Oh, and that's a 7 seater. With way better build quality. Way more features. And way nicer handling.
To this day, I can't understand why 0-60 times are a selling point for anything other than exotic sports cars... All it tells me is that idiots can crash into my vehicle that much quicker.
You say that as if the engine fan would keep working, spark plugs can keep firing, the engine doesn't flood(through, say, the tailpipe, or oil system), or a ton of other basic risks. All an electric motor needs to keep working is insulation to prevent shorts. Which it SHOULD have anyways.
... this is why engineers sometimes annoy me.
"It doesn't fit the model, therefore it can't work!"
Well, Skippy, I hate to break it to ya, but gasoline engines very much DO operate underwater, presuming dry airflow to the intake (and from the exhaust) is maintained. Just plug something like "Jeep drives under water" into Youtube for examples.
Gasoline engines do not work when submerged. They require high voltage electrical sparks to ignite the fuel. Being submerged robs them of the spark they need to run. You would have to do special waterproofing of all of the engine's electrical works before it can run submerged.
Growing up as a 'river rat,' partying with crazed rednecks and their beater 4x4s on the river beds has imparted me with the knowledge that what you say here is decidedly not true. Theoretically, you're right, but practical observation defies that theory. Hell, the most I've ever seen anyone do as far as waterproofing was to RTV their distributor shut, and even that was considered overkill.
Diesel engines, on the other hand, do not use spark plugs or electrical components (other than for starting the motor), so all you need is a snorkel. Those Humvees and Land-Rovers you see crossing rivers and streams with the snorkels all have diesel engines.
Bullshit - I've seen far, far more 6-cylinder gasoline Jeeps successfully taking a swim than anything else, save maybe Chenowth dune buggies powered by 50-year-old VW engines.
Wrong question; what you should be asking is, "why spend 100K, when I can buy a car with an almost equivalent safety rating for leas than half that price?
That is, if you're the sort who cares for safety ratings when making purchasing decisions.
Don't get me wrong, the numbers are quite impressive - especially the following passage from TFA:
And just how strong is the Model S’s roof, which is secured with aerospace-grade bolts? It broke a testing machine that was pushing down on the roof with the equivalent of the weight of four cars.
... Damn, yo.
However, at a price point of $80 - 100K, it's going to remain a playtoy for people with money, not become the OMG super-car replacement for mom's $30K Volvo.
Dude I think this would be kinda hard to call "creating" when you are just using prebuilt snippets and throwing them together.
So, basically, anyone who uses a standard library in their code isn't actually "creating" anything.
To me, that's kind of like saying that you're not a writer unless you compress your own graphite, mill your own paper, and build your own printing press.
I dunno, man, I just don't see people accepting a computer taking over for work that humans are used to doing - we tend to resist such changes to our status quo, and rather strongly.
I think there'd be far less resistance if the popularization of automated driving technology coincides with the advent of a practical 'flying car.' For one thing, people already pretty much accept automation in flight controls; for another, if the technology is built in to the original models people won't even think about it. Plus, all we 'manual driving enthusiasts' wouldn't be forced to fundamentally change our lifestyles, because the automation tech would be travelling above paved roads as opposed to on them (generally speaking).
Plus, you know, the obvious - how awesome would it be to own a flying car?!?!
Stolen does not mean to deprive another of ownership, it means to take without permission. That's what it has meant for generations.
I'd wager they know that, but are actively denying said knowledge in an act of mental gymnastics, purely for the sake of attempting justification of their unjustifiable positions.
No they didn't - the definition has always been, "taking something that doesn't belong to you, without permission."
Unless you want to try and argue that sneaking into Stephen King's study and making an unauthorized copy of his latest, unreleased novel is somehow not theft?
Regardless of what label you want to stick on, it's morally wrong to take something, even a copy of it, without the rightful owner's permission.
In other words, instead of easing operations it will likely just introduce another potential point of failure. As it stands, I don't have to verify with the computer whether I really want my truck to turn left - I just turn the damn wheel to the left.
I guess I just fail to see the advantage in "automation," when it has to be closely monitored by a human in order to avoid deadly fuck-ups.
I predict in the next 20 years or so, shit is going to go so horrifically fucking wrong for humanity that "auto-cars" will be removed from the List of Stuff Society Cares About. Whether it be full-on nuclear war, a complete, global totalitiarian state, or a big fucking asteroid obliterating all life, something bad is gonna happen, that makes us, collectively, stop giving a shit about trivial, non-survival nonsense like flying auto-cars.
I guess we've got 'till 2033 to see who's right. I'll go get some beer and lawnchairs.
You want full control? You can't handle full control! Nobody can. Self driving cars will save thousands of lives. It will be that much safer. The proof is in the airline industry. Operator error is by far the most important factor in all accidents.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait a minute, did you just estimate I could drive a TESLA for about the same total price as an Honda Accord?
No - he pointed out that a Tesla costs as much as an Accord + 10 years worth of gasoline.
Damn, and I thought I had math problems...
Yes, but what is the 0-60mph rating of that BMW 320i? 7-12 seconds
http://www.zeroto60times.com/BMW-Bimmer-0-60-mph-Times.html
The Tesla Model S is 3.9-5.9 seconds
Oh, and that's a 7 seater. With way better build quality. Way more features. And way nicer handling.
To this day, I can't understand why 0-60 times are a selling point for anything other than exotic sports cars... All it tells me is that idiots can crash into my vehicle that much quicker.
Kinda this.
Assuming the target market is soccer moms with more income than sense, they should be able to offload a fair amount of these things.
