AndyMan 7
Recommended Posts
Ron 10
QuoteRon & Lawndart's proposals for modifying the cypres to fit a wingsuit pilot are facile. It completely misses the point to focus on dead ends like that.
Its still better than you just claiming its not good.
The basic thing you overlook is how the number one failure point is the person, not the device.. And every thing you have griped about (and not provided a solution for) are things that could be fixed by the person bothering to read the manual.
QuoteIt is easier for a tutor to command than to teach.
It is easier to bitch about a proble, than do anything about it.
You also ignore the fact that every "improvement" brings improved dangers. I don't think you have bothered to accept that.
You say the VIGIL is great, but the multi mode function ADDED the chance of a fire due to being in the wrong mode.
You can say you want GPS, or something else to assist in helping...GREAT. But how are each of these going to ADD danger? Thats something I don't think you have considered, just bithced about the status quo.
And the fact is if more people bothered to read the manual that came with the AAD instead of just expect it to be a magic box that will save them...They would be MUCH safer than adding a potentially dangerous new toy.
Look up Hogarthian cave divers for more info.
The Hogarthian style assumes:
The best possible gear, maintained in perfect order.
A diver who is highly skilled, and physically fit.
A buddy who is similarly fit, skilled and equipped.
In addition to the above, Hogarthism follows these principles:
Gear should be a cohesive unit, and not a haphazard collection of parts.
Think about what you are doing with your gear, and ensure that you are not trying to solve problems that will not occur.
Make sure that, in solving a problem you do not create other problems.
Less is best. Less gear means less clutter, more streamlined, more comfort, therefore safer.
What is not needed should not be carried. REDUCE. REDUCE REDUCE.
Hogarthianism relies on simplicity and skill, rather than complexity and additional equipment.
Have nothing dangling. All accessories, hoses, etc. are tucked away.
It is common for new cave divers to add gear in a haphazard manner.
Clutter must inevitably compromise safety rather than enhance it.
With good technique, protective accessories SHOULD be unnecessary.
An essential part of the safety equation is diver skill.
While some do not apply (A buddy who is similarly fit, skilled and equipped) many do (With good technique, protective accessories SHOULD be unnecessary. An essential part of the safety equation is diver skill).
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
This conversation is really starting to go around in circles.
Thats where we disagree, I dont look at current AADs as dead ends. They serve a purpose, and do so quite well, very very well in fact as a whole.
You seemed to gloss over my other post, so I'll restate it, as it bears repeating.
If you think it is a distinct possibility that you will become "distracted" (your word, not mine), and pass through 750ft without having opened either your main or your reserve, you should seriously reconsider whether or not you should be jumping a wingsuit, rather than looking for someone to make an AAD that will allow you become distracted. A wingsuit jump is a complex jump, that said, you shouldnt be opening any lower than normal skydiver, hence if you were to have to cutaway, you would return to freefall, and reach the current activation speed for cypres fire. Your need to change it seems to indicate that one would still be in bird man flight passing through 750ft. If (base jumps excluded) you reach that point becuase you were "distracted", you shouldnt be jumping it in the first place.
I'm all for progress, remake a wheel, by all means. If you can make a better wheel, or think someone else can, go for it.
Its your mindset that I disagree with more than anything.
--
My other ride is a RESERVE.
QuoteRon & Lawndart's proposals for modifying the cypres to fit a wingsuit pilot are facile. It completely misses the point to focus on dead ends like that.
Thats where we disagree, I dont look at current AADs as dead ends. They serve a purpose, and do so quite well, very very well in fact as a whole.
You seemed to gloss over my other post, so I'll restate it, as it bears repeating.
If you think it is a distinct possibility that you will become "distracted" (your word, not mine), and pass through 750ft without having opened either your main or your reserve, you should seriously reconsider whether or not you should be jumping a wingsuit, rather than looking for someone to make an AAD that will allow you become distracted. A wingsuit jump is a complex jump, that said, you shouldnt be opening any lower than normal skydiver, hence if you were to have to cutaway, you would return to freefall, and reach the current activation speed for cypres fire. Your need to change it seems to indicate that one would still be in bird man flight passing through 750ft. If (base jumps excluded) you reach that point becuase you were "distracted", you shouldnt be jumping it in the first place.
