From Newsgroup: aus.cars

On 1/8/2026 6:03 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 1/08/2026 6:01 pm, Daryl wrote:

On 1/8/2026 5:48 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 1/08/2026 11:56 am, Rod Speed wrote:

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote

Trevor Wilson wrote

Noddy wrote

Trevor Wilson wrote

Not One Nation.
Not the idiocy of Donald Trump.
Not the Saudis, Iranians with nukes.
Even global warming has taken a back seat in the past few weeks.

This is what keeps me awake at night:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2el319vzr3o

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/30/anthropic-ai- >>>>>>>> claude-hack

This is deadly serious. And extremely concerning.

Terminator anyone?

ROFTL :)

Seriously, Trev. Of all the things in this generally fucked up
world that could be keeping you awake at night, it's this? :)

Yep. Here's the thing/s:
We are VERY early in the development of AI. Already we've seen
several reports of AI software hacking it's way into other
systems, despite the safeguards that were put in place. AI will
only become more powerful.

Which is no reason to fear it in and of itself...

Correct

The AI that has broken out of containment was operated by regular >>>>>> corporations. What can AI do in the hands of Putin or Xi?

I don't know Trevor. What can it do?

Think your bank accounts are safe? Think again.

I think my bank accounts are perfectly safe.

I know mine are

**Which bank do you bank with, that does not have interconnected
computers?

Thing is banks guarantee the safety of your money, if money disappears
from your account due to fraud the bank will return the money or at
least that has whats happened to me on 2 occasions.

**A massive AI attack, if successful, could bring the banking system
down for who knows how long?

If that happened it would more than likely be the fault of the banks for having poor security, a few years ago my son did some IT contract work
for one of the major banks and he told me that their security was very weak. Same with telecommunications companies, it was reported that the recent Telstra failure could have been prevented if they had spent $30k
updating a piece of hardware but they were too tight to spend the money.
AI could be potentially dangerous but its also an easy scapegoat when something preventable goes wrong.
--
Daryl
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Axel <none@not.here> wrote
Clocky wrote

Axel wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

Noddy wrote

Trevor Wilson wrote

Noddy wrote

Trevor Wilson wrote

Not One Nation.
Not the idiocy of Donald Trump.
Not the Saudis, Iranians with nukes.
Even global warming has taken a back seat in the past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few weeks.

This is what keeps me awake at night:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2el319vzr3o

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/30/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anthropic- ai- claude-hack

This is deadly serious. And extremely concerning.

Terminator anyone?

ROFTL :)

Seriously, Trev. Of all the things in this generally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucked up world that could be keeping you awake at night, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's this? :)

Yep. Here's the thing/s:

We are VERY early in the development of AI. Already we've >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seen several reports of AI software hacking it's way into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other systems, despite the safeguards that were put in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place. AI will only become more powerful.

Which is no reason to fear it in and of itself...

Make no mistake: The benefits of AI will be far-reaching and >>>>>>>>>>>>> significant. The downsides could lead to complete chaos.

Fools ran the same stupid line about computers, it didn't >>>>>>>>>>>> happen

computer failures do cause problems. think airlines, banking, >>>>>>>>>>> or any system computer controlled

The AI that has broken out of containment was operated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regular corporations. What can AI do in the hands of Putin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or Xi?

I don't know Trevor. What can it do?

No (connected) computer system on the planet will be safe. >>>>>>>>

Mindless bullshit, it is perfectly possible to make them AI >>>>>>>>>>>> immune

is it?

Think your bank accounts are safe? Think again.

I think my bank accounts are perfectly safe.

they haven't been safe from scammers

You clearly don't think.

You don't have a fucking clue

Think that the plane you next fly on is safe? Think again. >>>>>>>>

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aircraft built yet that can't be manually controlled. I'd >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be far more worried about some nutbag pilot killing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cabin crew and deliberately crashing the plane, which we >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

It's not the planes that are an issue. It's all the stuff on >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ground. Stuff like: Air traffic control systems, >>>>>>>>>>>>> ticketing systems, etc.

The most any AI can do is make them stop working and
while that is undesirable, its just a damned nuisance

but what if AI was able to take control of those systems?

If old speedo wasn't asleep at the wheel he would have noticed >>>>>>>>>> how vulnerable we really are when systems go down completely as >>>>>>>>>> we are totally reliant on connected technology now - and as it >>>>>>>>>> turns out they fall over far to easily.

yes.

But they are in fact no more than a damned nuisance
not the end of civilisation as we know it as that fool
Trev keeps mindless hyperventilating about

There is no possibility of rouge AI say firing all the world's >>>>>>>> nukes at once and even that wouldn't be the end of civilisation >>>>>>>> as we know it, just rather bad hair day for us and a few in
Alice Springs

plus the fact that so many companies and organizations have poor >>>>>>>>> security on their computer systems. the hacker who got access to >>>>>>>>> Origin Energy customers stated that it's system security was no >>>>>>>>> better than that of a teenagers school project.

And that event didn't produce anything bad for their customers >>>>>>>> and neither did the previous Optus breach

A couple of people had a terminally bad day due to the Optus
fuckup.

Nothing even remotely like what could happen if
some rouge AI fired all nukes at the same time

And those who died as a result of the Optus faiilure would have >>>>>> died anyway

Really, you know that?

Yep, we know who ended up dead

What were the cases,

https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_258840f8-72f8-45da-857c-5ec9ee12d8f0

and why did the outage not cause their demise?

Because even if ambos had shown up as a result of the 000 call,
they would have died anyway

You have proof for that claim?

Yep, that's what the investigation proved
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote

Trevor Wilson wrote

Daryl wrote

Trevor Wilson wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote

Trevor Wilson wrote

Noddy wrote

Trevor Wilson wrote

Not One Nation.
Not the idiocy of Donald Trump.
Not the Saudis, Iranians with nukes.
Even global warming has taken a back seat in the past few weeks. >>>>>
This is what keeps me awake at night:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2el319vzr3o

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/30/anthropic-ai- >>>>>>>>> claude-hack

This is deadly serious. And extremely concerning.

Terminator anyone?

ROFTL :)

Seriously, Trev. Of all the things in this generally fucked up >>>>>>>> world that could be keeping you awake at night, it's this? :)

Yep. Here's the thing/s:
We are VERY early in the development of AI. Already we've seen >>>>>>> several reports of AI software hacking it's way into other
systems, despite the safeguards that were put in place. AI will >>>>>>> only become more powerful.

Which is no reason to fear it in and of itself...

Correct

The AI that has broken out of containment was operated by regular >>>>>>> corporations. What can AI do in the hands of Putin or Xi?

I don't know Trevor. What can it do?

Think your bank accounts are safe? Think again.

I think my bank accounts are perfectly safe.

I know mine are

**Which bank do you bank with, that does not have interconnected
computers?

Thing is banks guarantee the safety of your money, if money disappears >>> from your account due to fraud the bank will return the money or at
least that has whats happened to me on 2 occasions.

A massive AI attack, if successful, could bring the banking system down
for who knows how long?

If that happened it would more than likely be the fault of the banks for having poor security, a few years ago my son did some IT contract work
for one of the major banks and he told me that their security was very weak.

Yeah, when BankWest was still in WA, before it was bought
by ComBank during the GFC, the stupid bastards rang me
to try and flog me something and demaned my username
and password to prove they were talking to me and not just
someone who happened to answer the phone. Even the
fucking manager who I reported that terminal stupidity
couldn't see the problem with that

Same with telecommunications companies, it was reported that therecent Telstra failure could have been prevented if they had spent $30k
updating a piece of hardware but they were too tight to spend the money.

AI could be potentially dangerous

Not convinced with the ones that Trev hyperventilated about

but its also an easy scapegoat when something preventable goes wrong.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

On 2/08/2026 7:36 am, Rod Speed wrote:

Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Axel <none@not.here> wrote
Clocky wrote

Axel wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

Noddy wrote

Trevor Wilson wrote

Noddy wrote

Trevor Wilson wrote

Not One Nation.
Not the idiocy of Donald Trump.
Not the Saudis, Iranians with nukes.
Even global warming has taken a back seat in the past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few weeks.

This is what keeps me awake at night:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2el319vzr3o

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/30/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anthropic- ai- claude-hack

This is deadly serious. And extremely concerning.

Terminator anyone?

ROFTL :)

Seriously, Trev. Of all the things in this generally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucked up world that could be keeping you awake at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> night, it's this? :)

Yep. Here's the thing/s:

We are VERY early in the development of AI. Already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we've seen several reports of AI software hacking it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way into other systems, despite the safeguards that were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put in place. AI will only become more powerful.

-aWhich is no reason to fear it in and of itself...

Make no mistake: The benefits of AI will be far-reaching >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and significant. The downsides could lead to complete chaos. >>>>>>>>>

Fools ran the same stupid line about computers, it didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>> happen

computer failures do cause problems. think airlines,
banking, or any system computer controlled

The AI that has broken out of containment was operated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by regular corporations. What can AI do in the hands of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Putin or Xi?

-aI don't know Trevor. What can it do?

No (connected) computer system on the planet will be safe. >>>>>>>>>

Mindless bullshit, it is perfectly possible to make them AI >>>>>>>>>>>>> immune

is it?

Think your bank accounts are safe? Think again.

I think my bank accounts are perfectly safe.

they haven't been safe from scammers

You clearly don't think.

You don't have a fucking clue

Think that the plane you next fly on is safe? Think again. >>>>>>>>>

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aircraft built yet that can't be manually controlled. I'd >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be far more worried about some nutbag pilot killing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cabin crew and deliberately crashing the plane, which we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

It's not the planes that are an issue. It's all the stuff >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the ground. Stuff like: Air traffic control systems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticketing systems, etc.

The most any AI can do is make them stop working and >>>>>>>>>>>>> while that is undesirable, its just a damned nuisance

but what if AI was able to take control of those systems? >>>>>>>>>

If old speedo wasn't asleep at the wheel he would have
noticed how vulnerable we really are when systems go down >>>>>>>>>>> completely as we are totally reliant on connected technology >>>>>>>>>>> now - and as it turns out they fall over far to easily.

yes.

-aBut they are in fact no more than a damned nuisance
not the end of civilisation as we know it as that fool
Trev keeps mindless hyperventilating about

There is no possibility of rouge AI say firing all the world's >>>>>>>>> nukes at once and even that wouldn't be the end of civilisation >>>>>>>>> as we know it, just rather bad hair day for us and a few in
Alice Springs

plus the fact that so many companies and organizations have >>>>>>>>>> poor security on their computer systems. the hacker who got >>>>>>>>>> access to Origin Energy customers stated that it's system >>>>>>>>>> security was no better than that of a teenagers school project. >>>>>>>

-aAnd that event didn't produce anything bad for their customers >>>>>>>>> and neither did the previous Optus breach

A couple of people had a terminally bad day due to the Optus
fuckup.

-aNothing even remotely like what could happen if
some rouge AI fired all nukes at the same time

-aAnd those who died as a result of the Optus faiilure would have >>>>>>> died anyway

Really, you know that?

-aYep, we know who ended up dead

What were the cases,

-ahttps://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_258840f8-72f8-45da-857c-5ec9ee12d8f0

and why did the outage not cause their demise?

-aBecause even if ambos had shown up as a result of the 000 call,
they would have died anyway

You have proof for that claim?

Yep, that's what the investigation proved

And the proof of your claim is where?
--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

On 1/08/2026 8:59 pm, alvey wrote:

Axel wrote:

Rod Speed wrote:

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

There is no such ATC and even if there was eventually,
even then there are other systems like TCAS that
prevent a rouge AI telling aircraft to run into each other

you should use a spell checker. rouge is what women use on their faces

A spell checker is well downn the list of what Retcho needs. At the top would be a Lie Detector.

OK, cite some lies that I am supposed to have posted, or be called a
liar yourself.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars



On 1/8/2026 10:06 pm, Noddy wrote:

On 1/08/2026 6:12 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 1/08/2026 4:22 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

Think your bank accounts are safe? Think again.

There are ways of making data completely secure, unfortunately,
AFAIK, nobody does it.

**Noddy thinks his is perfectly secure.

Actually Trevor, what *I* think is that you should see someone about
your "off the scale" Paranoia.

Paranoia Darren? Trevor still responds to you.

But you are too paranoid to respond directly to me. Paranoid in the extreme.
--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars



On 1/8/2026 9:59 pm, Noddy wrote:

On 1/08/2026 9:42 am, lindsay wrote:

On 1/08/2026 9:05 am, Noddy wrote:

On 1/08/2026 8:18 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:

Think that the plane you next fly on is safe? Think again.

