What is the point of cruise control that you have to babysit in case your car suddenly decides to do twice the speed limit?
Cruise control already requires me to, you know, like steer and not hit stuff and crap like that. I'm not just sitting there falling asleep as I wait to see if the car is going to do something stupid.
And, no, I really don't see much point in cruise control myself. I rarely use it.
So, what exactly is the driver supposed to do when a kid runs out of the road in front of them and the computer instantly hands control back to them to avoid liability?
Just like autopilot failures, when the 'driverless' car fails, it will instantly hand control back to the driver, who then crashes, giving a 100% 'driver error' rate.
The problem though is that those UI ideas fail dismally on small-screen touch devices.
Yeah, so?
I run Windows on a desktop PC to play games. I don't give a crap about what it looks like on a small-screen touch device, but I care a lot about what it looks like on a big-screen monitor or two.
Uh, let's see. Right now I'm running two copies of Eclipse from a VM, displaying on the host machine's desktop using X-forwarding. Under Wayland, that'll require either pushing megabytes of pixels every time I scroll a window, or using some god-awful VNC crap.
Oh, but the desktop is dead, etc, etc and we'll all be doing software development on phones in future.
Everyone hates X, so lets compare this thing I don't like to X. Even thought its obviously very different from X.
A few loud-mouths hate X. Most people who use X don't even know it exists. Those who use X the way it was designed (i.e. network transparency) can't understand why the loudmouths want to throw that away to build something like Windows, when Windows is dying.
Did anyone ask the commander and pilot about that?
Yes. They were the ones who asked for the seats to be disabled, when they began flying crews of more than two... they didn't like the idea of ejecting and leaving the rest of the crew behind, either.
The Gemini ejection seats improved the odds of survival, but about the only thing more risky than using them during a launch incident was not using them. Apollo launch escape was tested on real rocket launches (though not Saturns) and should have worked fine.
1. It didn't blow up, it was blown up for safety reasons. 2. Other than the common hardware, this is entirely unrelated to actual satellite launches, it's a test system for landing tests. If it shows up a problem with the engines, which are the same, then all the better: they can fix it now instead of fixing it after they lose a payload on a real launch. 3. No-one else has done what SpaceX are doing with a real, operational rocket before. This actually is rocket science (or, at least, rocket engineering).
The only actual, real use of a launch escape system worked fine, other than the cosmonauts having to hide from wolves while they waited to be picked up.
How about Congress sticks to its constitutional powers? That would eliminate 90% of Federal spending, including NASA, and they could play golf most of the year because they'd have nothing better to do.
And this - with a little help from the One-Percenters - is why there will never be a Star Trek style future, where one works due to passion and not subsistence necessity.
So all those Redshirts have a passion for being the first one shot after they beam down, and not because they need the money?
Wasn't that drug also given to the Spanish guy who died?
Given this Ebola variant seems to have about a 50% death rate, there's a 25% chance two people would survive anyway. It needs to be given to a lot more people to determine how well it really works.
Slashdot Mirror
What is the point of cruise control that you have to babysit in case your car suddenly decides to do twice the speed limit?
Cruise control already requires me to, you know, like steer and not hit stuff and crap like that. I'm not just sitting there falling asleep as I wait to see if the car is going to do something stupid.
And, no, I really don't see much point in cruise control myself. I rarely use it.
So, what exactly is the driver supposed to do when a kid runs out of the road in front of them and the computer instantly hands control back to them to avoid liability?
Uh, no, you got it wrong.
Just like autopilot failures, when the 'driverless' car fails, it will instantly hand control back to the driver, who then crashes, giving a 100% 'driver error' rate.
What's the point of a 'driverless' car that I have to babysit in case it decides to drive through a crowd of schoolkids at 90mph?
You probably also think we'll all sit around living a life of leisure in the future, because robots will do all the work, right?
How do you plan to handle 300 cars all trying to pull over and stop at the same time, because they have no idea what to do?
You don't need seatbelts in a self-driving vehicle, because they'll never crash.
Or something.
The problem though is that those UI ideas fail dismally on small-screen touch devices.
Yeah, so?
I run Windows on a desktop PC to play games. I don't give a crap about what it looks like on a small-screen touch device, but I care a lot about what it looks like on a big-screen monitor or two.
And Window 8 looks like crap.
Was that so hard?
Hey, guess what? I did that, and it didn't work.
Hint: you missed at least one more place where you have to change the port number.
Do you see any disadvantages of wayland?
Uh, let's see. Right now I'm running two copies of Eclipse from a VM, displaying on the host machine's desktop using X-forwarding. Under Wayland, that'll require either pushing megabytes of pixels every time I scroll a window, or using some god-awful VNC crap.
Oh, but the desktop is dead, etc, etc and we'll all be doing software development on phones in future.
Everyone hates X, so lets compare this thing I don't like to X. Even thought its obviously very different from X.
A few loud-mouths hate X. Most people who use X don't even know it exists. Those who use X the way it was designed (i.e. network transparency) can't understand why the loudmouths want to throw that away to build something like Windows, when Windows is dying.
None, that I'm aware of. However, SpaceX have 3D printed oxidizer valves for the Merlin engines, and combustion chambers for the Draco thrusters.
At the rate things are going, they'll probably be 3D printing entire engines before the replacement for the RD-180 is finished.
Hey, it's the anti-SpaceX nutter! How've you been?
Did anyone ask the commander and pilot about that?
Yes. They were the ones who asked for the seats to be disabled, when they began flying crews of more than two... they didn't like the idea of ejecting and leaving the rest of the crew behind, either.
The police were probably just hoping they'd get a chance to shoot a dinosaur themselves.
The Gemini ejection seats improved the odds of survival, but about the only thing more risky than using them during a launch incident was not using them. Apollo launch escape was tested on real rocket launches (though not Saturns) and should have worked fine.
1. It didn't blow up, it was blown up for safety reasons.
2. Other than the common hardware, this is entirely unrelated to actual satellite launches, it's a test system for landing tests. If it shows up a problem with the engines, which are the same, then all the better: they can fix it now instead of fixing it after they lose a payload on a real launch.
3. No-one else has done what SpaceX are doing with a real, operational rocket before. This actually is rocket science (or, at least, rocket engineering).
The only actual, real use of a launch escape system worked fine, other than the cosmonauts having to hide from wolves while they waited to be picked up.
Pretty hard if you don't have the source.
Compared to what? Russian roulette?
As far as I'm aware, no 'self-driving' car has driven anywhere near 60,000,000 miles.
1. The current state of the art is, comparatively, extremely dangerous (even with attentive, good drivers).
One death per 60,000,000 miles (with inattentive, lousy American drivers) is 'extremely dangerous'?
Decades of aircraft autopilot failures tells us it will immediately hand control back to the driver, then blame 'human error' for the crash.
How about Congress sticks to its constitutional powers? That would eliminate 90% of Federal spending, including NASA, and they could play golf most of the year because they'd have nothing better to do.
And this - with a little help from the One-Percenters - is why there will never be a Star Trek style future, where one works due to passion and not subsistence necessity.
So all those Redshirts have a passion for being the first one shot after they beam down, and not because they need the money?
Wasn't that drug also given to the Spanish guy who died?
Given this Ebola variant seems to have about a 50% death rate, there's a 25% chance two people would survive anyway. It needs to be given to a lot more people to determine how well it really works.