I'm all for progress, remake a wheel, by all means. If you can make a better wheel, or think someone else can, go for it.
Its your mindset that I disagree with more than anything.
--
My other ride is a RESERVE.
Quote
The basic thing you overlook is how the number one failure point is the person, not the device.. And every thing you have griped about (and not provided a solution for) are things that could be fixed by the person bothering to read the manual.
Here is where we are not in phase. It is not mutually exclusive for everyone to read their manuals and follow all the instructions or for devices to be improved so that people don't have to read the manuals. It's not zero sum...it's a positive sum because the more of either that the operator and the manufacturer do, the more safety the user has. One of them, improved design, has the potential to be more reliable than the other, because it is human nature to be fallable.
The opposite, that machines cannot ever possibly exceed humans, is but arrogance.
There's an opportunity here for manufacturers to step up and give us operators an improved ability to control our safety. It's not their obligation or their responsibility, but that won't stop them. They'll do it because people like me will pay them for it.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
wmw999 2,544
And they'll do it faster if consumers will give them concrete ideas of what would help.QuoteThere's an opportunity here for manufacturers to step up and give us operators an improved ability to control our safety. It's not their obligation or their responsibility, but that won't stop them. They'll do it because people like me will pay them for it.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
Sweeet, so let's design the PERFECT AAD and do it soon...... That way we can start the thread about bitching about it costing $3,000 and get past this one!
billvon 3,075
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>It is not mutually exclusive for everyone to read their manuals and follow
> all the instructions or for devices to be improved so that people don't
>have to read the manuals.
Actually, it often is.
A great many manufacturers try to make their devices as simple to use as possible; "intuitive" "easy to use" are favorite buzzwords. But often, that is accomplished by abstracting the function of the device another level; in other words, putting more intelligence in the device to make up for a lack of skill on the part of the user.
Early A300 series designs were a case in point. The A300/320/340 was "idiot proof" - it did not allow the pilot to exceed certain limits in bank or pitch, "helped" the pilot make the right decisions etc. In other words, it was improved so "not reading the manual" was not as much of a big deal (although pilot training was not reduced.)
So you had this plane that _could_ be flown by someone with less training, but was flown by pilots with a lot of training. And there were serious incidents as a result. In one now-famous case, the pilot attempted to land the plane while the aircraft was trying to go around. The resulting "fight" for control stalled the aircraft at a low altitude, and the resulting crash killed most of the passengers.
Boeing takes a slightly different approach. Their human interface is easier for a _trained_ pilot to understand; they use yokes and throttles which are more complex mechanically and to operate, but are more familiar to pilots. There have been far fewer accidents in Boeing fly by wire aircraft that were attributable to a failure of the human/machine interface.
This argument has since been raging - is it better to have a more direct interface that's more responsive to the operator, but which requires more training and allows him to make mistakes? Or have a somewhat more abstracted interface that accounts for human fallibility, but which will sometimes operate in contradiction to the user's wishes? (which is required for idiot proofing.) There are proponents on both sides, but everyone understands the two philosophies are basically mutually exclusive.
> all the instructions or for devices to be improved so that people don't
>have to read the manuals.
Actually, it often is.
A great many manufacturers try to make their devices as simple to use as possible; "intuitive" "easy to use" are favorite buzzwords. But often, that is accomplished by abstracting the function of the device another level; in other words, putting more intelligence in the device to make up for a lack of skill on the part of the user.
Early A300 series designs were a case in point. The A300/320/340 was "idiot proof" - it did not allow the pilot to exceed certain limits in bank or pitch, "helped" the pilot make the right decisions etc. In other words, it was improved so "not reading the manual" was not as much of a big deal (although pilot training was not reduced.)
So you had this plane that _could_ be flown by someone with less training, but was flown by pilots with a lot of training. And there were serious incidents as a result. In one now-famous case, the pilot attempted to land the plane while the aircraft was trying to go around. The resulting "fight" for control stalled the aircraft at a low altitude, and the resulting crash killed most of the passengers.
