Here's a thought: combine driverless cars and driverless buses for a commute. One of the chief problems with buses is the sometimes long waits when one needs to change buses, but if a company could assure that one never needed to wait more than two minutes to change from car to bus or bus to car, the advantages in reducing traffic might be well worth it.
Consider, a small queue of buses waits at an interstate entrance ramp - only two or three buses, not enough to waste much time but enough to be sure no one will need to wait long for a delayed replacement vehicle - and most of the cars that would have gone onto the interstate stop and their passengers get onto the bus. At two minute intervals, the bus hits the road - taking probably 30 and perhaps (if a double-decker) over a hundred cars off the road. If this is happening at rush hour and at every major intersection on main routes going into a center city, ten thousand cars could be replaced on the roads by one or two hundred buses. Aside from reduced parking, consider the reduction in traffic in city centers. Add in traffic lights (or other controls) coordinated on the fly with buses, and riders could be assured of a smooth commute into town almost every time.
Of course, not everyone would be going to exactly the same place, but walking two or three blocks is healthy anyway, and not much further from a destination than most parking lots - or for more spread out city centers, more cars could be waiting at the exit ramp - with less than 30 seconds to transfer. With reduced traffic and higher safe speeds, commute times could actually be reduced, and of course commuters could spend their time more productively than driving. Driverless services could include options for breakfast or a snack on the buses, or even bunks to take a nap on long commutes - and of course wi-fi and the like.
True. I think many families will continue to own cars, because on long drives it's nice to have a comfortable space that is one's own. Also, I keep certain things in my car so I'll have them when I need them - a few basic tools, a flashlight, an extra coat - things like that - and I think that is common. Still, many families that now have two or three cars may discover that they need only one - and even that would free up an awful lot of space and reduce costs considerably.
True - self-driving cars will make car ownership unnecessary for most people and could reshape cities - a point that Brad Templeton made a long time ago.
The fluorescent fixtures frequently used in offices are already made to replace one or two ceiling tiles. Not only could a new LED fixture do the same, but there are already LED replacement lamps that may increasingly replace the lamps in existing fluorescent fixtures. They're expensive right now, but expect prices to drop.
This isn't about cheap workers. Housing alone will run about $1600 per worker per month (at the low end). This about having the right workers in the right place at the right time.
The exclusive economic zone is 200 miles, but International Waters is only 12 miles out.
The residents can get a business visa to come onshore for business meetings, they just can't perform any actual work in the United States.
It's true that the residents must abide by the whims of the owners, but the owners in this case are businessmen who want to create a good space for business in order to stay in business. That's a lot different from relying on the goodwill of a single eccentric individual.
"A fact lots of well educated people don't seem to understand regardless of the number of studies showing this effect."
Obviously this fact conflicts with their world view. I have observed this effect in action, however, on multiple occasions, sometimes to comical effect - such as people believing I said the direct opposite of what I actually just said.
It's a mistake to presume that Al Qaeda is staffed by religious fanatics. They are generally opposed to their own governments as much as ours, and attacked the U.S. because the U.S. was supporting tyrannical and corrupt governments in their region. Hopefully the Arab Spring has changed this somewhat.
Like most religious wars, religion in this case is just used as justification. The conflict has other causes.
Absolutely agree on all counts.
I might also note that out of curiosity I once looked at a few passages of Mein Kampf in English translation. The scariest thing about it was that the passages I read could have been written by just about any politician working today.
Um, Obama only got out because the government of Iraq insisted we get out, and seeing as the US ostensibly invaded Iraq to give the Iraqis self-government, Obama couldn't very well dispute the wishes of that government. I don't give a whole lot of credit to Bush or Obama on that count.
A simpler solution is for navies to go underwater. In fact, all warfare is about to change: the future will involve few if any manned ships or airplanes, or indeed - manned combat.
Just as sailing ships gave way to steamships, and battleships gave way to carriers, the navies of the future will be quite different from the navies of today. I imagine that most naval vessels of the future will spend almost all of their time beneath the surface, and only occasionally surface to launch multitudes of small flying drones as needed. They will not need to surface at all to launch small swimming drones - and the ships themselves may not be manned.
