My landline phone (5 cordless handsets) "speaks" the Caller ID info, so no matter which room I'm in, I can figure out who is calling without having to touch or even look at a phone.
Great. Now imagine the exact same feature but it works all over the world, not just 5 rooms in your house.
Even if my mobile phone had such a feature, I wouldn't enable it since that would be weird any time I am away from home.
How? A phone call is a phone call. Why do caller identification requirements change just because you leave 5 designated rooms in your house?
And even if I went to the trouble of enabling it while at home, then I have to tether myself to the mobile phone. F that, as dcw3 implied.
Dude, it's still just a phone whether using a copper line or cellular wireless. So instead you'll happily tether yourself to 1920's fixed line technology instead? Even if you bought a mobile and left it at home it would give all the same features plus more (for less cost - at least where I live).
Tesla Model 3 will be $35k. I don't need to wish. I can buy it with my credit card. It's within reach of about half of the population.
Uh, the Telsa 3 is neither self driving nor available now. Sorry to crush your dreams like this.
If somebody came along with a $2k escalator, probably every house would have one.
And if someone invents a robot car for $2k every will also have one. But that's kind of my point. There are no robot cars that can operate on a public road today. And even if there were they won't be cheap Assuming this will all just magically happen is quite a big assumption.
So, having a land line and answering system keeps me from missing things. When I'm home, my phone announces who's calling. If I don't recognize the name, I let the answering system respond.
A mobile phone does all this too, with the added benefit of much less cold callers.
Problem. Solution.
That would be the part you didn't understand, music isn't a hobby for a recording artist.
Yes it is. They might try to convince you otherwise, but I'm a hobby musician, know people in bands etc Even managed to work at a few festivals for some big international acts, and have minor experience in a studio
A good musician can write and record a song in a week. Why should I pay royalties for 75 years for this amount of effort?
And yes, if you're left foot braking you're doing things horribly, horribly wrong.
Says you. Left foot braking has been proven to be quicker, therefore improves stopping distance and reduces chances of a crash.
Citation.
Er every professional racing car driver that needs to stop in a hurry...
Oh but if you need a link to some website then try this: http://jalopnik.com/why-you-sh...
If you can't do it properly that's fine, but it doesn't make to wrong for those of us that can.
When I was in hospital they put a tube in my arm with a plug in it. This way I could be hooked up for numerous IV/injection in the same hole. I would imagine this guy might have something similar.
Is this a bad thing? I mean I hear musicians complain all the time about not making enough money, but what is the appropriate amount of income for someone effectively doing their hobby part-time?
I don't know century you are living but I haven't had a land-line in years. Everyone I know has mobile phones and caller ID, any unknown numbers just don't get answered - problem solved
Do they not realize that this stuff is both continuously evolving and is also like water.
Yes. Yes they do. Do you not realise how politics works? I'll give you an example:
Some industry in Australia wants to do business in the US that will result in more jobs, more taxes etc.
Aus govt asks US govt for trade deal to make this happen
Politicians don't give away things for free, so the US side ask for a bunch of stuff in return, one of which is stricter copyright control over US income producing products
Trade deal is agreed, Aussie politicians make some announcement to satisfy the contract, US politicians can put their hand on their heart to say they are taking actions, deal is done.
None of this is actually about reducing copyright infringement, it is merely collateral in some other more important deal going on. Everyone knows this, but it has to look like something is being done, even if it achieves nothing.
And yes, if you're left foot braking you're doing things horribly, horribly wrong.
Says you. Left foot braking has been proven to be quicker, therefore improves stopping distance and reduces chances of a crash. It's just not taught as standard technique because there's too much risk of a numpty getting in wrong and making things worse. But if you do know what you are doing, left foot braking is the better choice.
Computers do not need to be able to navigate the car in all circumstances for self-driving cars to be useful. I would be happy if they could simply take over when driving on the freeway and warn me when it is time to leave the freeway again.
So you would buy a robot car knowing it can't handle certain scenarios on the road, then trust it with your life to decide when that is? And you think this will be a big seller?
Do you really want the manufacturer between you and your insurance company?
They aren't between each other. A manufacturer of an automated device will be required by law to insure it's correct function (in my country we already have laws for this). So the manufacturer either complies with the law, or finds another business.
Yes, and in both cases neither personal helicopter nor escalator ownership is mainstream, yet somehow you think the robot car will be different? Just wanting one won't make it any easier or cheaper to own.
Fossil has something to do with living creatures; both coal and oil exist because the carbon in them derives from dead biological material.
Is it really? I've heard this story too but it doesn't really seem to make sense. Don't you find it convenient that dead creatures all died in huge localised areas, so close that they formed were able to form massive wells containing trillions of litres of material? How many organisms does it take to make such a thing?
Seriously, how many? I just did some quick sums and an average oil field would take at least 10 Billion humans to create, and that's assuming 100% of a dead human turns into oil. The equivalent of 10 billion humans all died on top of each other, got squashed, and millions of years later we have oil? And this happened in a hundred different places around the world? That's what you trying to convince us of?
This doesn't sound plausible to me.
Do we?
