And the government has previously held that discrimination in schools is fine, so long as the target was greater diversity, not less. If Harvard were to put everyone on an equal footing, and the student body was disproportionately asian, that could harm Harvard. "Oh, they are that Asian university, don't bother applying unless you are asian." So it's legal and not improper to try to balance admissions to limit the makeup to the diversity that represents the constituency. Oddly enough, this is coded in federal law. I went to a high school that's capped at 40% white, by law. And nobody seems to care. It's still that way years later, a remnant of the integration laws passed in the '70s. Affirmative Action isn't racism.
Yes, and the plural of anecdote is data. All the statistics that make up the "the car usually caused it" stat is a sum of anecdotes, assebmled by police. The police are trained that all crashes are speed and alcohol related, and that a car-truck crash is the fault of the car. The bias is there.
And if you think the police have sympathy for truckers, you know nothing about the business.
I know more than you do. Yes, the police target them for inspections because the drivers so often miss something on the piles of paperwork. Easy fines to meet their quota. They don't actually have it out for truckers, they have quotas, even after quotas have been made explicitly illegal in most places.
Not sure what you mean by "not for friction." As I understand it the coefficient of friction for two materials doesn't depend on mass, but doesn't the "friction force" depend on the amount of force pressing the materials together?
The friction is essentially mu*N. The inertia is the mass. So as mass increases, the normal force increases at the same rate the inertia increases. So a motorbike on good tires will stop in about the same distance as a much heavier sports car. The main reason the trucks can't match that is that they are poorly designed (for performance), poorly maintained (for performance), and have additional factors (like shifting loads). An 80,000 lb truck with good quality brakes perfectly balanced on all 18 wheels should stop in the same distance as the motorcycle. But for a truck, cost and reliability are much more important than performance, so the performance suffers.
But then I wouldn't have been able to make it into an oblique reference to a Family Guy joke.
Truck driving isn't an "unskilled" job. They need licensing, and training. Hopefully this indicates they are re-trainable. Every job ends. You just train for the next one. That's how it should work. It doesn't because the 1% sees the 99% as fungible slaves that should be replaced by robots. So improving the work force isseenas a waste of resources, not the benefit to society that it actually is.
anybody who has used a GPS knows automated trip planning is lacking even basic information on roads, much less current overpass heights and road weight limits which are often not recorded anywhere but on the local signage, add to that the complexities of call ahead loads, loads that can't unload at the exact time of arrival but won't let you park on premises, multiple stop loads where you have to supervise unloaders, terrible dock conditions and a myriad of other things this just becomes an impossible task for a computer.
Because you are an idiot, the problem is hard?
The example I use elsewhere is a Wal-Mart distribution truck. Picture a truck going a set route that's been done 10,000 times before by a human between a central distribution warehouse and a regional one. The road, route, and all that are well known. The loading and unloading of the truck isn't done by the driver today. The timing is handled well, so there'd be little waste of parking waiting for a spot on either side. The computer just needs to follow a set path that's 100% known, and do so safely, and park at the end. That's a very finite problem, and quite easy.
That you assert it's hard indicates you don't understand the problem, or don't like the solution.
The only people proposing that are people who are arguing against it by making up strawmen. No system does a handover of that nature, nor is there reason to suspect any will.
You don't understand. The issue is deliberately confused by those who don't like it. Take Wal-Mart. Say everything delivered to a Wal-Mart comes on a Wal-Mart truck. These trucks take the same goods over the same routes thousands of times. No change. No need to get out, except to fuel up. Set start and destination points. Why would you need people for "delivery"? They are already there.
This has nothing to do with a UPS or FedEx truck. Nor even most supermarkets. Most places aren't as optimized as Wal-Mart, so your produce truck will look at daily orders for the local supermarkets and adjust the route, based on demand. These would be later.
But much of the truck traffic in the US is train on wheels. Depot to depot, not "deliveries" as most people think of them.
I agree: automating truck driving will not decrease truck-car crashes very much since most of those are caused by the car driver.
