I've read bits and pieces of that book, but never had the whole thing to read through. A single study isn't proof. I've seen further, especially around motorbikes, that indicate that the weight of a helmet in a loosely restrained person without neck support, would increase deaths. An old study, back in the '60s would show that helmets help. The dashes were metal, and seatbelts weren't included. But today, with airbags, pre-tensioners, and all that, head-impacts don't kill belted drivers. anyone killed by a head impact was also dead from something else. But the added weight on the head increases damage from whiplash and other neck-related injuries.
My favorite was a study published when Texas was looking at helmet laws in the '90s. The study showed that hospital bills of helmeted riders was less than those without helmets. Both sides claimed victory on that one. It was quite silly.
My observations are across my life, having lived in 5 states, 3 countries, and visited about 50 countries and every US state except Maine, VT, NH, RI, and
CT. The rate per location didn't seem to vary greatly, other than higher in rural areas.
Where'd you get a cost of $1000? Is that for a BMW or something?
That was the cost for the dealer-replacement for my mother's Mazda. It had the features you mention, and I don't recall the exact dollar figure, just that it was above $1000. Because it was an insurance-covered repair, it was done with official parts, not OEM.
Heated, motorized, color-matched plastic mirrors are not cheap.
Except that the mirror is the only point of failure in that system..
The only point of failure in a heated motorized remote-controllable mirror with collision sensors, lane occupied warnings, and turn signals is the glass?
Visit a dealership this decade and see what a side-mirror looks like. You are right, when talking about my '67 Bug's mirrors, which were solid glass bonded to solid metal, and mounted to a minimal joint on the car, with no other features. But that's not what mirrors are anymore.
And a mirror that sticks out, compared to a counter-sunk camera with a "lens" that looks like a side turn-signal indicator will be more mechanically protected than a side mirror.
You shouldn't if $10M is required per life saved, when other things could save lives at a cost of $1M per life saved. You'd be 10x better off to *not* improve safety, and instead put the same money elsewhere.
When's the last time you replaced a side mirror? It's over $1000 now (in some cases). Heated, motorized, color-matched plastic mirrors are not cheap. The $5 optics in a cell phone are a whole lot cheaper than a physical mirror.
When you add in the fuel cost for the heavy wind-breaks, the electronic mirrors are much cheaper than your expensive Luddite solution.
Radioactivity was "discovered" about 100 years ago (well, more like 120 now), so to have it be in common practice to mutate plants with radioactivity seems a bit absurd. Prior to that, there was little effort in deliberate mutation, and even things like selective breeding were done, but not understood. Basic genetics was not understood 200 years ago, and the modern understanding of genetics is less than 100 years old.
Wearing a helmet while driving has already proven itself safer than not wearing a helmet, yet the world isn't flocking to helmet wearing in cars.
I've not seen that. Do you have date for that, or are you making it up as an example?
Of course no-one will try to exploit such a system either.
You've indicated you think the system will be a single grid with a single failure taking out everything, then think that if there's a single bad-actor spewing bad data, the system will be unable to identify it, and handle it. You assume a perfect system that's 100% useless.
Bad for the driver though. Tech breaks all too often.
Electronic cameras will be more reliable than the mirrors. I see lots of broken mirrors on cars. And I don't know of anyone who has complained about a failed camera yet, and reversing cameras are quite popular now.
The reversing cameras are easy enough to clean off. They are usually in a place that doesn't get full exposure to the elements, but it gets dirty and can get covered, but is obvious, and easier to clean than a side-mirror.
Some cars are impossible to set the mirrors to have a reasonably small blind spot. The camera replacements can fill in more information than a mirror can. But you think more information is a bad thing.
I prefer a horse. It trains you to treat your vehicle with respect.
And the old vehicles weren't "dependable" they were just treated with more care because they were so much more delicate. And were more likely to fail slow, though more often (running rough for a long time before finally failing).
"The dual camera system is capable of recognizing and reacting to stop signs and traffic lights with no driver input,"
There is no "should" in the quote. The authors were expanding on how it works, and guessing, so they used less accurate language to reflect that they were guessing. Any uncertainty or imprecision was added by the authors, and doesn't represent the quotes the story is based off.
