The driver of the car in front of you jams on his brakes. The road is wet and your car can't stop in time. There is a truck to the left so your brand new intelligent car decides to swerve to the right because there is only a small object there and won't cause as much damage. Too bad for the student walking home from school.
I wonder if the intelligent car might not enforce the so-called 2-second rule. The counter to this is that other drivers will just cut in, making the car fall back again and again... but maybe the counter to *that* is that it's only engaged when it detects adverse driving conditions (rain, snow, freezing rain, dust storm, etc). Assuming the laser/radar/magic system doesn't see hard rain as a solid enough obstacle and prevent you driving at all.
Microsoft execs and marketing are complete and utter morons for keeping any part of the Windows name for the consumer Surface. Apple's iPhone OS (later iOS) was completely dissociated and looked totally different from the Mac OS X that people were familiar with, and it was obvious to nearly all consumers that you could not load Mac software onto it (heck, for the first year there were no apps to load at all).
Surface? WinRT. Similar interface to Windows 8 desktop. Confusion reigns.
They should seriously pay me whatever they pay their execs and marketing staff. I'd could've sat around doing nothing for the last year, and the result would be better than the mess they're making for themselves with WinRT.
Wait, you're using an Apple-fan argument ("it's not overpriced / competing system with equivalent or similar specs cost the same or more / they don't compete with lower-spec systems") to defend a Microsoft-run system?
(not agreeing/disagreeing with what you said, just amused at this similarity).
ABS doesn't result in shorter braking distance, its purpose is to maintain steering control during hard braking. A well trained driver can stop in a shorter distance without it. On dry pavement with good traction ABS is a nuisance for anyone with skills.
The vast, vast majority of drivers in North America definitely don't fall into the first category (even I don't consider myself "well trained", merely better than average), and too many don't fall into the second. That's why ABS was added across (most of?) the board.
Sucks for the better trained and skilled drivers, of course. At least manual transmission cars are still an option for those wanting more control over their driving experience.
It's a shame more people won't pick it up, and that we can't bring ourselves to design towns and cities to allow for it.
It costs far less to add 3 feet of bike lane to a road than it does to treat 1000 cases of advanced diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, cancer, and other life-ending diseases. The government and the taxpayer have a vested interest in policies that facilitate people being healthy when they reach Medicare age - not to mention the people themselves who still have to pay a heavy price for their lack of health.
If bike lanes and healthcare came from taxes at the same level of government, that would be an easy/easier sell.
Unfortunately, at least where I live, healthcare is the responsibility of the province (with federal assistance), and non-highway city roads are municipal (with occasional provincial assistance).
Medicare in the US is federal responsibility AFAIK, I imagine the feds likewise don't care too much about most in-city roads.
The claim that the wheelwas turned the wrong way, by the granddaughter of the second officer, is disputed by the great-granddaughter of the quartermaster (Robert Hichens) who supposedly panicked and misinterpreted the order. Hichens was in disrepute immediately after the disaster, branded a coward for refusing to return his lifeboat back to pick up survivors. He was no hero, public sentiment was against him, there was no reason for surviving officers to keep secret from the US and British inquiries any additional contribution he might have made to the accident.
I also don't know where the "props did not reverse" comes from. Titanic's two outboard engines indeed could not reverse, but the main one could.
That's the same silly argument that all of Apple's iPod/iPhone/iPad innovations (NOT inventions) "would have happened anyway" by other companies.
Well, in my defense, most NASA spinoffs are by other parties which were already conducting research in the areas in question. That alone brings it out of the silly category, even if you do choose to ignore that your argument was a fallacy by virtue of the original statement being false. Most Apple innovations would indeed have happened anyway.
You left out the tail of my paragraph: "in many cases [...] development would have happened many years later than they actually did". It's not that the "would have happened anyway" argument is false, it's that such a statement refuses to credit Apple/NASA with pushing or jump-starting many areas of R&D. It's like saying a Google Maps-type web application "would've happened anyway" by incumbents like Mapquest, so Google doesn't deserve any credit for modern online map UIs.
