Yep, it does do that automatically, but the system might malfunction and in any case, high speed crashes sometimes create extra electrical connections that weren't there before. They tried to design the car to avoid this as much as possible, but never say never.
Actually, that figure is more than 0.01% for Teslas, and more than 0.1% for EVs in general. Expect that proportion to increase drastically in the next few years. If firefighters still don't know how to handle an electric car crash, it's about time they started learning.
Just a question from someone whose knowledge of rockets is limited to Kerbal Space Program: why do they fill up the upper stage if they're just testing the first stage?
Also, would it be at all possible to put the payload on after the test?
According to which article of the traffic code would that be?
As far as I know, if traffic has to slow down for you, that means you have failed to yield to them. I know it's hard in a truck, but that doesn't legally give them the right of way. Feel free to correct me with an actual legal text or precedent.
OK, I stand corrected, apparently the A380 autopilot now does automatically avoid traffic. That doesn't mean other types without this new functionality don't have an "autopilot" however.
That begs the question whether we could litteraly care less. Or something to that affect.
See how beautiful languages get if you let the idiots decide what words mean? If you change the dictionary rather than educate people?
By the way, do you really think people would use the system differently if it was called something like "gizmo to help you stay in lane"? People try out the system, see how well it appears to work, and then start to watch videos. The name has nothing to do with it.
The only difference between Tesla's autopilot and similar systems from other manufacturers is that Tesla's system works so well that people start to trust it. Mercedes, Volvo and others don't have that problem yet as they swerve all over the place so badly nobody in his right mind would even think of letting it drive by itself without watching it like a hawk. The Tesla is just in that dangerous intermediate stage where it's good enough for people to trust it but not quite good enough not to mess up occasionally.
TCAS is a warning system. It just says "Traffic, traffic" and then, when you get closer, some instruction like "Climb! Climb!". It is then up to the pilots to actually disconnect the autopilot and initiate that climb. So no, autopilots do not avoid traffic. TCAS is completely separate from the autopilot.
Same for terrain, you do get EGPWS warnings but again it's up to the pilot to actually disconnect the autopilot and pull up. The autopilot will happily fly right into a mountain.
What makes you think the truck had the right of way? He turned across multiple lanes just expecting cars to stop for him. Just because you're bigger doesn't mean you have the right of way.
A copilot is actually a fully licenced pilot who is perfectly capable of flying and landing the aircraft without any help whatsoever. It's one of the things they have to actually demonstrate during their training, with the instructor pretending to be dead.
An autopilot has to be told what to do and cannot even extend the landing gear by itself.
"an aircraft will not automatically detect and avoid other aircraft, only mapped obstacles" This is not true for many modern autopilots. Peer to peer traffic avoidance is now available for even small GA aircraft. These systems not only detect possible collisions, but negotiate how to avoid the collision so that both aircraft don't turn towards each other.
First of all, aircraft autopilots do not automatically avoid mapped obstacles. They can be programmed to fly a certain route that does not contain those obstacles, but you can just as easily program them to fly straight into a mountain. On modern airplanes you do get aural warnings ("Terrain ahead", "Terrain, terrain, pull up!") but that's it. The autopilot won't do anything, it won't even disconnect. Second of all, even though TCAS systems will tell the pilot to climb or descend to avoid another aircraft, it is still up to the pilot to actually disconnect the autopilot and take the required corrective action.
The simplest airplane autopilots just maintain a heading and an altitude. They are still called autopilots.
The most sophisticated autopilots can actually land the plane, but, wait for it... the pilots have to have their hands on the controls and be ready to take over at any time! Still, they don't just call it autopilot, they even dare to call it autoland.
ACAS responds with autopilot disengagement, meaning fucker you need to wake up and fly now cause I could bollocks this up.
No, it most certainly does not. ACAS only gives aural warnings. First "Traffic, Traffic". Then, when you get closer, an actual command like "Climb, climb". It is then up to the pilots to disengage the autopilot (it does not disconnect by itself) and take the corrective action.
I'm a pilot on the A320. I've also flown the 737, A330, Falcon 2000, and a few others. I don't know of any aircraft where the autopilot automatically disconnects because of an ACAS warning.
An autopilot is an assistant. It is in airplanes, and it is in cars. Various levels of sophistication exist. The simplest airplane autopilots can only fly straight ahead at a given altitude. The most complex ones can actually land an airplane, if the pilots program it correctly and are ready with their hands on the controls to take over at any time when necessary.
The question whether or not you have to hold the controls is dictated by the environment, not the capabilities of the device. At high altitude, sure, we can let go of the controls. During an automatic landing: no way. I have actually had to perform a go-around during an automatic approach because the system was not working properly, and I only do a couple of automatic approaches per year (only in low visibility conditions).