More seriously - having cameras and instant communication with police might end these carjackings rather quickly, but you remind me why I like to have the option of an override.
This isn't about conservatives distrusting science, but about conservatives distrusting scientists.
If the interviewer had asked about views on genetically modified foods rather than global warming, they would have discovered that liberals are opposed to science and conservatives support it.
In short, this study is an excellent example why no one should trust self-styled intellectuals. Conservatives don't hate intellectuals, conservatives hate posers.
Yes, they mentioned that Rogue on the PC was a port from an older game on Unix systems, and also mentioned that it inspired Nethack and Angband.
I was pleasantly surprised to see that they remembered to include these games, which despite the simple graphics were by far the most advanced games of their day.
However, if you want to get really pedantic, they should have mentioned the even older ADVENTURE.
In the U.S., inflation-adjusted spending on education has more than tripled in the last 50 years, while outcomes have remained flat.
One-room schoolhouses have a better track record of educational achievement than our modern system.
We could probably reduce spending on education and reduce the need and expense of prisons, but those who make the decisions don't want that. The education system is doing what it was intended to do: dumb down the population. And it's doing it well.
It's not just police. This is the sort of thing that people in offices don't understand - this always happens in the field. It doesn't matter how much training you do, people in the field just don't give a damn about this sort of thing. If you give them extra time and resources to make sure that calibration is done correctly, they will take the opportunity to go home early, have a long lunch, or take a nap. I've seen this in the military, in the private sector, and especially with contractors to the government. This is why systems always need to be designed to be much more robust than they technically need to be.
Of course, it goes beyond this: I have had jobs where I received written instructions on how to do the job, but no equipment to do the job with. At McMurdo Station I was given the work order to inspect every electrical panel on the station with a thermal imaging camera to check for overheating. One small problem: we did not have such a camera, the next incoming flight was four months away, and no one was going to send the equipment anyway. So I ended up just going around and manually tightening all the screws on the connections, and looking for scorch marks.
Perhaps this can be an object lesson for the engineers at Slashdot who actually design things.
Exactly. In 1983 computers were slow and awkward (might take 15 minutes to boot up, and required special skillz to operate), transmission rates were slow (I knew someone in 1981 who would use his 90 baud modem to check if he had email - but then would drive to the university where he worked to read the email if he had any - it was faster), and in many areas phone service was expensive and by the minute even for local calls. Add all these together and there simply wasn't enough demand at the time - such things were toys for the rich.
Thanks to the rich people for paying the R&D for today's internet, however!
"The criticism from the Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations was withering: “The Plant was operated in a culture that seemed to allow instruments to operate in alarm mode rather than questioning the alarm and rectifying the relevant fault.” "
Anyone who actually works for a living will understand how common this is. For most workers, every new safety procedure is one more opportunity to take a nap on company time, or one more annoyance to be worked around or ignored. I've had jobs where other workers complained if I wore safety glasses because it made them look bad for not wearing theirs. The only reason I don't face significant social pressure to ditch my glasses is because I need them to see - even though they have successfully protected my eyes from flying debris on numerous occasions.
There is no solution for human carelessness, laziness, or obstinacy, except to remove the humans entirely - or at least human decision-making. Changing to equipment and materials that are inherently safer works, but safety guards on equipment will be hastily removed the first moment a worker has an excuse - even the appearance of a malfunction will do - and they will not be replaced. In fact, they will be discarded immediately to ensure that they cannot be replaced. A very strict safety program may reduce such things a little, but the pressure must be constant.
If systems can be fully automated, and put under the supervision of a perfectionist, that may be sufficient. Otherwise, it is a good thing that nuclear plants and most everything life critical is over-engineered.
Slashdot Mirror
We didn't need a remote. There was only the one channel.
Here's a thought: combine driverless cars and driverless buses for a commute. One of the chief problems with buses is the sometimes long waits when one needs to change buses, but if a company could assure that one never needed to wait more than two minutes to change from car to bus or bus to car, the advantages in reducing traffic might be well worth it.