And I disagree. I've seen a number of crashes where the car was at a dead-stop and the truck hit it, and the fault was assigned to the car. Those would be avoided with computers. The only reason the wide-right-turn crashes happen is that the driver can't be looking where he's going, where he's crossing, and what's behind him at the same time. A computer can, and would take a photo of the illegal car, email it to the police, but stop the truck so the car doesn't get crushed. Just because you think the cars are mostly at fault doesn't mean the trucks couldn't have avoided the crash.
Not for friction. Friction is massless. If you knew physics, you'd know that. And the mu for sliding tires is well known (google will give you hits on it), so a range of speeds would be easy to determine. If the crash was fatal, they'd get reference samples of the tire and test on the actual road to determine the mu, but you don't need all that, and the test only determines boundaries anyway, as the test doesn't test sliding at high speed with high pressure that liquefies the rubber. Ablative friction isn't pure "friction" any more. When you get to that, like when the tires fail and the metal is gouging out sections of road while stopping, then yes, you must take weight into account. But for a simple slide, if you assume.7, you won't be off by much.
The problem with estimation of a truck is how many identifiable tracks were there? Often, you'll see the 8 from the load-bearing part under the 5th wheel. that means that you are stopping with 8/18 wheels. The front two and back 8 aren't doing as much stopping, so the calculations will be off. If you see 18 identifiable trails, then.7 would be very accurate.
windy* roads *Curvy. Not blowy.
Perhaps "winding" would then be the best word. No confusion, and same meaning.
But I find that I can gain information about my side of the road from the other side's traffic. Cars naturally clump, and if the cars are evenly spaced, it usually indicates a recently-ended bottle-neck. That could mean a problem on my or the other side of the road, and the bottle neck is rubber-neckers. Would that make it a rubber-bottle-neck, or a bottle-rubber-neck? Because rubber-neck-bottle-neck is just silly.
basic physics and stopping distance of such heavy machines.
The best cars and the best motorbikes stop in about the same distance, despite the 10x or so difference in weight. So why do you assert that there's a difference because of weight? Friction is "weightless" because the friction force to stop is increased with weight linearly with the Normal force, as inertia is increased linearly with weight as well. They cancel, and weight doesn't affect stopping distance (unless the vehicles are poorly designed or maintained, as is the case with cargo trucks).
Stopping distance is limited by tire friction. As such, the theoretical stopping distance of a truck is similar to that of a car. In practice not, as trucks are poorly maintained from a performance perspective (yes, I know their requirements are higher than a car, but with the added forces, they are still lower than they should be). Like the taxes on trucks, they are higher, but not high enough to compensate for their size and scale.
A train is an even more extreme case. Those can take miles to come to a stop do to all of the inertia.
Trains are specifically run on low-friction conditions. Then, when these low-friction conditions result in low-friction for stopping, it's now about the weight? Someone doesn't know how friction works.
the brakes will literally melt if you try to brute-force a shorter braking distance, for example by increasing braking system pressure.
No, you'll slide on the tires before you'll melt the brakes. And if melting is the issue, use ceramics with higher heat tolerance. But heat isn't the issue. The biggest issue is imbalanced brakes, and stability of stopping a back-heavy vehicle with imbalanced brakes.
If the brakes were computer-controlled, the stopping distances would match cars. But there's a perception that such computer control would reduce reliability.
Why do trucks tend to jackknife? Because they are back-heavy and the braking happens in the front. That's inherently unstable.
Statistics show that most accidents involving a larger truck are, in fact, the fault of the car.
And because statistics say so, and statistics are a reflection of the bias in the data gatherers, the statistics will show it true, even when wrong.
I was driving 35 in a 35. A truck pulled out from a turn in front of me. He swung wide, and blocked 2 lanes. I moved to the empty lane. He cut me off, and I hit him. It was my fault for not predicting that he'd block all 3 lanes twice, after having pulled out in front of me when not safe to do so in the first place. So says the report. Short of stopping the moment I saw him and waiting for him to make his complicated maneuver (which there is no signal for "left, then right, then left again"), there's nothing I could have done, and stopping on a busy street is not a good idea. The police who write the reports know that the crashes are the fault of the car, so they write them that way without looking a the circumstances. Also, the police know that an at-fault crash on the driver's record can get them fired, but will have no lasting effect on a car driver.