It took private enterprise over 50 years to replicate what NASA did in the early 60s, and they had that 50 years of experience to draw upon--back then many things about rockets and space were still being researched and discovered through trial and error, that's why many early attempts ended with an exploding rocket.
And for an order of magnitude lower cost than NASA could do the same now.
The "than" makes it hard to parse your intent.
Are you saying NASA could do everything private enterprise can, but for an order of magnitude less (implication: bureaucracy and pork barrelling inflate NASA costs)? No argument from me there.
Are you saying private enterprise can do the same as NASA can now (or could have up til recently), but for an order of magnitude less? That has yet to be proven, since NASA's mandate extends beyond launching satellites into orbit, and humans into sub-orbital space.
Space is far too expensive up front, with not enough profit to justify it.
If that were true, then it wouldn't be worth doing. The amazing work that companies like SpaceX are doing now demonstrate that the premise was false. You can speak of the "50 years of experience", but NASA wasn't doing anything with that experience except squandering it for another generation.
I was responding to the general assertion that everything NASA did would've happened anyway by private enterprise, not specifically the spinoff applications linked to by UnknownSoldier. I refer more to "pure" research that typically lack short-term ROI (Hubble, environment monitoring satellites, Mars and other probes/landers), as well as manned orbital and lunar spacecraft.
So far, manned orbit-capable craft have only been achieved by government agencies of Russia, the USA and China. All American-based private, manned orbital craft under development seem to be funded by NASA contracts, with the goal of reaching the International Space Station. Space-X seems to be the leader, having already docked uncrewed variants there, but even it says 2015 is the earliest they plan to have a manned launch is 2015.
Note that without the ISS (thanks to taxpayers of many countries) as a destination, it's unclear why a private for-profit company would even want to develop a manned orbital craft. Space tourism is an extremely limited and expensive endeavour, and all it'll take is one multi-millionaire tourist killed in flight for a lot of future clientele to evaporate overnight (I'm assuming anything already paid has a no-refund clause). Unlike airplanes which offered significant speed advantages over cross-country trains and trans-oceanic ships, orbital craft have no advantage over airplanes (orbit implies looping around and above your starting point, give or take a few hundred kilometres depending on inclination, at least once), and significantly more risk. Sub-orbital craft *might* fit this bill, and
You think those 14' trees are going to walk out there, plant and maintain themselves over (at least) two years? There's this funny thing called labour and equipment costs. And you're not dropping them into a nice open lawn, but along routes in a major city.
That's the same silly argument that all of Apple's iPod/iPhone/iPad innovations (NOT inventions) "would have happened anyway" by other companies. Bottom line is, just like with NASA-funded research... in many cases other companies didn't do it anyway, they were crap, or development would have happened many years later than they actually did.
It took private enterprise over 50 years to replicate what NASA did in the early 60s, and they had that 50 years of experience to draw upon--back then many things about rockets and space were still being researched and discovered through trial and error, that's why many early attempts ended with an exploding rocket. Space is far too expensive up front, with not enough profit to justify it.
The "most expensive method possible" was not used. That's why we got the shuttles in their final form in the first place. An excellent example of spending less money up front, but being forced to spend more later to work around issues on a compromised system that wouldn't have occurred if enough money had been spent on designing it right in the first place.
Yes. Except the false choice comes from idiots who think that the $15-20 billion a year given to NASA (or even the $2.5 billion on Mars Curiosity over 8 years) should instead be spent fixing poor housing, welfare, health, hunger, etc.
To even think that is to be wilfully ignorant to the fact medicare, medicaid and social security already take up $1600 billion a year, and still can't get the job done. An extra 1.2% will do exactly nothing except reward pork-barrel bureaucrats instead of highly educated and skilled rocket scientists and engineers.
Americans like to be lied to so they can keep their precious illusions intact. That is a huge part of the reason your country is in such a mess now.
