Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:803d4498-0f05-43aa-a881-dd7eda51ba32@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Jun 21, 10:47 am, Michael Ash <m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> In rec.aviation.student Nomen Nescio <nob...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> > From: Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>> Very nice, and applies well to software too. Of course it's not true
>> that software has 0 marginal cost. There are sup****t costs, which can
>> be significant.
>
> I said material cost, not marginal cost.
>
>> But let's say that software really does have zero marginal cost.
>> Well, this is extremely *bad* news for the use of software in GA, not
>> good news as has been presented.
>>
>> Why? Because software costs a *lot* of money to make. And with zero
>> marginal cost, the price is effectively the development cost divided
>> by the size of the audience.
>>
>> GA is a pretty damn small audience. Why do you think you can buy a
>> perfectly capable car GPS, with a database full of every road in the
>> country, for under $200 but you'll spend ten times that much on
>> something that's significantly less capable for your airplane?
>> Certification and liability come into it, of course, but even
>> ignoring those you would spen
> d
>> what seems to be an unreasonable amount of money. This is just
>> because th
> e
>> development costs are fixed but the audience is microscopic.
>>
>> To keep costs down, you want something with low development costs,
>> even i
> f
>> the material cost is significant. This mean proven designs, simple
>> mechanical linkages, etc. And guess what, that's what we have.
>> Software isn't going to save you any money unless you either find a
>> way to make multipurpose software that the public can also use,
>> increase the GA pilot population by an order of magnitude, or create
>> a magical software-making machine that can cut your development costs
>> by an order of magnitude.
>
> It is my belief that a software-controlled PAV, with the features
> outlined by NASA/CAFE/PAV would allow an
>
> increase the GA population by an order of magnitude (at least)
>
> because the machine would be easier to fly, etc.
>
> This is what the FAA, NASA, CAFE, DARPA, and aero/astro departments
> all over the United States and elsewhere would like to see, not just
> me. :)
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
Are you really that much of a moron to believe that the software will
never fail and that only pilot experience, gained from actually flying an
airplane, not sitting back and monitoring the software fly the airplane,
have a chance of saving the day?
You are a total asshole.
Go read about some of the software failures where the development cost of
the software alone was more that the total gross sales of Cessna or Cirrus
in any year. Tell us about the Malaysian 777 or the British Airways 777.
How about the Airbus software failures. Or the software failure in the
F22 Raptor when it first crossed the international date line!
You just have your head up your ass. Moron.
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
|
