So, let me get this straight: you are claiming that your car will use coupling links to behave like a part of a train on the basis of... nanotechnology?
And this has what to do with the price of tea in China?
So, you have no answer to my question, then? I'm afraid it's not me here who "really still doesn't get it".
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 have no idea how you read "gun it or slam the brakes" out of my post
See below.
> 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)
The use of the word 'need' here implies a minimum braking distance which implies a maximum braking force. Which is, not coincidentally, my point: your solution above means that the distance to which it is set can only be meaningful by slamming on the brakes. Since this is not the best idea, it would likely need more distance/mph than this minimum. So, to repeat my original question, who would decide what this minimum distance is? 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.
> Convenience, gas mileage, the same as regular cruise control.
In what way is it convenient to have a system that waits until it's the minimum allowable distance away then jams on the brakes? How does that improve gas mileage? 'Regular' cc does this by modulating speed in a gently graded fashion; I see no such analogue here.
> 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).
> 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.
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?
As well as a form of oppression. Now, we will all have to suffer for the stupidity of others. Just like with cell phone bans and draconian drug measures, we pay for a group of complete morons/socioopaths who can't seem to figure out how to live in society.
I wonder where the "acceptable" distance from the car in front will come from? Acceptable for whom? A distance that a young adult can stomach and handle is far outside the scope of your average geriatric. So will we force young people to feel like they're on the Wedway People Mover(TM) or will we just polish off the oldest 5% of the driving populace through heart attacks and strokes? What if you find yourself in a "guillotine" situation that requires either a very inefficient and dangerous deceleration or a sharp accceleration and a cut-through? What if the brakes cut in just as you're changing that lane? I could go on and on.
Sorry, this idea sucks.
Until someone can demonstrate that a computer can out-think (and I mean out-think, not out-calculate) a human, this is ridiculous.
It's too bad you posted anonymously - your reply was highly appreciated.
For the record (since there seems to be a plethora of people here who read posts like they read their manuals, i.e. too fast if at all): I am a huge fan of NASA, my father has designed satellites for MIT and I've been a member of the Planetary Society for almost a decade. I'm fully aware of our limitations and our achievements. I paid for that friggin' microphone. I paid for the solar sail. I paid for the Mars microphone. Willingly, not through taxes. I think that's saying more than most of those who jumped down my throat ever could.
And few things disgust me more than armchair critics who think they could spend someone else's money better, yet who know nothing about working in a government or military environment and what level of regulation and organization that entails. I can think of few better places to spend my tax money than on scientific research, such as NASA, supercolliders, etc. Far better than bombing innocent brown people.
Having said that, I just had a few simple questions re: the apparent current limitations on 'adventurousness' at NASA. Is this a result of 'faster, cheaper, better'? If so, it's a little disappointing. I hate to lose people as much as the next guy, but I think I preferred the kind of spirit that put us on the moon with '60s era computing power. Think about that.
No, I didn't have a phonecam when Cassini was launched, let alone designed. That's one weak argument for why we don't have purty pictures, though. I thank everyone who provided better ones. I hadn't thought of the fact that filtering for different frequencies reduces efficiency by that much, nor that electronic color formats are that wasteful.
As an amateur photographer, however, I have always shied away from digital cameras. Despite the marketing blitz and ever-increasing page-long stat-filled ads, the pictures *never* look as good as a decent reversal film. Now I know why.
Cheers.
PS - We could all benefit from reading other peoples' posts more thoroughly. It may not be part of our nature, but it's far more efficient and pleasant than making shit sandwiches over nothing.:o/
Those are some really great answers. Thanks folks.
But one final point... can you tell me why the pictures are so similar to the Venera shots even though we've had forty years of progress in between them? I understand all your points; do they imply the Soviets were that far ahead?
It's people like you that make/. such a friendly and vibrant community! After all, what's the point of asking questions? I guess I should have RTFM instead.