You say that as if the engine fan would keep working, spark plugs can keep firing, the engine doesn't flood(through, say, the tailpipe, or oil system), or a ton of other basic risks. All an electric motor needs to keep working is insulation to prevent shorts. Which it SHOULD have anyways.
... this is why engineers sometimes annoy me.
"It doesn't fit the model, therefore it can't work!"
Well, Skippy, I hate to break it to ya, but gasoline engines very much DO operate underwater, presuming dry airflow to the intake (and from the exhaust) is maintained. Just plug something like "Jeep drives under water" into Youtube for examples.
Gasoline engines do not work when submerged. They require high voltage electrical sparks to ignite the fuel. Being submerged robs them of the spark they need to run. You would have to do special waterproofing of all of the engine's electrical works before it can run submerged.
Growing up as a 'river rat,' partying with crazed rednecks and their beater 4x4s on the river beds has imparted me with the knowledge that what you say here is decidedly not true. Theoretically, you're right, but practical observation defies that theory. Hell, the most I've ever seen anyone do as far as waterproofing was to RTV their distributor shut, and even that was considered overkill.
Diesel engines, on the other hand, do not use spark plugs or electrical components (other than for starting the motor), so all you need is a snorkel. Those Humvees and Land-Rovers you see crossing rivers and streams with the snorkels all have diesel engines.
Bullshit - I've seen far, far more 6-cylinder gasoline Jeeps successfully taking a swim than anything else, save maybe Chenowth dune buggies powered by 50-year-old VW engines.
1968 Volkswagen Beetle :)
Could we submit a patch for Avenged Sevenfold's new album? They got confused and think they are Metallica. What's the equivalent of "FTFY" in music?
A remix.
Wrong question; what you should be asking is, "why spend 100K, when I can buy a car with an almost equivalent safety rating for leas than half that price?
That is, if you're the sort who cares for safety ratings when making purchasing decisions.
Don't get me wrong, the numbers are quite impressive - especially the following passage from TFA:
However, at a price point of $80 - 100K, it's going to remain a playtoy for people with money, not become the OMG super-car replacement for mom's $30K Volvo.
Human body sounds are my preferred instrument.
Sans vulgarity, here's a guy who remixed the Micheal Jackson song Thriller using nothing but sounds he made with his own body (namely vocal chords).
http://musescore.org/
I use the portable version rather extensively, myself.
Dude I think this would be kinda hard to call "creating" when you are just using prebuilt snippets and throwing them together.
So, basically, anyone who uses a standard library in their code isn't actually "creating" anything.
To me, that's kind of like saying that you're not a writer unless you compress your own graphite, mill your own paper, and build your own printing press.
So... anyone who doesn't hand-code all their own libraries isn't a programmer?
I dunno, man, I just don't see people accepting a computer taking over for work that humans are used to doing - we tend to resist such changes to our status quo, and rather strongly.
I think there'd be far less resistance if the popularization of automated driving technology coincides with the advent of a practical 'flying car.' For one thing, people already pretty much accept automation in flight controls; for another, if the technology is built in to the original models people won't even think about it. Plus, all we 'manual driving enthusiasts' wouldn't be forced to fundamentally change our lifestyles, because the automation tech would be travelling above paved roads as opposed to on them (generally speaking).
Plus, you know, the obvious - how awesome would it be to own a flying car?!?!
I believe the standalone Urban Terror is based on the GPL'd Quake 3 code. For them to *not* make the code available was likely a license violation.
Point? Two wrongs don't make a right.
That's why he chose that name. Nobody would expect B1naryTh1ef of planning to steal source code.
In that case, maybe he should have called himself TheSpan1sh1nqu1s1t1on...
Stolen does not mean to deprive another of ownership, it means to take without permission. That's what it has meant for generations.
I'd wager they know that, but are actively denying said knowledge in an act of mental gymnastics, purely for the sake of attempting justification of their unjustifiable positions.
No they didn't - the definition has always been, "taking something that doesn't belong to you, without permission."
Unless you want to try and argue that sneaking into Stephen King's study and making an unauthorized copy of his latest, unreleased novel is somehow not theft?
Regardless of what label you want to stick on, it's morally wrong to take something, even a copy of it, without the rightful owner's permission.
How about "jacked?" I always favored that term in regards to digital theft.
In other words, instead of easing operations it will likely just introduce another potential point of failure. As it stands, I don't have to verify with the computer whether I really want my truck to turn left - I just turn the damn wheel to the left.
I guess I just fail to see the advantage in "automation," when it has to be closely monitored by a human in order to avoid deadly fuck-ups.
Hey, man, I abused enough commas as it is.
Nah, cognitive dissonance will cause them to place the blame on anything besides the auto-car. Swamp-gas-reflecting-the-light-from-Venus type shit.
Then again, maybe by that point Mental Gymnastics will be an official Olympic sport, and the aforementioned folks can field our team.
I predict in the next 20 years or so, shit is going to go so horrifically fucking wrong for humanity that "auto-cars" will be removed from the List of Stuff Society Cares About. Whether it be full-on nuclear war, a complete, global totalitiarian state, or a big fucking asteroid obliterating all life, something bad is gonna happen, that makes us, collectively, stop giving a shit about trivial, non-survival nonsense like flying auto-cars.
I guess we've got 'till 2033 to see who's right. I'll go get some beer and lawnchairs.
You want full control? You can't handle full control! Nobody can. Self driving cars will save thousands of lives. It will be that much safer. The proof is in the airline industry. Operator error is by far the most important factor in all accidents.
You mean, the same airline industry that is now questioning whether pilots rely too much on automation technology?
Hindsight - it's always 20-20.
Yes, thanks for being the second person to point out my poor choice of phrasing.
No, seriously, I hate echo chambers - can't fix what you don't know is broken, amirite?