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft built
yet that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried about
some nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing
the plane, which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SBEHEIVD43o

Sorry. Couldnt help myself. :-D

ROTFL :)

There have been aircraft built that do not have manual controls, many of
them. Most aircraft controls are electric over hydraulic - so two levels minimum of isolation from the pilot's hands and feet.
--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars



On 2/8/2026 2:43 am, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft built >>>>> yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried about some >>>>> nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing the
plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners and
advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and
Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control linkages.
There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the pilot's
controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about
leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control surfaces of
one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they arenrCOt
simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

-aSo, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They are
also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into several
instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel would be kicked
off and the panel would light up like a Christmas tree. There are
also a number of degraded modes available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly fly
by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His Ranger is fly
by wire

Doesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have direct
*manual* control of the aircraft.
--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Axel <none@not.here> wrote
Clocky wrote

Axel wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

Noddy wrote

Trevor Wilson wrote

Noddy wrote

Trevor Wilson wrote

Not One Nation.
Not the idiocy of Donald Trump.
Not the Saudis, Iranians with nukes.
Even global warming has taken a back seat in the past >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few weeks.

This is what keeps me awake at night:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2el319vzr3o

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/30/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anthropic- ai- claude-hack

This is deadly serious. And extremely concerning. >>>>>>>>>>
Terminator anyone?

ROFTL :)

Seriously, Trev. Of all the things in this generally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucked up world that could be keeping you awake at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> night, it's this? :)

Yep. Here's the thing/s:

We are VERY early in the development of AI. Already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we've seen several reports of AI software hacking it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way into other systems, despite the safeguards that were >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> put in place. AI will only become more powerful.

Which is no reason to fear it in and of itself...

Make no mistake: The benefits of AI will be far-reaching >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and significant. The downsides could lead to complete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chaos.

Fools ran the same stupid line about computers, it didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen

computer failures do cause problems. think airlines, >>>>>>>>>>>>> banking, or any system computer controlled

The AI that has broken out of containment was operated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by regular corporations. What can AI do in the hands of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Putin or Xi?

I don't know Trevor. What can it do?

No (connected) computer system on the planet will be safe. >>>>>>>>>>

Mindless bullshit, it is perfectly possible to make them AI >>>>>>>>>>>>>> immune

is it?

Think your bank accounts are safe? Think again.

I think my bank accounts are perfectly safe.

they haven't been safe from scammers

You clearly don't think.

You don't have a fucking clue

Think that the plane you next fly on is safe? Think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again.

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aircraft built yet that can't be manually controlled. I'd >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be far more worried about some nutbag pilot killing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cabin crew and deliberately crashing the plane, which we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

It's not the planes that are an issue. It's all the stuff >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the ground. Stuff like: Air traffic control systems, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ticketing systems, etc.

The most any AI can do is make them stop working and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> while that is undesirable, its just a damned nuisance

but what if AI was able to take control of those systems? >>>>>>>>>>

If old speedo wasn't asleep at the wheel he would have >>>>>>>>>>>> noticed how vulnerable we really are when systems go down >>>>>>>>>>>> completely as we are totally reliant on connected technology >>>>>>>>>>>> now - and as it turns out they fall over far to easily.

yes.

But they are in fact no more than a damned nuisance
not the end of civilisation as we know it as that fool
Trev keeps mindless hyperventilating about

There is no possibility of rouge AI say firing all the world's >>>>>>>>>> nukes at once and even that wouldn't be the end of civilisation >>>>>>>>>> as we know it, just rather bad hair day for us and a few in >>>>>>>>>> Alice Springs

plus the fact that so many companies and organizations have >>>>>>>>>>> poor security on their computer systems. the hacker who got >>>>>>>>>>> access to Origin Energy customers stated that it's system >>>>>>>>>>> security was no better than that of a teenagers school project. >>>>>>>>

And that event didn't produce anything bad for their customers >>>>>>>>>> and neither did the previous Optus breach

A couple of people had a terminally bad day due to the Optus >>>>>>>>> fuckup.

Nothing even remotely like what could happen if
some rouge AI fired all nukes at the same time

And those who died as a result of the Optus faiilure would have >>>>>>>> died anyway

Really, you know that?

Yep, we know who ended up dead

What were the cases,

https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_258840f8-72f8-45da-857c-5ec9ee12d8f0

and why did the outage not cause their demise?

Because even if ambos had shown up as a result of the 000 call,
they would have died anyway

You have proof for that claim?

Yep, that's what the investigation proved

And the proof of your claim is where?

The official investigation, as I told you
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft built >>>>>> yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried about >>>>>> some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing the >>>>>> plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners and >>>>> advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and >>>>> Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control linkages. >>>>> There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the pilot's >>>>> controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control surfaces of >>>>> one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they arenrCOt >>>>> simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

So, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They are >>>> also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into several >>>> instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel would be kicked >>>> off and the panel would light up like a Christmas tree. There are >>>> also a number of degraded modes available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly fly >>> by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His Ranger is fly >>> by wire

Doesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....
My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have direct > *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic breaks in a car
And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

Daryl wrote:

On 1/8/2026 6:03 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 1/08/2026 6:01 pm, Daryl wrote:

On 1/8/2026 5:48 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 1/08/2026 11:56 am, Rod Speed wrote:

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote

Trevor Wilson wrote

Noddy wrote

Trevor Wilson wrote

Not One Nation.
Not the idiocy of Donald Trump.
Not the Saudis, Iranians with nukes.
Even global warming has taken a back seat in the past few weeks. >>>>>
This is what keeps me awake at night:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2el319vzr3o

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/30/anthropic-ai- >>>>>>>>> claude-hack

This is deadly serious. And extremely concerning.

Terminator anyone?

ROFTL :)

Seriously, Trev. Of all the things in this generally fucked up >>>>>>>> world that could be keeping you awake at night, it's this? :)

Yep. Here's the thing/s:
We are VERY early in the development of AI. Already we've seen
several reports of AI software hacking it's way into other
systems, despite the safeguards that were put in place. AI will >>>>>>> only become more powerful.

Which is no reason to fear it in and of itself...

Correct

The AI that has broken out of containment was operated by
regular corporations. What can AI do in the hands of Putin or Xi? >>>>>>

I don't know Trevor. What can it do?

Think your bank accounts are safe? Think again.

I think my bank accounts are perfectly safe.

I know mine are

**Which bank do you bank with, that does not have interconnected
computers?

Thing is banks guarantee the safety of your money, if money
disappears from your account due to fraud the bank will return the
money or at least that has whats happened to me on 2 occasions.

**A massive AI attack, if successful, could bring the banking system
down for who knows how long?

If that happened it would more than likely be the fault of the banks
for having poor security, a few years ago my son did some IT contract
work for one of the major banks and he told me that their security was
very weak.
Same with telecommunications companies, it was reported that the
recent Telstra failure could have been prevented if they had spent
$30k updating a piece of hardware but they were too tight to spend the money.
AI could be potentially dangerous but its also an easy scapegoat when something preventable goes wrong.

it's time for Govt to impose severe penalties for companies that fail to protect their organization and customers with the best security
measures. in fact it's past time.
--
Linux Mint 22.3

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

Clocky wrote:

On 2/08/2026 7:36 am, Rod Speed wrote:

Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

A couple of people had a terminally bad day due to the Optus >>>>>>>>> fuckup.

-aNothing even remotely like what could happen if
some rouge AI fired all nukes at the same time

-aAnd those who died as a result of the Optus failure would have >>>>>>>> died anyway

Really, you know that?

-aYep, we know who ended up dead

What were the cases,

-ahttps://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_258840f8-72f8-45da-857c-5ec9ee12d8f0 >>>>

and why did the outage not cause their demise?

-aBecause even if ambos had shown up as a result of the 000 call,
they would have died anyway

You have proof for that claim?

Yep, that's what the investigation proved

And the proof of your claim is where?

there was an investigation that determined that

(time to start snipping, ppl)
--
Linux Mint 22.3

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars



On 2/8/2026 12:34 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft
built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried about >>>>>>> some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing the >>>>>>> plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners and >>>>>> advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and
Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control
linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the pilot's >>>>>> controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about
leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control surfaces
of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they arenrCOt >>>>>> simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

-aSo, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They are >>>>> also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into several
instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel would be
kicked off and the panel would light up like a Christmas tree.
There are also a number of degraded modes available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly fly
by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His Ranger is fly
by wire

-aDoesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have direct
*manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic breaks in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering, there
is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's hands on the
steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely provides *assistance*.
Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.
Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is no *mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern cars have
dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far as the 2004
Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to have any mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or electric over hydraulic.
Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are on the
roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true steer by wire
with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus model that has Steer
by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that variant in Australia.

So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true steer
by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger planes there
has long been no mechanical connection in these systems, they rely
entirely on redundancy in other forms.

And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried about >>>>>>>> some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing the >>>>>>>> plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners and >>>>>>> advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and >>>>>>> Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the pilot's >>>>>>> controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control surfaces >>>>>>> of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they arenrCOt >>>>>>> simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

So, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They are >>>>>> also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into several >>>>>> instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel would be >>>>>> kicked off and the panel would light up like a Christmas tree. >>>>>> There are also a number of degraded modes available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly fly >>>>> by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His Ranger is fly >>>>> by wire

Doesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....
My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have direct >>> *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic breaks in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering, there > is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's hands on the > steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely provides *assistance*.

That is just plain wrong with antilock braking and power steering

Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.
Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is no > *mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern cars have > dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far as the 2004 > Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to have any mechanical > connection, becoming increasingly electric or electric over hydraulic.> Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are on the > roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true steer by wire > with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus model that has Steer > by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that variant in Australia.
So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true steer > by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger planes there > has long been no mechanical connection in these systems, they rely > entirely on redundancy in other forms.

Aircraft do not rely entirely on redundancy in
other forms, most obviously with trim tabs

And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars



On 2/8/2026 1:39 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried
about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners >>>>>>>> and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and >>>>>>>> Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control
linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the
pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control surfaces >>>>>>>> of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they
arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

-aSo, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They >>>>>>> are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into
several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel
would be kicked off and the panel would light up like a Christmas >>>>>>> tree. There are also a number of degraded modes available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly
fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His Ranger >>>>>> is fly by wire

-aDoesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have
direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic breaks in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering,
there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's hands
on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely provides
*assistance*.

That is-a just plain wrong with antilock braking and power steering

Reread what I wrote. I was referring to *conventional power steering*.
It is assistance only. No electricity, no hydraulic fluid, you still
have mechanical steering.>

Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.

Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is no
*mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern cars
have dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far as the
2004 Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to have any
mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or electric over
hydraulic.
Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are on
the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true steer by
wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus model that
has Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that variant in Australia.

So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true
steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger planes
there has long been no mechanical connection in these systems, they
rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

Aircraft do not rely entirely on redundancy in
other forms, most obviously with trim tabs

Redundancy simply means two systems of operation in case of *failure* of
one system. Dual circuit hydraulic brakes being the perfect example -
both systems are hydraulic. In fact cars use backup hydraulic and backup mechanical - handbrake by cable, remember. That said, the mechanical
handbrake is no longer considered a redundant emergency brake since it generally operates on the *rear wheels*. In FWD vehicles, attempting to
use the handbrake as an emergency brake is likely to see you spinning
wildly down the road. That is why it is called a *parking* brake these
days. >

And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

On 2/08/2026 12:02 pm, Xeno wrote:

On 2/8/2026 2:43 am, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft
built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried about some >>>>>> nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing the >>>>>> plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners and
advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and
Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control
linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the pilot's
controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about
leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control surfaces of >>>>> one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they arenrCOt >>>>> simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

-aSo, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They are
also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into several
instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel would be kicked
off and the panel would light up like a Christmas tree. There are
also a number of degraded modes available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly fly
by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His Ranger is fly
by wire

Doesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_modes

Note the final backup on Airbus

Mechanical control
In the mechanical control back-up mode, pitch is controlled by the
mechanical trim system and lateral direction is controlled by the rudder pedals operating the rudder mechanically

It would need the loss of all electrical and hydraulic power to get to
this state, but it is there.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

On 2/08/2026 1:25 pm, Xeno wrote:

On 2/8/2026 12:34 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried about >>>>>>>> some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners and >>>>>>> advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and >>>>>>> Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control
linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the pilot's >>>>>>> controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about
leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control surfaces >>>>>>> of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they arenrCOt >>>>>>> simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

-aSo, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They
are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into
several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel would >>>>>> be kicked off and the panel would light up like a Christmas tree. >>>>>> There are also a number of degraded modes available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly
fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His Ranger
is fly by wire

-aDoesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have direct
*manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic breaks in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering, there
is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's hands on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely provides *assistance*. Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.
Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is no *mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern cars have
dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far as the 2004
Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to have any mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or electric over hydraulic.
Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are on the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true steer by wire
with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus model that has Steer
by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that variant in Australia.

So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true steer
by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger planes there
has long been no mechanical connection in these systems, they rely
entirely on redundancy in other forms.

And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus

Exactly what is the relevance of this? Note that, despite what Speed
says, aircraft do not use AI, they do use computers, and those computers
have algorithms to respond to different situations, but it ain't AI by
any stretch of the imagination.

