Slashdot Mirror
Ford's New Radar Technology Based On Open Source
zakkie writes "Ford is releasing new safety-enhancing radar equipment for its 2010 Taurus sedan. The radar itself is based on F22 fighter radar, but interestingly, it's claimed that the software is built from open source. What that may mean, in the vague, waffling context of the article, is unclear, but it's interesting simply because they've gone to the effort of stating it in those words. Clearly, 'open source' is being thought of outside the IT world as a good thing, and that surely is itself a good thing. The purpose of the radar device is to help 'avoid crashes by sounding an alarm and flashing red lights when the driver gets too close to another car.'"
...as well as annoying the crap out of any driver with a radar detector you happen to be driving behind ;-)
Is there any point in the modern world to having a radar detector? I've always been under the impression that a lot of law enforcement agencies are now using LIDAR, which is virtually impossible to detect until your car is being painted with it (i.e: it's too late to slow down). Even the ones that use radar generally turn it on and off with a trigger instead of leaving it running all the time -- which further reduces your odds of detecting it before it hits your vehicle.
I've always wondered if the things are actually worth the cost but most of the online literature about them seems to be put out by the manufacturers -- hardly a neutral unbiased source.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Anyone? How about a non sequitur then? No? Fruitcake?
Clearly, 'open source' is being thought of outside the IT world as a good thing, and that surely is itself a good thing.
You know what else is open source? Knives. Used to stab people to death. And many people find that a good thing. Surely it must be.
Also... Nowhere in the text does it say that "the software is built from open source". No. They say:
"...The F22 radar technology which they took and built upon was all open source.... "We then added our own Ford algorithms to determine whether or not objects are a 'vehicle target'."
From what I gather - someone in the "chain of reporting", whether it is the BBC reporter or people at Ford has no clue what the term "open source" actually means (which no part of a clearly still partially classified F-22 Raptor isn't), and is probably confusing it with the term "public domain" - which radar technology is.
Come on. What is next?
A submission of a cake recipe cause it is open source? Look... you can add your own ingredients and develop it further.
How about an open source walk?
You know... as opposed to those covered by government grants and thereby being partially owned by the government.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I think we're finally seeing some of the safety features that consumers actually want, rather than safety features that the government mandates. Radar guided cruise control and braking will save a lot of lives and a lot of money by almost eliminating rear end collisions.
Another feature I can't wait to see in the average car is brake lights that flash during emergency braking. The biggest nuisance for me in my 30 mile urban freeway commute is people who get in front of me and use their brakes simply to control their speed. It means I have to concentrate really hard on to figure out how hard someone is braking. A car with flashing brake lights (you're already seeing this on many Mercedes and European cars) will flash its brake lights rapidly under heavy braking so that the driver in the car behind knows to do the same.
It's good ideas like these that save a lot of lives and earn revenue for the auto companies that implement them, like Ford has here.
Should one wish to speed while using their radar detector, the safe thing is to only do so when there's at least a few cars visible ahead of you. That way, your detector will be set off when the officer uses their "instant-on" to clock the cars ahead of you.
Better yet: Save your money, and start your trip at the speed limit. Eventually, someone will pass you (whom I will euphemistically refer to as the "decoy"). Speed up, keep pace and a mile behind your decoy, you're set to go. (Why a mile? Some morons get indignant when they know others are filching off their radar detector coverage.) Oh, and check your rearview mirror once in a while for the cops that like to troll the roadways while exceeding the speed limit and not on an emergency call.
(You all that are snickering at the use of my term "filching" really need to get a life.)
> And mu, which depends on the tires and the road is also important.
A bit of an understatement there.
The number of square inches tire on the road and the pressure of those tires comes into play as does the texture of the road surface. Because trucks run higher pressure tires, they have fewer square inches per pound than do cars.
Since the road surface is essentially the same for all vehicles at a given point, it comes down to square inches when brakes are applied hard.
However, there is often an inverse relationship of weight and stopping distance for big trucks. This is where your mathematical model falls apart.
A empty truck may skid farther than a fully loaded one. http://books.google.com/books?id=I511spiUbQsC&lpg=PA18&ots=pY7kxO4ewx&dq=stopping%20distance%20lightly%20loaded%20trucks&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Further, you over look the fact that stopping distances of various vehicle classes are not designed to the same standards. Recently, the NHTSA mandated shorter stopping distance for trucks to bring them more in line with typical passenger vehicle standards. http://www.examiner.com/x-17128-Houston-Truck-Industry-Examiner~y2009m7d27-Amendment-mandates-new-truck-stopping-distance
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.