So yes, the statistics say things, but they have biases in them. Statistics say that 80% of drivers are above average (based on survey responses, which is the same collection method used for gauging truck fault), but reality proves that wrong. Yet, people don't question similarly dubious "the car is always at fault" survey responses.
You missed the Wii revolution. Everyone said the Wii controller couldn't work. Too expensive to have so many accurate sensors in a small, cheap device. Then, when "proven" wrong, people realized sensors are cheap and accurate. Back in the '90s, wireless tire pressure sensors were in the cars with run-flats (because they could "go flat" without a driver noticing). And sensors are 1/10th the size and 1/100th the cost now. We could have a sensor per tire to sense all the things you mention. Sound is a vibration, as is the thud from a retred re-separating.
When a human hears/feels detonation, they can back off the throttle to protect the engine. When a computer does it, it does it faster, better, and more reliably than a human. The new driverless cars will be the same. They will be better in every way.
Like ABS. The first 3-channel ABS systems were easily beat by a human in split mu situations. The best 4-channel systems were tough to beat, but were repeatedly beatable by a human. But today's systems are much better. The best ABS can't be beat by a human anymore. The first ABS was aimed to beat the average person, and did so by a wide margin. They just underestimated the gap between the average human and the good ones. That's better understood now, and won't be a problem, unless they go all "tech-startup" and think they should only hire under-25s.
We had no regulations under Laissez Faire, and it killed growth. Monopolistic abuses, and anti-competitive actions were the norm. How many times do we need to try it before it works the way the neo-liberals (the non-US term for the us term "conservative") say it will?
When you buy an app on Google Play, 30% automatically goes to the carrier, and only 2% goes to Google as a transaction fee
30% goes to Google, who splits it between "distribution partner" and "operation expenses", though the exact ratio is not published. Do you have actual inside information you just violated an NDA to share, or are you just guessing?
Well, isn't that what plea bargains are all about? Confess or your punishment will be increased?
That's the definition of "torture" only, rather than threatening bamboo under the fingernails, they threaten death (penalty) or daily anal rape for the rest of your life. I've not found a definition of torture that doesn't apply to plea bargains (aside from those arguing with me who make up their own).
It's east to hate what you don't understand. Thought it's true that AOL means dumb because they were often the most expensive, and there were even times where a 1-800 ISP was cheaper than AOL. And it's been a long time since AOL was better than anyone at anything, but to say it was never best at anything would be like saying Google was never best at search, because someone will someday surpass them. Changes in the future don't change the past, but do change our perception thereof.
He failed to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He committed the crime of perjury while under oath in a trial.
He answered every question asked in a truthful manner, under the rules of the court he was sworn to answer to.
By your silly "you must tell all the truth anyone would want to know, regarless of the questions asked" implication, anyone found guilty in court who didn't confess, should have perjury added to their sentence.
I foolishly assume you have sources for that?
Yes. Have you not seen the large number of scandals involving married anti-gay Republicans having gay sex with pages and interns? If you are that dumb, nothing I say could cure it. If you are that willfully ignorant, nothing I say would be heard. If you are that trolling, anything I saw will be twisted and attacked. So there's no scenario where I could give 100 cites and have you change your mind, so I'll not waste the time.
He had sex with Monica under any reasonable definition of 'sex' (c.f. the cigar & dress) and had to try to contort the meaning of the word 'is'.
He was given bad instructions by the judge in how to answer the question, so he answered the (bad) question with the only truthful answer. That's not a lie.
I've bought a "smartphone" for under $50 with no contracts or lock of any kind. You are shopping dumbly, then saying the result is dumb. The result isn't. Just the shopper. http://www.aliexpress.com/item...
No contract. Under $50. You'd pay less for this than most people pay in bank fees to be able to buy things with other payment methods.
When you end up paying more to avoid something new, it makes you look like an idiot Luddite, not a cost-aware practical person.
Slashdot Mirror
A truck designed and tuned for performance should be quite similar to a car in stopping distance. That they aren't is a separate discussion.
