Compatibile with GGI and X for your old applications.
There is this little thing called a network effect, though.. which means you run X because everyone else runs X, and nobody wants to be the first guy to try something new. So good luck getting it adopted.
What's the reasoning behind your guess? The old argument that simply because the open-source community has more coders, they're bound to fix problems more quickly and get it right the first time?
That and OSS has coders that aren't being hamstrung by marketing weasels. If something is awesome, but would take too long to develop ("cost too much"), an OSS developer can still do it if he wants.
What guarantee do we have that the people looking at the code are even qualified to review? What insurance do we have against their work if it goes wrong?
None, same as closed source developers. No company will pay you, either voluntarily or in a lawsuit, for bugs in their code; neither will OSS. Read your EULAs.
Who's accountable?
Nobody, same as closed source developers. Both have reputations to uphold, but commercial developers only care about their reputation as a means to profit. If they can make money without bothering to have a good reputation, they will.
One advantage is that OSS developers have a reputation they would like to uphold. If they write crappy/insecure code, people stop using their code. Closed source developers will often say "well, it works, and it sells, so.." and let the developer stay on, making more bugs.
My Latitude D600 has an option to disable the trackpad and eraser-thingy in BIOS, or to have it enabled only when something else isn't plugged in. Most Dells I've seen have this same option.
So no, aside from minor cosmetic changes, they just take sell someone else's product. The laptop mfr has an incentive to keep the laptop generic, so they can sell it to several companies.
I'll second this; I had a small cactus in cubicle hell at a bank for two years. Occasionally throw some water in there, that's about it for upkeep. Offices are often dry, and lit up for long hours (6am-9pm in my case), which cactii are fine with.
Plus it's hilarious when cow-orkers walk up and say "Hey, is that sharp? OW!!":)
So, you have no answer to my question, then? I'm afraid it's not me here who "really still doesn't get it".
I believe your original question was who decides the acceptable distance. My answer was that has to be a minimum from physics, but they could indeed make it larger. So the answer is that the car company's engineers would decide - actually have already decided, since radar cc is already available - the acceptable distance.
If you enjoy having a motherboard drive for you, cool. I couldn't imagine trusting some dumbass engineer's handiwork with my life on the L.A. freeways, but...
I think driving on LA freeways requires a death wish anyways, so I can't see anything making it worse.:)
And yes, *my* next car will have radar cruise control. The point is, yours doesn't have to if you hate/fear it so much.
If your solution is to use the absolute physical mimimum distance possible, that requires tha absolute greatest braking possible. If you've ever been in a near accident, you know that this is not a viable solution.
As a matter of fact, I've been in several actual accidents.:)
If there's a car in front of you at 55, and you're going 80, the car would obvioulsy NOT just run up at 80 until it had to slam on its brakes to drop to 55. It would go 80 until it was no longer safe, then drop to 79, then to 78, then 77, etc.
The minimum distance is set by physics. The actual distance that the car tries to keep would be somewhat higher, but they have no incentive to keep it too high. Nor does the government: closer packed cars = roads pass more cars = have to build less roads.
If you really still don't get it, go test drive a Mercedes or BMW with the radar cruise. It really is already figured out, safe, and works quite well.
what PC can I buy instead that will take up as little space and do as much for the same price (or less)?
My wife asked me for one thing, how can I give her something else entirely and act all pompous like I went out of my way for her? I like sleeping on the couch.
> The radar kind could also disengage if you hit the gas.
When are you not hitting the gas during freeway driving? You constantly switch between braking and accelerating. Radar braking during the former is redundant; during the latter, DOA (if accelerating is supposed to stop the braking).
When I'm using cruise control, my foot is not on the gas - that's kind of the whole point, it maintains speed for me. Using the new radar cruise control, my foot would not be on the gas either. In regular cruise control, if I push the gas with cruise control on, it will speed up, but leave the cruise control engaged (so that if you take your foot off again, it will drop to the dialed-in speed and then stay there). With the new radar cruise, it could just completely disengage (and therefore not speed up or slow down automatically) when you touch the gas.
> The "acceptable" distance will probably come from physics - you need x amount of space to brake at y mph, plus a little more for reaction time.
