That a car can fall this far this fast with little or no structural or locomotional changes says more about the raters than the ratee.
Why? When a new car is released, they typically rate it based on initial experience of the new model, and past experience with similar models from the same manufacturer. If reality proves it's not, they adjust the rating.
What else do you expect them to do? Travel into the future and ask owners how reliable it's been over the last ten years?
we'd all 3D print these at home with digitally downloaded anti-Luddite files?
Which is a very apt comment, as people just like you were writing off home computers as toys thirty years ago. 'What can you do on them? Oh, play games you say? What's that little blob chasing the other little blob and firing dots supposed to be? What do you mean they're tanks? What a load of crap. They'll never amount to anything.'
I get that it is logistically more difficult to put something on to a train, but damn, they're efficient.
1. They're a single point of failure. Lots of companies moved freight off rail in the UK in the 90s, because the perpetual strikes were destroying their business. If a truck company goes on strike, you call their competitor. If the train company goes on strike... tough luck. 2. Few places now have direct rail delivery to the end-user. There are a bunch of old, rotting rail lines in the industrial areas here where the cargo could once roll right up to the factory or other industrial destination. If you have to load stuff onto a truck, take it to a rail yard, load it onto the train, load it onto a truck at the other end, and drive it to where it has to go, you may well be paying more that just taking it the whole way by truck. 3. Freight trains are slow. Driving back from my girlfriends' parents' place on the highway, we'll usually pass several of them travelling maybe half as fast as the trucks.
So, for rail freight to make sense, you have to be shipping something cheap enough for transport costs to matter, and unimportant enough that you don't really care whether it turns up tomorrow or next Wednesday.
uh, no. the spacecraft is usually the most expensive part of the launch, especially if it's a man-rated craft.
A Saturn V launch cost about $2,000,000,000 in today's money. So adding another test flight to test the spacecraft after you've already tested the Saturn V would add $2,000,0000,000 to the development cost.
The problem comes when you want to test the first stage of your rocket in flight. It needs to be tested in an environment as close as possible to a real launch. You either spend a lot of money building a fake second and third stage, or you put a real second stage on top. That also has to be tested in an environment as close as possible to a real launch. So you spend a lot of money building a fake third stage, or you put a real third stage on top. Then you need a realistic payload. So you might as well put a real spacecraft on top.
So long as there's a good chance of the first stage working, you probably save money and time in the long run by just launching the whole thing. You can test whichever stages work, and you don't have to spend money building fake stages.
Yeah well, that's what happens when you use a public space. Like road rules, or air traffic rules, or use of the spectrum. If people didn't automatically go and do the stupidest fucking thing with these technologies at the first opportunity, it wouldn't be necessary.
That's easy. The drone owner is liable. He's the only one that can be liable in this scenario and in this world.
Yes. According to Slashdot, drone owners are EVIL TERRISTS.
You'd almost think people here would appreciate new technologies, not want to regulate them to death. But I guess that's what happens when SJWs take over. If there's one thing they can't stand, it's change.
Let's say that SpaceX can get a fully reusable BFR flying regularly, putting 100 metric tons to leo on every launch at a vastly lower cost. Would it still worth the huge capital expenditure to develop space based resource mining/extraction to reduce the amount of mass that needs to go up form Earth?
The more cheaply you can put things into orbit, the more cheaply you can build infrastructure in space. Which we have to do, if we want to get off this planet for good.
But, whatever the cost, I really can't see much of a case for funding all that infrastructure to launch one mission to Mars. It only makes sense if you're going to be flying a lot of spaceships around the solar system.
seriously, eBooks more expensive than paperbacks?!?!
Actually, with the new contracts between publishers and Amazon that let publishers set the price of their ebooks, it's not uncommon for the ebook to be more expensive than the hardcover version.
General theory is that it's deliberate. Publishers make more money on an ebook, but the only thing they really have to offer to authors these days is their control of most of the print market... so they appear to be trading short-term profit for longer-term author retention.
Yes. Unless e-ink performance dramatically improves, there's really no reason to buy a new reader to replace my Kindle... meanwhile, tablet screens have improved enough that I now mostly read there, rather than on the e-reader.
Note that many Amazon ebooks have no DRM, so you can load them into Calibre and do whatever you want with them. DRM is mostly for big publisher books, not small publishers and indie writers.
But, yes, given the choice between paying $12.99 for a DRM-ed publisher ebook, or $9.99 for the paperback... it's not hard to choose.
Slashdot Mirror
That a car can fall this far this fast with little or no structural or locomotional changes says more about the raters than the ratee.
Why? When a new car is released, they typically rate it based on initial experience of the new model, and past experience with similar models from the same manufacturer. If reality proves it's not, they adjust the rating.
What else do you expect them to do? Travel into the future and ask owners how reliable it's been over the last ten years?
Yes, let's ban all home-built, or open source drones.
FOR THE CHILDREN!
How do you geo-fence something without any geo-position capability?
Yes. As we can see, most of the people calling for LAWS TO CONTROL SCARY NEW STUFF have no idea of what they're talking about.
Which is why they're calling for LAWS TO CONTROL SCARY NEW STUFF in the first place.
The most commonly cited quad in these instances is a DJI Phantom 1/2/3... at around $1000 is hardly a toy.
Uh, yes, it is. Though it's also getting big enough that you really shouldn't be flying it over people, or around airports.