And the government has previously held that discrimination in schools is fine, so long as the target was greater diversity, not less. If Harvard were to put everyone on an equal footing, and the student body was disproportionately asian, that could harm Harvard. "Oh, they are that Asian university, don't bother applying unless you are asian." So it's legal and not improper to try to balance admissions to limit the makeup to the diversity that represents the constituency. Oddly enough, this is coded in federal law. I went to a high school that's capped at 40% white, by law. And nobody seems to care. It's still that way years later, a remnant of the integration laws passed in the '70s. Affirmative Action isn't racism.
Reciprocal motors will never beat rotary.
You gave an anecdote of a single incident.
Yes, and the plural of anecdote is data. All the statistics that make up the "the car usually caused it" stat is a sum of anecdotes, assebmled by police. The police are trained that all crashes are speed and alcohol related, and that a car-truck crash is the fault of the car. The bias is there.
And if you think the police have sympathy for truckers, you know nothing about the business.
I know more than you do. Yes, the police target them for inspections because the drivers so often miss something on the piles of paperwork. Easy fines to meet their quota. They don't actually have it out for truckers, they have quotas, even after quotas have been made explicitly illegal in most places.
Not sure what you mean by "not for friction." As I understand it the coefficient of friction for two materials doesn't depend on mass, but doesn't the "friction force" depend on the amount of force pressing the materials together?
The friction is essentially mu*N. The inertia is the mass. So as mass increases, the normal force increases at the same rate the inertia increases. So a motorbike on good tires will stop in about the same distance as a much heavier sports car. The main reason the trucks can't match that is that they are poorly designed (for performance), poorly maintained (for performance), and have additional factors (like shifting loads). An 80,000 lb truck with good quality brakes perfectly balanced on all 18 wheels should stop in the same distance as the motorcycle. But for a truck, cost and reliability are much more important than performance, so the performance suffers.
But then I wouldn't have been able to make it into an oblique reference to a Family Guy joke.
Eh, I didn't get the joke. Must have missed it.
Truck driving isn't an "unskilled" job. They need licensing, and training. Hopefully this indicates they are re-trainable. Every job ends. You just train for the next one. That's how it should work. It doesn't because the 1% sees the 99% as fungible slaves that should be replaced by robots. So improving the work force isseenas a waste of resources, not the benefit to society that it actually is.
anybody who has used a GPS knows automated trip planning is lacking even basic information on roads, much less current overpass heights and road weight limits which are often not recorded anywhere but on the local signage, add to that the complexities of call ahead loads, loads that can't unload at the exact time of arrival but won't let you park on premises, multiple stop loads where you have to supervise unloaders, terrible dock conditions and a myriad of other things this just becomes an impossible task for a computer.
Because you are an idiot, the problem is hard?
The example I use elsewhere is a Wal-Mart distribution truck. Picture a truck going a set route that's been done 10,000 times before by a human between a central distribution warehouse and a regional one. The road, route, and all that are well known. The loading and unloading of the truck isn't done by the driver today. The timing is handled well, so there'd be little waste of parking waiting for a spot on either side. The computer just needs to follow a set path that's 100% known, and do so safely, and park at the end. That's a very finite problem, and quite easy.
That you assert it's hard indicates you don't understand the problem, or don't like the solution.
Simpler that that, truck stops would switch from self-serve to full serve. Even truck stops used to be full serve. It's not hard to go back to that.
The only people proposing that are people who are arguing against it by making up strawmen. No system does a handover of that nature, nor is there reason to suspect any will.
You don't understand. The issue is deliberately confused by those who don't like it. Take Wal-Mart. Say everything delivered to a Wal-Mart comes on a Wal-Mart truck. These trucks take the same goods over the same routes thousands of times. No change. No need to get out, except to fuel up. Set start and destination points. Why would you need people for "delivery"? They are already there.
This has nothing to do with a UPS or FedEx truck. Nor even most supermarkets. Most places aren't as optimized as Wal-Mart, so your produce truck will look at daily orders for the local supermarkets and adjust the route, based on demand. These would be later.