Boeing takes a slightly different approach. Their human interface is easier for a _trained_ pilot to understand; they use yokes and throttles which are more complex mechanically and to operate, but are more familiar to pilots. There have been far fewer accidents in Boeing fly by wire aircraft that were attributable to a failure of the human/machine interface.
This argument has since been raging - is it better to have a more direct interface that's more responsive to the operator, but which requires more training and allows him to make mistakes? Or have a somewhat more abstracted interface that accounts for human fallibility, but which will sometimes operate in contradiction to the user's wishes? (which is required for idiot proofing.) There are proponents on both sides, but everyone understands the two philosophies are basically mutually exclusive.
Quote
So you had this plane that _could_ be flown by someone with less training, but was flown by pilots with a lot of training. And there were serious incidents as a result. In one now-famous case, the pilot attempted to land the plane while the aircraft was trying to go around. The resulting "fight" for control stalled the aircraft at a low altitude, and the resulting crash killed most of the passengers.
That is a well known example of an attempt at ergonomics that failed... There is more to ergonomics than the times that people have famously screwed it up. The screwups are apparent
Put another way, the application of ergonomics was incidental to the Formal cause of that incident, and failure of ergonomics was the efficient cause. We should not thus conclude against further applications of ergonomics. A further application of ergonomics could have prevented this incident.
There's debate about it in the same way there's "debate" around evolution...some people cannot refute the premise of ergonomics, but dislike it enough that they vainly assume it away.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
Quote
Hogarthianism relies on simplicity and skill, rather than complexity and additional equipment.
And the Cypres is a good example of this KISS philosophy.
Anyone besides Nate know why GPS or [insert fantasy] would improve upon the barometer, a simpler more reliable instrument?
Ron 10
QuoteAnd the Cypres is a good example of this KISS philosophy.
Yes, but the even more basic tenants is diver training.
I jump a CYPRES since it fits quite well into a skydivers version of Hogarthianism. Works pretty well, has a low misfire rate and as long as you pay attention and know the device it is a very low contributor to accidents.
Training and competance is still the #1 line of defense.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
Ron 10
QuoteHere is where we are not in phase. It is not mutually exclusive for everyone to read their manuals and follow all the instructions or for devices to be improved so that people don't have to read the manuals
Well here is where we are out of phase.
You said you wanted a device that would save you if you really screwed up. And by making that device you create a bunch of other potential accidents.
Case in point, the VIGIL and its mulit-modes...Great idea some think, but it has caused people to jump in the wrong mode and have an incident.
So is it really better?
You ignore the fact that most "new" things in skydiving provide new ways to have accidents. Your dream AAD for your forgetting to stop the wingsuit jump would maybe fire my AAD under canopy.
I am all about better toys. But you seem to want to invent a toy that allows others to be stupid, and ignore the fact that it may endanger others.
BillV's example was great. People thought a smart plane would save lives, but it took them.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
piisfish 140
I think Nathaniel should jump with no parachute... just an airbag. This airbag would be berfect, turn on by itself, save his life automatically and be fool/fail proof.
A big advantage would be that he has 3000ft more to turn points.
He wants an AAD so perfect that no-one would need to RTFM... They even give you 50pages manuals for an electric razor.
Nathaniel, do not put your cat in the microwave, and WARNING your McDonalds coffee might be hot.
A big advantage would be that he has 3000ft more to turn points.
He wants an AAD so perfect that no-one would need to RTFM... They even give you 50pages manuals for an electric razor.
Nathaniel, do not put your cat in the microwave, and WARNING your McDonalds coffee might be hot.
scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM
Quote
Nathaniel, do not put your cat in the microwave, and WARNING your McDonalds coffee might be hot.
Keep the insults flowing. Let it all hang out.
People do use airbags sometimes to break their falls. In movie stunts for instance. It's not absurd.
Whomever is thinking about landing a wingsuit is also probably also thinking about airbags.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
Quote
You ignore the fact that most "new" things in skydiving provide new ways to have accidents. Your dream AAD for your forgetting to stop the wingsuit jump would maybe fire my AAD under canopy.