Sure we have a whole bunch of cool stuff in controlled environments, but the nature of a public road is that it is uncontrolled. For some reason a lot of people underestimate how much of a difference there is between the two.
But that liability will be offset fully by the manufacturer. So yes, technically an owner will still need insurance, but since all costs should be able to be claimed against the manufacturer, this should be a trivial amount.
most drivers locked into 65-70 - creating a rolling traffic jam for those who wanted to go faster
This!
I ride as well as drive. It astounds me how many times I think I'm stuck in huge traffic only to buzz by on the bike to find vast emptiness in front. You get these clusters of 10 or 15 cars all going the same speed on a three lane road, effectively blocking it for everyone else.
In the car you have to put up with, but on the bike you have more freedom to use the road. For this reason I am unlikely to ever get a robot car.
I ride a motorbike as well as drive. When I ride I can lane split through jams right through and past them so have a good understanding of how they are usually caused.
Sometimes it is stupid drivers who create jams by poor decisions, but equally it is merely too many vehicles on the road at once. A robot car won't solve this. Trading your car for a bike, buses, or train can though, and an average bus can carry at least 50 times as many people as the average car (actual not capacity), for roughly twice the road space consumed. If traffic is the problem, then it is robot buses, not cars that will solve this.
"The world isn't going to rush out and buy cellular phones just because the people who want to sell cellular phones tell us how awesome they'll be. It just doesn't work that way."
Yeah and 3D TV and Segways right? Just because one invention became mainstream, doesn't guarantee that they all will.
Self-driving cars aren't going to overturn transportation because they're "awesome", but because they'll be so damned useful to so many people, not the least of which will be the large segment of the population that wants the convenience of personal transportation, but cannot drive.
These people also don't have large disposal income either. I have a mother in law in that category, she can't even afford a old second hand car let alone a Buck Rogers Future Robot car. For people like that we are better designing cities to be more pedestrian/wheelchair friendly than simply getting "robot cars for all!"
Twenty years from now we'll be looking back and wondering how we ever managed without autonomous transportation, just as we now wonder how we managed before the cell / smartphone era. People can kick and scream about the future all they want, but it's coming nonetheless.
Yeah and flying cars and 3D TV too right? Autonomous transport might be coming, but there's a huge difference that and "robot cars for all"!
Slashdot Mirror
My landline phone (5 cordless handsets) "speaks" the Caller ID info, so no matter which room I'm in, I can figure out who is calling without having to touch or even look at a phone.
Great. Now imagine the exact same feature but it works all over the world, not just 5 rooms in your house.
Even if my mobile phone had such a feature, I wouldn't enable it since that would be weird any time I am away from home.
How? A phone call is a phone call. Why do caller identification requirements change just because you leave 5 designated rooms in your house?
And even if I went to the trouble of enabling it while at home, then I have to tether myself to the mobile phone. F that, as dcw3 implied.
Dude, it's still just a phone whether using a copper line or cellular wireless. So instead you'll happily tether yourself to 1920's fixed line technology instead? Even if you bought a mobile and left it at home it would give all the same features plus more (for less cost - at least where I live).
Same, but when will that be?
Tesla Model 3 will be $35k. I don't need to wish. I can buy it with my credit card. It's within reach of about half of the population.
Uh, the Telsa 3 is neither self driving nor available now. Sorry to crush your dreams like this.
If somebody came along with a $2k escalator, probably every house would have one.
And if someone invents a robot car for $2k every will also have one. But that's kind of my point. There are no robot cars that can operate on a public road today. And even if there were they won't be cheap
Assuming this will all just magically happen is quite a big assumption.
So, having a land line and answering system keeps me from missing things. When I'm home, my phone announces who's calling. If I don't recognize the name, I let the answering system respond.
A mobile phone does all this too, with the added benefit of much less cold callers.
Problem. Solution.
That would be the part you didn't understand, music isn't a hobby for a recording artist.
Yes it is. They might try to convince you otherwise, but I'm a hobby musician, know people in bands etc Even managed to work at a few festivals for some big international acts, and have minor experience in a studio
A good musician can write and record a song in a week. Why should I pay royalties for 75 years for this amount of effort?
And yes, if you're left foot braking you're doing things horribly, horribly wrong.
Says you. Left foot braking has been proven to be quicker, therefore improves stopping distance and reduces chances of a crash.
Citation.
Er every professional racing car driver that needs to stop in a hurry...
Oh but if you need a link to some website then try this: http://jalopnik.com/why-you-sh...
If you can't do it properly that's fine, but it doesn't make to wrong for those of us that can.
When I was in hospital they put a tube in my arm with a plug in it. This way I could be hooked up for numerous IV/injection in the same hole. I would imagine this guy might have something similar.
I see others on Slashdot can create paragraphs, but when I write anything with paragraphs it appears as a single block of text-- WHY???
Because Slashdot is fucked. You need to markup your text with html tags such as this
Is this a bad thing? I mean I hear musicians complain all the time about not making enough money, but what is the appropriate amount of income for someone effectively doing their hobby part-time?