Consider, a small queue of buses waits at an interstate entrance ramp - only two or three buses, not enough to waste much time but enough to be sure no one will need to wait long for a delayed replacement vehicle - and most of the cars that would have gone onto the interstate stop and their passengers get onto the bus. At two minute intervals, the bus hits the road - taking probably 30 and perhaps (if a double-decker) over a hundred cars off the road. If this is happening at rush hour and at every major intersection on main routes going into a center city, ten thousand cars could be replaced on the roads by one or two hundred buses. Aside from reduced parking, consider the reduction in traffic in city centers. Add in traffic lights (or other controls) coordinated on the fly with buses, and riders could be assured of a smooth commute into town almost every time.
Of course, not everyone would be going to exactly the same place, but walking two or three blocks is healthy anyway, and not much further from a destination than most parking lots - or for more spread out city centers, more cars could be waiting at the exit ramp - with less than 30 seconds to transfer. With reduced traffic and higher safe speeds, commute times could actually be reduced, and of course commuters could spend their time more productively than driving. Driverless services could include options for breakfast or a snack on the buses, or even bunks to take a nap on long commutes - and of course wi-fi and the like.
True. I think many families will continue to own cars, because on long drives it's nice to have a comfortable space that is one's own. Also, I keep certain things in my car so I'll have them when I need them - a few basic tools, a flashlight, an extra coat - things like that - and I think that is common. Still, many families that now have two or three cars may discover that they need only one - and even that would free up an awful lot of space and reduce costs considerably.
True - self-driving cars will make car ownership unnecessary for most people and could reshape cities - a point that Brad Templeton made a long time ago.
http://ideas.4brad.com/robocars-are-future
Presumably all these driverless cars will have cameras and could report reckless driving - with video footage - to the police in real time.
I imagine that might put an end to such abuses pretty quickly.
Yes. I hate that damned unskippable content so much, maybe I'll finally have to stop getting the authorized releases.
The fluorescent fixtures frequently used in offices are already made to replace one or two ceiling tiles. Not only could a new LED fixture do the same, but there are already LED replacement lamps that may increasingly replace the lamps in existing fluorescent fixtures. They're expensive right now, but expect prices to drop.
One of the founders is a specialist in international law.
This isn't about cheap workers. Housing alone will run about $1600 per worker per month (at the low end). This about having the right workers in the right place at the right time.
The exclusive economic zone is 200 miles, but International Waters is only 12 miles out.
The residents can get a business visa to come onshore for business meetings, they just can't perform any actual work in the United States.
It's true that the residents must abide by the whims of the owners, but the owners in this case are businessmen who want to create a good space for business in order to stay in business. That's a lot different from relying on the goodwill of a single eccentric individual.
"A fact lots of well educated people don't seem to understand regardless of the number of studies showing this effect."
Obviously this fact conflicts with their world view. I have observed this effect in action, however, on multiple occasions, sometimes to comical effect - such as people believing I said the direct opposite of what I actually just said.
It's a mistake to presume that Al Qaeda is staffed by religious fanatics. They are generally opposed to their own governments as much as ours, and attacked the U.S. because the U.S. was supporting tyrannical and corrupt governments in their region. Hopefully the Arab Spring has changed this somewhat.
Like most religious wars, religion in this case is just used as justification. The conflict has other causes.
Absolutely agree on all counts. I might also note that out of curiosity I once looked at a few passages of Mein Kampf in English translation. The scariest thing about it was that the passages I read could have been written by just about any politician working today.
Um, Obama only got out because the government of Iraq insisted we get out, and seeing as the US ostensibly invaded Iraq to give the Iraqis self-government, Obama couldn't very well dispute the wishes of that government. I don't give a whole lot of credit to Bush or Obama on that count.
A simpler solution is for navies to go underwater. In fact, all warfare is about to change: the future will involve few if any manned ships or airplanes, or indeed - manned combat.
Just as sailing ships gave way to steamships, and battleships gave way to carriers, the navies of the future will be quite different from the navies of today. I imagine that most naval vessels of the future will spend almost all of their time beneath the surface, and only occasionally surface to launch multitudes of small flying drones as needed. They will not need to surface at all to launch small swimming drones - and the ships themselves may not be manned.