You seem to like analogies Ron, so here's one.
All the alchemy in the middle ages does not disprove the theory & practice of chemistry and physics.
All the cypres misses, airbus crashes and vigil misfires we've seen do not disprove the theory & practice of ergonomic design.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
Ron 10
QuoteYou seem to like analogies Ron, so here's one
You seem to like to ignore history. Most new devices create new ways to die.
Hand deploys brought twisted belly bands and leg bands that killed people.
Mini Three Rings caused risers to break.
Stiletto's brought deaths.
The muti mode AAD brought misfires.
Almost every "new" thing brought "new" problems.
You want an AAD that will save you if you do something so stupid as forget to pull on a specialty jump. GREAT. But what cost are you willing to give for the ability for you to do something so stupid as to "cruise" a WS below 750 feet?
You are looking for a fix for a problem that should not happen. And by doing so wishing to bring more problems.
So I ask again....What are you willing to pay (both in cost and in additional danger) for the ability to have a device that will allow you to be stupid?
QuoteAll the cypres misses, airbus crashes and vigil misfires we've seen do not disprove the theory & practice of ergonomic design
True, so what are you willing to have a device that will let you do something stupid?
You are trying to fix a problem with gizmo's that training and reading the manual will fix.
You want better toys and dumber jumpers.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
goose491 0
QuoteKeep the insults flowing. Let it all hang out.
Those weren't insults Nate, they were just sarcastic remarks. You'll have to show a better sense of humour in here if your going to make it with Frenchy! lol
QuotePeople do use airbags sometimes to break their falls. In movie stunts for instance. It's not absurd.
I do think it's absurd at about 120mph though.
QuoteWhomever is thinking about landing a wingsuit is also probably also thinking about airbags.
Hi name is Jeb (the guy who had claimed he would do it) He still says he will, but the technologies involved are costing much more than anticipated.
Think bubbles. Think water and bubbles
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
Quote
You want better toys and dumber jumpers.
Close. I want better toys and dumber jumpers not to die on account of their being dumb. Like you always gripe about, some people don't learn well. Teaching them more is one approach, and accounting for their likely mistakes is another. Neither should be pursued to the exclusion of the other, and neither will ever result in perfection, even though perfection is our goal. There's no reason to categorically reject either approach.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
Quote
they were just sarcastic remarks.
Sorry then, I just had a big cup of coffee
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
goose491 0
QuoteQuote
You ignore the fact that most "new" things in skydiving provide new ways to have accidents. Your dream AAD for your forgetting to stop the wingsuit jump would maybe fire my AAD under canopy.
You seem to like analogies Ron, so here's one.
All the alchemy in the middle ages does not disprove the theory & practice of chemistry and physics.QuoteAll the cypres misses, airbus crashes and vigil misfires we've seen do not disprove the theory & practice of ergonomic design.
Nate you're really hung up on this ergonomic design of the AAD. What I find strange is that your suggested "improvement" is no more then adding new functionality to the device. The only way for that new functionality to become reality is at additional risk to another group of divers. This is not an improvement in ergonomic design.
If you allow for the user to select modes on their AAD (such as in the Vigil), you open up the chance of placing it in the wrong mode. This is actually a step backwards in the present ergonomic design of ON or OFF with the 4-press process to protect against inadvertantly turning it on or off.
My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!
Quote
Nate you're really hung up on this ergonomic design of the AAD. What I find strange is that your suggested "improvement" is no more then adding new functionality to the device. The only way for that new functionality to become reality is at additional risk to another group of divers. This is not an improvement in ergonomic design.
If you allow for the user to select modes on their AAD (such as in the Vigil), you open up the chance of placing it in the wrong mode. This is actually a step backwards in the present ergonomic design of ON or OFF with the 4-press process to protect against inadvertantly turning it on or off.
I think I'm not being clear then. I'm not trying to endorse any particular change to the device, quite the opposite. I agree with all of you that there's more bad designs than good ones, and finding the good ones takes time, money, and effort, and is itself an error-prone process.
There are deficiencies in people that changes the device could possibly fix. That's all. What changes? I'm not sure exactly, if it was obvious someone would have chimed in by now. Non-obvious is different from impossible.