The Tesla autopilot is undoubtedly more sophisticated than any airplane autopilot in existence today, but obviously has to deal with a much more difficult and unpredictable environment. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be called an autopilot. Ask any actual pilot.
The only thing Tesla did wrong, is demonstrate their autopilot with their hands off the wheel. Even Elon Musk did so himself. But there's nothing wrong with the name "autopilot". And seriously, do you think people would not drive it hands-off if it had a different name?
Yes, real autopilots automatically swerve to avoid other aircraft, and refuse to fly into terrain.
Oh, wait, turns out they don't.
And autoland automatically lands an aircraft right? Oh, turns out the pilots still have to extend the flaps and landing gear, put the right data into the flight management computer, select the approach mode at the correct time, and use it only on runways that are equipped with specially certified ILS Cat III transmitters. And, during the automatic approach, they have to be CONSTANTLY monitoring the system with their hands at the controls ready to initiate a go-around immediately if anything goes wrong (which does happen from time to time). And they dare to call it "autoland"!
Yes, at sufficiently high altitude an autopilot system is hands-off because there isn't really anything you can fly into. That has nothing to do with it being an "autopilot" but simply with the environment it is in. Autopilot at low altitude during approach is hands-on. And it's perfectly safe to drive a Tesla autopilot hands-off in the middle of the Nevada salt flats.
Next up: lawsuit against "automobile" manufacturers because the vehicles don't spontaneously move by themselves as their name implies.
The parsec has only had a clear definition since august 2015. Turns out there are several different ways of measuring the distance of the earth to the sun (aphelion, perihelion, averaged over time, averaged over some other variable,...), and more or less practical ways of defining parallax.
The exact definition of a light year, meanwhile, was fixed in 1984. It's simply the distance covered by light in vacuum in 365.25 days (a julian year), a day being defined as 86400 seconds and a second being defined in function of the radioactivity of caesium.
Slashdot Mirror
If only there were a website where you could look up this kind of thing.
Not one in a million, it's actually more than one in 10,000. (1.2 billion cars in the world, well over 120,000 Teslas sold).
And if you count all EVs together, it's more than one in a thousand and growing rapidly.
Yep, it does do that automatically, but the system might malfunction and in any case, high speed crashes sometimes create extra electrical connections that weren't there before. They tried to design the car to avoid this as much as possible, but never say never.
Then it was probably disconnected already...
Actually, that figure is more than 0.01% for Teslas, and more than 0.1% for EVs in general. Expect that proportion to increase drastically in the next few years. If firefighters still don't know how to handle an electric car crash, it's about time they started learning.
For example, Elon suggested that air-cushion levitation would be the best method, but also acknowledged that magnetic levitation was a viable option.
Just out of curiosity, how would an air cushion work in a vacuum tube?
Just a question from someone whose knowledge of rockets is limited to Kerbal Space Program: why do they fill up the upper stage if they're just testing the first stage?
Also, would it be at all possible to put the payload on after the test?
To be fair, microwave ovens have caused interference for other observations before:
https://www.theguardian.com/sc...
According to which article of the traffic code would that be?
As far as I know, if traffic has to slow down for you, that means you have failed to yield to them. I know it's hard in a truck, but that doesn't legally give them the right of way. Feel free to correct me with an actual legal text or precedent.
OK, I stand corrected, apparently the A380 autopilot now does automatically avoid traffic. That doesn't mean other types without this new functionality don't have an "autopilot" however.
That begs the question whether we could litteraly care less. Or something to that affect.
See how beautiful languages get if you let the idiots decide what words mean? If you change the dictionary rather than educate people?
By the way, do you really think people would use the system differently if it was called something like "gizmo to help you stay in lane"? People try out the system, see how well it appears to work, and then start to watch videos. The name has nothing to do with it.
The only difference between Tesla's autopilot and similar systems from other manufacturers is that Tesla's system works so well that people start to trust it. Mercedes, Volvo and others don't have that problem yet as they swerve all over the place so badly nobody in his right mind would even think of letting it drive by itself without watching it like a hawk. The Tesla is just in that dangerous intermediate stage where it's good enough for people to trust it but not quite good enough not to mess up occasionally.
TCAS is a warning system. It just says "Traffic, traffic" and then, when you get closer, some instruction like "Climb! Climb!". It is then up to the pilots to actually disconnect the autopilot and initiate that climb. So no, autopilots do not avoid traffic. TCAS is completely separate from the autopilot.
Same for terrain, you do get EGPWS warnings but again it's up to the pilot to actually disconnect the autopilot and pull up. The autopilot will happily fly right into a mountain.
What makes you think the truck had the right of way? He turned across multiple lanes just expecting cars to stop for him. Just because you're bigger doesn't mean you have the right of way.
A copilot is actually a fully licenced pilot who is perfectly capable of flying and landing the aircraft without any help whatsoever. It's one of the things they have to actually demonstrate during their training, with the instructor pretending to be dead.