Simple solution: weaponize the cars.
More seriously - having cameras and instant communication with police might end these carjackings rather quickly, but you remind me why I like to have the option of an override.
This isn't about conservatives distrusting science, but about conservatives distrusting scientists.
If the interviewer had asked about views on genetically modified foods rather than global warming, they would have discovered that liberals are opposed to science and conservatives support it.
In short, this study is an excellent example why no one should trust self-styled intellectuals. Conservatives don't hate intellectuals, conservatives hate posers.
Yes, they mentioned that Rogue on the PC was a port from an older game on Unix systems, and also mentioned that it inspired Nethack and Angband.
I was pleasantly surprised to see that they remembered to include these games, which despite the simple graphics were by far the most advanced games of their day.
However, if you want to get really pedantic, they should have mentioned the even older ADVENTURE.
In the U.S., inflation-adjusted spending on education has more than tripled in the last 50 years, while outcomes have remained flat.
One-room schoolhouses have a better track record of educational achievement than our modern system.
We could probably reduce spending on education and reduce the need and expense of prisons, but those who make the decisions don't want that. The education system is doing what it was intended to do: dumb down the population. And it's doing it well.
They "brought themselves many miniseries?"
Did Timothy live long enough to know about "Masada"?
It's both, but liberals are better at pretending not to be intolerant, while conservatives are proud of it.
Really? You think these officers will face serious consequences for this?
I'd be pleasantly surprised if they get more than a reprimand.
It's not just police. This is the sort of thing that people in offices don't understand - this always happens in the field. It doesn't matter how much training you do, people in the field just don't give a damn about this sort of thing. If you give them extra time and resources to make sure that calibration is done correctly, they will take the opportunity to go home early, have a long lunch, or take a nap. I've seen this in the military, in the private sector, and especially with contractors to the government. This is why systems always need to be designed to be much more robust than they technically need to be.
Of course, it goes beyond this: I have had jobs where I received written instructions on how to do the job, but no equipment to do the job with. At McMurdo Station I was given the work order to inspect every electrical panel on the station with a thermal imaging camera to check for overheating. One small problem: we did not have such a camera, the next incoming flight was four months away, and no one was going to send the equipment anyway. So I ended up just going around and manually tightening all the screws on the connections, and looking for scorch marks.
Perhaps this can be an object lesson for the engineers at Slashdot who actually design things.
Exactly. In 1983 computers were slow and awkward (might take 15 minutes to boot up, and required special skillz to operate), transmission rates were slow (I knew someone in 1981 who would use his 90 baud modem to check if he had email - but then would drive to the university where he worked to read the email if he had any - it was faster), and in many areas phone service was expensive and by the minute even for local calls. Add all these together and there simply wasn't enough demand at the time - such things were toys for the rich.
Thanks to the rich people for paying the R&D for today's internet, however!
"The criticism from the Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations was withering: “The Plant was operated in a culture that seemed to allow instruments to operate in alarm mode rather than questioning the alarm and rectifying the relevant fault.” "
Anyone who actually works for a living will understand how common this is. For most workers, every new safety procedure is one more opportunity to take a nap on company time, or one more annoyance to be worked around or ignored. I've had jobs where other workers complained if I wore safety glasses because it made them look bad for not wearing theirs. The only reason I don't face significant social pressure to ditch my glasses is because I need them to see - even though they have successfully protected my eyes from flying debris on numerous occasions.
There is no solution for human carelessness, laziness, or obstinacy, except to remove the humans entirely - or at least human decision-making. Changing to equipment and materials that are inherently safer works, but safety guards on equipment will be hastily removed the first moment a worker has an excuse - even the appearance of a malfunction will do - and they will not be replaced. In fact, they will be discarded immediately to ensure that they cannot be replaced. A very strict safety program may reduce such things a little, but the pressure must be constant.
If systems can be fully automated, and put under the supervision of a perfectionist, that may be sufficient. Otherwise, it is a good thing that nuclear plants and most everything life critical is over-engineered.