To assert contrariwise requires that the cypres cannot be exceeded. This is hubris, extremely unlikely, but not yet disproven.
Or that the cypres can be exceeded, but the value is so marginal and the cost is so great that nobody should be allowed to do it. This is also unlikely, but not yet disproven.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
QuoteAll the cypres misses
You continue to make it sound like cypres misfires are a high frequency event, and they simply are not. When certain conditions are met (speed vs alt) and the units are turned on correctly, they really have a very very high sucess rate. You keep speaking of the current design as though people are having errant cypres failures on a regular basis, which they are not.
QuoteI want better toys and dumber jumpers not to die on account of their being dumb.
I don't want to see anyone injured or killed. That said, there comes a point where a line MUST be drawn. Its called "The Bowling Talk". If a person exhibits certain mental deficiencies that preclude they will inevitably make a big hole inthe ground, they are asked to find another hobby. That is a good thing in my opinion. Someone dumb enough to become distracted in freefall on a wingsuit jump and cruise through 750ft should not be skydiving, period.
You want to create a device that will prevent the really dumb from getting killed when they do something really dumb. Right?
I say there is a better solution. Prevent the really dumb from doing really dumb things that might get them killed. Skydiving is not a right, its a priviledge, and a hard earned one at that.
Some people despite the best training and most patient of instructors simply lack the ability to skydive safely. The best solution for those people is simply not to skydive. You want to make better devices so these people can stay in the sport. I couldn't disagree with you more.
--
My other ride is a RESERVE.
AndyMan 7
The number of times I've had to teach newbies how to simply turn off a Cypres, never mind the dificulty of doing so - shows me clearly that there is room for improvement in one specific area - turning it off.
The fact that Airtec recently released a "swoop" Cypres shows that there had been room for improvement in that specific area, too.
The fact that Airtec recently released version 2, which was different than version 1 shows that Airtec beleived there was room for improvement.
No device is perfect.
I see a bunch of people arguing that the Cypres is perfect. Quite frankly, that's absurd.
_Am
The fact that Airtec recently released a "swoop" Cypres shows that there had been room for improvement in that specific area, too.
The fact that Airtec recently released version 2, which was different than version 1 shows that Airtec beleived there was room for improvement.
No device is perfect.
I see a bunch of people arguing that the Cypres is perfect. Quite frankly, that's absurd.
_Am
__
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
billvon 3,075
>There is more to ergonomics than the times that people have
>famously screwed it up.
Of course. But ergonomics isn't really what we're talking about here; we're talking about the human-machine interface. Ergonomics is one small part of that. Indeed, the ergonomic part of HMI studies is generally referred to as haptics rather than 'true' ergonomics, which is primarily mechanical design that makes you more comfortable/productive when performing manual tasks.
The HMI has to be designed to a target audience. I am no good at Labview, which is a programming language that lets you 'draw' things on a screen; you end up with a graphical representation of a program. I am, however, pretty good at C programming, which uses a much simpler but much more powerful HMI. You can't really have both, which is why there are two distinctly different interfaces in use today - Windows-like interfaces and command-line interfaces. Most heavy computer users (programmers and the like) use command line interfaces because they are more powerful, even though they take more time to learn.
That's just another example of the tradeoffs involved. The issues here are abstraction and overriding intelligence.
Consider abstraction first. If I wanted to, I could write code in straight binary at the object code level. That would give me the maxiumum control over what's going on (and indeed I sometimes do that for problem bits of code.) But that takes a long time, so generally I go two levels up in abstraction - a compiler that takes slightly more abstract statements (like printf) and turns them into that object code. Now, I could go another level up (and use something like visual BASIC) or even another step up (like a prepackaged program) to do similar tasks. But for me such things _reduce_ my productivity, although they might well improve a non-programmer's productivity.
Another issue is overriding intelligence. In my coding example, I could use a compiler that didn't let me do anything dangerous - no writes to the program counter, stack pointer or status register, because those locations are ordinarily not written to and can really hose up the processor. But again, that would reduce my productivity, even though it might help someone else who might accidentally clobber those things without some intelligence or rule that stopped it.