No offense, but is that how you drive? Binary? Either gun it or slam on the brakes? If there's one thing that makes me queasy when riding with others, it's poor use of braking. Now you're saying the system will only slam on the brakes? Real great! No thanks! It needs finesse - something robots have yet to demonstrate they are consistently capable of, especially in novel situations.
I have no idea how you read "gun it or slam the brakes" out of my post, but no, that's not the case. Think regular cruise control, plus braking if it needs to (like if the guy in front of you is going slow, or HE slams on HIS brakes).
Let's say you need 1 ft to stop for every mph you're going (50 mph needs 50 feet, 60 mph needs 60 feet). If you're going 50mph, the radar will keep you 50 feet behind the car in front of you. If you're going 60mph, the car will keep you 60 feet behind the car in front of you. If the car in front of you is going slower than you are (say 45mph), your car will slow down, and maintain a safe distance (45 feet in that case). If the car in front of you is going 90mph, then you'll still just maintain the speed you have set, and not accelerate beyond that. The acceptable distance is there so that if the car in front of you slams its brakes, you can come to a complete stop without hitting it.
And if you choose to not use it, wtf is the point?? Isn't the system there to prevent emergencies, which are, kinda by definition, unpredictable?
Convenience, gas mileage, the same as regular cruise control.
The brakes only cut in if you're using cruise control. If you're using cruise control, hopefully you're in a pretty safe environment already.
Current cruise controls disengage if you touch the brake. The radar kind could also disengage if you hit the gas.
The "acceptable" distance will probably come from physics - you need x amount of space to brake at y mph, plus a little more for reaction time.
Finally, if you absolutely hate this idea anyways, you can always NOT USE IT. It is OPTIONAL. If you want to worry about a totalitarion future where everyone MUST use cruise control, that's another argument for another day, because cruise control will be the least of your worries.
Slashdot Mirror
I like the original controllers too. Of course, I have big hands.
And you know what they say about people with big hands, right?
Big gloves!
Thank you, I'm here all week!
Then you want Fresco.
Even has pretty screenshots.
Compatibile with GGI and X for your old applications.
There is this little thing called a network effect, though.. which means you run X because everyone else runs X, and nobody wants to be the first guy to try something new. So good luck getting it adopted.
Wait, I saw this movie already!
You must be in Korea.
That and OSS has coders that aren't being hamstrung by marketing weasels. If something is awesome, but would take too long to develop ("cost too much"), an OSS developer can still do it if he wants.
What guarantee do we have that the people looking at the code are even qualified to review? What insurance do we have against their work if it goes wrong?
None, same as closed source developers. No company will pay you, either voluntarily or in a lawsuit, for bugs in their code; neither will OSS. Read your EULAs.
Who's accountable?
Nobody, same as closed source developers. Both have reputations to uphold, but commercial developers only care about their reputation as a means to profit. If they can make money without bothering to have a good reputation, they will.
One advantage is that OSS developers have a reputation they would like to uphold. If they write crappy/insecure code, people stop using their code. Closed source developers will often say "well, it works, and it sells, so.." and let the developer stay on, making more bugs.
Yes, I see far into the web, dark places where no man should go.
cite: make reference to; "His name was cited in connection with the invention"
site: assign a location to; "The company sited some of their agents in Los Angeles"
"Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
So.. it's got a hot bottom?
Especially when ASCAP sues the Girl Scouts. The birds may sing, but campers can't unless they pay up
Gas, wear and tear on your car, the car payment itself, and driving time are not free.
Plus, some people live in the sticks.
So what was so special/milestone-ish? The fact that it uses the same kernel? The artile really was NOT englightening.
So you have something to listen to while you're staring at that blue screen!
(And seriously, because it's more convenient, no syncing problems, etc)
My Latitude D600 has an option to disable the trackpad and eraser-thingy in BIOS, or to have it enabled only when something else isn't plugged in. Most Dells I've seen have this same option.
See also Manna, a story about such software, and its logical extrapolation.
Because many of them have outsourced their laptop manufacturing to Taiwanese/Korean companies, and just slap their brand on it.
So no, aside from minor cosmetic changes, they just take sell someone else's product. The laptop mfr has an incentive to keep the laptop generic, so they can sell it to several companies.
I'll second this; I had a small cactus in cubicle hell at a bank for two years. Occasionally throw some water in there, that's about it for upkeep. Offices are often dry, and lit up for long hours (6am-9pm in my case), which cactii are fine with.