Spanish unemployment ~ 25%, Greece borders on revolt, the PIGS face economic collapse. The Eurozone is in danger of dissolving. Native European birthrates are so low that Europe is heading toward demographic catastrophe. Large percentages of the large numbers of immigrants brought into Europe do not accept European values and represent a long term danger of civil war. And yet, you cast stones. ..
Low and negative "native" birth rates are usually associated with more developed countries, because of higher equality and rights for women and higher standard of living overall. It's not sustainable long-term and needs to be addressed via immigration or something else with their own issues, but it's a definite correlation. That the US is able to sustain and grow its population even without immigration should tell you something.
Germany: relatively socialist. Doing pretty well thankyouverymuch. Canada: also relatively socialist, and its Liberal banking regulations saved it from tanking as badly as it could have (the present Conservatives like taking credit for that, despite their initial failed attempts to pass deregulation laws).
They happily ignore anything the opposition or other groups say or do--they have a majority and don't care. But, accusing opponents of the bill of supporting child pornographers sure was a good strategy for bringing wayward Conservatives in line.
Extremist rhetoric might work well for Rush Limbaugh, but not so well when used against your own colleagues and supporters. With those words Vic Toews accidentally shot the bill in the back with a rocket grenade, and we're all happier for it.
Forget spreading things out, they'll just lump it in with the 200 other non-budget items in another omnibus budget bill.
And I thought riders to unrelated bills were fucked up... those seem to happen frequently in the US, don't hear much about them in Canada. But, at least riders are limited to a few each bill.
No civilized country pays wait staff less than the minimum wage making them rely on tips, either. Not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg here, though.
That's a sad and frankly pathetic reflection of today's instant gratification, zero-details-please society. Even if the... summary... is someone's personal rambling and it being a front-page Slashdot story is questionable.
(Yes, yes, go ahead and put a TLDR on this too, +5 funny haha)
The danger isn't limited to moving cars, either. Cyclists riding past parked cars need to be hyper-aware too, lest they fall victim to the "door prize."
Last year there was a horrible incident where a driver threw open the door without first looking back, the cyclist couldn't avoid it, and then she fell into the middle of the driving lane where she was immediately run over and killed.
Where I live, there are multi-use recreational paths where people can walk, bike, blade, etc. Problem for cyclists is, officially it's limited to 20 km/h. Anyone training for a race automatically have to take the normal roads.
Downtown, we recently got two completely segregated bike lanes between sidewalk and car lane, and cyclists can go as fast as they want (barely enough space to safely pass a slower cyclist, though), and cars attempting turns must yield. Problem for cyclists is, people often walk in parts of those lanes, even with the sidewalk right next to it, sometimes without even looking before stepping into the lane.
The slowest space scene in Apollo 13 was when the command+service module separated from the 3rd stage, then flipped 180 degrees to dock with and extract the lunar module. The whole scene took a minute or so, with tense music accompaniment.
In reality it would've taken much longer; on Apollo 17 it took 15 minutes just to dock, and some more time to check everything before extraction. On Apollo 14 it took six attempts and over two hours, before they finally docked successfully. Apollo 13 is one of my favourite movies, but it's still Hollywood entertainment, with pacing and embellishments to match, and not a documentary or realistic depiction of events.
The video capture of Dragon is far more like 2001, for example the two scenes where space pods are deployed. In both cases you can say the model shots lasted way too long, but that's Teancum's point: it's reality, or pretty close to it in the case of 2001, so naturally they are both "slow".
Text labels: I checked before posting earlier, they were already small.
Mount St Helens: I didn't notice that before; for less popular search terms, the dropdowns frequently listed results not related to what I was looking for so I started ignoring them. And the dropdown shows "Mount St Helens Natl Vol Mom"... It wasn't obvious this was a national park... heck I wasn't even aware there was one.
Mt Everest: it's still a significant error/omission because, like the Statue of Liberty, it's going to be a popular landmark search to try out an iOS6 maps feature. For the SoL it was Flyover. For Everest, it's the 3D terrain.
