmr?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=2f464ac6c6fe460fa2b66903f8cf103a&ei=10
Perhaps he can use this publicity to enhance his flat earth channel and stack up even more viewers. 

Now the flat earth community will have to concoct an even more comprehensive bendy light theory to explain what was seen and documented.  Maybe this site will have to bring back the dome.  That should be interesting.  I can see the next 'final experiment' where someone organizes a trip to space. Of course, that has already been done but there wasn't any real flat earth involvement.   Just look up the trip taken by Dude Perfect who now is an official astronaut.  Who should be nominated for such a trip?