I don't know century you are living but I haven't had a land-line in years. Everyone I know has mobile phones and caller ID, any unknown numbers just don't get answered - problem solved
Do they not realize that this stuff is both continuously evolving and is also like water.
Yes. Yes they do. Do you not realise how politics works? I'll give you an example:
Some industry in Australia wants to do business in the US that will result in more jobs, more taxes etc.
Aus govt asks US govt for trade deal to make this happen
Politicians don't give away things for free, so the US side ask for a bunch of stuff in return, one of which is stricter copyright control over US income producing products
Trade deal is agreed, Aussie politicians make some announcement to satisfy the contract, US politicians can put their hand on their heart to say they are taking actions, deal is done.
None of this is actually about reducing copyright infringement, it is merely collateral in some other more important deal going on. Everyone knows this, but it has to look like something is being done, even if it achieves nothing.
Software vs Hardware vs Meatbag.
After watching a few seasons of Air Crash Investigations, cause seems to favour the latter.
My printer at home does it every time it starts up.
Because your $50 printer has the same complexity a $200M aircraft...
And yes, if you're left foot braking you're doing things horribly, horribly wrong.
Says you. Left foot braking has been proven to be quicker, therefore improves stopping distance and reduces chances of a crash. It's just not taught as standard technique because there's too much risk of a numpty getting in wrong and making things worse. But if you do know what you are doing, left foot braking is the better choice.
Computers do not need to be able to navigate the car in all circumstances for self-driving cars to be useful. I would be happy if they could simply take over when driving on the freeway and warn me when it is time to leave the freeway again.
So you would buy a robot car knowing it can't handle certain scenarios on the road, then trust it with your life to decide when that is? And you think this will be a big seller?
Do you really want the manufacturer between you and your insurance company?
They aren't between each other. A manufacturer of an automated device will be required by law to insure it's correct function (in my country we already have laws for this). So the manufacturer either complies with the law, or finds another business.
Yes, and in both cases neither personal helicopter nor escalator ownership is mainstream, yet somehow you think the robot car will be different? Just wanting one won't make it any easier or cheaper to own.
Fossil has something to do with living creatures; both coal and oil exist because the carbon in them derives from dead biological material.
Is it really? I've heard this story too but it doesn't really seem to make sense. Don't you find it convenient that dead creatures all died in huge localised areas, so close that they formed were able to form massive wells containing trillions of litres of material? How many organisms does it take to make such a thing?
Seriously, how many? I just did some quick sums and an average oil field would take at least 10 Billion humans to create, and that's assuming 100% of a dead human turns into oil. The equivalent of 10 billion humans all died on top of each other, got squashed, and millions of years later we have oil? And this happened in a hundred different places around the world? That's what you trying to convince us of?
This doesn't sound plausible to me.
Triple? I pay 44c/kwh and our generation is all coal.
Now we have driverless cars and semis.
Do we?
Sure we have a whole bunch of cool stuff in controlled environments, but the nature of a public road is that it is uncontrolled. For some reason a lot of people underestimate how much of a difference there is between the two.
But that liability will be offset fully by the manufacturer. So yes, technically an owner will still need insurance, but since all costs should be able to be claimed against the manufacturer, this should be a trivial amount.
I leave that to the reader to decide.
most drivers locked into 65-70 - creating a rolling traffic jam for those who wanted to go faster
This!
I ride as well as drive. It astounds me how many times I think I'm stuck in huge traffic only to buzz by on the bike to find vast emptiness in front. You get these clusters of 10 or 15 cars all going the same speed on a three lane road, effectively blocking it for everyone else.
In the car you have to put up with, but on the bike you have more freedom to use the road. For this reason I am unlikely to ever get a robot car.
I ride a motorbike as well as drive. When I ride I can lane split through jams right through and past them so have a good understanding of how they are usually caused.
Sometimes it is stupid drivers who create jams by poor decisions, but equally it is merely too many vehicles on the road at once. A robot car won't solve this. Trading your car for a bike, buses, or train can though, and an average bus can carry at least 50 times as many people as the average car (actual not capacity), for roughly twice the road space consumed. If traffic is the problem, then it is robot buses, not cars that will solve this.
"The world isn't going to rush out and buy cellular phones just because the people who want to sell cellular phones tell us how awesome they'll be. It just doesn't work that way."
Yeah and 3D TV and Segways right? Just because one invention became mainstream, doesn't guarantee that they all will.
Self-driving cars aren't going to overturn transportation because they're "awesome", but because they'll be so damned useful to so many people, not the least of which will be the large segment of the population that wants the convenience of personal transportation, but cannot drive.
These people also don't have large disposal income either. I have a mother in law in that category, she can't even afford a old second hand car let alone a Buck Rogers Future Robot car. For people like that we are better designing cities to be more pedestrian/wheelchair friendly than simply getting "robot cars for all!"
Twenty years from now we'll be looking back and wondering how we ever managed without autonomous transportation, just as we now wonder how we managed before the cell / smartphone era. People can kick and scream about the future all they want, but it's coming nonetheless.
Yeah and flying cars and 3D TV too right? Autonomous transport might be coming, but there's a huge difference that and "robot cars for all"!