Guess it depends what Maps is for. Flyover indicates it's not aimed more for navigation over anything else--Flyover's main use will be people "visiting" famous places, and where it does work the results are pretty cool, aside from the ground clutter not represented well (cars, ships, planes at airports, trees, etc).
1. Level of detail: half the time, a search result does not label half the major roads in the visible area. By the time I zoom in enough that the label appears, I've lost the bigger picture.
It's not more readable, there isn't enough to read!
2. You can be searching maps for things other than straight navigation. You can't navigate to the Statue of Liberty, after all, but it's a significant landmark.
Well, so is Mount Everest and Mount St. Helens. Neither search brings up the expected result, they bring up businesses (Mount St. Helens results for stuff in the UK, even when I started with maps hovering right over Mt. St. Helens). Mount Kilimanjaro works though.
Basically, the back-end that determines what results to give, are prioritizing businesses over actual locations, even when the businesses are nowhere near you.
Turn by turn does work quite well though.
3. Terrain deformation is unreliable. Search for "Toronto city airport"; this has no 3D buildings, though Toronto itself does. Go to 3D and pan down. You don't want to land anything on there. In my city, no Flyover at all yet, terrain view claims areas are far hillier than areas actually are.
Even in areas with Flyover, sometimes when panning around the terrain forms shows up before the buildings do, and it's significantly different from the buildings and roads that quickly replace it. Data is either inaccurate, or years and even decades out of date depending on how long structures have been there.
Maps aren't as good as you make it out to be, and aren't as bad as everyone else is making it out to be.
If you're strictly using it for navigating and turn-by-turn, I'd rate it 7/10. Flyover view is 8/10 as long as I don't think of it as a Street View replacement but an entirely new feature. Because of issues 1 and 2 though, my overall iOS 6 maps app experience is a 6/10.
Slashdot Mirror
The driver of the car in front of you jams on his brakes. The road is wet and your car can't stop in time. There is a truck to the left so your brand new intelligent car decides to swerve to the right because there is only a small object there and won't cause as much damage. Too bad for the student walking home from school.
I wonder if the intelligent car might not enforce the so-called 2-second rule. The counter to this is that other drivers will just cut in, making the car fall back again and again... but maybe the counter to *that* is that it's only engaged when it detects adverse driving conditions (rain, snow, freezing rain, dust storm, etc). Assuming the laser/radar/magic system doesn't see hard rain as a solid enough obstacle and prevent you driving at all.
Microsoft execs and marketing are complete and utter morons for keeping any part of the Windows name for the consumer Surface. Apple's iPhone OS (later iOS) was completely dissociated and looked totally different from the Mac OS X that people were familiar with, and it was obvious to nearly all consumers that you could not load Mac software onto it (heck, for the first year there were no apps to load at all).
Surface? WinRT. Similar interface to Windows 8 desktop. Confusion reigns.
They should seriously pay me whatever they pay their execs and marketing staff. I'd could've sat around doing nothing for the last year, and the result would be better than the mess they're making for themselves with WinRT.
Wait, you're using an Apple-fan argument ("it's not overpriced / competing system with equivalent or similar specs cost the same or more / they don't compete with lower-spec systems") to defend a Microsoft-run system?
(not agreeing/disagreeing with what you said, just amused at this similarity).
We haven't bothered resetting our microwave clock, so it says "-:--"
ABS doesn't result in shorter braking distance, its purpose is to maintain steering control during hard braking. A well trained driver can stop in a shorter distance without it. On dry pavement with good traction ABS is a nuisance for anyone with skills.
The vast, vast majority of drivers in North America definitely don't fall into the first category (even I don't consider myself "well trained", merely better than average), and too many don't fall into the second. That's why ABS was added across (most of?) the board.
Sucks for the better trained and skilled drivers, of course. At least manual transmission cars are still an option for those wanting more control over their driving experience.
It's a shame more people won't pick it up, and that we can't bring ourselves to design towns and cities to allow for it.