:)
Plus it's hilarious when cow-orkers walk up and say "Hey, is that sharp? OW!!"
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-09 -20&res=l
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2004-06 -23
That used to be true. Vonage supplies your address to 911
I believe your original question was who decides the acceptable distance. My answer was that has to be a minimum from physics, but they could indeed make it larger. So the answer is that the car company's engineers would decide - actually have already decided, since radar cc is already available - the acceptable distance.
If you enjoy having a motherboard drive for you, cool. I couldn't imagine trusting some dumbass engineer's handiwork with my life on the L.A. freeways, but...
I think driving on LA freeways requires a death wish anyways, so I can't see anything making it worse. :)
And yes, *my* next car will have radar cruise control. The point is, yours doesn't have to if you hate/fear it so much.
As a matter of fact, I've been in several actual accidents. :)
If there's a car in front of you at 55, and you're going 80, the car would obvioulsy NOT just run up at 80 until it had to slam on its brakes to drop to 55. It would go 80 until it was no longer safe, then drop to 79, then to 78, then 77, etc.
The minimum distance is set by physics. The actual distance that the car tries to keep would be somewhat higher, but they have no incentive to keep it too high. Nor does the government: closer packed cars = roads pass more cars = have to build less roads.
If you really still don't get it, go test drive a Mercedes or BMW with the radar cruise. It really is already figured out, safe, and works quite well.
Ummm...
iMac clone maker to swap color after court ruling
My wife asked me for one thing, how can I give her something else entirely and act all pompous like I went out of my way for her? I like sleeping on the couch.
When are you not hitting the gas during freeway driving? You constantly switch between braking and accelerating. Radar braking during the former is redundant; during the latter, DOA (if accelerating is supposed to stop the braking).
When I'm using cruise control, my foot is not on the gas - that's kind of the whole point, it maintains speed for me. Using the new radar cruise control, my foot would not be on the gas either. In regular cruise control, if I push the gas with cruise control on, it will speed up, but leave the cruise control engaged (so that if you take your foot off again, it will drop to the dialed-in speed and then stay there). With the new radar cruise, it could just completely disengage (and therefore not speed up or slow down automatically) when you touch the gas.
> The "acceptable" distance will probably come from physics - you need x amount of space to brake at y mph, plus a little more for reaction time.
No offense, but is that how you drive? Binary? Either gun it or slam on the brakes? If there's one thing that makes me queasy when riding with others, it's poor use of braking. Now you're saying the system will only slam on the brakes? Real great! No thanks! It needs finesse - something robots have yet to demonstrate they are consistently capable of, especially in novel situations.
I have no idea how you read "gun it or slam the brakes" out of my post, but no, that's not the case. Think regular cruise control, plus braking if it needs to (like if the guy in front of you is going slow, or HE slams on HIS brakes).
Let's say you need 1 ft to stop for every mph you're going (50 mph needs 50 feet, 60 mph needs 60 feet). If you're going 50mph, the radar will keep you 50 feet behind the car in front of you. If you're going 60mph, the car will keep you 60 feet behind the car in front of you. If the car in front of you is going slower than you are (say 45mph), your car will slow down, and maintain a safe distance (45 feet in that case). If the car in front of you is going 90mph, then you'll still just maintain the speed you have set, and not accelerate beyond that. The acceptable distance is there so that if the car in front of you slams its brakes, you can come to a complete stop without hitting it.
And if you choose to not use it, wtf is the point?? Isn't the system there to prevent emergencies, which are, kinda by definition, unpredictable?
Convenience, gas mileage, the same as regular cruise control.
The brakes only cut in if you're using cruise control. If you're using cruise control, hopefully you're in a pretty safe environment already.
Current cruise controls disengage if you touch the brake. The radar kind could also disengage if you hit the gas.
The "acceptable" distance will probably come from physics - you need x amount of space to brake at y mph, plus a little more for reaction time.
Finally, if you absolutely hate this idea anyways, you can always NOT USE IT. It is OPTIONAL. If you want to worry about a totalitarion future where everyone MUST use cruise control, that's another argument for another day, because cruise control will be the least of your worries.
Since the picture isn't a photo but a computer-generated 3D drawing, I don't they've actually built one yet. No mention on their site either.