There's a new iPhone coming, better get back in line at the Apple store.
But Apple's not forcing you to buy it by making your old phone obsolete.
Troll rating: 1/10.
we'd all 3D print these at home with digitally downloaded anti-Luddite files?
Which is a very apt comment, as people just like you were writing off home computers as toys thirty years ago. 'What can you do on them? Oh, play games you say? What's that little blob chasing the other little blob and firing dots supposed to be? What do you mean they're tanks? What a load of crap. They'll never amount to anything.'
I get that it is logistically more difficult to put something on to a train, but damn, they're efficient.
1. They're a single point of failure. Lots of companies moved freight off rail in the UK in the 90s, because the perpetual strikes were destroying their business. If a truck company goes on strike, you call their competitor. If the train company goes on strike... tough luck.
2. Few places now have direct rail delivery to the end-user. There are a bunch of old, rotting rail lines in the industrial areas here where the cargo could once roll right up to the factory or other industrial destination. If you have to load stuff onto a truck, take it to a rail yard, load it onto the train, load it onto a truck at the other end, and drive it to where it has to go, you may well be paying more that just taking it the whole way by truck.
3. Freight trains are slow. Driving back from my girlfriends' parents' place on the highway, we'll usually pass several of them travelling maybe half as fast as the trucks.
So, for rail freight to make sense, you have to be shipping something cheap enough for transport costs to matter, and unimportant enough that you don't really care whether it turns up tomorrow or next Wednesday.
It's okay - we were told, just a few days ago, that the most important innovation was the refrigerator. Now it's a shipping container.
Obviously it's a shipping container full of refrigerators.
Yes. I tried this Google voice search once, and it turned my request into complete gibberish.
uh, no. the spacecraft is usually the most expensive part of the launch, especially if it's a man-rated craft.
A Saturn V launch cost about $2,000,000,000 in today's money. So adding another test flight to test the spacecraft after you've already tested the Saturn V would add $2,000,0000,000 to the development cost.
The problem comes when you want to test the first stage of your rocket in flight. It needs to be tested in an environment as close as possible to a real launch. You either spend a lot of money building a fake second and third stage, or you put a real second stage on top. That also has to be tested in an environment as close as possible to a real launch. So you spend a lot of money building a fake third stage, or you put a real third stage on top. Then you need a realistic payload. So you might as well put a real spacecraft on top.
So long as there's a good chance of the first stage working, you probably save money and time in the long run by just launching the whole thing. You can test whichever stages work, and you don't have to spend money building fake stages.
Can you point to the place in the Constitution that allows the Feds to require registration of drones?
Thanks.
Yeah well, that's what happens when you use a public space. Like road rules, or air traffic rules, or use of the spectrum. If people didn't automatically go and do the stupidest fucking thing with these technologies at the first opportunity, it wouldn't be necessary.
I rest my case.
That's easy. The drone owner is liable. He's the only one that can be liable in this scenario and in this world.
Yes. According to Slashdot, drone owners are EVIL TERRISTS.
You'd almost think people here would appreciate new technologies, not want to regulate them to death. But I guess that's what happens when SJWs take over. If there's one thing they can't stand, it's change.
The gun also jams GPS making some (most?) of the return-to-home features dysfunctional.
Sounds like a great toy for the brave new driverless car future.
Yeah, because someone who's planning to kill someone with a drone will definitely register it and ask permission to do so.
Much like everything in life, entitled morons do stupid things and everyone suffers.
Well, yes. But that's what bureaucrats do. It's all they do.
Now the trillion-dollar drone industry will develop outside America. Just another example of the country throwing its future away 'for the childrun!'
Let's say that SpaceX can get a fully reusable BFR flying regularly, putting 100 metric tons to leo on every launch at a vastly lower cost. Would it still worth the huge capital expenditure to develop space based resource mining/extraction to reduce the amount of mass that needs to go up form Earth?
The more cheaply you can put things into orbit, the more cheaply you can build infrastructure in space. Which we have to do, if we want to get off this planet for good.
But, whatever the cost, I really can't see much of a case for funding all that infrastructure to launch one mission to Mars. It only makes sense if you're going to be flying a lot of spaceships around the solar system.
Won't 'fair use' vanish after Obamatrade is signed?
seriously, eBooks more expensive than paperbacks?!?!
Actually, with the new contracts between publishers and Amazon that let publishers set the price of their ebooks, it's not uncommon for the ebook to be more expensive than the hardcover version.
General theory is that it's deliberate. Publishers make more money on an ebook, but the only thing they really have to offer to authors these days is their control of most of the print market... so they appear to be trading short-term profit for longer-term author retention.
Yes. Unless e-ink performance dramatically improves, there's really no reason to buy a new reader to replace my Kindle... meanwhile, tablet screens have improved enough that I now mostly read there, rather than on the e-reader.
Note that many Amazon ebooks have no DRM, so you can load them into Calibre and do whatever you want with them. DRM is mostly for big publisher books, not small publishers and indie writers.
But, yes, given the choice between paying $12.99 for a DRM-ed publisher ebook, or $9.99 for the paperback... it's not hard to choose.
Slashdot experts are confident that driverless cars will never have crash. So it's all good.
There were times that in-service instances did crash, reboot, and continue operating, but these were rare.
Like I said... if your embedded system can't be allowed to crash.
Clearly, yours could. For other systems, people die when they crash.