It costs far less to add 3 feet of bike lane to a road than it does to treat 1000 cases of advanced diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, cancer, and other life-ending diseases. The government and the taxpayer have a vested interest in policies that facilitate people being healthy when they reach Medicare age - not to mention the people themselves who still have to pay a heavy price for their lack of health.
If bike lanes and healthcare came from taxes at the same level of government, that would be an easy/easier sell.
Unfortunately, at least where I live, healthcare is the responsibility of the province (with federal assistance), and non-highway city roads are municipal (with occasional provincial assistance).
Medicare in the US is federal responsibility AFAIK, I imagine the feds likewise don't care too much about most in-city roads.
The claim that the wheelwas turned the wrong way, by the granddaughter of the second officer, is disputed by the great-granddaughter of the quartermaster (Robert Hichens) who supposedly panicked and misinterpreted the order. Hichens was in disrepute immediately after the disaster, branded a coward for refusing to return his lifeboat back to pick up survivors. He was no hero, public sentiment was against him, there was no reason for surviving officers to keep secret from the US and British inquiries any additional contribution he might have made to the accident.
I also don't know where the "props did not reverse" comes from. Titanic's two outboard engines indeed could not reverse, but the main one could.
That's the same silly argument that all of Apple's iPod/iPhone/iPad innovations (NOT inventions) "would have happened anyway" by other companies.
Well, in my defense, most NASA spinoffs are by other parties which were already conducting research in the areas in question. That alone brings it out of the silly category, even if you do choose to ignore that your argument was a fallacy by virtue of the original statement being false. Most Apple innovations would indeed have happened anyway.
You left out the tail of my paragraph: "in many cases [...] development would have happened many years later than they actually did". It's not that the "would have happened anyway" argument is false, it's that such a statement refuses to credit Apple/NASA with pushing or jump-starting many areas of R&D. It's like saying a Google Maps-type web application "would've happened anyway" by incumbents like Mapquest, so Google doesn't deserve any credit for modern online map UIs.
It took private enterprise over 50 years to replicate what NASA did in the early 60s, and they had that 50 years of experience to draw upon--back then many things about rockets and space were still being researched and discovered through trial and error, that's why many early attempts ended with an exploding rocket.
And for an order of magnitude lower cost than NASA could do the same now.
The "than" makes it hard to parse your intent.
Are you saying NASA could do everything private enterprise can, but for an order of magnitude less (implication: bureaucracy and pork barrelling inflate NASA costs)? No argument from me there.
Are you saying private enterprise can do the same as NASA can now (or could have up til recently), but for an order of magnitude less? That has yet to be proven, since NASA's mandate extends beyond launching satellites into orbit, and humans into sub-orbital space.
Space is far too expensive up front, with not enough profit to justify it.
If that were true, then it wouldn't be worth doing. The amazing work that companies like SpaceX are doing now demonstrate that the premise was false. You can speak of the "50 years of experience", but NASA wasn't doing anything with that experience except squandering it for another generation.
I was responding to the general assertion that everything NASA did would've happened anyway by private enterprise, not specifically the spinoff applications linked to by UnknownSoldier. I refer more to "pure" research that typically lack short-term ROI (Hubble, environment monitoring satellites, Mars and other probes/landers), as well as manned orbital and lunar spacecraft.
So far, manned orbit-capable craft have only been achieved by government agencies of Russia, the USA and China. All American-based private, manned orbital craft under development seem to be funded by NASA contracts, with the goal of reaching the International Space Station. Space-X seems to be the leader, having already docked uncrewed variants there, but even it says 2015 is the earliest they plan to have a manned launch is 2015.
Note that without the ISS (thanks to taxpayers of many countries) as a destination, it's unclear why a private for-profit company would even want to develop a manned orbital craft. Space tourism is an extremely limited and expensive endeavour, and all it'll take is one multi-millionaire tourist killed in flight for a lot of future clientele to evaporate overnight (I'm assuming anything already paid has a no-refund clause). Unlike airplanes which offered significant speed advantages over cross-country trains and trans-oceanic ships, orbital craft have no advantage over airplanes (orbit implies looping around and above your starting point, give or take a few hundred kilometres depending on inclination, at least once), and significantly more risk. Sub-orbital craft *might* fit this bill, and
Unthinking detractors never think things through.
You think those 14' trees are going to walk out there, plant and maintain themselves over (at least) two years? There's this funny thing called labour and equipment costs. And you're not dropping them into a nice open lawn, but along routes in a major city.
That's the same silly argument that all of Apple's iPod/iPhone/iPad innovations (NOT inventions) "would have happened anyway" by other companies. Bottom line is, just like with NASA-funded research... in many cases other companies didn't do it anyway, they were crap, or development would have happened many years later than they actually did.
It took private enterprise over 50 years to replicate what NASA did in the early 60s, and they had that 50 years of experience to draw upon--back then many things about rockets and space were still being researched and discovered through trial and error, that's why many early attempts ended with an exploding rocket. Space is far too expensive up front, with not enough profit to justify it.
The "most expensive method possible" was not used. That's why we got the shuttles in their final form in the first place. An excellent example of spending less money up front, but being forced to spend more later to work around issues on a compromised system that wouldn't have occurred if enough money had been spent on designing it right in the first place.
Yes. Except the false choice comes from idiots who think that the $15-20 billion a year given to NASA (or even the $2.5 billion on Mars Curiosity over 8 years) should instead be spent fixing poor housing, welfare, health, hunger, etc.
To even think that is to be wilfully ignorant to the fact medicare, medicaid and social security already take up $1600 billion a year, and still can't get the job done. An extra 1.2% will do exactly nothing except reward pork-barrel bureaucrats instead of highly educated and skilled rocket scientists and engineers.
You're right, I meant to include "overly religious" as a factor in higher birth rates.
Americans like to be lied to so they can keep their precious illusions intact. That is a huge part of the reason your country is in such a mess now.
Spanish unemployment ~ 25%, Greece borders on revolt, the PIGS face economic collapse. The Eurozone is in danger of dissolving. Native European birthrates are so low that Europe is heading toward demographic catastrophe. Large percentages of the large numbers of immigrants brought into Europe do not accept European values and represent a long term danger of civil war. And yet, you cast stones. . .
Low and negative "native" birth rates are usually associated with more developed countries, because of higher equality and rights for women and higher standard of living overall. It's not sustainable long-term and needs to be addressed via immigration or something else with their own issues, but it's a definite correlation. That the US is able to sustain and grow its population even without immigration should tell you something.
Germany: relatively socialist. Doing pretty well thankyouverymuch. Canada: also relatively socialist, and its Liberal banking regulations saved it from tanking as badly as it could have (the present Conservatives like taking credit for that, despite their initial failed attempts to pass deregulation laws).
They happily ignore anything the opposition or other groups say or do--they have a majority and don't care. But, accusing opponents of the bill of supporting child pornographers sure was a good strategy for bringing wayward Conservatives in line.
Extremist rhetoric might work well for Rush Limbaugh, but not so well when used against your own colleagues and supporters. With those words Vic Toews accidentally shot the bill in the back with a rocket grenade, and we're all happier for it.
Forget spreading things out, they'll just lump it in with the 200 other non-budget items in another omnibus budget bill.
And I thought riders to unrelated bills were fucked up... those seem to happen frequently in the US, don't hear much about them in Canada. But, at least riders are limited to a few each bill.
No civilized country pays wait staff less than the minimum wage making them rely on tips, either. Not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg here, though.
Logic fail--the only people that bad at math are Americans!
That's a sad and frankly pathetic reflection of today's instant gratification, zero-details-please society. Even if the... summary... is someone's personal rambling and it being a front-page Slashdot story is questionable.
(Yes, yes, go ahead and put a TLDR on this too, +5 funny haha)
The danger isn't limited to moving cars, either. Cyclists riding past parked cars need to be hyper-aware too, lest they fall victim to the "door prize."