Except, there is no manual; there were several real and informative answers given, all without attitiude (which confirms the asshole-cuz-I'm-dumb theory); the talkboard is for the asking of pertinent questions; and an old member like yourself should know better than to act like this.
Um, actually if I were to expend all my battery life at once and make a few negligible modifications, it would just about do the trick under the right circumstances. Especially with virtually no interference in the same channels.
So are you saying that Huygens has a shitty Sprint phonecam with a 9600 modem on board to ring back? If that's the case, then I understand the choice of black and white. Thank you. Although I am now amazed that at the end of the 20th century, this would be the best transmission technology NASA could come up with.
In summary: I could understand the crappy nature of the photos if there were no Venera missions that long ago. But at this point...
Well, that doesn't sound much like a resolution issue (1 vs 3) as much as a data transmission issue. How does having three pixels (or three times as much data/pixel or whatever) decrease resolution? You can still digitally separate out the other two colors and now have a set of three images, all just as high-res as the b&w, with the added advantages of recombination for purty shots or gleaning further details from reflective spectra analyses.
And with the Mars Rover, let's not forget that the damn thing drove around for years! The Huygens probe, otoh, was supposed to go byebye within minutes. Hardly a comparable mission and certainly not capable of the thorough but lumberingly careful approach used on Mars.
I appreciate your answer, btw, but if you're sure of your statements, can you write something more detailed?
Does anyone know if there are any plans out there to go to Europa? Some kind of flying ice corer or something... Now that we're properly targeting interesting moons, what could be more interesting (in this context and many others) than probing the seas of Europa?
Could someone explain why they have to colorize the black and white photos with reflection spectra data? We now have color webcams for under a $100; it is reasonable to assume, then, that a gov't agency like NASA had access to such (or better) technology for reasonable prices at the time of Cassini's being built.
So, why do we keep sending only B&W cameras on these things? We certainly had the room. We had the money (or at least the delta b/w b&w and color). The weight and power consumption should be similar. So why? And why is the resolution on the surface photo only marginally crisper than those from the Venera lander forty years ago?
Wouldn't it be even smarter to send one with a variable lensing system whose images could be recombined into a large variety of regions of the EM spectrum?
Are you going to honestly tell me that you care about an iceberg hitting a glacier in Antarctica? More to the point, that it deserves to get its own article on/.?
Conversely, do you also believe that if there were giant elephants taking massive poops (Long Island is far smaller than Montana, btw) that their excremental misadventures should get their own/. articles? I guess I disagree.
Now, when are they gonna cut the novelty crap and make it into a viable transportation alternative? At $200K a pop, that's one hell of a business expense. How much does coach cost?
Didn't/. just post an article like a month ago about how the IT sector unemployment rate is actually higher than the national average? Aren't we in the middle of the biggest outsourcing orgy in history? Isn't there disaster brewing on both sides of the pond with the software patent quibbles?
Saying that Google's shareprice is the bellwether for the health of an entire economic sector is like a doctor saying you don't have cancer cuz your head's not warm.
Is that your idea of logic, Wattson? We were discussing science projects with clear benefits vs slaughter as financial options for Congress here, when you wander in like a child out of the wilderness with a comment that has little to no analogy to what we were discussing. How does your burger benefit your ass, I wonder?
In case you're still having trouble, I wasn't suggesting that anything cheaper than the Iraq war deserves US funding. Try again. But maybe you should wait for all that grease to filter out of your bloodstream first; it seems to be affecting your thinking.
How is the above 'offtopic', you adolescent pimpleheads? Mod me down if you want to perpetuate your (lack of) politics, but at least have the presence of mind to come up with a better choice out of the combobox than that.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux threatens Windows! Holy living poop!
When did *this* happen?!? Why wasn't I informed? Where's my cranium?
So, let me get this straight: you are claiming that your car will use coupling links to behave like a part of a train on the basis of... nanotechnology?
And this has what to do with the price of tea in China?
So, you have no answer to my question, then? I'm afraid it's not me here who "really still doesn't get it".