An autopilot has to be told what to do and cannot even extend the landing gear by itself.
So no, "copilot" is actually a worse name.
"an aircraft will not automatically detect and avoid other aircraft, only mapped obstacles"
This is not true for many modern autopilots. Peer to peer traffic avoidance is now available for even small GA aircraft. These systems not only detect possible collisions, but negotiate how to avoid the collision so that both aircraft don't turn towards each other.
First of all, aircraft autopilots do not automatically avoid mapped obstacles. They can be programmed to fly a certain route that does not contain those obstacles, but you can just as easily program them to fly straight into a mountain. On modern airplanes you do get aural warnings ("Terrain ahead", "Terrain, terrain, pull up!") but that's it. The autopilot won't do anything, it won't even disconnect.
Second of all, even though TCAS systems will tell the pilot to climb or descend to avoid another aircraft, it is still up to the pilot to actually disconnect the autopilot and take the required corrective action.
The simplest airplane autopilots just maintain a heading and an altitude. They are still called autopilots.
The most sophisticated autopilots can actually land the plane, but, wait for it... the pilots have to have their hands on the controls and be ready to take over at any time! Still, they don't just call it autopilot, they even dare to call it autoland.
ACAS responds with autopilot disengagement, meaning fucker you need to wake up and fly now cause I could bollocks this up.
No, it most certainly does not. ACAS only gives aural warnings. First "Traffic, Traffic". Then, when you get closer, an actual command like "Climb, climb". It is then up to the pilots to disengage the autopilot (it does not disconnect by itself) and take the corrective action.
I'm a pilot on the A320. I've also flown the 737, A330, Falcon 2000, and a few others. I don't know of any aircraft where the autopilot automatically disconnects because of an ACAS warning.
An autopilot is an assistant. It is in airplanes, and it is in cars. Various levels of sophistication exist. The simplest airplane autopilots can only fly straight ahead at a given altitude. The most complex ones can actually land an airplane, if the pilots program it correctly and are ready with their hands on the controls to take over at any time when necessary.
The question whether or not you have to hold the controls is dictated by the environment, not the capabilities of the device. At high altitude, sure, we can let go of the controls. During an automatic landing: no way. I have actually had to perform a go-around during an automatic approach because the system was not working properly, and I only do a couple of automatic approaches per year (only in low visibility conditions).
The Tesla autopilot is undoubtedly more sophisticated than any airplane autopilot in existence today, but obviously has to deal with a much more difficult and unpredictable environment. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be called an autopilot. Ask any actual pilot.
The only thing Tesla did wrong, is demonstrate their autopilot with their hands off the wheel. Even Elon Musk did so himself. But there's nothing wrong with the name "autopilot". And seriously, do you think people would not drive it hands-off if it had a different name?
Yes, real autopilots automatically swerve to avoid other aircraft, and refuse to fly into terrain.
Oh, wait, turns out they don't.
And autoland automatically lands an aircraft right? Oh, turns out the pilots still have to extend the flaps and landing gear, put the right data into the flight management computer, select the approach mode at the correct time, and use it only on runways that are equipped with specially certified ILS Cat III transmitters. And, during the automatic approach, they have to be CONSTANTLY monitoring the system with their hands at the controls ready to initiate a go-around immediately if anything goes wrong (which does happen from time to time). And they dare to call it "autoland"!
Yes, at sufficiently high altitude an autopilot system is hands-off because there isn't really anything you can fly into. That has nothing to do with it being an "autopilot" but simply with the environment it is in. Autopilot at low altitude during approach is hands-on. And it's perfectly safe to drive a Tesla autopilot hands-off in the middle of the Nevada salt flats.
Next up: lawsuit against "automobile" manufacturers because the vehicles don't spontaneously move by themselves as their name implies.
Yep, you are being obtuse. Might try googling before posting. Or open up Wikipedia.
The worst iPhone has a failure rate of 29%, but the average iPhone is twice as bad at 58%. Don't ask...
They have some weird math going on though. iOS devices have a 58% failure rate, and of those iOS devices the iPhone 6 has the highest rate with 29%.
So the weighted average between 29% and a bunch of lower percentages is 58%?
"Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing."
Yep, and it's a great landing if they can reuse the plane.
The parsec has only had a clear definition since august 2015. Turns out there are several different ways of measuring the distance of the earth to the sun (aphelion, perihelion, averaged over time, averaged over some other variable,...), and more or less practical ways of defining parallax.
The exact definition of a light year, meanwhile, was fixed in 1984. It's simply the distance covered by light in vacuum in 365.25 days (a julian year), a day being defined as 86400 seconds and a second being defined in function of the radioactivity of caesium.
Yes, 116,227,108.9743 years is less than 116,227,109 years