To go back to the start of this silliness, there is no way for an AI to
creep into an aircraft control system, they are stand alone systems.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried >>>>>>>>>> about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners >>>>>>>>> and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and >>>>>>>>> Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the >>>>>>>>> pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control surfaces >>>>>>>>> of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they >>>>>>>>> arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance. >>>>>>>> So, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They >>>>>>>> are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into >>>>>>>> several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel >>>>>>>> would be kicked off and the panel would light up like a Christmas >>>>>>>> tree. There are also a number of degraded modes available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly >>>>>>> fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His Ranger >>>>>>> is fly by wire

Doesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....
My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have >>>>> direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic brakes in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering, >>> there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's hands >>> on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely provides >>> *assistance*.

That is just plain wrong with antilock braking and power steering

Reread what I wrote.

Changes nothing

I was referring to *conventional power steering*.

You ignored my point about hydraulic brakes and got
it wrong with some approaches to power steering

It is assistance only.

Wrong, as always with some implementations,
just like with aircraft

No electricity, no hydraulic fluid, you still have mechanical steering.

Not necessarily when the system decides
to do what you told it to do, most obviously
with lane tracking

Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.
Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is no >>> *mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern cars >>> have dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far as the >>> 2004 Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to have any >>> mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or electric over >>> hydraulic.
Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are on >>> the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true steer by >>> wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus model that >>> has Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that variant in >>> Australia.
So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true >>> steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger planes >>> there has long been no mechanical connection in these systems, they >>> rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

Aircraft do not rely entirely on redundancy in
other forms, most obviously with trim tabs

Redundancy simply means two systems of operation in case of *failure* of > one system.

Trim tabs in aircraft are not redundancy

Dual circuit hydraulic brakes being the perfect example - both systems > are hydraulic. In fact cars use backup hydraulic and backup mechanical - > handbrake by cable, remember.

Irrelevant to your ignorant claim that aircraft ONLY have redundancy

That said, the mechanical handbrake is no longer considered a redundant > emergency brake since it generally operates on the *rear wheels*.

Still redundant emergency braking

In FWD vehicles, attempting to use the handbrake as an emergency brake > is likely to see you spinning wildly down the road.

Complete and utter pig ignorant bullshit

That is why it is called a *parking* brake these days.

Its still called a handbrake because its mostly applied
using your hand

And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

On 2/08/2026 1:39 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried
about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners >>>>>>>> and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and >>>>>>>> Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control
linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the
pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control surfaces >>>>>>>> of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they
arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

-aSo, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They >>>>>>> are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into
several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel
would be kicked off and the panel would light up like a Christmas >>>>>>> tree. There are also a number of degraded modes available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly
fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His Ranger >>>>>> is fly by wire

-aDoesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have
direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic breaks in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering,
there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's hands
on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely provides
*assistance*.

That is-a just plain wrong with antilock braking and power steering

Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.

Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is no
*mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern cars
have dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far as the
2004 Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to have any
mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or electric over
hydraulic.
Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are on
the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true steer by
wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus model that
has Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that variant in Australia.

So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true
steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger planes
there has long been no mechanical connection in these systems, they
rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

Aircraft do not rely entirely on redundancy in
other forms, most obviously with trim tabs

Trim tabs, not often seen on large modern aircraft graddad. The major
use of trim is in pitch, and that is done by moving the entire
tailplane, or horizontal stabiliser if you will.

And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars



On 2/8/2026 3:19 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

On 2/08/2026 12:02 pm, Xeno wrote:

On 2/8/2026 2:43 am, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft
built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried about >>>>>>> some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing the >>>>>>> plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners and >>>>>> advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and
Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control
linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the pilot's >>>>>> controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about
leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control surfaces
of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they arenrCOt >>>>>> simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

-aSo, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They are >>>>> also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into several
instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel would be
kicked off and the panel would light up like a Christmas tree.
There are also a number of degraded modes available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly fly
by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His Ranger is fly
by wire

Doesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have direct
*manual* control of the aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_modes

Note the final backup on Airbus

Mechanical control
In the mechanical control back-up mode, pitch is controlled by the mechanical trim system and lateral direction is controlled by the rudder pedals operating the rudder mechanically

It would need the loss of all electrical and hydraulic power to get to
this state, but it is there.

FFS, As I said, there are planes that have *no direct mechanical* backup system for aircraft control.

AI Overview

Airplanes with no direct mechanical backup to their flight
control systems include the Airbus A220, Dassault Falcon
7X, and General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. In these
aircraft, pilot inputs go entirely through computers and
wires rather than physical cables.

Commercial and Business JetsAirbus A220 (formerly
Bombardier C Series): Uses a full fly-by-wire design with
zero mechanical cables linking the cockpit controls or
rudder pedals to the outer wing and tail surfaces.

Dassault Falcon 7X and later Falcon business jets: Built
with total digital fly-by-wire architecture and no
traditional mechanical cable backups.

Military AircraftGeneral Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon:
Pioneered relaxed stability design requiring an
all-electric, computer-controlled fly-by-wire system
with no mechanical reversion capability.

Most modern fighter jets (such as the F-22 Raptor and F-35
Lightning II) rely exclusively on multi-redundant
electronic flight control computers without physical cables.

The era of *no mechanical backup control systems* on aircraft is upon
us. We can only expect this trend to continue.

Please stick with your historical aircraft in the museum, the real world
is moving on apace and leaving you behind!
--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

On 2/08/2026 3:25 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

That is why it is called a *parking* brake these-a-a days.

Its still called a handbrake because its mostly applied
using your hand

Not on modern cars. Mine has a button labeled "P", I've never used it.
The parking brake goes on automatically when you go into park. The car
also has a "Hold" function that applies the parking brake when you come
a halt with your foot pressing on the brake pedal, and releases when you
press the accelerator.

No hand operated lever at all.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars



On 2/8/2026 3:25 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried >>>>>>>>>>> about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners >>>>>>>>>> and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, >>>>>>>>>> and Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the >>>>>>>>>> pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control
surfaces of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they >>>>>>>>>> arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

-aSo, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They >>>>>>>>> are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into >>>>>>>>> several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel >>>>>>>>> would be kicked off and the panel would light up like a
Christmas tree. There are also a number of degraded modes
available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly >>>>>>>> fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His
Ranger is fly by wire

-aDoesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have
direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic brakes in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering,
there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's hands
on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely provides
*assistance*.

-aThat is-a just plain wrong with antilock braking and power steering

Reread what I wrote.

Changes nothing

I was referring to *conventional power steering*.

You ignored my point about hydraulic brakes and got
it wrong with some approaches to power steering

It is assistance only.

Wrong, as always with some implementations,
just like with aircraft

No electricity, no hydraulic fluid, you still have mechanical steering.

Not necessarily when the system decides
to do what you told it to do, most obviously
with lane tracking

As I pointed out above, I was referring to *conventional PS*. Again

Quote: "I was referring to *conventional power steering*.">

Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.

Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is no
*mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern cars
have dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far as the
2004 Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to have any
mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or electric
over hydraulic.

Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are on
the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true steer by
wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus model that
has Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that variant in
Australia.

So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true
steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger
planes there has long been no mechanical connection in these
systems, they rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

-aAircraft do not rely entirely on redundancy in
other forms, most obviously with trim tabs

Redundancy simply means two systems of operation in case of *failure*
of one system.

Trim tabs in aircraft are not redundancy

Dual circuit hydraulic brakes being the perfect example - both systems
are hydraulic. In fact cars use backup hydraulic and backup mechanical
- handbrake by cable, remember.

Irrelevant to your ignorant claim that aircraft ONLY have redundancy

What? Cars have long had redundancy. Dual circuit hydraulic brakes are
an example of redundancy *in cars*. I said as much before.>

That said, the mechanical handbrake is no longer considered a
redundant emergency brake since it generally operates on the *rear
wheels*.

Still redundant emergency braking

In FWD vehicles, attempting to use the handbrake as an emergency brake
is likely to see you spinning wildly down the road.

Complete and utter pig ignorant bullshit

Try using the parkbrake in a FWD car as an emergency brake at speed and
see where you end up. >

That is why it is called a *parking* brake these-a-a days.

Its still called a handbrake because its mostly applied
using your hand

Odd, the parkbrake in my Toyota doesn't need my hand. I put the car in
park and the *parkbrake* comes on *automatically*. There isn't even a
park brake lever to play with, just a button in case you want the
parkbrake on when the car is in *neutral* or to hold the car.

AI Overview
Toyota hybrid parking brakes use an electronic switch, a foot pedal, or
an automatic system depending on the model. Most modern Toyota hybrids
feature an Electronic Parking Brake (EPB) button near the gear shift,
while older models may use a small pedal on the floor left of the main
pedals.
Operating the Electronic Parking Brake
To Engage: Press your foot down on the regular brake pedal, then pull
the EPB switch UP. A red indicator light will turn on.
To Disengage: Press your foot down on the regular brake pedal, then push
the EPB switch DOWN.
Automatic Mode: Many newer models automatically engage the parking brake
when you shift into Park (P) and release it when you shift into Drive
(D) or Reverse (R).

Using Brake Hold
Activation: Press the "HOLD" button near the console while your seatbelt
is buckled.
Function: Keeps the car stopped at red lights without needing to keep
your foot on the brake pedal. It releases automatically when you press
the accelerator


The car world is moving on and leaving you behind!
--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

On 2/08/2026 3:41 pm, Xeno wrote:

On 2/8/2026 3:19 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

On 2/08/2026 12:02 pm, Xeno wrote:

On 2/8/2026 2:43 am, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried about >>>>>>>> some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners and >>>>>>> advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and >>>>>>> Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control
linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the pilot's >>>>>>> controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about
leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control surfaces >>>>>>> of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they arenrCOt >>>>>>> simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

-aSo, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They
are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into
several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel would >>>>>> be kicked off and the panel would light up like a Christmas tree. >>>>>> There are also a number of degraded modes available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly
fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His Ranger
is fly by wire

Doesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have direct
*manual* control of the aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_modes

Note the final backup on Airbus

Mechanical control
In the mechanical control back-up mode, pitch is controlled by the
mechanical trim system and lateral direction is controlled by the
rudder pedals operating the rudder mechanically

It would need the loss of all electrical and hydraulic power to get to
this state, but it is there.

FFS, As I said, there are planes that have *no direct mechanical* backup system for aircraft control.

AI Overview

-a-a-a Airplanes with no direct mechanical backup to their flight
-a-a-a control systems include the Airbus A220, Dassault Falcon
-a-a-a 7X, and General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. In these
-a-a-a aircraft, pilot inputs go entirely through computers and
-a-a-a wires rather than physical cables.

-a-a-a Commercial and Business JetsAirbus A220 (formerly
-a-a-a Bombardier C Series): Uses a full fly-by-wire design with
-a-a-a zero mechanical cables linking the cockpit controls or
-a-a-a rudder pedals to the outer wing and tail surfaces.

-a-a-a Dassault Falcon 7X and later Falcon business jets: Built
-a-a-a with total digital fly-by-wire architecture and no
-a-a-a traditional mechanical cable backups.

-a-a-a Military AircraftGeneral Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon:
-a-a-a Pioneered relaxed stability design requiring an
-a-a-a all-electric, computer-controlled fly-by-wire system
-a-a-a with no mechanical reversion capability.

-a-a-a Most modern fighter jets (such as the F-22 Raptor and F-35
-a-a-a Lightning II) rely exclusively on multi-redundant
-a-a-a electronic flight control computers without physical cables.

The era of *no mechanical backup control systems* on aircraft is upon
us. We can only expect this trend to continue.

*SOME* aircraft don't, particularly military ones where there is a
greater tolerance for risk, but the majority of airliners still have
some backup.

Please stick with your historical aircraft in the museum, the real world
is moving on apace and leaving you behind!

ROTFL, like I said, stick to cars, you know fuck all about aircraft.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Xeno wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried about >>>>>>>>> some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners and >>>>>>>> advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and >>>>>>>> Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the pilot's >>>>>>>> controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control surfaces >>>>>>>> of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they arenrCOt >>>>>>>> simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.>>>>>>> So, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They >>>>>>> are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into >>>>>>> several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel would >>>>>>> be kicked off and the panel would light up like a Christmas tree. >>>>>>> There are also a number of degraded modes available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly >>>>>> fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His Ranger >>>>>> is fly by wire

Doesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....
My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have direct >>>> *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic breaks in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering, >> there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's hands on >> the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely provides >> *assistance*. Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.
Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is no >> *mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern cars have >> dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far as the 2004 >> Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to have any >> mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or electric over >> hydraulic.
Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are on >> the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true steer by >> wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus model that has >> Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that variant in Australia.>> So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true >> steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger planes >> there has long been no mechanical connection in these systems, they >> rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus

Exactly what is the relevance of this?