But much of the truck traffic in the US is train on wheels. Depot to depot, not "deliveries" as most people think of them.
I agree: automating truck driving will not decrease truck-car crashes very much since most of those are caused by the car driver.
And I disagree. I've seen a number of crashes where the car was at a dead-stop and the truck hit it, and the fault was assigned to the car. Those would be avoided with computers. The only reason the wide-right-turn crashes happen is that the driver can't be looking where he's going, where he's crossing, and what's behind him at the same time. A computer can, and would take a photo of the illegal car, email it to the police, but stop the truck so the car doesn't get crushed. Just because you think the cars are mostly at fault doesn't mean the trucks couldn't have avoided the crash.
Mass of the truck?
Not for friction. Friction is massless. If you knew physics, you'd know that. And the mu for sliding tires is well known (google will give you hits on it), so a range of speeds would be easy to determine. If the crash was fatal, they'd get reference samples of the tire and test on the actual road to determine the mu, but you don't need all that, and the test only determines boundaries anyway, as the test doesn't test sliding at high speed with high pressure that liquefies the rubber. Ablative friction isn't pure "friction" any more. When you get to that, like when the tires fail and the metal is gouging out sections of road while stopping, then yes, you must take weight into account. But for a simple slide, if you assume .7, you won't be off by much.
.7 would be very accurate.
The problem with estimation of a truck is how many identifiable tracks were there? Often, you'll see the 8 from the load-bearing part under the 5th wheel. that means that you are stopping with 8/18 wheels. The front two and back 8 aren't doing as much stopping, so the calculations will be off. If you see 18 identifiable trails, then
windy* roads *Curvy. Not blowy.
Perhaps "winding" would then be the best word. No confusion, and same meaning.
But I find that I can gain information about my side of the road from the other side's traffic. Cars naturally clump, and if the cars are evenly spaced, it usually indicates a recently-ended bottle-neck. That could mean a problem on my or the other side of the road, and the bottle neck is rubber-neckers. Would that make it a rubber-bottle-neck, or a bottle-rubber-neck? Because rubber-neck-bottle-neck is just silly.
basic physics and stopping distance of such heavy machines.
The best cars and the best motorbikes stop in about the same distance, despite the 10x or so difference in weight. So why do you assert that there's a difference because of weight? Friction is "weightless" because the friction force to stop is increased with weight linearly with the Normal force, as inertia is increased linearly with weight as well. They cancel, and weight doesn't affect stopping distance (unless the vehicles are poorly designed or maintained, as is the case with cargo trucks).
A train is an even more extreme case. Those can take miles to come to a stop do to all of the inertia.
Trains are specifically run on low-friction conditions. Then, when these low-friction conditions result in low-friction for stopping, it's now about the weight? Someone doesn't know how friction works.
the brakes will literally melt if you try to brute-force a shorter braking distance, for example by increasing braking system pressure.
No, you'll slide on the tires before you'll melt the brakes. And if melting is the issue, use ceramics with higher heat tolerance. But heat isn't the issue. The biggest issue is imbalanced brakes, and stability of stopping a back-heavy vehicle with imbalanced brakes.
If the brakes were computer-controlled, the stopping distances would match cars. But there's a perception that such computer control would reduce reliability.
Why do trucks tend to jackknife? Because they are back-heavy and the braking happens in the front. That's inherently unstable.
Statistics show that most accidents involving a larger truck are, in fact, the fault of the car.
And because statistics say so, and statistics are a reflection of the bias in the data gatherers, the statistics will show it true, even when wrong.
I was driving 35 in a 35. A truck pulled out from a turn in front of me. He swung wide, and blocked 2 lanes. I moved to the empty lane. He cut me off, and I hit him. It was my fault for not predicting that he'd block all 3 lanes twice, after having pulled out in front of me when not safe to do so in the first place. So says the report. Short of stopping the moment I saw him and waiting for him to make his complicated maneuver (which there is no signal for "left, then right, then left again"), there's nothing I could have done, and stopping on a busy street is not a good idea. The police who write the reports know that the crashes are the fault of the car, so they write them that way without looking a the circumstances. Also, the police know that an at-fault crash on the driver's record can get them fired, but will have no lasting effect on a car driver.
