OT: I am sooo confident in their ability now...

In article <[email protected]>, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>With your analytical ability, you have every right to lack confidence.
>
>Games of "what if" and "stump the chump" are valuable learning tools, though
>most of the learning is in what _not_ to do.

Those are often the most valuable lessons. And the hardest.

>
>"Noons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "David Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> > "Noons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> > > http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/30/1064819900964.html
>> >
>> > Yeah, I suppose simulators for pilots are a joke too, huh. And those
>> > training excercises (games) where the police have to decide whether to
>> > shoot pop-up targets should be abandoned. How about war games or "top
>> > gun" training (game playing).
>> >
>>
>>
>> I'm even less confident now...
>>
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Nuno Souto
>> [email protected]
>>
>>
>
>

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

"David Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Noons" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/30/1064819900964.html
>
> Yeah, I suppose simulators for pilots are a joke too, huh. And those
> training excercises (games) where the police have to decide whether to
> shoot pop-up targets should be abandoned. How about war games or "top
> gun" training (game playing).
>


I'm even less confident now...

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
[email protected]

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:q%[email protected]...

> Some time in the late 80s or early 90s, Scientific American had a fascinating
> article about aircraft simulators, and how advancements in computer technology
> had already greatly improved their quality. One thing really struck me: a
> military flight trainer was quoted saying that pilots who survive their first
> five combat missions have a better than 95% probability of surviving *all*
> subsequent missions, regardless of the number -- and that the simulators
> available *then* (ten+ years ago) could give training equivalent to (IIRC)
> seven or eight combat missions.


That is indeed quite correct. I remember that same issue.
However, I fail to see how the parallel can be established
with training spooks with simulators to detect terrorists.
When all the relevant intelligence about those same terrorists
for that simulation comes from "untrained" spooks who failed
to detect them.
Kinda Catch-22 if you get my meaning...


--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
[email protected]

"Noons" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/30/1064819900964.html

Yeah, I suppose simulators for pilots are a joke too, huh. And those
training excercises (games) where the police have to decide whether to
shoot pop-up targets should be abandoned. How about war games or "top
gun" training (game playing).

dave

With your analytical ability, you have every right to lack confidence.

Games of "what if" and "stump the chump" are valuable learning tools, though
most of the learning is in what _not_ to do.

"Noons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "David Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > "Noons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > > http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/30/1064819900964.html
> >
> > Yeah, I suppose simulators for pilots are a joke too, huh. And those
> > training excercises (games) where the police have to decide whether to
> > shoot pop-up targets should be abandoned. How about war games or "top
> > gun" training (game playing).
> >
>
>
> I'm even less confident now...
>
> --
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> [email protected]
>
>

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:29:08 +1000, "Noons" <[email protected]>
pixelated:

>http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/30/1064819900964.html

We's in a heapa trouble, boy.

If anything, the game should prove, beyond a shadow of a
doubt, that there IS no way to actually prevent terrorism.
We should get on with life in America and tell folks we'll
"smite thee heavily" should they ever f*ck with us.

Then we can get on with paying for the drug wars, the war
wars, the congressional retirement fund, and a few little
trillion dollar deficits.

In article <%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >With your analytical ability, you have every right to lack confidence.
> >
> >Games of "what if" and "stump the chump" are valuable learning tools, though
> >most of the learning is in what _not_ to do.
>
> Those are often the most valuable lessons. And the hardest.

... and it is much better to make those mistakes on a simulator. That
way you get to play another day, make the mistake in real life and you
may no longer have the opportunity to use any of the lessons you've
learned -- dead people don't get to play again.


>
> >
> >"Noons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> "David Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> > "Noons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:<[email protected]>...
> >> > > http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/30/1064819900964.html
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, I suppose simulators for pilots are a joke too, huh. And those
> >> > training excercises (games) where the police have to decide whether to
> >> > shoot pop-up targets should be abandoned. How about war games or "top
> >> > gun" training (game playing).
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm even less confident now...
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cheers
> >> Nuno Souto
> >> [email protected]
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>

In article <[email protected]>, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <%[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "George"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >With your analytical ability, you have every right to lack confidence.
>> >
>> >Games of "what if" and "stump the chump" are valuable learning tools, though
>> >most of the learning is in what _not_ to do.
>>
>> Those are often the most valuable lessons. And the hardest.
>
>.... and it is much better to make those mistakes on a simulator. That
>way you get to play another day, make the mistake in real life and you
>may no longer have the opportunity to use any of the lessons you've
>learned -- dead people don't get to play again.
>
Some time in the late 80s or early 90s, Scientific American had a fascinating
article about aircraft simulators, and how advancements in computer technology
had already greatly improved their quality. One thing really struck me: a
military flight trainer was quoted saying that pilots who survive their first
five combat missions have a better than 95% probability of surviving *all*
subsequent missions, regardless of the number -- and that the simulators
available *then* (ten+ years ago) could give training equivalent to (IIRC)
seven or eight combat missions.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)