Theory works fine - as I said, if not labeled otherwise then assume it contains GMO,
So if your assumption is wrong 99% of the time, it still "works" because you have a chip on your shoulder against GMO and want to make GMO labeling harder.
Reverse the burden of proof. You are making the default label "contains GMO" and the exception "GMO free". This places the burden on those who use natural ingredients.
The general method is to set the burden on those who are doing the "new" thing. 100 years ago, everything would be non-GMO and nothing would be labeled non-GMO. So it's you who is changing the burden, not me. GMO is the new and different thing, and should have been labeled from the beginning, but they paid off lawmakers to invert that. We should invert it back to the "original" default stance.
The total deaths in Teslas, per million vehicle miles is still lower than "average" my a large margin. So investigating deaths in a car unusually safe seems like a witch hunt and a waste of time.
So I should buy GMO and support Monsanto you think they are a small enough portion. Evil is evil, and support is support. If the responsible GMO companies don't want to be painted with the same brush, they shouldn't close ranks with Monsanto so effectively. They become complicit in Monsanto's actions, when they defend them.
You keep changing the goalposts. I never said the government doesn't look at social media. I stated that someone giving their screen name doesn't affect you.
By your statements, the government already knows all of your social media, yet you can't explain how someone giving their name will help them, or hurt you, when they already have everything.
You are completely stupid. They ask questionable questions so that when someone refuses to answer, or lies, they can hold it against them later. It's not to actually investigate everyone as they enter.
And your assertion that anyone who has ever worked for the government and knows how to do something questionable, is somehow proof that the government is doing illegal things is simply silly. There's no logic in it. It just confirms your conspiracy theories.
Slashdot Mirror
There's already wiring to the turn signal indicators, so the wiring isn't an issue. Displays for a phone are about $10 per unit, in bulk.
That you are too dumb to figure out all engineering challenges doesn't mean it's hard. It just means you are dumb.
I've read bits and pieces of that book, but never had the whole thing to read through. A single study isn't proof. I've seen further, especially around motorbikes, that indicate that the weight of a helmet in a loosely restrained person without neck support, would increase deaths. An old study, back in the '60s would show that helmets help. The dashes were metal, and seatbelts weren't included. But today, with airbags, pre-tensioners, and all that, head-impacts don't kill belted drivers. anyone killed by a head impact was also dead from something else. But the added weight on the head increases damage from whiplash and other neck-related injuries.
My favorite was a study published when Texas was looking at helmet laws in the '90s. The study showed that hospital bills of helmeted riders was less than those without helmets. Both sides claimed victory on that one. It was quite silly.
My observations are across my life, having lived in 5 states, 3 countries, and visited about 50 countries and every US state except Maine, VT, NH, RI, and CT. The rate per location didn't seem to vary greatly, other than higher in rural areas.
Where'd you get a cost of $1000? Is that for a BMW or something?
That was the cost for the dealer-replacement for my mother's Mazda. It had the features you mention, and I don't recall the exact dollar figure, just that it was above $1000. Because it was an insurance-covered repair, it was done with official parts, not OEM.
Heated, motorized, color-matched plastic mirrors are not cheap.
Except that the mirror is the only point of failure in that system..
The only point of failure in a heated motorized remote-controllable mirror with collision sensors, lane occupied warnings, and turn signals is the glass?
Visit a dealership this decade and see what a side-mirror looks like. You are right, when talking about my '67 Bug's mirrors, which were solid glass bonded to solid metal, and mounted to a minimal joint on the car, with no other features. But that's not what mirrors are anymore.
And a mirror that sticks out, compared to a counter-sunk camera with a "lens" that looks like a side turn-signal indicator will be more mechanically protected than a side mirror.
Not at the dealer. You do realize that there are independent mechanics, right?
You shouldn't if $10M is required per life saved, when other things could save lives at a cost of $1M per life saved. You'd be 10x better off to *not* improve safety, and instead put the same money elsewhere.
When's the last time you replaced a side mirror? It's over $1000 now (in some cases). Heated, motorized, color-matched plastic mirrors are not cheap. The $5 optics in a cell phone are a whole lot cheaper than a physical mirror.
When you add in the fuel cost for the heavy wind-breaks, the electronic mirrors are much cheaper than your expensive Luddite solution.
Radioactivity was "discovered" about 100 years ago (well, more like 120 now), so to have it be in common practice to mutate plants with radioactivity seems a bit absurd. Prior to that, there was little effort in deliberate mutation, and even things like selective breeding were done, but not understood. Basic genetics was not understood 200 years ago, and the modern understanding of genetics is less than 100 years old.
Wearing a helmet while driving has already proven itself safer than not wearing a helmet, yet the world isn't flocking to helmet wearing in cars.
I've not seen that. Do you have date for that, or are you making it up as an example?
Of course no-one will try to exploit such a system either.
You've indicated you think the system will be a single grid with a single failure taking out everything, then think that if there's a single bad-actor spewing bad data, the system will be unable to identify it, and handle it. You assume a perfect system that's 100% useless.
Have you not seen California drivers?
Cheap cell-phone optics are probably cheaper than a side-mirror now. Your costs are not realistic, and quite luddite-driven.
Bad for the driver though. Tech breaks all too often.
Electronic cameras will be more reliable than the mirrors. I see lots of broken mirrors on cars. And I don't know of anyone who has complained about a failed camera yet, and reversing cameras are quite popular now.
The reversing cameras are easy enough to clean off. They are usually in a place that doesn't get full exposure to the elements, but it gets dirty and can get covered, but is obvious, and easier to clean than a side-mirror.
Some cars are impossible to set the mirrors to have a reasonably small blind spot. The camera replacements can fill in more information than a mirror can. But you think more information is a bad thing.
I prefer a horse. It trains you to treat your vehicle with respect.
And the old vehicles weren't "dependable" they were just treated with more care because they were so much more delicate. And were more likely to fail slow, though more often (running rough for a long time before finally failing).
"The dual camera system is capable of recognizing and reacting to stop signs and traffic lights with no driver input,"
There is no "should" in the quote. The authors were expanding on how it works, and guessing, so they used less accurate language to reflect that they were guessing. Any uncertainty or imprecision was added by the authors, and doesn't represent the quotes the story is based off.
You should have recognized that.
So what? Are you saying that Honda Civics drive on significantly different roads? How did you come to that conclusion, and how does that matter?
Theory works fine - as I said, if not labeled otherwise then assume it contains GMO,
So if your assumption is wrong 99% of the time, it still "works" because you have a chip on your shoulder against GMO and want to make GMO labeling harder.
Reverse the burden of proof. You are making the default label "contains GMO" and the exception "GMO free". This places the burden on those who use natural ingredients.
The general method is to set the burden on those who are doing the "new" thing. 100 years ago, everything would be non-GMO and nothing would be labeled non-GMO. So it's you who is changing the burden, not me. GMO is the new and different thing, and should have been labeled from the beginning, but they paid off lawmakers to invert that. We should invert it back to the "original" default stance.
This thread is what happens when two trolling boneheads insist on having the final word.
Yes, you have been trolling. That's all you've been doing. As your facts are wrong. You opinion is wrong, and your logic is flawed.
The total deaths in Teslas, per million vehicle miles is still lower than "average" my a large margin. So investigating deaths in a car unusually safe seems like a witch hunt and a waste of time.
So I should buy GMO and support Monsanto you think they are a small enough portion. Evil is evil, and support is support. If the responsible GMO companies don't want to be painted with the same brush, they shouldn't close ranks with Monsanto so effectively. They become complicit in Monsanto's actions, when they defend them.
You keep changing the goalposts. I never said the government doesn't look at social media. I stated that someone giving their screen name doesn't affect you.
By your statements, the government already knows all of your social media, yet you can't explain how someone giving their name will help them, or hurt you, when they already have everything.
You are completely stupid. They ask questionable questions so that when someone refuses to answer, or lies, they can hold it against them later. It's not to actually investigate everyone as they enter.
And your assertion that anyone who has ever worked for the government and knows how to do something questionable, is somehow proof that the government is doing illegal things is simply silly. There's no logic in it. It just confirms your conspiracy theories.
The cheap stuff that's non-GMO doesn't bother to label itself "non-GMO". So your theory doesn't work.
So any private contractor who once contracted for the government is and always will be a government agent? Again, your logic fails you.