I don't think this is as big a problem as you expect. First, there will never be a day D when there aren't autonomous cars, and a day D + 1 when there are. They're going to be integrated slowly and continuously. Think, cruise control, adaptive cruise control, lane keeping assist, automated parallel parking.
In the near future you won't have driverless cars, both for technological and social/legal reasons, any commercial car will require a person in the driver's seat. That makes liability easy, whoever's in the driver's seat is responsible for the car and its actions. It's exactly the same as if you turn on cruise control in a "non-autonomous" car and rear end someone on the highway. You're liable, even though you're using technology.
The auto acceleration isn't really apples to apples with this. That's just a potential product failure (Like car's catching on fire when they get rear-ended). It doesn't really apply to autonomous cars more than non autonomous cars, except for the potential "autonomous cars are more complex", which is questionable anyway, considering how complex current cars are.
My point wasn't that freecell is np anything, it's that people thing np != p because no one's been able to solve an np-complete problem in p, not because there's a formal proof.
Just about every scene in the first three Foundation books is people talking, and that's all it is, and more to the point, that's precisely why it's amazingly good.
I totally agree that Foundation is good for this reason, as well as some of my favorite movies are good for this reason. I always say my favorite movies are the ones where nothing's happening but everyone's talking.
However, I feel like I'm in the minority and a true interpretation of Foundation would be boring to the masses. After all, movies are made for the profit not the story.
Does anybody think Barnes and Noble would be willing to post a sign saying your book was #38 in its category on Amazon?
They would mention a book is a national best seller, even if the majority of the books were sold on Amazon.
He's not promoting Android, he's promoting the fact that he was a finalist in a competition, which just happened to be hosted for Android apps.
I believe that NASA will develop a heavy lift vehicle that is meant just for LEO, not for the moon.
This says so, so it must be true.
Obviously this will not be in the near future, but it looks like NASA will try to do it themselves instead of just giving up and saying "Someone else will do it".
Why is a new lunar rover going to take 11 years to go into production when technology is so much more advanced now and innovation is at a faster pace than ever?
Well for one we're not going to land on the moon for at least another 11 years. I think it will probably be more like 15.
The lunar rover isn't the slow part. The slow part is the lack of funding. Right now they have to fund both the shuttle program and development of Constellation.
In 1965 the GDP was $712 Billion with a NASA budget of a little more than $5 billion or about 0.7%
In 2007 the GDP was about $13.8 Trillion with the NASA budget at about $17 billion, or about 0.12%.
It's not the scientists and engineers, it's the politicians.
Is that going up with the astronauts or sent in a separate launch?
The astronauts will go up on an Ares I rocket. The equipment for a moon landing, this included, as well as the Earth Departure Stage will go up in an Ares V. After they rendezvous in Earth orbit they will then go to the moon.
As the next drive is to the Moon and to Mars, something has to be developed, as the Shuttle is an Orbiter, not an interplanetary transport.
Going to Orion and Ares was supposed to be taking the best from the Shuttle and Apollo programs and using that so that as little as possible had to be re-engineered. Flying the Shuttle is a huge complex process, NASA claims that the Constellation program will actually be less complex, requiring fewer people to operate the program once it is running. However, just because they hope it will be easy, doesn't mean that developing or operating the Constellation program will run as smoothly as NASA hopes.
I am "potentially impressed" by an engine that needs enough electricity it requires its own nuclear reactor in space, uses radio waves to excite plasma, and uses a magnetic field as a nozzle.
It's the VASMIR Designed by Franklin Chang-Diaz.
Part of the point of this is that it takes an incredible amount of time and money to send something into space.
Adding one more flight will not be a huge issue, because there is a rescue flight scheduled for the last current shuttle flight. But after that to add a flight would be a ton of work. With the knowledge that the shuttle program was coming to an end the ability to make the antique parts that the shuttle flies on is diminished, as no one makes them anymore. (To give an idea of how old the hardware is, the navigation system runs on something like 512 K)
It would cost in the order of $400 million dollars per additional flight. Also, to speed up Constellation it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars per month, and even with expanded funding there is a limit to how fast it can be realized.
In short, everyone is asking for money, NASA included, and lots of people question how important manned space flight actually is.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think this is as big a problem as you expect. First, there will never be a day D when there aren't autonomous cars, and a day D + 1 when there are. They're going to be integrated slowly and continuously. Think, cruise control, adaptive cruise control, lane keeping assist, automated parallel parking.
In the near future you won't have driverless cars, both for technological and social/legal reasons, any commercial car will require a person in the driver's seat. That makes liability easy, whoever's in the driver's seat is responsible for the car and its actions. It's exactly the same as if you turn on cruise control in a "non-autonomous" car and rear end someone on the highway. You're liable, even though you're using technology.
The auto acceleration isn't really apples to apples with this. That's just a potential product failure (Like car's catching on fire when they get rear-ended). It doesn't really apply to autonomous cars more than non autonomous cars, except for the potential "autonomous cars are more complex", which is questionable anyway, considering how complex current cars are.
Michigan's athletic department is on it's own budget. It doesn't get money from the university, and it doesn't give money directly to the university.
My point wasn't that freecell is np anything, it's that people thing np != p because no one's been able to solve an np-complete problem in p, not because there's a formal proof.
About the same time you assume P != NP since no one has been able to solve an NP-complete problem in P.
Yes, because there is a shitload of private developed launchers that can bring cargo into LEO and beyond. Go libertarian!
SpaceX and Orbital immediately come to mind. Not to mention the Atlas rocket family.
Unless it runs without electricity it consumes that as well.
Just about every scene in the first three Foundation books is people talking, and that's all it is, and more to the point, that's precisely why it's amazingly good.
I totally agree that Foundation is good for this reason, as well as some of my favorite movies are good for this reason. I always say my favorite movies are the ones where nothing's happening but everyone's talking. However, I feel like I'm in the minority and a true interpretation of Foundation would be boring to the masses. After all, movies are made for the profit not the story.
I can imagine it would make a multi-car pile up quite exciting. Just another effort to make real life more like a Michael Bay movie.
If only they would have gone on Undercover Boss. All would have been solved.
Interesting how Hulu (and others) provide free flash videos while the iTunes store provides videos for sale.
Does anybody think Barnes and Noble would be willing to post a sign saying your book was #38 in its category on Amazon?
They would mention a book is a national best seller, even if the majority of the books were sold on Amazon. He's not promoting Android, he's promoting the fact that he was a finalist in a competition, which just happened to be hosted for Android apps.
They can take blue spice eyes to a whole new level. Blue spice people!
If it's anything like the Conan O'Brien animation I look forward to getting 100% of my news this way.
I believe that NASA will develop a heavy lift vehicle that is meant just for LEO, not for the moon. This says so, so it must be true. Obviously this will not be in the near future, but it looks like NASA will try to do it themselves instead of just giving up and saying "Someone else will do it".
Why is a new lunar rover going to take 11 years to go into production when technology is so much more advanced now and innovation is at a faster pace than ever?
Well for one we're not going to land on the moon for at least another 11 years. I think it will probably be more like 15. The lunar rover isn't the slow part. The slow part is the lack of funding. Right now they have to fund both the shuttle program and development of Constellation. In 1965 the GDP was $712 Billion with a NASA budget of a little more than $5 billion or about 0.7% In 2007 the GDP was about $13.8 Trillion with the NASA budget at about $17 billion, or about 0.12%. It's not the scientists and engineers, it's the politicians.
Is that going up with the astronauts or sent in a separate launch?
The astronauts will go up on an Ares I rocket. The equipment for a moon landing, this included, as well as the Earth Departure Stage will go up in an Ares V. After they rendezvous in Earth orbit they will then go to the moon.
As the next drive is to the Moon and to Mars, something has to be developed, as the Shuttle is an Orbiter, not an interplanetary transport. Going to Orion and Ares was supposed to be taking the best from the Shuttle and Apollo programs and using that so that as little as possible had to be re-engineered. Flying the Shuttle is a huge complex process, NASA claims that the Constellation program will actually be less complex, requiring fewer people to operate the program once it is running. However, just because they hope it will be easy, doesn't mean that developing or operating the Constellation program will run as smoothly as NASA hopes.
I am "potentially impressed" by an engine that needs enough electricity it requires its own nuclear reactor in space, uses radio waves to excite plasma, and uses a magnetic field as a nozzle. It's the VASMIR Designed by Franklin Chang-Diaz.
Part of the point of this is that it takes an incredible amount of time and money to send something into space. Adding one more flight will not be a huge issue, because there is a rescue flight scheduled for the last current shuttle flight. But after that to add a flight would be a ton of work. With the knowledge that the shuttle program was coming to an end the ability to make the antique parts that the shuttle flies on is diminished, as no one makes them anymore. (To give an idea of how old the hardware is, the navigation system runs on something like 512 K) It would cost in the order of $400 million dollars per additional flight. Also, to speed up Constellation it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars per month, and even with expanded funding there is a limit to how fast it can be realized. In short, everyone is asking for money, NASA included, and lots of people question how important manned space flight actually is.