It shows that AI can be turned off if the PIC decides that
it is malfunctioning and so that can happen if the PIC
decides that rogue AI has taken control of the plane

Note that, despite what Speed says, aircraft do not use AI,

Wrong with that MCAS system and with airbus
when it decides that the PIC will not be allowed
to do what it has commanded the system to do

they do use computers, and those computers have algorithms to respond to > different situations,but it ain't AI by any stretch of the imagination.

Wrong, as always and in spades with blind landing systems

To go back to the start of this silliness, there is no way for an AI to > creep into an aircraft control system, they are stand alone systems.

Wrong, as always
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars



On 2/8/2026 3:27 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

On 2/08/2026 1:25 pm, Xeno wrote:

On 2/8/2026 12:34 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried
about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners >>>>>>>> and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and >>>>>>>> Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control
linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the
pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control surfaces >>>>>>>> of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they
arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

-aSo, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They >>>>>>> are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into
several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel
would be kicked off and the panel would light up like a Christmas >>>>>>> tree. There are also a number of degraded modes available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly
fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His Ranger >>>>>> is fly by wire

-aDoesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have
direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic breaks in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering,
there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's hands
on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely provides
*assistance*. Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.
Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is no
*mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern cars
have dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far as the
2004 Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to have any
mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or electric over
hydraulic.
Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are on
the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true steer by
wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus model that
has Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that variant in Australia.

So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true
steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger planes
there has long been no mechanical connection in these systems, they
rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus

Exactly what is the relevance of this? Note that, despite what Speed
says, aircraft do not use AI, they do use computers, and those computers have algorithms to respond to different situations, but it ain't AI by
any stretch of the imagination.

And if you will note, *I* wasn't referring to AI, I was responding to
Darren's comment that all aircraft have backup mechanical links to
control systems and that is clearly false and the trend is to move away
from such things.>

To go back to the start of this silliness, there is no way for an AI to creep into an aircraft control system, they are stand alone systems.

For now. Who knows what the future holds. Cars phone home now. Who would
have thought of that 50 years ago? But it's here now. Why would it be
unlikely to occur in aircraft?
--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried >>>>>>>>>> about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners >>>>>>>>> and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and >>>>>>>>> Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the >>>>>>>>> pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control surfaces >>>>>>>>> of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they >>>>>>>>> arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance. >>>>>>>> So, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They >>>>>>>> are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into >>>>>>>> several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel >>>>>>>> would be kicked off and the panel would light up like a Christmas >>>>>>>> tree. There are also a number of degraded modes available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly >>>>>>> fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His Ranger >>>>>>> is fly by wire

Doesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....
My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have >>>>> direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic breaks in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering, >>> there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's hands >>> on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely provides >>> *assistance*.

That is just plain wrong with antilock braking and power steering

Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.
Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is no >>> *mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern cars >>> have dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far as the >>> 2004 Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to have any >>> mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or electric over >>> hydraulic.
Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are on >>> the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true steer by >>> wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus model that >>> has Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that variant in >>> Australia.
So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true >>> steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger planes >>> there has long been no mechanical connection in these systems, they >>> rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

Aircraft do not rely entirely on redundancy in
other forms, most obviously with trim tabs

Trim tabs, not often seen on large modern aircraft graddad.

Wrong, as always and you have just said that they are used
on the elevator in airbuses when in manual mode

The major use of trim is in pitch, and that is done by moving the entire > tailplane, or horizontal stabiliser if you will.

And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Xeno wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried about >>>>>>>> some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing the >>>>>>>> plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners and >>>>>>> advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and >>>>>>> Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the pilot's >>>>>>> controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control surfaces >>>>>>> of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they arenrCOt >>>>>>> simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

So, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They are >>>>>> also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into several >>>>>> instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel would be >>>>>> kicked off and the panel would light up like a Christmas tree. >>>>>> There are also a number of degraded modes available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly fly >>>>> by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His Ranger is fly >>>>> by wire

Doesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....
My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have direct >>> *manual* control of the aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_modes
Note the final backup on Airbus
Mechanical control
In the mechanical control back-up mode, pitch is controlled by the >> mechanical trim system and lateral direction is controlled by the >> rudder pedals operating the rudder mechanically
It would need the loss of all electrical and hydraulic power to get to >> this state, but it is there.

FFS, As I said, there are planes that have *no direct mechanical* backup > system for aircraft control.

Direct control is irrelevant in an airbus which has
an AI system which decides whether it will allow
the pilot in control to order it to do what is unsafe
in that particular situation
<reams of irrelevant shit flushed where it belongs>

The era of *no mechanical backup control systems* on aircraft is upon us.

Wrong with trim tabs and the rudder pedals as
you have just had your ignorant nose rubbed in

We can only expect this trend to continue.

Yes because its much better than mechanical control
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars



On 2/8/2026 4:13 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Xeno wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried
about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners >>>>>>>> and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and >>>>>>>> Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control
linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the
pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control surfaces >>>>>>>> of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they
arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

-aSo, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They >>>>>>> are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into
several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel
would be kicked off and the panel would light up like a Christmas >>>>>>> tree. There are also a number of degraded modes available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly
fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His Ranger >>>>>> is fly by wire

Doesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have
direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_modes
-aNote the final backup on Airbus
-aMechanical control

In the mechanical control back-up mode, pitch is controlled by the
mechanical trim system and lateral direction is controlled by the
rudder pedals operating the rudder mechanically
-aIt would need the loss of all electrical and hydraulic power to get
to this state, but it is there.

FFS, As I said, there are planes that have *no direct mechanical*
backup system for aircraft control.

Direct control is irrelevant in an airbus which has
an AI system which decides whether it will allow
the pilot in control to order it to do what is unsafe
in that particular situation

Well FMD! What have I been saying. Not only irrelevant but not eminently useful given the size of current airliners.>

<reams of irrelevant shit flushed where it belongs>

The era of *no mechanical backup control systems* on aircraft is upon us.

Wrong with trim tabs and the rudder pedals as
you have just had your ignorant nose rubbed in

We can only expect this trend to continue.

Yes because its much better than mechanical control

No, the trend will continue because it is *necessary*!
--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

That is why it is called a *parking* brake these days.

Its still called a handbrake because its mostly applied
using your hand

Not on modern cars.

Wrong, as always

Mine has a button labeled "P", I've never used it.

Irrelevant on both counts

The parking brake goes on automatically when you go into park.

Irrelevant to manual gearboxes

The car also has a "Hold" function that applies the parking brake when you come a halt with your foot pressing on the brake pedal, and releases when you press the accelerator.

No hand operated lever at all.

That's not true of all modern cars and even a fuckwit pom
should be able to hear people applying it in a carpark
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried >>>>>>>>>>>> about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over. >>>>>>>>>>> You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners >>>>>>>>>>> and advanced

fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, >>>>>>>>>>> and Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the >>>>>>>>>>> pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control >>>>>>>>>>> surfaces of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they >>>>>>>>>>> arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance. >>>>>>>>>> So, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They >>>>>>>>>> are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into >>>>>>>>>> several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel >>>>>>>>>> would be kicked off and the panel would light up like a >>>>>>>>>> Christmas tree. There are also a number of degraded modes >>>>>>>>>> available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly >>>>>>>>> fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His >>>>>>>>> Ranger is fly by wire

Doesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....
My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have >>>>>>> direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic brakes in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering, >>>>> there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's hands >>>>> on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely provides >>>>> *assistance*.

That is just plain wrong with antilock braking and power steering>>> Reread what I wrote.

Changes nothing

I was referring to *conventional power steering*.

You ignored my point about hydraulic brakes and got
it wrong with some approaches to power steering

It is assistance only.

Wrong, as always with some implementations,
just like with aircraft

No electricity, no hydraulic fluid, you still have mechanical steering.

Not necessarily when the system decides
to do what you told it to do, most obviously
with lane tracking

As I pointed out above, I was referring to *conventional PS*. Again

Still conventional

Quote: "I was referring to *conventional power steering*.">

Still conventional

Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.
Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is no >>>>> *mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern cars >>>>> have dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far as the >>>>> 2004 Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to have any >>>>> mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or electric >>>>> over hydraulic.
Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are on >>>>> the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true steer by >>>>> wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus model that >>>>> has Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that variant in >>>>> Australia.
So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true >>>>> steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger >>>>> planes there has long been no mechanical connection in these >>>>> systems, they rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

Aircraft do not rely entirely on redundancy in
other forms, most obviously with trim tabs

Redundancy simply means two systems of operation in case of *failure* >>> of one system.

Trim tabs in aircraft are not redundancy

Dual circuit hydraulic brakes being the perfect example - both systems >>> are hydraulic. In fact cars use backup hydraulic and backup mechanical >>> - handbrake by cable, remember.

Irrelevant to your ignorant claim that aircraft ONLY have redundancy> What? Cars have long had redundancy.

Irrelevant to your ignorant claim that aircraft ONLY have redundancy

Dual circuit hydraulic brakes are an example of redundancy *in cars*.

Irrelevant to your ignorant claim that aircraft ONLY have redundancy

I said as much before.

Irrelevant to your ignorant claim that aircraft ONLY have redundancy

That said, the mechanical handbrake is no longer considered a >>> redundant emergency brake since it generally operates on the *rear >>> wheels*.

Still redundant emergency braking

In FWD vehicles, attempting to use the handbrake as an emergency brake >>> is likely to see you spinning wildly down the road.

Complete and utter pig ignorant bullshit

Try using the parkbrake in a FWD car as an emergency brake at speed and > see where you end up.

Been there, done that in two of them and nothing
like what you stupidly claimed happened
And the Getz particularly has such an effective brake
that is sort of just squats if you try to drive off with it on

That is why it is called a *parking* brake these days.

Its still called a handbrake because its mostly applied
using your hand

Odd, the parkbrake in my Toyota doesn't need my hand. I put the car in > park and the *parkbrake* comes on *automatically*. There isn't even a > park brake lever to play with, just a button in case you want the > parkbrake on when the car is in *neutral* or to hold the car.

Irrelevant to manuals

The car world is moving on and leaving you behind!

Wrong with manuals
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

On Sun, 02 Aug 2026 16:02:58 +1000, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

On 2/8/2026 3:27 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

On 2/08/2026 1:25 pm, Xeno wrote:

On 2/8/2026 12:34 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried >>>>>>>>>> about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners >>>>>>>>> and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and >>>>>>>>> Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the >>>>>>>>> pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control surfaces >>>>>>>>> of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they >>>>>>>>> arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

So, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They >>>>>>>> are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into >>>>>>>> several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel >>>>>>>> would be kicked off and the panel would light up like a Christmas >>>>>>>> tree. There are also a number of degraded modes available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly >>>>>>> fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His Ranger >>>>>>> is fly by wire

Doesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have >>>>> direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic breaks in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering, >>> there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's hands >>> on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely provides >>> *assistance*. Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.
Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is no >>> *mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern cars >>> have dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far as the >>> 2004 Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to have any >>> mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or electric over >>> hydraulic.
Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are on >>> the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true steer by >>> wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus model that >>> has Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that variant in >>> Australia.

So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true >>> steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger planes >>> there has long been no mechanical connection in these systems, they >>> rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus

Exactly what is the relevance of this? Note that, despite what Speed >> says, aircraft do not use AI, they do use computers, and those >> computers have algorithms to respond to different situations, but it >> ain't AI by any stretch of the imagination.

And if you will note, *I* wasn't referring to AI, I was responding to > Darren's comment that all aircraft have backup mechanical links to > control systems and that is clearly false and the trend is to move away > from such things.>

To go back to the start of this silliness, there is no way for an AI to >> creep into an aircraft control system, they are stand alone systems.

For now. Who knows what the future holds. Cars phone home now. Who would > have thought of that 50 years ago? But it's here now. Why would it be > unlikely to occur in aircraft?

Aircraft have been doing that for MUCH longer than cars have
and all heavys do that
As always, you know fuck all about aircraft
And phoning home is just REPORTING home, not getting the AI
updated so a rogue AI can use that to fuck over the system
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Xeno wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried >>>>>>>>>> about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners >>>>>>>>> and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and >>>>>>>>> Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the >>>>>>>>> pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control surfaces >>>>>>>>> of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they >>>>>>>>> arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

So, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They >>>>>>>> are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into >>>>>>>> several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel >>>>>>>> would be kicked off and the panel would light up like a Christmas >>>>>>>> tree. There are also a number of degraded modes available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly >>>>>>> fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His Ranger >>>>>>> is fly by wire

Doesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have >>>>> direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_modes
Note the final backup on Airbus
Mechanical control

In the mechanical control back-up mode, pitch is controlled by the >>>> mechanical trim system and lateral direction is controlled by the >>>> rudder pedals operating the rudder mechanically
It would need the loss of all electrical and hydraulic power to get >>>> to this state, but it is there.

FFS, As I said, there are planes that have *no direct mechanical* >>> backup system for aircraft control.

Direct control is irrelevant in an airbus which has
an AI system which decides whether it will allow
the pilot in control to order it to do what is unsafe
in that particular situation

Well FMD!

No thanks, I'll leave that to your bum chums

What have I been saying.

Bullshit it is

Not only irrelevant but not eminently useful given the size of current > airliners.

Nothing to do with the size with trim tabs and direct
control of the rudder when that is necessary
And it goes much further with direct control
of the engines when that is desirable
As always, you know NOTHING about aircraft

<reams of irrelevant shit flushed where it belongs>

The era of *no mechanical backup control systems* on aircraft is upon >>> us.

Wrong with trim tabs and the rudder pedals as
you have just had your ignorant nose rubbed in

We can only expect this trend to continue.

Yes because its much better than mechanical control

No, the trend will continue because it is *necessary*!

It isn't necessary
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

On 2/08/2026 4:40 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

That is why it is called a *parking* brake these-a-a days.

-aIts still called a handbrake because its mostly applied
using your hand

Not on modern cars.

Wrong, as always

Mine has a button labeled "P", I've never used it.

Irrelevant on both counts

The parking brake goes on automatically when you go into park.

Irrelevant to manual gearboxes

The car-a-a also has a "Hold" function that applies the parking brake
when you come a halt with your foot pressing on the brake pedal, and
releases when you press the accelerator.

No hand operated lever at all.

That's not true of all modern cars and even a fuckwit pom
should be able to hear people applying it in a carpark

Only on old cars, recent ones - no. You're detached from the modern
world, I suppose that old farts like you just can't keep up.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

On 2/08/2026 4:06 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried >>>>>>>>>>> about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners >>>>>>>>>> and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, >>>>>>>>>> and Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the >>>>>>>>>> pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control
surfaces of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they >>>>>>>>>> arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

-aSo, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They >>>>>>>>> are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into >>>>>>>>> several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel >>>>>>>>> would be kicked off and the panel would light up like a
Christmas tree. There are also a number of degraded modes
available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly >>>>>>>> fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His
Ranger is fly by wire

-aDoesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have
direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic breaks in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering,
there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's hands
on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely provides
*assistance*.

-aThat is-a just plain wrong with antilock braking and power steering

Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.

Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is no
*mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern cars
have dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far as the
2004 Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to have any
mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or electric
over hydraulic.

Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are on
the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true steer by
wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus model that
has Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that variant in
Australia.

So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true
steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger
planes there has long been no mechanical connection in these
systems, they rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

-aAircraft do not rely entirely on redundancy in
other forms, most obviously with trim tabs

Trim tabs, not often seen on large modern aircraft graddad.

Wrong, as always and you have just said that they are used
on the elevator in airbuses when in manual mode

There are no elevator trim tabs either on Airbus or Boeing aircraft, the
whole tailplane is moved.

The major use of trim is in pitch, and that is done by moving the
entire tailplane, or horizontal stabiliser if you will.

You either didn't read this bit or ignored it.

And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

On 2/08/2026 4:01 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Xeno wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried >>>>>>>>>> about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners >>>>>>>>> and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and >>>>>>>>> Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control
linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the
pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control
surfaces of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they
arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

-aSo, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They >>>>>>>> are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into
several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel
would be kicked off and the panel would light up like a
Christmas tree. There are also a number of degraded modes
available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly >>>>>>> fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His Ranger >>>>>>> is fly by wire

-aDoesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have
direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic breaks in a car

-aWith conventional power steering and even electric power steering,
there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's hands
on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely provides
*assistance*. Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.
Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is no
*mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern cars
have dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far as the
2004 Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to have any
mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or electric
over hydraulic.

Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are on
the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true steer by
wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus model that
has Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that variant in
Australia.
-aSo, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true
steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger
planes there has long been no mechanical connection in these systems,
they rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus

Exactly what is the relevance of this?

It shows that AI can be turned off if the PIC decides that
it is malfunctioning and so that can happen if the PIC
decides that rogue AI has taken control of the plane

Note that, despite what Speed says, aircraft do not use AI,

Wrong with that MCAS system and with airbus
when it decides that the PIC will not be allowed
to do what it has commanded the system to do

No AI in MCAS, it simply used the pitch trim system to push the nose
down if certain conditions were detected. It was just an extra bit of
code in the auto pitch system. That is how they got it past the FAA.

they do use computers, and those computers have algorithms to respond
to different situations,but it ain't AI by-a-a any stretch of the
imagination.

Wrong, as always and in spades with blind landing systems

No AI needed for blind landings, just lock on to the ILS, and flare when
the radio altimeter, we were doing it at RAE in 1963 without even
electronics let alone anything that you would recognise as a computer.

To go back to the start of this silliness, there is no way for an AI
to creep into an aircraft control system, they are stand alone systems.

Wrong, as always

Yes you are.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

That is why it is called a *parking* brake these days.

Its still called a handbrake because its mostly applied
using your hand

Not on modern cars.

Wrong, as always

Mine has a button labeled "P", I've never used it.

Irrelevant on both counts

The parking brake goes on automatically when you go into park.

Irrelevant to manual gearboxes

The car also has a "Hold" function that applies the parking brake
when you come a halt with your foot pressing on the brake pedal, and
releases when you press the accelerator.

No hand operated lever at all.

That's not true of all modern cars and even a fuckwit pom
should be able to hear people applying it in a carpark

Only on old cars, recent ones - no.

Wrong, as always, most obviously with manuals
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

On 2/08/2026 4:02 pm, Xeno wrote:

On 2/8/2026 3:27 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

On 2/08/2026 1:25 pm, Xeno wrote:

On 2/8/2026 12:34 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried >>>>>>>>>> about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners >>>>>>>>> and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and >>>>>>>>> Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control
linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the
pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control
surfaces of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they
arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

-aSo, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They >>>>>>>> are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into
several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel
would be kicked off and the panel would light up like a
Christmas tree. There are also a number of degraded modes
available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly >>>>>>> fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His Ranger >>>>>>> is fly by wire

-aDoesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have
direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic breaks in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering,
there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's hands
on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely provides
*assistance*. Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.
Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is no
*mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern cars
have dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far as the
2004 Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to have any
mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or electric
over hydraulic.
Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are on
the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true steer by
wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus model that
has Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that variant in
Australia.

So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true
steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger
planes there has long been no mechanical connection in these systems,
they rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus

Exactly what is the relevance of this? Note that, despite what Speed
says, aircraft do not use AI, they do use computers, and those
computers have algorithms to respond to different situations, but it
ain't AI by any stretch of the imagination.

And if you will note, *I* wasn't referring to AI, I was responding to Darren's comment that all aircraft have backup mechanical links to
control systems and that is clearly false and the trend is to move away
from such things.>

To go back to the start of this silliness, there is no way for an AI
to creep into an aircraft control system, they are stand alone systems.

For now. Who knows what the future holds. Cars phone home now. Who would have thought of that 50 years ago? But it's here now. Why would it be unlikely to occur in aircraft?

Because there is no need to connect an aircraft's critical flight
systems to the internet, and because the industry takes the reliability
of it's systems more seriously than the car industry.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars



On 2/8/2026 4:49 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an >>>>>>>>>>>>> aircraft built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried >>>>>>>>>>>>> about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately >>>>>>>>>>>>> crashing the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial
airliners and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, >>>>>>>>>>>> and Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the >>>>>>>>>>>> pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue >>>>>>>>>>>> about leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control >>>>>>>>>>>> surfaces of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they >>>>>>>>>>>> arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

-aSo, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? >>>>>>>>>>> They are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack >>>>>>>>>>> into several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected >>>>>>>>>>> channel would be kicked off and the panel would light up like >>>>>>>>>>> a Christmas tree. There are also a number of degraded modes >>>>>>>>>>> available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are
increasingly fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable >>>>>>>>>> type. His Ranger is fly by wire

-aDoesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have >>>>>>>> direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic brakes in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering, >>>>>> there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's
hands on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely
provides *assistance*.

-aThat is-a just plain wrong with antilock braking and power steering

Reread what I wrote.

-aChanges nothing

I was referring to *conventional power steering*.

You ignored my point about hydraulic brakes and got
it wrong with some approaches to power steering

It is assistance only.

Wrong, as always with some implementations,
just like with aircraft

No electricity, no hydraulic fluid, you still have mechanical steering.

Not necessarily when the system decides
to do what you told it to do, most obviously
with lane tracking

As I pointed out above, I was referring to *conventional PS*. Again

Still conventional

Quote: "I was referring to *conventional power steering*.">

Still conventional

Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.

Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is
no *mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern
cars have dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far >>>>>> as the 2004 Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to
have any mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or >>>>>> electric over hydraulic.

Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are >>>>>> on the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true
steer by wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus >>>>>> model that has Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that
variant in Australia.

So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true >>>>>> steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger
planes there has long been no mechanical connection in these
systems, they rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

Aircraft do not rely entirely on redundancy in
other forms, most obviously with trim tabs

Redundancy simply means two systems of operation in case of
*failure* of one system.

-aTrim tabs in aircraft are not redundancy

Dual circuit hydraulic brakes being the perfect example - both
systems are hydraulic. In fact cars use backup hydraulic and backup
mechanical - handbrake by cable, remember.

-aIrrelevant to your ignorant claim that aircraft ONLY have redundancy

What?-a Cars have long had redundancy.

Irrelevant to your ignorant claim that aircraft ONLY have redundancy

Dual circuit hydraulic brakes are an example of redundancy *in cars*.

Irrelevant to your ignorant claim that aircraft ONLY have redundancy

Aircraft have always had a degree of redundancy. I was making the point
that mechanical linkages are no longer an essential feature of said redundancy.>

I said as much before.

Irrelevant to your ignorant claim that aircraft ONLY have redundancy

Aircraft have always had a degree of redundancy. I was making the point
that mechanical linkages are no longer an essential feature of said redundancy.

That said, the mechanical handbrake is no longer considered a
redundant emergency brake since it generally operates on the *rear
wheels*.

-aStill redundant emergency braking

In FWD vehicles, attempting to use the handbrake as an emergency
brake is likely to see you spinning wildly down the road.

-aComplete and utter pig ignorant bullshit

Try using the parkbrake in a FWD car as an emergency brake at speed
and see where you end up.

Been there, done that in two of them and nothing
like what you stupidly claimed happened

I don't think you have! In fact I am sure you haven't. Anyone with a
clue would know the reason why a rear wheel park brake is *dangerous* to
rely on as an emergency brake in a front wheel drive vehicle like your
Getz. >

And the Getz particularly has such an effective brake
that is sort of just squats if you try to drive off with it on

Suspension design! So what?>

That is why it is called a *parking* brake these-a-a days.

Its still called a handbrake because its mostly applied
using your hand

Odd, the parkbrake in my Toyota doesn't need my hand. I put the car in
park and the *parkbrake* comes on *automatically*. There isn't even a
park brake lever to play with, just a button in case you want the
parkbrake on when the car is in *neutral* or to hold the car.

Irrelevant to manuals

Goalpost shift.

In a lot of models, Toyota no longer offer a *manual*. In fact, in a few models they don't even offer an ICE only option. Your point is???>

The car world is moving on and leaving you behind!

Wrong with manuals

What is it with you and manuals? I haven't bothered with a manual since
2010. The trend is *away* from manuals, so much so that owning one can
be a form of thief deterrence. Again, your point is?
--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

On 2/08/2026 10:26 am, Rod Speed wrote:

Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Axel <none@not.here> wrote
Clocky wrote

Axel wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote

Noddy wrote

Trevor Wilson wrote

Noddy wrote

Trevor Wilson wrote

Not One Nation.
Not the idiocy of Donald Trump.
Not the Saudis, Iranians with nukes.
Even global warming has taken a back seat in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past few weeks.

This is what keeps me awake at night:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2el319vzr3o

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/30/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anthropic- ai- claude-hack

This is deadly serious. And extremely concerning. >>>>>>>>>>>
Terminator anyone?

ROFTL :)

Seriously, Trev. Of all the things in this generally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucked up world that could be keeping you awake at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> night, it's this? :)

Yep. Here's the thing/s:

We are VERY early in the development of AI. Already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we've seen several reports of AI software hacking it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way into other systems, despite the safeguards that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were put in place. AI will only become more powerful. >>>>>>>>>>>

-aWhich is no reason to fear it in and of itself... >>>>>>>>>>>

Make no mistake: The benefits of AI will be far-reaching >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and significant. The downsides could lead to complete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chaos.

Fools ran the same stupid line about computers, it didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen

computer failures do cause problems. think airlines, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> banking, or any system computer controlled

The AI that has broken out of containment was operated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by regular corporations. What can AI do in the hands >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Putin or Xi?

-aI don't know Trevor. What can it do?

No (connected) computer system on the planet will be safe. >>>>>>>>>>>

Mindless bullshit, it is perfectly possible to make them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AI immune

is it?

Think your bank accounts are safe? Think again.