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...
Wlll this before Jenna, your masseuse, wakes you up with a hummer or after the aliens take you for a luncheon pleasure cruise?
Lovely ideas, really. But I'd love to hear on what basis you make such lofty predictions.
> I have no idea how you read "gun it or slam the brakes" out of my post
See below.
> 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)
The use of the word 'need' here implies a minimum braking distance which implies a maximum braking force. Which is, not coincidentally, my point: your solution above means that the distance to which it is set can only be meaningful by slamming on the brakes. Since this is not the best idea, it would likely need more distance/mph than this minimum. So, to repeat my original question, who would decide what this minimum distance is? 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.
> Convenience, gas mileage, the same as regular cruise control.
In what way is it convenient to have a system that waits until it's the minimum allowable distance away then jams on the brakes? How does that improve gas mileage? 'Regular' cc does this by modulating speed in a gently graded fashion; I see no such analogue here.
> 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).
> 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.
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?
As well as a form of oppression. Now, we will all have to suffer for the stupidity of others. Just like with cell phone bans and draconian drug measures, we pay for a group of complete morons/socioopaths who can't seem to figure out how to live in society.
I wonder where the "acceptable" distance from the car in front will come from? Acceptable for whom? A distance that a young adult can stomach and handle is far outside the scope of your average geriatric. So will we force young people to feel like they're on the Wedway People Mover(TM) or will we just polish off the oldest 5% of the driving populace through heart attacks and strokes? What if you find yourself in a "guillotine" situation that requires either a very inefficient and dangerous deceleration or a sharp accceleration and a cut-through? What if the brakes cut in just as you're changing that lane? I could go on and on.
Sorry, this idea sucks.
Until someone can demonstrate that a computer can out-think (and I mean out-think, not out-calculate) a human, this is ridiculous.
Parding is such suite sorrough...
It's too bad you posted anonymously - your reply was highly appreciated.
:o/
For the record (since there seems to be a plethora of people here who read posts like they read their manuals, i.e. too fast if at all): I am a huge fan of NASA, my father has designed satellites for MIT and I've been a member of the Planetary Society for almost a decade. I'm fully aware of our limitations and our achievements. I paid for that friggin' microphone. I paid for the solar sail. I paid for the Mars microphone. Willingly, not through taxes. I think that's saying more than most of those who jumped down my throat ever could.
And few things disgust me more than armchair critics who think they could spend someone else's money better, yet who know nothing about working in a government or military environment and what level of regulation and organization that entails. I can think of few better places to spend my tax money than on scientific research, such as NASA, supercolliders, etc. Far better than bombing innocent brown people.
Having said that, I just had a few simple questions re: the apparent current limitations on 'adventurousness' at NASA. Is this a result of 'faster, cheaper, better'? If so, it's a little disappointing. I hate to lose people as much as the next guy, but I think I preferred the kind of spirit that put us on the moon with '60s era computing power. Think about that.
No, I didn't have a phonecam when Cassini was launched, let alone designed. That's one weak argument for why we don't have purty pictures, though. I thank everyone who provided better ones. I hadn't thought of the fact that filtering for different frequencies reduces efficiency by that much, nor that electronic color formats are that wasteful.
As an amateur photographer, however, I have always shied away from digital cameras. Despite the marketing blitz and ever-increasing page-long stat-filled ads, the pictures *never* look as good as a decent reversal film. Now I know why.
Cheers.
PS - We could all benefit from reading other peoples' posts more thoroughly. It may not be part of our nature, but it's far more efficient and pleasant than making shit sandwiches over nothing.
Those are some really great answers. Thanks folks.
But one final point... can you tell me why the pictures are so similar to the Venera shots even though we've had forty years of progress in between them? I understand all your points; do they imply the Soviets were that far ahead?
Wow, thanks, Joseph.
/. such a friendly and vibrant community! After all, what's the point of asking questions? I guess I should have RTFM instead.
