This is what happens when we pretend that random C++ hackers are real engineers, things that used to "just work" now exhibit the flakiness we've come to expect from software, due mostly to the primitive testing technology in broad use by software engineers and their complete ignorance of how physical systems are classically engineered & tested.
It's really just a matter of time until C++ & Agile development start killing people in large numbers.
there are a lot of people who are unable (for various medical reasons) to get certain vaccinations or whom otherwise are not completely protected by vaccinces, their only protection from certain terrible diseases is via herd immunity. Those people don't believe your pseudo-intellectual nonsense, but they are still affected by it if you choose not to vaccinate yourself and your kids.
If anti-vaxxers were only hurting themselves then I'd have less objection to it, as refusing to take simple steps to protect yourself from horrible diseases is clearly a trait that we should remove from the gene pool via natural selection.
Do you just wait for stories on any new technology so that you can post "what happens when the hackers get ahold of that?"? Do you have any idea how much that makes you look like a retarded Debbie Downer?
> 1. There is little reason to make it VTOL, when it will end up being at an airport anyway. Assuming you make it self-piloting, it might as well be an airplane, which will always be cheaper than a VTOL anything.
HTOL makes sense for internal combustion engines because the engine is so heavy you don't want more than one of them if you can avoid it. And HTOL aircraft are easier to pilot by humans. But HTOL requires big [costly] wings to get sufficient lift and then you have all that drag at altitude. And if we were talking about a flying car for 1970 then you'd be exactly right, but we're talking about a flying car for 2035.
VTOL makes sense for electric drive aircraft. You can use multiple redundant cheap electric motors rather than one highly reliable super-mega-certified internal combustion engine. VTOL has a trickier control loop, but that doesn't matter if a computer is doing all the flying. VTOL obviously has advantages for takeoffs and landings in denser areas, but also should lead to a cheaper airframe. I suspect VTOL makes more sense for our 2035 aircraft, but we'll see.
You originally said that flying cars would never exist because physics, and then you pointed out a lot of economic & practical problems with replacing all cars with flying cars. I point out that they aren't a replacement for regular cars but rather a better GA aircraft, and now you admit that there is [in fact] a market for them--perhaps even one that is 3x larger than the existing GA market (which supports several companies, BTW), but we should all consider that a failure because there won't be one in every garage?
It is truly fascinating how short-sighted aviation experts are. This is an industry which is ripe for disruption and I'm going to laugh my ass off in 20 years when I'm flying around in a ride-share self-piloting VTOL aircraft while you're staring at your dusty gauges and talking wistfully about the good old days.
Flying cars aren't a replacement for cars, they are a better general aviation aircraft--one that in the future will pull more people into general aviation.
a complete reboot of US healthcare, ending "don't ask don't tell, gay marriage, dream act, killing Bin Laden, normalization of relationships with Cuba, saving the auto industry, net neutrality, new START treaty with Russia, doubling of car efficiency standards, etc.
I don't think Obama is hurting for accomplishments--he's the most productive president since probably FDR, and there's absolutely nothing you can say on the internet that changes that reality.
The Transition is a STOL aircraft which does require a trained pilot.
The TF-X is a VTOL aircraft and it is being designed around automated flight. They haven't invited anyone from the aviation media to try it out because it isn't ready yet. Ford hasn't invited any members of the automotive media to test-drive their 2020 vehicles yet, I guess that means they are impossible to drive.
I've known several brilliant computer scientists that don't really enjoy programming--there was a time when computer science was more than memorizing idiosyncratic template meta-programming syntax.
If this claim was true it would be widely reported, I can't find any reputable report validating the claim that the "handcuff photo was staged" and lots of reputable reports of the opposite.
He didn't win first prize and didn't bump off a teenage kid who created an ebola detection kit. He hogged the spotlight, that's fair criticism but it's very different than what was claimed.
What does it feel like to be a cliche? You are making the same exact complaint that every generation since the beginning of time has made: "These kids today, no know how lift boulder, no good at hunt--makes me angry, makes gods angry, will have bad harvest and world will end".
Yet, somehow, the world has steadily improved. Try stepping out of your own personal anecdotal experience once in awhile.
There is no smoked filled room where people are brainstorming how to make your life hard. Rich people aren't thinking about how to screw you over...they aren't thinking about you at all. Nobody tricked you into going to collge; you are responsible for your own decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what happens when we pretend that random C++ hackers are real engineers, things that used to "just work" now exhibit the flakiness we've come to expect from software, due mostly to the primitive testing technology in broad use by software engineers and their complete ignorance of how physical systems are classically engineered & tested.