So you have to choose your target audience carefully, and design your HMI accordingly. An AAD that turns itself on and off automatically is NOT going to be as easy to use for an experienced demo jumper who often takes off and lands in different locations. He'll have to not only tell it what elevation he's going to land at, he will have to tell it to NOT figure that out for him. However, it might well be a boon to someone who can't remember to turn his AAD on. Likewise, an AAD that has a display that lets you set activation altitudes, speeds etc might be great for an experienced jumper, but you would see more deaths from inexperienced jumpers who read about that AAD on DZ.com and tried to change parameters they didn't understand. Indeed, one of the reasons the CYPRES has been so successful is that it's hard to mess with.
So to sum up, adding more (automation/displays/controls/intelligence) to any given product may well make things better for group A but make things worse for group B. Or vice versa. But it is rare that such a change will do both.
>famously screwed it up.
Of course. But ergonomics isn't really what we're talking about here; we're talking about the human-machine interface. Ergonomics is one small part of that. Indeed, the ergonomic part of HMI studies is generally referred to as haptics rather than 'true' ergonomics, which is primarily mechanical design that makes you more comfortable/productive when performing manual tasks.
The HMI has to be designed to a target audience. I am no good at Labview, which is a programming language that lets you 'draw' things on a screen; you end up with a graphical representation of a program. I am, however, pretty good at C programming, which uses a much simpler but much more powerful HMI. You can't really have both, which is why there are two distinctly different interfaces in use today - Windows-like interfaces and command-line interfaces. Most heavy computer users (programmers and the like) use command line interfaces because they are more powerful, even though they take more time to learn.
That's just another example of the tradeoffs involved. The issues here are abstraction and overriding intelligence.
Consider abstraction first. If I wanted to, I could write code in straight binary at the object code level. That would give me the maxiumum control over what's going on (and indeed I sometimes do that for problem bits of code.) But that takes a long time, so generally I go two levels up in abstraction - a compiler that takes slightly more abstract statements (like printf) and turns them into that object code. Now, I could go another level up (and use something like visual BASIC) or even another step up (like a prepackaged program) to do similar tasks. But for me such things _reduce_ my productivity, although they might well improve a non-programmer's productivity.
Another issue is overriding intelligence. In my coding example, I could use a compiler that didn't let me do anything dangerous - no writes to the program counter, stack pointer or status register, because those locations are ordinarily not written to and can really hose up the processor. But again, that would reduce my productivity, even though it might help someone else who might accidentally clobber those things without some intelligence or rule that stopped it.
So you have to choose your target audience carefully, and design your HMI accordingly. An AAD that turns itself on and off automatically is NOT going to be as easy to use for an experienced demo jumper who often takes off and lands in different locations. He'll have to not only tell it what elevation he's going to land at, he will have to tell it to NOT figure that out for him. However, it might well be a boon to someone who can't remember to turn his AAD on. Likewise, an AAD that has a display that lets you set activation altitudes, speeds etc might be great for an experienced jumper, but you would see more deaths from inexperienced jumpers who read about that AAD on DZ.com and tried to change parameters they didn't understand. Indeed, one of the reasons the CYPRES has been so successful is that it's hard to mess with.
So to sum up, adding more (automation/displays/controls/intelligence) to any given product may well make things better for group A but make things worse for group B. Or vice versa. But it is rare that such a change will do both.
Quote
Consider abstraction first. If I wanted to, I could write code in straight binary at the object code level.
That's a particularly troublesome analogy, due to Alan Turning's research on non-provability. There is no analogue for the unsolvability of the general problem of opening a parachute.
Quote
So to sum up, adding more (automation/displays/controls/intelligence) to any given product may well make things better for group A but make things worse for group B. Or vice versa. But it is rare that such a change will do both.
An error creeps in here due to (false) category. The distinction between groups A and B is in the hands of the designer, and need not hold any meaning at all. Even assuming that there is a group A and a group B, a sufficient
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
This part is easy. BillBooth concedes that Aerodyne Miniforce rings are better than his.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1636917;#1636917
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites