tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post2241305781694439431..comments2024-03-18T13:11:39.192-07:00Comments on Rocketpunk Manifesto: At the Speed of StoryRickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comBlogger150125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-1000278600792901972011-12-04T12:17:50.397-08:002011-12-04T12:17:50.397-08:00Milo:
"If your goals are long-term, why rush...Milo:<br /><br /><i>"If your goals are long-term, why rush to grab land now?"</i><br /><br />In the context of the book in question:<br /><br />1. There's already been a costly asteroid hit, creating a psychological imperative.<br /><br />2. We've got wormhole tech, which makes the energy cost vastly lower.<br /><br />3. Due to the nature of wormhole chains, later claims are dependent on earlier ones.<br /><br />4. Everyone else is doing it, which given 3) leads to a now-or-never approach.Raymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18103471451043461302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-82640206955600628322011-12-04T10:11:25.969-08:002011-12-04T10:11:25.969-08:00=Milo=
Huh? This thread isn't dead?
Ray...=Milo=<br /><br /><br /><br />Huh? This thread isn't dead?<br /><br /><br /><br />Raymond:<br /><br /><i>"It's not simply a bubble, the powers-that-be are thinking </i>very<i> long-term,"</i><br /><br />If your goals are long-term, why rush to grab land <i>now</i>?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-15028696564409838232011-11-14T20:59:09.291-08:002011-11-14T20:59:09.291-08:00Thank you, sirs, for the kind words about the nove...Thank you, sirs, for the kind words about the novel, and Rick for that front-page link as well. Hard at work on the sequel.John Lumpkinhttp://www.thehumanreach.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-539993816460943732011-11-14T12:29:57.108-08:002011-11-14T12:29:57.108-08:00No law requires comment threads to die! (After all...No law requires comment threads to die! (After all, my original <a href="www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com/2007/08/space-fighters-not.html" rel="nofollow">Space Fighters, Not</a> post still gets comments after 4+ years.<br /><br />Interesting points about the novel!Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-43450467242639993852011-11-14T07:31:56.879-08:002011-11-14T07:31:56.879-08:00I'm certainly looking forward to the next one....I'm certainly looking forward to the next one.jollyreaperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05673007647719726846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-59451752570711360682011-11-11T19:36:44.326-08:002011-11-11T19:36:44.326-08:00Bah, out of habit and forgot to check the email bo...Bah, out of habit and forgot to check the email box.Raymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18103471451043461302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-56201262882138547392011-11-11T19:36:23.096-08:002011-11-11T19:36:23.096-08:00In the name of His Noodliness, I command this thre...In the name of His Noodliness, I command this thread to rise again!<br /><br />(Sorry for the thread necromancy, really. I miss a chunk of comments, come back later, and find myself with ghosts.)<br /><br />Having read the Lumpkin novel in question within the last two weeks (and no, this thread wasn't the catalyst, just a happy coincidence), some randomly-ordered points:<br /><br />- Good job on the first novel, John. Looking forward to the next.<br /><br />- For those quibbling about the timeframe, a) each major power has low-to-mid single-digit numbers of colonies (and low populations on each), b) most of the wormholes go to/from red dwarfs, at least partly because of resolution limits of the telescopes used to find habitable planets, and especially c) there is actually a plausible explanation of the swiftness of the interstellar land grab. It's not simply a bubble, the powers-that-be are thinking <i>very</i> long-term, and the crux of it is a piece of reasonably-plausible astronomy mixed with the realities and priorities of power. I think even Tony would accede to the justification. (No spoilers, obviously, unless the denizens of the thread waive their rights.)<br /><br />- That said, putting it a century ahead of where it is wouldn't really hurt.<br /><br />- I thought the handling of automation was fine. A lot of things were left to computer control once the decisions were made (by humans), nobody was manually aiming lasers at targets thousands of klicks distant, and things like software upgrades and infowar attacks factored in at appropriate times. It was the kind of balanced approach that didn't have me scratching my head nor cringing.<br /><br />- I think there probably should've been a couple more ships named after battles to come; details like that give the future a lived-in sheen without having to write future-history essays. Also, the <i>Kuwait City</i> wouldn't stick out so much.<br /><br />- Oh, and Thucydides, the wormhole-carrying craft sent out relativistically were micro-assemblies, not full starships, and relativistic wormholes actually work like rockets due to local mass conservation - you just get to leave the power supply back home and shoot a powerful laser or particle beam through it.Raymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18103471451043461302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-31150089212982213862011-10-10T19:53:15.419-07:002011-10-10T19:53:15.419-07:00John - You make an important point that I often fo...John - You make an important point that I often forget myself: The Plausible Midfuture is meant to be just what it says, plausible, not necessarily 'likely.'<br /><br />It is a funny thing. In a high fantasy novel you can give careful attention to, say, viable cavalry tactics, combine them with outright magic - indeed, modify them to take account of outright magic - and everyone pretty much agrees to take the story on its own terms.<br /><br />But whenever we deal with space, especially with any nod to the physics of actual space travel, we all get tangled up between the world(s) of the story and the things we think people might actually do in space in the less-than-remote future.<br /><br />This is pretty much a built-in challenge, and probably should be regarded as a feature, not a bug.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-547188879299057902011-10-10T19:11:26.820-07:002011-10-10T19:11:26.820-07:00Thanks, Rick, for the welcome. I've lurked her...Thanks, Rick, for the welcome. I've lurked here for quite some time. And thanks, too, for some sage advice you've provided over on SFConSim.<br /><br />I'll let others characterize the hardness of the novel, but I sure tried not to violate any laws of physics. In a few places I filled in some scientific blanks (such as regarding wormholes and exoplanets) with the fairly advantageous assumptions.<br /><br />And this may be relevant to your original point in the blog post. I came at the novel's assumptions from two directions: One, a desire to not screw up the science, and two, a desire to tell the kind of story I wanted to tell, with Earth nations in space, geopolitical conflict and espionage, interesting flawed characters, and so on. I hemmed myself in by trying to observe the laws of physics, and then I engineered future history into where I wanted it to be.<br /><br />And there's lots of assumptions that underlie that future history, about politics, economics and culture, all fed by deeper assumptions about human nature. These social sciences are (thankfully) a lot less deterministic than hard sciences, and the socially oriented assumptions are open to challenge. And that's fine! I'm not trying to predict the future -- that would be a far different book -- I just wanted to build one that would be satisfyingly plausible and also unique and interesting enough to keep people turning pages.John Lumpkinhttp://www.thehumanreach.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-20263407402744828942011-10-05T08:56:25.348-07:002011-10-05T08:56:25.348-07:00jollyreaper:
"The Golden Age scifi with star...jollyreaper:<br /><br /><i>"The Golden Age scifi with starships flying around without computers is always good for a laugh."</i><br /><br />Only for people who have no technological perspective. Electrical an nuclear engineering, using slipsticks and relatively simple electromechanical calculators, had advanced so quickly and had accomplished so much by 1945 that it was hard to imagine what they couldn't accomplish. Also, what we do with computers now wasn't left undone back then. It was just done with electromechanical integrators purpose-built for each task. Or, if a task couldn't be totally automated through the engineer's art, they found creative ways to meld man and machine to accomplish the task.<br /><br />Let's put it another way. In 500 BC, cutting edge naval technology was based on manual labor -- rowing. In 1900 AD, cutting edge naval technology was based on manual labor -- shovelling coal. This is an observation that the Golden Age writers (born in the first quarter of the 20th century) would have been culturally and intellectually much closer too. <br /><br /><i>"I think the robotics revolution is right on the cusp of exploding.<br /><br />... <br /><br />Currently fast food restaurants have experimented with automation and have found humans to be cheaper and more reliable than machines. It's unclear how longer this will remain so."</i><br /><br />What I think is abundantly clear is that a lot of people simply don't understand how computers, especially software, work. Computers are much faster and have much more storage than they used to. But they still do precisely the same things they did forty years ago. Heck, the latest version of linux is still programmed in C and hand-crafted assembly language.<br /><br />Yes, computers can really whiz through scripted procedures. People have found some pretty neat ways to synthesize numerous scripted procedures into very complex applications. Heuristic tools have been applied to allow systems to learn by doing, after a (very elementary) fashion. But robotics and all other types of computing are firmly grounded in conceptual models that have been almost completely explored. <br /><br />Everything we do to extend our capabilities is done through brute force -- more speed and more power. We're eventually going to run into a wall with that, IMO sooner rather than later.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-57361913567052787952011-10-04T20:00:33.703-07:002011-10-04T20:00:33.703-07:00Just a nitpick...elevators lost their operators be...Just a nitpick...elevators lost their operators because regular passengers could operate the simpler controls. People might be ok with THEIR cars driving them around, but leary of some airline's machine flying them sans pilots.<br /><br />I do look forward to reading "The Human Reach"...sounds like the kind of story I'd like.<br /><br /><br />FerrellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-29199907179859663002011-10-04T18:26:21.336-07:002011-10-04T18:26:21.336-07:00I have not read John Lumpkin's book, so I have...<i>I have not read John Lumpkin's book, so I have no informed opinion about how convincing the backstory is or isn't. I infer that the book is intended as essentially space opera with Plausible [TM] detailing.</i><br /><br />I'd describe it as "plausible space opera." There's an entire debate as to whether or not we'd have war in space. He makes the minimum number of assumptions to get us into space while still maintaining plausible rival factions with competing interests. The ships move and fight in as plausible a fashion as we can imagine, but there is a bias against total automation. My personal guess is that if we don't have access to some kind of nifty FTL shortcut in the near future, by the time we can actually build plausible starships they're going to be self-aware AI models like from the Culture. I'm not saying this with the assumption that hard AI is around the corner, more like if it takes us a thousand years to develop the tech for proper starships then we'll probably have hard AI if it's possible. <br /><br />He makes the assumption that hard AI can't happen to keep the humans closer to the center of the story. You don't have manned starfighters, you don't have a perky ensign and the ship's android cooking up new technologies Starfleet R&D couldn't imagine. <br /><br />While I'm sure there's nits to pick, they're not going to be the obvious ones you'd imagine when someone says "space opera." <br /><br /><i>My bias is for a longer time scale for space expansion - but I'm someone who liked Firefly and never bothered to watch (the modern) Battlestar Galactica, so it is a matter of biases. </i><br /><br />A lot can be excused in how the show takes itself. Firefly always struck me as just this side of tongue in cheek and is so enjoyable that the absurdities can either be overlooked or celebrated. I'm harsher on Galactica because it took itself so goddamn seriously and yet was so cheesy. <br /><br /><i>In principle, whether a form of transport can be automated depends on how many (and frequent) failure modes it has where a 'pilot' could recover and prevent or mitigate failure, but there is also a cultural element that might play out differently over time.</i><br /><br />It's kind of funny to see what we think will be easy and what we think will be hard, what will come sooner and what will come later. The Golden Age scifi with starships flying around without computers is always good for a laugh. I think the robotics revolution is right on the cusp of exploding. Not saying we'll have replicants walking around, just that we're going to see a lot of changes in the way things are done. A lot of jobs we assumed were too complicated for computers are getting automated away. I'm not just talking cashiers or tollbooth attendants. It's not so much that we're talking about an over-estimation of what a computer is capable of, more like we over-estimate what a human brings to the table. <br /><br />Currently fast food restaurants have experimented with automation and have found humans to be cheaper and more reliable than machines. It's unclear how longer this will remain so. <br /><br />Versatile robot arm<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CayFbmpuyIc&feature=relatedjollyreaperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05673007647719726846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-86565449784337833562011-10-04T10:16:41.851-07:002011-10-04T10:16:41.851-07:00=Milo=
Rick:
"OTOH, I doubt their automat...=Milo=<br /><br /><br /><br />Rick:<br /><br /><i>"OTOH, I doubt their automation is absolute; the trains may not have drivers, but I'm sure the control center has dispatchers on duty."</i><br /><br />It should be noted that even human workers are subject to occasional performance reviews, and have to answer to their employers and to traffic control authorities. Just how little external control is necessary before you can count as "autonomous"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-5290213076506356542011-10-04T08:38:19.712-07:002011-10-04T08:38:19.712-07:00Rick:
"If we get 'true' automobiles,...Rick:<br /><br /><i>"If we get 'true' automobiles, and people become comfortable with putting the car on total cruise control, attitudes toward automated aircraft (or spacecraft) could change - perhaps even if they really shouldn't change."</i><br /><br />I think attitudes towars fully automatic cars would be moderated by the ability to fail safe by pulling over and stopping.<br /><br /><i>"Note that much of what we call automatic or robotic is really remote-control. Our interplanetary spacecraft DO have operating crews - it is just that the crews all live much closer to Pasadena than to the spacecraft they are controlling."</i><br /><br />Yeah, but your pilots have to live in places like Pasadena, San Dimas, or La Canada. And they have to socialize with people like Sheldon, Leonard, Raj, and Howard.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-12548249651700496512011-10-03T19:23:57.491-07:002011-10-03T19:23:57.491-07:00Very belated welcome to another new commenter, who...Very belated welcome to another new commenter, who found his book being taken in vain in this discussion.<br /><br />I have not read John Lumpkin's book, so I have no informed opinion about how convincing the backstory is or isn't. I infer that the book is intended as essentially space opera with Plausible [TM] detailing.<br /><br />My bias is for a longer time scale for space expansion - but I'm someone who liked Firefly and never bothered to watch (the modern) Battlestar Galactica, so it is a matter of biases. <br /><br />I'll note that a growing number of rapid transit lines are automated, involving more complex operation and longer travel times than elevators. OTOH, I doubt their automation is absolute; the trains may not have drivers, but I'm sure the control center has dispatchers on duty.<br /><br />In principle, whether a form of transport can be automated depends on how many (and frequent) failure modes it has where a 'pilot' could recover and prevent or mitigate failure, but there is also a cultural element that might play out differently over time.<br /><br />If we get 'true' automobiles, and people become comfortable with putting the car on total cruise control, attitudes toward automated aircraft (or spacecraft) could change - perhaps even if they really shouldn't change.<br /><br />Note that much of what we call automatic or robotic is really remote-control. Our interplanetary spacecraft DO have operating crews - it is just that the crews all live much closer to Pasadena than to the spacecraft they are controlling.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-91565893414418476202011-09-27T19:10:12.975-07:002011-09-27T19:10:12.975-07:00I don't know about the perfectability of hardw...I don't know about the perfectability of hardware, but I'm pretty sure from my experience in developing and maintaining software, we are far, far, o so far away from getting software to do as good as even average people.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-66802354137308037932011-09-27T17:22:39.209-07:002011-09-27T17:22:39.209-07:00My job is to test and repair electronics...I don&#...My job is to test and repair electronics...I don't believe people will ever succeed in building a "perfect" machine; even the "build a machine that designs a machine that designs a machine..." type of evolutionary method of creating a "perfect" machine would take untold generations and never reach a conclusion...just like 'natural' evolution is still an ongoing proccess.<br /><br />FerrellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-86605049262191225632011-09-26T21:07:26.376-07:002011-09-26T21:07:26.376-07:00Thucydides:
"For very high performance aircr...Thucydides:<br /><br /><i>"For very high performance aircraft, the joystick really is disconnected from the control surfaces, and simply informs the flight control computers which direction the pilot wants to go. The F-16 was the first aircraft to do this, being dynamically unstable in flight without constant microsecond corrections by the control system."</i><br /><br />The point to make here is that the system is not designed to relieve the pilot of decision making. It is designed to lessen his workload and buffer against inadvertent departures. Also, in the event that the aircraft does take an excursion outside the programmed flight envelope, the pilot can override the safeties.<br /><br />Ferrell:<br /><br /><i>"The argument shouldn't be either human control or computer control, but to what extent computers enhance human control."</i><br /><br />I would agree, but there's a certain outlook that sees perfect machines as naturally replacing fallible humans.<br /><br />Apropos of this discussion, I was reading today that a lot of supmarket chains are removing or reducing self checkout systems. It turns out that less than 20% of transactions are made at them, which is down from a high of (IIRC) 23%. It seems like even with something seemingly as simple as point-of-sale interactions, people just want to deal with people.<br /><br />Now I know that somebody is going to argue that this is all generational. But less than 20% acceptance after ten years? I don't think that's generational.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-45335927770381269872011-09-26T19:53:28.293-07:002011-09-26T19:53:28.293-07:00The argument shouldn't be either human control...The argument shouldn't be either human control or computer control, but to what extent computers enhance human control.<br /><br />FerrellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-12006883875518674652011-09-26T18:33:50.185-07:002011-09-26T18:33:50.185-07:00For very high performance aircraft, the joystick r...For very high performance aircraft, the joystick really is disconnected from the control surfaces, and simply informs the flight control computers which direction the pilot wants to go. The F-16 was the first aircraft to do this, being dynamically unstable in flight without constant microsecond corrections by the control system.<br /><br />For most spacecraft, this isn't really required (watch the docking sequence from 2001: A Space Odyssey to get an idea of the reaction times needed) except for the final few meters of the journey (better keep the docking ring lined up with the target). <br /><br />Shuttles or reentry vehicles are a class of spacecraft which need lightning fast "reflexes" beyond direct human input, so will be largely computer controlled as well. The final place we will find computers in the lead is tactical systems like close in missile defense, triggering high speed weapons to deflect or destroy incomming missiles (lasers, railguns, anti missiles; take your pick), but even there the human hand is needed if only to initiate the fire/no fire sequence.Thucydideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828932214842106266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-31734887286519190342011-09-26T08:35:48.759-07:002011-09-26T08:35:48.759-07:00jollyreaper:
"Unless you're in the eleva...jollyreaper:<br /><br /><i>"Unless you're in the elevator when the emergency happens."</i><br /><br />And sometimes you're on an aircraft where nothing the pilot can do can save you. But that doesn't invalidate the point that control systems, no matter how sophisticated -- and some elevator control systems are very sophisticated, BTW -- are not considered safe for human life all on their own.<br /><br /><i>"Total pilot error is at fault for over 50% of crashes.<br /><br />http://planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm<br /><br />We'd like to point to problems like that Airbus crash where the flight control system overrode the pilot's commands in that low pass at the air show or Captain Sully making that herculean effort to save his aircraft, something that no computer could have been programmed to handle safely. But what about middling pilots? How many cases do we have of inadequate training, fatigue, or some other stupid factor that ends in smoking ruin?"</i><br /><br />The above misses the point. Yes, humans are fallible. But human-caused accidents are a different subject from in-flight emergencies. Even if the human isn't Cap'n Sully or Neil Armstrong, he gives you a better chance in an emergency than a machine does. One of the dirty little secrets of airmanship is how many accidents and incidents are avoided everyday by merely average human skill. Ever gone on YouTube and watched a few crosswind landing montages?<br /><br />Also, there are many cases of in-flight emergencies where disaster was not totally avoided, but signifcantly mitigated by pilot action. I happen to personally know several people who are alive today thanks to this phenomenon.<br /><br /><i>"All I'm saying is that there's...room for making a convincing argument for machine control."</i><br /><br />With current or reasonably foreseable computer technology? I don't think a rational argument can be made. Computers are great aids and assistants. But you can't program into them what every experienced pilot knows and can do. As I stated eariler, there are just things that we can't reduce to code, and there's not even any convincing theory of how we could in the future.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-36190437975205437912011-09-26T07:45:34.195-07:002011-09-26T07:45:34.195-07:00On top of all of that, expert systems are designed...<i><br />On top of all of that, expert systems are designed to handle routine operations. They are intentionally programmed to ask for human help when things go too far off nominal. And the vast majority of things that stump expert systems don't require an ace to solve, just somebody with professional -- or even just technical -- experience in the problem domain. So install and run all the expert systems you want, you still need the human to deal with emergencies. </i><br /><br />Total pilot error is at fault for over 50% of crashes. <br /><br />http://planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm<br /><br />We'd like to point to problems like that Airbus crash where the flight control system overrode the pilot's commands in that low pass at the air show or Captain Sully making that herculean effort to save his aircraft, something that no computer could have been programmed to handle safely. But what about middling pilots? How many cases do we have of inadequate training, fatigue, or some other stupid factor that ends in smoking ruin? <br /><br />I'm not sitting here telling you humans are worthless, I'm not telling you blah blah the wave of the future is automation, I'm not even predicting which way it will go. <br /><br />All I'm saying is that there's room for making a convincing argument for human control and room for making a convincing argument for machine control. And I think there's a very huge emotional content to this argument that goes beyond the statistics. I could buy a story where a human operator is along for the ride even if he has literally nothing to do put keep triggering a dead man's switch. I could also buy a story where all transportation is automated and even if a personal flying craft the joystick is there to tell the computer where the passenger wants to go and is translated into proper flight instructions from there, avoiding stalls, collisions, and controlled flight into terrain.jollyreaperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05673007647719726846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-3056395561651938592011-09-26T07:36:55.147-07:002011-09-26T07:36:55.147-07:00No, they don't, because an elevator can be avo...<i>No, they don't, because an elevator can be avoided in an emergency</i><br /><br />Unless you're in the elevator when the emergency happens.jollyreaperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05673007647719726846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-9469135408032841422011-09-26T07:00:53.835-07:002011-09-26T07:00:53.835-07:00Milo:
"None of these have anything to do wit...Milo:<br /><br /><i>"None of these have anything to do with the elevator's programming being inadequate."</i><br /><br />No, they don't, because an elevator can be avoided in an emergency, so it's programming is irrelevant. But an in-flight or at-sea emergency occurs in such a way that being aboard can't be avoided.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-65785891909251676112011-09-25T12:57:00.138-07:002011-09-25T12:57:00.138-07:00=Milo=
Tony:
"They still tell you to stay...=Milo=<br /><br /><br /><br />Tony:<br /><br /><i>"They still tell you to stay out of them in a fire. Why? Because it's still not safe to trust your life to control logic or an interruptable power supply in an abnormal operating environment."</i><br /><br />Actually, that's because of what I said about an elevator being difficult to escape if it stops moving somewhere other than at one of its proper stops.<br /><br />A fire significantly increases the chance of getting stuck in the shaft midway between floors due to an interruptible power supply, as well as creating the risk of the fire actually destroying the wires holding the elevator up and causing it to plummet (with almost certainly lethal results). Having a human operator would not help with either problem, since dead power is still dead power even if a human is giving the commands. Having the elevator be human-muscle-powered rather than just human-driven would help with the interruptible power supply, but not with the plummeting hazard.<br /><br />Additionally, the small confined space of an elevator makes it harder to see your surroundings and so you have no idea how close you are to hazardous fire or rubble. A staircase is an open space that leaves you with a better sense of your surroundings and more freedom of movement to dodge obstacles.<br /><br />None of these have anything to do with the elevator's <i>programming</i> being inadequate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com