It's really just a matter of time until C++ & Agile development start killing people in large numbers.
there are a lot of people who are unable (for various medical reasons) to get certain vaccinations or whom otherwise are not completely protected by vaccinces, their only protection from certain terrible diseases is via herd immunity. Those people don't believe your pseudo-intellectual nonsense, but they are still affected by it if you choose not to vaccinate yourself and your kids.
If anti-vaxxers were only hurting themselves then I'd have less objection to it, as refusing to take simple steps to protect yourself from horrible diseases is clearly a trait that we should remove from the gene pool via natural selection.
Do you just wait for stories on any new technology so that you can post "what happens when the hackers get ahold of that?"? Do you have any idea how much that makes you look like a retarded Debbie Downer?
Think about it for awhile.
Seriously, do the math. Then ask yourself how much you would care if someone filed a lawsuit against you for 50 cents.
> 1. There is little reason to make it VTOL, when it will end up being at an airport anyway. Assuming you make it self-piloting, it might as well be an airplane, which will always be cheaper than a VTOL anything.
HTOL makes sense for internal combustion engines because the engine is so heavy you don't want more than one of them if you can avoid it. And HTOL aircraft are easier to pilot by humans. But HTOL requires big [costly] wings to get sufficient lift and then you have all that drag at altitude. And if we were talking about a flying car for 1970 then you'd be exactly right, but we're talking about a flying car for 2035.
VTOL makes sense for electric drive aircraft. You can use multiple redundant cheap electric motors rather than one highly reliable super-mega-certified internal combustion engine. VTOL has a trickier control loop, but that doesn't matter if a computer is doing all the flying. VTOL obviously has advantages for takeoffs and landings in denser areas, but also should lead to a cheaper airframe. I suspect VTOL makes more sense for our 2035 aircraft, but we'll see.
You originally said that flying cars would never exist because physics, and then you pointed out a lot of economic & practical problems with replacing all cars with flying cars. I point out that they aren't a replacement for regular cars but rather a better GA aircraft, and now you admit that there is [in fact] a market for them--perhaps even one that is 3x larger than the existing GA market (which supports several companies, BTW), but we should all consider that a failure because there won't be one in every garage?
It is truly fascinating how short-sighted aviation experts are. This is an industry which is ripe for disruption and I'm going to laugh my ass off in 20 years when I'm flying around in a ride-share self-piloting VTOL aircraft while you're staring at your dusty gauges and talking wistfully about the good old days.
Flying cars aren't a replacement for cars, they are a better general aviation aircraft--one that in the future will pull more people into general aviation.
a complete reboot of US healthcare, ending "don't ask don't tell, gay marriage, dream act, killing Bin Laden, normalization of relationships with Cuba, saving the auto industry, net neutrality, new START treaty with Russia, doubling of car efficiency standards, etc.
I don't think Obama is hurting for accomplishments--he's the most productive president since probably FDR, and there's absolutely nothing you can say on the internet that changes that reality.
They're actually building a prototype, so if it can't fly then we'll all find out soon.
Sure it costs money to go faster, but lots of people have money and are willing to spend it to go faster.
The Transition is a STOL aircraft which does require a trained pilot.
The TF-X is a VTOL aircraft and it is being designed around automated flight. They haven't invited anyone from the aviation media to try it out because it isn't ready yet. Ford hasn't invited any members of the automotive media to test-drive their 2020 vehicles yet, I guess that means they are impossible to drive.
I've known several brilliant computer scientists that don't really enjoy programming--there was a time when computer science was more than memorizing idiosyncratic template meta-programming syntax.
Are you saying that we should nationalize Apple?
This is a third party speculating on what Apple might do. Now who is the parody?
This is a third party speculating on what Apple might do.
If this claim was true it would be widely reported, I can't find any reputable report validating the claim that the "handcuff photo was staged" and lots of reputable reports of the opposite.
He didn't win first prize and didn't bump off a teenage kid who created an ebola detection kit. He hogged the spotlight, that's fair criticism but it's very different than what was claimed.
It's a good story and all, but is it true?
This smells like bullshit to me.
Whooooooooosh
What does it feel like to be a cliche? You are making the same exact complaint that every generation since the beginning of time has made: "These kids today, no know how lift boulder, no good at hunt--makes me angry, makes gods angry, will have bad harvest and world will end".
Yet, somehow, the world has steadily improved. Try stepping out of your own personal anecdotal experience once in awhile.
There is no smoked filled room where people are brainstorming how to make your life hard. Rich people aren't thinking about how to screw you over...they aren't thinking about you at all. Nobody tricked you into going to collge; you are responsible for your own decisions.
The tablet didn't make the error, the humans did.
And if you think you have to be rich to afford an iPad, well, then I guess you've had a tough, tough life.
Programming is simple grunt work compared to hardware design, that's why morons like you can do it.