So yes, the statistics say things, but they have biases in them. Statistics say that 80% of drivers are above average (based on survey responses, which is the same collection method used for gauging truck fault), but reality proves that wrong. Yet, people don't question similarly dubious "the car is always at fault" survey responses.
You missed the Wii revolution. Everyone said the Wii controller couldn't work. Too expensive to have so many accurate sensors in a small, cheap device. Then, when "proven" wrong, people realized sensors are cheap and accurate. Back in the '90s, wireless tire pressure sensors were in the cars with run-flats (because they could "go flat" without a driver noticing). And sensors are 1/10th the size and 1/100th the cost now. We could have a sensor per tire to sense all the things you mention. Sound is a vibration, as is the thud from a retred re-separating.
When a human hears/feels detonation, they can back off the throttle to protect the engine. When a computer does it, it does it faster, better, and more reliably than a human. The new driverless cars will be the same. They will be better in every way.
Like ABS. The first 3-channel ABS systems were easily beat by a human in split mu situations. The best 4-channel systems were tough to beat, but were repeatedly beatable by a human. But today's systems are much better. The best ABS can't be beat by a human anymore. The first ABS was aimed to beat the average person, and did so by a wide margin. They just underestimated the gap between the average human and the good ones. That's better understood now, and won't be a problem, unless they go all "tech-startup" and think they should only hire under-25s.
We had no regulations under Laissez Faire, and it killed growth. Monopolistic abuses, and anti-competitive actions were the norm. How many times do we need to try it before it works the way the neo-liberals (the non-US term for the us term "conservative") say it will?
There is lots of evidence that the music industry gave bribes, they are just the legal kind, called "donations".
When you buy an app on Google Play, 30% automatically goes to the carrier, and only 2% goes to Google as a transaction fee
30% goes to Google, who splits it between "distribution partner" and "operation expenses", though the exact ratio is not published. Do you have actual inside information you just violated an NDA to share, or are you just guessing?
Well, isn't that what plea bargains are all about? Confess or your punishment will be increased?
That's the definition of "torture" only, rather than threatening bamboo under the fingernails, they threaten death (penalty) or daily anal rape for the rest of your life. I've not found a definition of torture that doesn't apply to plea bargains (aside from those arguing with me who make up their own).
It's east to hate what you don't understand. Thought it's true that AOL means dumb because they were often the most expensive, and there were even times where a 1-800 ISP was cheaper than AOL. And it's been a long time since AOL was better than anyone at anything, but to say it was never best at anything would be like saying Google was never best at search, because someone will someday surpass them. Changes in the future don't change the past, but do change our perception thereof.
He failed to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He committed the crime of perjury while under oath in a trial.
He answered every question asked in a truthful manner, under the rules of the court he was sworn to answer to.
By your silly "you must tell all the truth anyone would want to know, regarless of the questions asked" implication, anyone found guilty in court who didn't confess, should have perjury added to their sentence.
I foolishly assume you have sources for that?
Yes. Have you not seen the large number of scandals involving married anti-gay Republicans having gay sex with pages and interns? If you are that dumb, nothing I say could cure it. If you are that willfully ignorant, nothing I say would be heard. If you are that trolling, anything I saw will be twisted and attacked. So there's no scenario where I could give 100 cites and have you change your mind, so I'll not waste the time.
He had sex with Monica under any reasonable definition of 'sex' (c.f. the cigar & dress) and had to try to contort the meaning of the word 'is'.
He was given bad instructions by the judge in how to answer the question, so he answered the (bad) question with the only truthful answer. That's not a lie.
I've bought a "smartphone" for under $50 with no contracts or lock of any kind. You are shopping dumbly, then saying the result is dumb. The result isn't. Just the shopper.
http://www.aliexpress.com/item...
No contract. Under $50. You'd pay less for this than most people pay in bank fees to be able to buy things with other payment methods.
When you end up paying more to avoid something new, it makes you look like an idiot Luddite, not a cost-aware practical person.