I think my bank accounts are perfectly safe.

they haven't been safe from scammers

You clearly don't think.

You don't have a fucking clue

Think that the plane you next fly on is safe? Think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again.

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aircraft built yet that can't be manually controlled. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd be far more worried about some nutbag pilot killing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the cabin crew and deliberately crashing the plane, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over. >>>>>>>>>>>

It's not the planes that are an issue. It's all the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff on the ground. Stuff like: Air traffic control >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems, ticketing systems, etc.

The most any AI can do is make them stop working and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while that is undesirable, its just a damned nuisance >>>>>>>>>>>

but what if AI was able to take control of those systems? >>>>>>>>>>>

If old speedo wasn't asleep at the wheel he would have >>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed how vulnerable we really are when systems go down >>>>>>>>>>>>> completely as we are totally reliant on connected
technology now - and as it turns out they fall over far to >>>>>>>>>>>>> easily.

yes.

-aBut they are in fact no more than a damned nuisance
not the end of civilisation as we know it as that fool
Trev keeps mindless hyperventilating about

There is no possibility of rouge AI say firing all the world's >>>>>>>>>>> nukes at once and even that wouldn't be the end of civilisation >>>>>>>>>>> as we know it, just rather bad hair day for us and a few in >>>>>>>>>>> Alice Springs

plus the fact that so many companies and organizations have >>>>>>>>>>>> poor security on their computer systems. the hacker who got >>>>>>>>>>>> access to Origin Energy customers stated that it's system >>>>>>>>>>>> security was no better than that of a teenagers school project. >>>>>>>>>

-aAnd that event didn't produce anything bad for their customers >>>>>>>>>>> and neither did the previous Optus breach

A couple of people had a terminally bad day due to the Optus >>>>>>>>>> fuckup.

-aNothing even remotely like what could happen if
some rouge AI fired all nukes at the same time

-aAnd those who died as a result of the Optus faiilure would >>>>>>>>> have died anyway

Really, you know that?

-aYep, we know who ended up dead

What were the cases,

-ahttps://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_258840f8-72f8-45da-857c-5ec9ee12d8f0 >>>>>

and why did the outage not cause their demise?

-aBecause even if ambos had shown up as a result of the 000 call,
they would have died anyway

You have proof for that claim?

-aYep, that's what the investigation proved

And the proof of your claim is where?

The official investigation, as I told you

That's not proof, stupid.

Provide a link.
--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars



On 2/8/2026 4:54 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2026 16:02:58 +1000, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

On 2/8/2026 3:27 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

On 2/08/2026 1:25 pm, Xeno wrote:

On 2/8/2026 12:34 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried >>>>>>>>>>> about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners >>>>>>>>>> and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, >>>>>>>>>> and Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the >>>>>>>>>> pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control
surfaces of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they >>>>>>>>>> arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance. >>>>>

-aSo, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They >>>>>>>>> are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into >>>>>>>>> several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel >>>>>>>>> would be kicked off and the panel would light up like a
Christmas tree. There are also a number of degraded modes
available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly >>>>>>>> fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His
Ranger is fly by wire

-aDoesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have
direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic breaks in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering,
there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's hands
on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely provides
*assistance*. Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.
Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is no
*mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern cars
have dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far as the
2004 Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to have any
mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or electric
over hydraulic.
Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are on
the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true steer by
wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus model that
has Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that variant in
Australia.

So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true
steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger
planes there has long been no mechanical connection in these
systems, they rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus

Exactly what is the relevance of this? Note that, despite what Speed
says, aircraft do not use AI, they do use computers, and those
computers have algorithms to respond to different situations, but it
ain't AI by any stretch of the imagination.

And if you will note, *I* wasn't referring to AI, I was responding to
Darren's comment that all aircraft have backup mechanical links to
control systems and that is clearly false and the trend is to move
away from such things.>

To go back to the start of this silliness, there is no way for an AI
to creep into an aircraft control system, they are stand alone systems.

For now. Who knows what the future holds. Cars phone home now. Who
would have thought of that 50 years ago? But it's here now. Why would
it be unlikely to occur in aircraft?

Aircraft have been doing that for MUCH longer than cars have
and all heavys do that

As always, you know fuck all about aircraft

Never claimed to be knowledgeable on aircraft. >

And phoning home is just REPORTING home, not getting the AI

Phoning home is just a *figure of speech*.

updated so a rogue AI can use that to fuck over the system

Odd, my car recently downloaded and installed an update. Surely that is considered an *update* and, as such, might well be subject to hacking in future?
--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars



On 2/8/2026 4:58 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Xeno wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried >>>>>>>>>>> about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners >>>>>>>>>> and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, >>>>>>>>>> and Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the >>>>>>>>>> pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control
surfaces of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they >>>>>>>>>> arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

-aSo, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They >>>>>>>>> are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into >>>>>>>>> several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel >>>>>>>>> would be kicked off and the panel would light up like a
Christmas tree. There are also a number of degraded modes
available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly >>>>>>>> fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His
Ranger is fly by wire

Doesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have
direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_modes
-aNote the final backup on Airbus
-aMechanical control

In the mechanical control back-up mode, pitch is controlled by the
mechanical trim system and lateral direction is controlled by the
rudder pedals operating the rudder mechanically
-aIt would need the loss of all electrical and hydraulic power to
get to this state, but it is there.

FFS, As I said, there are planes that have *no direct mechanical*
backup system for aircraft control.

-aDirect control is irrelevant in an airbus which has
an AI system which decides whether it will allow
the pilot in control to order it to do what is unsafe
in that particular situation

Well FMD!

No thanks, I'll leave that to your bum chums

What have I been saying.

Bullshit it is

Not only irrelevant but not eminently useful given the size of current
airliners.

Nothing to do with the size with trim tabs and direct
control of the rudder when that is necessary

And it goes much further with direct control
of the engines when that is desirable

As always, you know NOTHING about aircraft

It would seem you know less - much less!>

<reams of irrelevant shit flushed where it belongs>

The era of *no mechanical backup control systems* on aircraft is
upon us.

-aWrong with trim tabs and the rudder pedals as
you have just had your ignorant nose rubbed in

We can only expect this trend to continue.

-aYes because its much better than mechanical control

No, the trend will continue because it is *necessary*!

It isn't necessary

You might think so but you aren't an engineer!
--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried >>>>>>>>>>>> about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners >>>>>>>>>>> and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, >>>>>>>>>>> and Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the >>>>>>>>>>> pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control >>>>>>>>>>> surfaces of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they >>>>>>>>>>> arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

So, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They >>>>>>>>>> are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into >>>>>>>>>> several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel >>>>>>>>>> would be kicked off and the panel would light up like a >>>>>>>>>> Christmas tree. There are also a number of degraded modes >>>>>>>>>> available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly >>>>>>>>> fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His >>>>>>>>> Ranger is fly by wire

Doesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have >>>>>>> direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic breaks in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering, >>>>> there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's hands >>>>> on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely provides >>>>> *assistance*.

That is just plain wrong with antilock braking and power steering>> >>>>> Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.

Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is no >>>>> *mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern cars >>>>> have dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far as the >>>>> 2004 Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to have any >>>>> mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or electric >>>>> over hydraulic.

Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are on >>>>> the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true steer by >>>>> wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus model that >>>>> has Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that variant in >>>>> Australia.

So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true >>>>> steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger >>>>> planes there has long been no mechanical connection in these >>>>> systems, they rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

Aircraft do not rely entirely on redundancy in
other forms, most obviously with trim tabs

Trim tabs, not often seen on large modern aircraft graddad.

Wrong, as always and you have just said that they are used
on the elevator in airbuses when in manual mode

There are no elevator trim tabs either on Airbus or Boeing aircraft, the > whole tailplane is moved.

Must be why you told Xeno that trim tabs are used in manual
mode on airbus and even with THS there is STILL direct control
of the THS actuator valves by the trim wheels in the cockpit
when moved by the PIC

The major use of trim is in pitch, and that is done by moving the >>> entire tailplane, or horizontal stabiliser if you will.

You either didn't read this bit or ignored it.

I rubbed your stupid nose in what you said to Xeno in another of your steaming turds

And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars



On 2/8/2026 5:26 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

On 2/08/2026 4:02 pm, Xeno wrote:

On 2/8/2026 3:27 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

On 2/08/2026 1:25 pm, Xeno wrote:

On 2/8/2026 12:34 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried >>>>>>>>>>> about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners >>>>>>>>>> and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, >>>>>>>>>> and Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the >>>>>>>>>> pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control
surfaces of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they >>>>>>>>>> arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance. >>>>>

-aSo, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They >>>>>>>>> are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into >>>>>>>>> several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel >>>>>>>>> would be kicked off and the panel would light up like a
Christmas tree. There are also a number of degraded modes
available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly >>>>>>>> fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His
Ranger is fly by wire

-aDoesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have
direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic breaks in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering,
there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's hands
on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely provides
*assistance*. Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.
Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is no
*mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern cars
have dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far as the
2004 Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to have any
mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or electric
over hydraulic.
Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are on
the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true steer by
wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus model that
has Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that variant in
Australia.

So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true
steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger
planes there has long been no mechanical connection in these
systems, they rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus

Exactly what is the relevance of this? Note that, despite what Speed
says, aircraft do not use AI, they do use computers, and those
computers have algorithms to respond to different situations, but it
ain't AI by any stretch of the imagination.

And if you will note, *I* wasn't referring to AI, I was responding to
Darren's comment that all aircraft have backup mechanical links to
control systems and that is clearly false and the trend is to move
away from such things.>

To go back to the start of this silliness, there is no way for an AI
to creep into an aircraft control system, they are stand alone systems.

For now. Who knows what the future holds. Cars phone home now. Who
would have thought of that 50 years ago? But it's here now. Why would
it be unlikely to occur in aircraft?

Because there is no need to connect an aircraft's critical flight
systems to the internet, and because the industry takes the reliability
of it's systems more seriously than the car industry.

I don't see a need to connect my car to the internet - but it is.
--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

On 1/08/2026 2:48 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

On 1/08/2026 12:25 pm, Clocky wrote:

On 31/07/2026 5:14 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

Not One Nation.
Not the idiocy of Donald Trump.
Not the Saudis, Iranians with nukes.
Even global warming has taken a back seat in the past few weeks.

This is what keeps me awake at night:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2el319vzr3o

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/30/anthropic-ai-
claude-hack

This is deadly serious. And extremely concerning.

Terminator anyone?

This keeps you awake, not the bombs reigning down on children because
genocidal old farts and perverts want to stay out of prison?

The problem is that the genocidal old farts are looking to use it to
improve their efficiency.

Indeed, they are looking to take the human element out of killing people en-masse.
--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Xeno wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried >>>>>>>>>>> about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners >>>>>>>>>> and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, and >>>>>>>>>> Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the >>>>>>>>>> pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control >>>>>>>>>> surfaces of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they >>>>>>>>>> arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance.

So, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They >>>>>>>>> are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into >>>>>>>>> several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel >>>>>>>>> would be kicked off and the panel would light up like a >>>>>>>>> Christmas tree. There are also a number of degraded modes >>>>>>>>> available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly >>>>>>>> fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His Ranger >>>>>>>> is fly by wire

Doesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have >>>>>> direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic breaks in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering, >>>> there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's hands >>>> on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely provides >>>> *assistance*. Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.
Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is no >>>> *mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern cars >>>> have dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far as the >>>> 2004 Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to have any >>>> mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or electric >>>> over hydraulic.

Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are on >>>> the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true steer by >>>> wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus model that >>>> has Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that variant in >>>> Australia.
So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true >>>> steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger >>>> planes there has long been no mechanical connection in these systems, >>>> they rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus

Exactly what is the relevance of this?

It shows that AI can be turned off if the PIC decides that
it is malfunctioning and so that can happen if the PIC
decides that rogue AI has taken control of the plane

Note that, despite what Speed says, aircraft do not use AI,

Wrong with that MCAS system and with airbus
when it decides that the PIC will not be allowed
to do what it has commanded the system to do

No AI in MCAS,

Wrong, as always

it simply used the pitch trim system to push thenose down if certain > conditions were detected.

Wrong, as always

It was just an extra bit of code in the auto pitch system.

Wrong, as always

That is how they got it past the FAA.

Wrong, as always
They got it past the FAA by the FAA stupidly letting boeing do the approval

they do use computers, and those computers have algorithms to respond >>> to different situations,but it ain't AI by any stretch of the >>> imagination.

Wrong, as always and in spades with blind landing systems

No AI needed for blind landings,

Wrong, as always

just lock on to the ILS, and flare when the radio altimeter, we were > doing it at RAE in 1963 without even electronics let alone anything that > you would recognise as a computer.

Wrong, as always

To go back to the start of this silliness, there is no way for an AI >>> to creep into an aircraft control system, they are stand alone systems.

Wrong, as always

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

On 2/08/2026 5:37 pm, Xeno wrote:

We can only expect this trend to continue.

-aYes because its much better than mechanical control

No, the trend will continue because it is *necessary*!

It isn't necessary

You might think so but you aren't an engineer!

Neither are you, Biggles. Go on, tell us about the cockpit voice
recorders again....

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

On 2/08/2026 5:35 pm, Xeno wrote:

As always, you know fuck all about aircraft

Never claimed to be knowledgeable on aircraft. >

I can see that. You've already quoted google AI...

Boy you talk some shit...

You, with the immense help from Google, try to position yourself as knowledgeable on EVERY subject mentioned in here.

Feral cats
politicians
Train accidents
Cockpit Voice recorders
AI
Golf
Bunnings
London Smog
DNA
tractor hydraulics

... as a tiny sample.

I keep telling ya, Tomas.. aus.cars is not your classroom, and we are
not your students. Your days of mechanics and tafe teaching are over.
Get used to it, shit-fer-brains.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aircraft built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately >>>>>>>>>>>>>> crashing the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial >>>>>>>>>>>>> airliners and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>>>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the >>>>>>>>>>>>> pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue >>>>>>>>>>>>> about leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control >>>>>>>>>>>>> surfaces of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they >>>>>>>>>>>>> arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind >>>>>>>>>>>>> resistance.

So, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? >>>>>>>>>>>> They are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack >>>>>>>>>>>> into several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected >>>>>>>>>>>> channel would be kicked off and the panel would light up like >>>>>>>>>>>> a Christmas tree. There are also a number of degraded modes >>>>>>>>>>>> available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are >>>>>>>>>>> increasingly fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable >>>>>>>>>>> type. His Ranger is fly by wire

Doesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have >>>>>>>>> direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic brakes in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering, >>>>>>> there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's >>>>>>> hands on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely >>>>>>> provides *assistance*.

That is just plain wrong with antilock braking and power steering

Reread what I wrote.

Changes nothing

I was referring to *conventional power steering*.

You ignored my point about hydraulic brakes and got
it wrong with some approaches to power steering

It is assistance only.

Wrong, as always with some implementations,
just like with aircraft

No electricity, no hydraulic fluid, you still have mechanical >>>>> steering.

Not necessarily when the system decides
to do what you told it to do, most obviously
with lane tracking

As I pointed out above, I was referring to *conventional PS*. Again

Still conventional

Quote: "I was referring to *conventional power steering*.">

Still conventional

Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.

Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is >>>>>>> no *mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern >>>>>>> cars have dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far >>>>>>> as the 2004 Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to >>>>>>> have any mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or >>>>>>> electric over hydraulic.

Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are >>>>>>> on the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true >>>>>>> steer by wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus >>>>>>> model that has Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that >>>>>>> variant in Australia.

So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true >>>>>>> steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger >>>>>>> planes there has long been no mechanical connection in these >>>>>>> systems, they rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

Aircraft do not rely entirely on redundancy in
other forms, most obviously with trim tabs

Redundancy simply means two systems of operation in case of >>>>> *failure* of one system.

Trim tabs in aircraft are not redundancy

Dual circuit hydraulic brakes being the perfect example - both >>>>> systems are hydraulic. In fact cars use backup hydraulic and backup >>>>> mechanical - handbrake by cable, remember.

Irrelevant to your ignorant claim that aircraft ONLY have redundancy

What? Cars have long had redundancy.

Irrelevant to your ignorant claim that aircraft ONLY have redundancy>>

Dual circuit hydraulic brakes are an example of redundancy *in cars*.

Irrelevant to your ignorant claim that aircraft ONLY have redundancy> Aircraft have always had a degree of redundancy.

More ignorant bullshit from you

I was making the point that mechanical linkages are no longer an > essential feature of said redundancy.

Doesn't have to be mechanical

I said as much before.

Irrelevant to your ignorant claim that aircraft ONLY have redundancy> Aircraft have always had a degree of redundancy.

More ignorant bullshit from you

I was making the point that mechanical linkages are no longer an > essential feature of said redundancy.

Doesn't have to be mechanical

That said, the mechanical handbrake is no longer considered a >>>>> redundant emergency brake since it generally operates on the *rear >>>>> wheels*.

Still redundant emergency braking

In FWD vehicles, attempting to use the handbrake as an emergency >>>>> brake is likely to see you spinning wildly down the road.

Complete and utter pig ignorant bullshit

Try using the parkbrake in a FWD car as an emergency brake at speed >>> and see where you end up.

Been there, done that in two of them and nothing
like what you stupidly claimed happened

I don't think you have!

I know I have

In fact I am sure you haven't.

I know you have never had a fucking clue
There is no reason why the rear end should do that
ever if you manage to lock the brakes at the back

Anyone with a clue would know the reason why a rear wheel park brake is > *dangerous* to rely on as an emergency brake in a front wheel drive > vehicle like your Getz.

Anyone with a clue knows you don't have a fucking clue

And the Getz particularly has such an effective brake
that is sort of just squats if you try to drive off with it on

Suspension design!

Nope, handbrake design

So what?

So you don't have a fucking clue

That is why it is called a *parking* brake these days.

Its still called a handbrake because its mostly applied
using your hand

Odd, the parkbrake in my Toyota doesn't need my hand. I put the car in >>> park and the *parkbrake* comes on *automatically*. There isn't even a >>> park brake lever to play with, just a button in case you want the >>> parkbrake on when the car is in *neutral* or to hold the car.

Irrelevant to manuals

Goalpost shift.

Mindless bullshit. You made a completely stupid ignorant general claim

In a lot of models, Toyota no longer offer a *manual*.

Irrelevant to those that do and when Toyota does

In fact, in a few models they don't even offer an ICE only option.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed

Your point is???

That you have never had a fucking clue

The car world is moving on and leaving you behind!

Wrong with manuals

What is it with you and manuals?

I am exposing your ignorant stupidity

I haven't bothered with a manual since 2010.

Irrelevant, just like you

The trend is *away* from manuals,

Irrelevant, just like you

so much so that owning one can be a form of thief deterrence.
Again, your point is?

Again, that you have never had a fucking clue
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

On Sun, 02 Aug 2026 17:37:53 +1000, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

On 2/8/2026 4:58 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Xeno wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried >>>>>>>>>>>> about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners >>>>>>>>>>> and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, >>>>>>>>>>> and Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the >>>>>>>>>>> pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control >>>>>>>>>>> surfaces of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they >>>>>>>>>>> arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance. >>>>

So, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They >>>>>>>>>> are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into >>>>>>>>>> several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel >>>>>>>>>> would be kicked off and the panel would light up like a >>>>>>>>>> Christmas tree. There are also a number of degraded modes >>>>>>>>>> available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly >>>>>>>>> fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His >>>>>>>>> Ranger is fly by wire

Doesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have >>>>>>> direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_modes
Note the final backup on Airbus
Mechanical control

In the mechanical control back-up mode, pitch is controlled by the >>>>>> mechanical trim system and lateral direction is controlled by the >>>>>> rudder pedals operating the rudder mechanically
It would need the loss of all electrical and hydraulic power to >>>>>> get to this state, but it is there.

FFS, As I said, there are planes that have *no direct mechanical* >>>>> backup system for aircraft control.

Direct control is irrelevant in an airbus which has
an AI system which decides whether it will allow
the pilot in control to order it to do what is unsafe
in that particular situation

Well FMD!

No thanks, I'll leave that to your bum chums

What have I been saying.

Bullshit it is

Not only irrelevant but not eminently useful given the size of current >>> airliners.

Nothing to do with the size with trim tabs and direct
control of the rudder when that is necessary
And it goes much further with direct control
of the engines when that is desirable
As always, you know NOTHING about aircraft

It would seem you know less - much less!>

<reams of irrelevant shit flushed where it belongs>

The era of *no mechanical backup control systems* on aircraft is >>>>> upon us.

Wrong with trim tabs and the rudder pedals as
you have just had your ignorant nose rubbed in

We can only expect this trend to continue.

Yes because its much better than mechanical control

No, the trend will continue because it is *necessary*!

It isn't necessary

You might think so but you aren't an engineer!

Wrong, as always
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

On Sun, 02 Aug 2026 17:35:19 +1000, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

On 2/8/2026 4:54 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2026 16:02:58 +1000, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> >> wrote:

On 2/8/2026 3:27 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

On 2/08/2026 1:25 pm, Xeno wrote:

On 2/8/2026 12:34 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an aircraft >>>>>>>>>>>> built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried >>>>>>>>>>>> about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately crashing >>>>>>>>>>>> the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners >>>>>>>>>>> and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, >>>>>>>>>>> and Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the >>>>>>>>>>> pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control >>>>>>>>>>> surfaces of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they >>>>>>>>>>> arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance. >>>>>>

So, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? They >>>>>>>>>> are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack into >>>>>>>>>> several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected channel >>>>>>>>>> would be kicked off and the panel would light up like a >>>>>>>>>> Christmas tree. There are also a number of degraded modes >>>>>>>>>> available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are increasingly >>>>>>>>> fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable type. His >>>>>>>>> Ranger is fly by wire

Doesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have >>>>>>> direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic breaks in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering, >>>>> there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's hands >>>>> on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely provides >>>>> *assistance*. Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.
Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is no >>>>> *mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern cars >>>>> have dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far as the >>>>> 2004 Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to have any >>>>> mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or electric >>>>> over hydraulic.
Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are on >>>>> the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true steer by >>>>> wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus model that >>>>> has Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that variant in >>>>> Australia.

So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true >>>>> steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger >>>>> planes there has long been no mechanical connection in these >>>>> systems, they rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus

Exactly what is the relevance of this? Note that, despite what Speed >>>> says, aircraft do not use AI, they do use computers, and those >>>> computers have algorithms to respond to different situations, but it >>>> ain't AI by any stretch of the imagination.

And if you will note, *I* wasn't referring to AI, I was responding to >>> Darren's comment that all aircraft have backup mechanical links to >>> control systems and that is clearly false and the trend is to move >>> away from such things.>

To go back to the start of this silliness, there is no way for an AI >>>> to creep into an aircraft control system, they are stand alone >>>> systems.

For now. Who knows what the future holds. Cars phone home now. Who >>> would have thought of that 50 years ago? But it's here now. Why would >>> it be unlikely to occur in aircraft?

Aircraft have been doing that for MUCH longer than cars have
and all heavys do that
As always, you know fuck all about aircraft

Never claimed to be knowledgeable on aircraft.

You stupidly and ignorantly rabbitted on about how aircraft do things

And phoning home is just REPORTING home, not getting the AI

Phoning home is just a *figure of speech*.

Its actually just more of your ignorant bullshit

updated so a rogue AI can use that to fuck over the system

Odd, my car recently downloaded and installed an update.

Aircraft don't do that. Can't imagine why for the life of me

Surely that is considered an *update* and, as such, might well be > subject to hacking in future?

Not with aircraft that don't do that
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Axel <none@not.here> wrote
Clocky wrote

Axel wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Noddy wrote

Trevor Wilson wrote

Noddy wrote

Trevor Wilson wrote

Not One Nation.
Not the idiocy of Donald Trump.
Not the Saudis, Iranians with nukes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even global warming has taken a back seat in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past few weeks.

This is what keeps me awake at night:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2el319vzr3o >>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/30/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anthropic- ai- claude-hack

This is deadly serious. And extremely concerning. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Terminator anyone?

ROFTL :)

Seriously, Trev. Of all the things in this generally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucked up world that could be keeping you awake at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> night, it's this? :)

Yep. Here's the thing/s:

We are VERY early in the development of AI. Already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we've seen several reports of AI software hacking it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way into other systems, despite the safeguards that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were put in place. AI will only become more powerful. >>>>>>>>>>>>

Which is no reason to fear it in and of itself... >>>>>>>>>>>>

Make no mistake: The benefits of AI will be far-reaching >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and significant. The downsides could lead to complete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chaos.

Fools ran the same stupid line about computers, it didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen

computer failures do cause problems. think airlines, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> banking, or any system computer controlled

The AI that has broken out of containment was operated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by regular corporations. What can AI do in the hands >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Putin or Xi?

I don't know Trevor. What can it do?

No (connected) computer system on the planet will be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> safe.

Mindless bullshit, it is perfectly possible to make them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AI immune

is it?

Think your bank accounts are safe? Think again. >>>>>>>>>>>>

I think my bank accounts are perfectly safe.

they haven't been safe from scammers

You clearly don't think.

You don't have a fucking clue

Think that the plane you next fly on is safe? Think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again.

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aircraft built yet that can't be manually controlled. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd be far more worried about some nutbag pilot killing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the cabin crew and deliberately crashing the plane, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over. >>>>>>>>>>>>

It's not the planes that are an issue. It's all the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuff on the ground. Stuff like: Air traffic control >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems, ticketing systems, etc.