Last year there was a horrible incident where a driver threw open the door without first looking back, the cyclist couldn't avoid it, and then she fell into the middle of the driving lane where she was immediately run over and killed.
People can't spit or do other stuff to your airbag when you park the car, either.
Where I live, there are multi-use recreational paths where people can walk, bike, blade, etc. Problem for cyclists is, officially it's limited to 20 km/h. Anyone training for a race automatically have to take the normal roads.
Downtown, we recently got two completely segregated bike lanes between sidewalk and car lane, and cyclists can go as fast as they want (barely enough space to safely pass a slower cyclist, though), and cars attempting turns must yield. Problem for cyclists is, people often walk in parts of those lanes, even with the sidewalk right next to it, sometimes without even looking before stepping into the lane.
Sometimes you just can't win...
The slowest space scene in Apollo 13 was when the command+service module separated from the 3rd stage, then flipped 180 degrees to dock with and extract the lunar module. The whole scene took a minute or so, with tense music accompaniment.
In reality it would've taken much longer; on Apollo 17 it took 15 minutes just to dock, and some more time to check everything before extraction. On Apollo 14 it took six attempts and over two hours, before they finally docked successfully. Apollo 13 is one of my favourite movies, but it's still Hollywood entertainment, with pacing and embellishments to match, and not a documentary or realistic depiction of events.
The video capture of Dragon is far more like 2001, for example the two scenes where space pods are deployed. In both cases you can say the model shots lasted way too long, but that's Teancum's point: it's reality, or pretty close to it in the case of 2001, so naturally they are both "slow".
Text labels: I checked before posting earlier, they were already small.
Mount St Helens: I didn't notice that before; for less popular search terms, the dropdowns frequently listed results not related to what I was looking for so I started ignoring them. And the dropdown shows "Mount St Helens Natl Vol Mom"... It wasn't obvious this was a national park... heck I wasn't even aware there was one.
Mt Everest: it's still a significant error/omission because, like the Statue of Liberty, it's going to be a popular landmark search to try out an iOS6 maps feature. For the SoL it was Flyover. For Everest, it's the 3D terrain.
Guess it depends what Maps is for. Flyover indicates it's not aimed more for navigation over anything else--Flyover's main use will be people "visiting" famous places, and where it does work the results are pretty cool, aside from the ground clutter not represented well (cars, ships, planes at airports, trees, etc).
1. Level of detail: half the time, a search result does not label half the major roads in the visible area. By the time I zoom in enough that the label appears, I've lost the bigger picture.
It's not more readable, there isn't enough to read!
2. You can be searching maps for things other than straight navigation. You can't navigate to the Statue of Liberty, after all, but it's a significant landmark.
Well, so is Mount Everest and Mount St. Helens. Neither search brings up the expected result, they bring up businesses (Mount St. Helens results for stuff in the UK, even when I started with maps hovering right over Mt. St. Helens). Mount Kilimanjaro works though.
Basically, the back-end that determines what results to give, are prioritizing businesses over actual locations, even when the businesses are nowhere near you.
Turn by turn does work quite well though.
3. Terrain deformation is unreliable. Search for "Toronto city airport"; this has no 3D buildings, though Toronto itself does. Go to 3D and pan down. You don't want to land anything on there. In my city, no Flyover at all yet, terrain view claims areas are far hillier than areas actually are.
Even in areas with Flyover, sometimes when panning around the terrain forms shows up before the buildings do, and it's significantly different from the buildings and roads that quickly replace it. Data is either inaccurate, or years and even decades out of date depending on how long structures have been there.
Maps aren't as good as you make it out to be, and aren't as bad as everyone else is making it out to be.
If you're strictly using it for navigating and turn-by-turn, I'd rate it 7/10. Flyover view is 8/10 as long as I don't think of it as a Street View replacement but an entirely new feature. Because of issues 1 and 2 though, my overall iOS 6 maps app experience is a 6/10.