It's people like you that make
Except, there is no manual; there were several real and informative answers given, all without attitiude (which confirms the asshole-cuz-I'm-dumb theory); the talkboard is for the asking of pertinent questions; and an old member like yourself should know better than to act like this.
Um, actually if I were to expend all my battery life at once and make a few negligible modifications, it would just about do the trick under the right circumstances. Especially with virtually no interference in the same channels.
Any other snappy comebacks?
Millions?
I thought Huygens transmitted via Cassini...
Thanks for the info.
So are you saying that Huygens has a shitty Sprint phonecam with a 9600 modem on board to ring back? If that's the case, then I understand the choice of black and white. Thank you. Although I am now amazed that at the end of the 20th century, this would be the best transmission technology NASA could come up with.
In summary: I could understand the crappy nature of the photos if there were no Venera missions that long ago. But at this point...
Well, that doesn't sound much like a resolution issue (1 vs 3) as much as a data transmission issue. How does having three pixels (or three times as much data/pixel or whatever) decrease resolution? You can still digitally separate out the other two colors and now have a set of three images, all just as high-res as the b&w, with the added advantages of recombination for purty shots or gleaning further details from reflective spectra analyses.
And with the Mars Rover, let's not forget that the damn thing drove around for years! The Huygens probe, otoh, was supposed to go byebye within minutes. Hardly a comparable mission and certainly not capable of the thorough but lumberingly careful approach used on Mars.
I appreciate your answer, btw, but if you're sure of your statements, can you write something more detailed?
Does anyone know if there are any plans out there to go to Europa? Some kind of flying ice corer or something... Now that we're properly targeting interesting moons, what could be more interesting (in this context and many others) than probing the seas of Europa?
Could someone explain why they have to colorize the black and white photos with reflection spectra data? We now have color webcams for under a $100; it is reasonable to assume, then, that a gov't agency like NASA had access to such (or better) technology for reasonable prices at the time of Cassini's being built.
So, why do we keep sending only B&W cameras on these things? We certainly had the room. We had the money (or at least the delta b/w b&w and color). The weight and power consumption should be similar. So why? And why is the resolution on the surface photo only marginally crisper than those from the Venera lander forty years ago?
Wouldn't it be even smarter to send one with a variable lensing system whose images could be recombined into a large variety of regions of the EM spectrum?
Are you going to honestly tell me that you care about an iceberg hitting a glacier in Antarctica? More to the point, that it deserves to get its own article on /.?
/. articles? I guess I disagree.
Conversely, do you also believe that if there were giant elephants taking massive poops (Long Island is far smaller than Montana, btw) that their excremental misadventures should get their own
Think of all that poor lettuce!
Other than the "Ooh, big Tonka truck go boom!" aspect of it all, why is this an article?
Now, when are they gonna cut the novelty crap and make it into a viable transportation alternative? At $200K a pop, that's one hell of a business expense. How much does coach cost?
Didn't /. just post an article like a month ago about how the IT sector unemployment rate is actually higher than the national average? Aren't we in the middle of the biggest outsourcing orgy in history? Isn't there disaster brewing on both sides of the pond with the software patent quibbles?
Saying that Google's shareprice is the bellwether for the health of an entire economic sector is like a doctor saying you don't have cancer cuz your head's not warm.
Is that your idea of logic, Wattson? We were discussing science projects with clear benefits vs slaughter as financial options for Congress here, when you wander in like a child out of the wilderness with a comment that has little to no analogy to what we were discussing. How does your burger benefit your ass, I wonder?
In case you're still having trouble, I wasn't suggesting that anything cheaper than the Iraq war deserves US funding. Try again. But maybe you should wait for all that grease to filter out of your bloodstream first; it seems to be affecting your thinking.
How is the above 'offtopic', you adolescent pimpleheads? Mod me down if you want to perpetuate your (lack of) politics, but at least have the presence of mind to come up with a better choice out of the combobox than that.
Fucking retards.