The most any AI can do is make them stop working and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while that is undesirable, its just a damned nuisance >>>>>>>>>>>>

but what if AI was able to take control of those systems? >>>>>>>>>>>>

If old speedo wasn't asleep at the wheel he would have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed how vulnerable we really are when systems go down >>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely as we are totally reliant on connected >>>>>>>>>>>>>> technology now - and as it turns out they fall over far to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily.

yes.

But they are in fact no more than a damned nuisance
not the end of civilisation as we know it as that fool >>>>>>>>>>>> Trev keeps mindless hyperventilating about

There is no possibility of rouge AI say firing all the world's >>>>>>>>>>>> nukes at once and even that wouldn't be the end of
civilisation
as we know it, just rather bad hair day for us and a few in >>>>>>>>>>>> Alice Springs

plus the fact that so many companies and organizations have >>>>>>>>>>>>> poor security on their computer systems. the hacker who got >>>>>>>>>>>>> access to Origin Energy customers stated that it's system >>>>>>>>>>>>> security was no better than that of a teenagers school >>>>>>>>>>>>> project.

And that event didn't produce anything bad for their >>>>>>>>>>>> customers
and neither did the previous Optus breach

A couple of people had a terminally bad day due to the Optus >>>>>>>>>>> fuckup.

Nothing even remotely like what could happen if
some rouge AI fired all nukes at the same time

And those who died as a result of the Optus faiilure would >>>>>>>>>> have died anyway

Really, you know that?

Yep, we know who ended up dead

What were the cases,

https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_258840f8-72f8-45da-857c-5ec9ee12d8f0 >>>>>>

and why did the outage not cause their demise?

Because even if ambos had shown up as a result of the 000 call,
they would have died anyway

You have proof for that claim?

Yep, that's what the investigation proved

And the proof of your claim is where?

The official investigation, as I told you

That's not proof, stupid.

There is never any possibility of any other proof, fuckwit

Provide a link.

Go and fuck yourself with one of your clogs
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

Xeno wrote:

On 2/8/2026 5:26 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

On 2/08/2026 4:02 pm, Xeno wrote:

On 2/8/2026 3:27 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

On 2/08/2026 1:25 pm, Xeno wrote:

On 2/8/2026 12:34 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an
aircraft built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried >>>>>>>>>>>> about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately
crashing the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial
airliners and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, >>>>>>>>>>> and Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the >>>>>>>>>>> pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue >>>>>>>>>>> about leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control >>>>>>>>>>> surfaces of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they >>>>>>>>>>> arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance. >>>>>>

-aSo, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? >>>>>>>>>> They are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack >>>>>>>>>> into several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected >>>>>>>>>> channel would be kicked off and the panel would light up like >>>>>>>>>> a Christmas tree. There are also a number of degraded modes >>>>>>>>>> available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are
increasingly fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable >>>>>>>>> type. His Ranger is fly by wire

-aDoesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have
direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic breaks in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering,
there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's
hands on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely
provides *assistance*. Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.
Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is
no *mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern
cars have dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far
as the 2004 Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to
have any mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or
electric over hydraulic.
Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are
on the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true
steer by wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus
model that has Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that
variant in Australia.

So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true
steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger
planes there has long been no mechanical connection in these
systems, they rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus

Exactly what is the relevance of this? Note that, despite what
Speed says, aircraft do not use AI, they do use computers, and
those computers have algorithms to respond to different situations,
but it ain't AI by any stretch of the imagination.

And if you will note, *I* wasn't referring to AI, I was responding
to Darren's comment that all aircraft have backup mechanical links
to control systems and that is clearly false and the trend is to
move away from such things.>

To go back to the start of this silliness, there is no way for an
AI to creep into an aircraft control system, they are stand alone
systems.

For now. Who knows what the future holds. Cars phone home now. Who
would have thought of that 50 years ago? But it's here now. Why
would it be unlikely to occur in aircraft?

Because there is no need to connect an aircraft's critical flight
systems to the internet, and because the industry takes the
reliability of it's systems more seriously than the car industry.

I don't see a need to connect my car to the internet - but it is.

why don't you disconnect it?
--
Linux Mint 22.3

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars



On 2/8/2026 7:14 pm, Axel wrote:

Xeno wrote:

On 2/8/2026 5:26 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

On 2/08/2026 4:02 pm, Xeno wrote:

On 2/8/2026 3:27 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

On 2/08/2026 1:25 pm, Xeno wrote:

On 2/8/2026 12:34 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an >>>>>>>>>>>>> aircraft built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried >>>>>>>>>>>>> about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately >>>>>>>>>>>>> crashing the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial
airliners and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, >>>>>>>>>>>> and Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the >>>>>>>>>>>> pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue >>>>>>>>>>>> about leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control >>>>>>>>>>>> surfaces of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they >>>>>>>>>>>> arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance. >>>>>>>

-aSo, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? >>>>>>>>>>> They are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack >>>>>>>>>>> into several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected >>>>>>>>>>> channel would be kicked off and the panel would light up like >>>>>>>>>>> a Christmas tree. There are also a number of degraded modes >>>>>>>>>>> available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are
increasingly fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable >>>>>>>>>> type. His Ranger is fly by wire

-aDoesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have >>>>>>>> direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic breaks in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering, >>>>>> there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's
hands on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely
provides *assistance*. Steer by wire is a different beast entirely. >>>>>> Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is
no *mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern
cars have dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far >>>>>> as the 2004 Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to
have any mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or >>>>>> electric over hydraulic.
Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are >>>>>> on the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true
steer by wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus >>>>>> model that has Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that
variant in Australia.

So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true >>>>>> steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger
planes there has long been no mechanical connection in these
systems, they rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus

Exactly what is the relevance of this? Note that, despite what
Speed says, aircraft do not use AI, they do use computers, and
those computers have algorithms to respond to different situations, >>>>> but it ain't AI by any stretch of the imagination.

And if you will note, *I* wasn't referring to AI, I was responding
to Darren's comment that all aircraft have backup mechanical links
to control systems and that is clearly false and the trend is to
move away from such things.>

To go back to the start of this silliness, there is no way for an
AI to creep into an aircraft control system, they are stand alone
systems.

For now. Who knows what the future holds. Cars phone home now. Who
would have thought of that 50 years ago? But it's here now. Why
would it be unlikely to occur in aircraft?

Because there is no need to connect an aircraft's critical flight
systems to the internet, and because the industry takes the
reliability of it's systems more seriously than the car industry.

I don't see a need to connect my car to the internet - but it is.

why don't you disconnect it?

Give me time, only had it for less than a week.
--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

On 2/08/2026 5:38 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an >>>>>>>>>>>>> aircraft built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried >>>>>>>>>>>>> about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately >>>>>>>>>>>>> crashing the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial
airliners and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, >>>>>>>>>>>> and Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the >>>>>>>>>>>> pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue >>>>>>>>>>>> about leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control >>>>>>>>>>>> surfaces of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they >>>>>>>>>>>> arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance. >>>

-aSo, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? >>>>>>>>>>> They are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack >>>>>>>>>>> into several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected >>>>>>>>>>> channel would be kicked off and the panel would light up like >>>>>>>>>>> a Christmas tree. There are also a number of degraded modes >>>>>>>>>>> available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are
increasingly fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable >>>>>>>>>> type. His Ranger is fly by wire

-aDoesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have >>>>>>>> direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic breaks in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering, >>>>>> there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's
hands on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely
provides *assistance*.

-aThat is-a just plain wrong with antilock braking and power steering

Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.

Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is
no *mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern
cars have dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far >>>>>> as the 2004 Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to
have any mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or >>>>>> electric over hydraulic.

Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are >>>>>> on the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true
steer by wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus >>>>>> model that has Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that
variant in Australia.

So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true >>>>>> steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger
planes there has long been no mechanical connection in these
systems, they rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

-aAircraft do not rely entirely on redundancy in
other forms, most obviously with trim tabs

Trim tabs, not often seen on large modern aircraft graddad.

Wrong, as always and you have just said that they are used
on the elevator in airbuses when in manual mode

There are no elevator trim tabs either on Airbus or Boeing aircraft,
the whole tailplane is moved.

Must be why you told Xeno that trim tabs are used in manual
mode on airbus and even with THS there is STILL direct control
of the THS actuator valves by the trim wheels in the cockpit
when moved by the PIC

I never said anything of the sort, I said that Airbus aircraft do not
have trim tabs.

The major use of trim is in pitch, and that is done by moving the
entire tailplane, or horizontal stabiliser if you will.

You either didn't read this bit or ignored it.

I rubbed your stupid nose in what you said to Xeno in another of your steaming turds

And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: aus.cars

On 2/08/2026 5:35 pm, Xeno wrote:

On 2/8/2026 4:54 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2026 16:02:58 +1000, Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

On 2/8/2026 3:27 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

On 2/08/2026 1:25 pm, Xeno wrote:

On 2/8/2026 12:34 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote

Keithr0 wrote

Yep. I do. As fas as I'm aware, there hasn't been an
aircraft built yet
that can't be manually controlled. I'd be far more worried >>>>>>>>>>>> about some
nutbag pilot killing the cabin crew and deliberately
crashing the plane,
which we have seen, rather than some AI bot taking over.

You are some sort of idiot! Modern large commercial airliners >>>>>>>>>>> and advanced
fly by wire aircraft, such as the Airbus A350, Airbus A380, >>>>>>>>>>> and Dassault
Falcon 7X, do not have backup manual or mechanical control >>>>>>>>>>> linkages. There
is no physical connection, no cable or rod connecting the >>>>>>>>>>> pilot's controls
to the actual control surfaces. You really have no clue about >>>>>>>>>>> leverage. You
seriously reckon the pilots could manhandle the control >>>>>>>>>>> surfaces of one of
the above large planes by mechanical means? Remember, they >>>>>>>>>>> arenrCOt simply
moving the control surfaces, they are fighting wind resistance. >>>>>>

-aSo, how is an AI going to get into the control computers? >>>>>>>>>> They are also redundant, the evil entity would have to hack >>>>>>>>>> into several instantaneously, if they didn't the affected >>>>>>>>>> channel would be kicked off and the panel would light up like >>>>>>>>>> a Christmas tree. There are also a number of degraded modes >>>>>>>>>> available.

My point to Darren was that aircraft these days are
increasingly fly by wire and I don't mean of the Bowden cable >>>>>>>>> type. His Ranger is fly by wire

-aDoesn't mean that rogue AI can fuck over those aircraft

Yet....

My point to Darren was that the pilot doesn't necessarily have
direct *manual* control of the aircraft.

Of course they do even with fly by wire which is no different
in that sense to power streering and hydraulic breaks in a car

With conventional power steering and even electric power steering,
there is a distinct mechanical connection between the driver's
hands on the steering wheel to the road wheels. The PS merely
provides *assistance*. Steer by wire is a different beast entirely.
Hydraulic brakes are, in effect, similar to FBW in that there is no >>>>> *mechanical connection*, hydraulic only - which is why modern cars
have dual hydraulic circuits. Brake by Wire goes back as far as the >>>>> 2004 Toyota Prius. Handbrakes are no longer guaranteed to have any
mechanical connection, becoming increasingly electric or electric
over hydraulic.
Steer by Wire is here and there are vehicles that have it and are
on the roads now. One notable is the Tesla Cybertruck, a true steer >>>>> by wire with no mechanical backup. I think there is a Lexus model
that has Steer by Wire as well. Not sure if we have that variant in >>>>> Australia.

So, my point was that there is *no* mechanical connection in true
steer by wire or true brake by wire *in cars* and in the larger
planes there has long been no mechanical connection in these
systems, they rely entirely on redundancy in other forms.

And like I said, irrelevant to whether rogue AI can make the
plane do something the PIC doesn't want it to do, in spades
when there is a switch that the PIC can use to turn off a
particular AI function in the plane if it decides that the AI
is fucking up, as there is in the Boeing 737 MAX and with
alternate law with airbus

Exactly what is the relevance of this? Note that, despite what Speed
says, aircraft do not use AI, they do use computers, and those
computers have algorithms to respond to different situations, but it
ain't AI by any stretch of the imagination.

And if you will note, *I* wasn't referring to AI, I was responding to
Darren's comment that all aircraft have backup mechanical links to
control systems and that is clearly false and the trend is to move
away from such things.>

To go back to the start of this silliness, there is no way for an AI
to creep into an aircraft control system, they are stand alone systems.

For now. Who knows what the future holds. Cars phone home now. Who
would have thought of that 50 years ago? But it's here now. Why would
it be unlikely to occur in aircraft?

Aircraft have been doing that for MUCH longer than cars have
and all heavys do that

As always, you know fuck all about aircraft

Never claimed to be knowledgeable on aircraft. >

And phoning home is just REPORTING home, not getting the AI

Phoning home is just a *figure of speech*.

updated so a rogue AI can use that to fuck over the system

Odd, my car recently downloaded and installed an update. Surely that is considered an *update* and, as such, might well be subject to hacking in future?

So is your car made by Airbus or Boeing? If no there is no relevance in
that remark.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2