Just enough car. You do a good job with your European models, satisfying the market there. How about providing US customers with (!) Japanese-style size, build quality, and engine choices? Here in the US, we can get small cars with too little power or poor gas mileage. We can get medium-sized cars with too little power or worse gas mileage. We can get large cars that uniformly have terrible mileage. Cut this computer crap and build a fundamentally good car, and I'll dump my Toyota and Honda.
Well said, except that I like rear wheel drive (drive one and you'll see what I mean - it doesn't push like a pig around corners). So cloning the low- and mid-range Japanese models sold in the US isn't a great idea in my book. But no one has mentioned Ford's Australian division that produces (reputedly) good-quality rear-wheel drive midsize sedans. Import those and you'll be competing with the Euro car makers at 2/3 of their prices. Make sure to offer manual and hybrid drivetrains as well.
As I usually do with nutcase drivers, I slowed down to let him go ahead of me to get out of his range, but we followed him a few more minutes until we got off the highway, and he was still texting the whole way.
I'd have remembered his plate #, pulled over and called the state police on my cell telling them that the guy is driving like he's drunk. I'm not normally a fan of aggressive traffic enforcement, but it's asshats like him that actually *deserve* to be fined for reckless driving.
However, I can't open the door from the inside, the double locking stops me (double locking means even if a thief smashes the window, the door won't open from the inside). So no, the only way out is if the window still work, switch the car on, open the window, switch the car off, reach out and open from the outside.
But if a thief smashes the window, he can get into the car anyway, so wtf is the point? If they're worried about someone sticking a coat hanger in between the window frame and the glass and using it to pull up the locking knob, why can't they just put the lock knob in a position to make that impossible?
Assuming that putting all of that stuff in the car is a good idea, why use Windows?
Does this really share code and features with desktop Windows, or has "Windows" simply become a generic brand name for an MS OS - in this case, basically an embedded OS?
Anyone remember when this chap got locked in his car because the OS froze?
Ok, I haven't owned anything newer than 10 years recently, but don't all cars still have a lock button or slider that directly (mechanically) unblocks the locking mechanism? I know my car does, as do all taxis that I've ridden in. If the interior unlocking mechanism is electrically operated with no backup, what happens if you get into an accident and the battery gets damaged or whatever? Do you need to kick out the windows to get out?
This is the kind of thing that should be covered by basic auto safety laws.
The automotive manufacturers are arguably helping reduce the accident counts by making the various contributory technologies less distractive, such as by building in hands-free calling.
But integrated audio systems as used by a lot of companies require you to go through several steps whilst looking at an LCD to even change the radio station (as opposed to just turning a given knob). These seem to add distraction, not reduce it.
You'll need to get your system patched at every oil change and upgraded with every tune-up.
Don't laugh. Triumph Motorcycles has actually had to release software patches for its engine control units because the motors were bucking at a certain RPM.
This will probably take a bunch of tactile interface controls (nice knobs and buttons) and replace them with auditory and visual feedback on a multi-mode LCD.
Because buttons and levers are actually expensive to make as opposed to an LCD with a few cheap microswitches near it. For an example of *good* dashboard design, you have to go back to the euro. cars of the 80s - Volvos, BMWs, and SAABs seemed to have everything controlled by nice, big controls that could be used with gloves hands and found without actually looking at the dash panel. Apart from a radio, why do a lot of dash controls need to be computerized anyway? My Volvo does fine with the heater control directly working a valve that lets hot water into the heater radiator, for example. The other controls are just simple rotary switches - no central computer involved. And everything still works perfectly after 210,000 rather hard miles.
Cars already have computers that follow industry standards (OBD-II) and they are responsible for monitoring and controlling all car systems.
The OBD-II standard actually only allows you to access a very limited set of data mandated by Federal law. To get the really interesting/useful stuff (especially with systems other than the engine and auto gearbox) you usually need a proprietary scan tool. Personally, I think this situation should be changed and the law should mandate a USB port on every dashboard and a full diagnostic CD provided to every car buyer.
Umm... most people here that want in-car navigation systems are already considering buying them
I'd much rather see a double or triple height DIN slot in the dashboards of cars with wiring for speed sensor, speakers, antennas, power, etc, so that you can install and replace nav systems and radios with whatever you want to put in. Technology marches on, and some people want to keep their cars for a decade or two but keep the electronics somewhat up to date.
I don't want the radio, nav system, dashboard, etc to be all integrated. I typically drive 10-20 year old cars and I want to be able to upgrade the sound system and other stuff as technology marches on. This is planned obsolescence in the worst sense of the term.
Does it really matter if mankind's existence in the universe ends? I don't think the universe cares either way.
Maybe it's just a primitive instinct, but *I* care about the future of the human race even if I'm not alive. Every species seems to have the built-in desire to perpetuate itself. Why not embrace that biological programming rather than denying it? I'm sick of "environmentalists" who blabber on that humanity == evil or humanity == a cancer on the Earth, etc. Technology will solve our problems and allow us to expand beyond our home planet.
Selling the idea of a Martian colony as a safeguard against an asteroid hitting earth is a fraud; there is no way a colony on Mars would survive an asteroid hit on earth.
Not initially, but in one or two hundred years, who's to say how autonomous the colony will be.
Maybe that's your goal, it isn't my goal. I'd rather see the space program killed altogether than waste money on colonizing Mars.
So if something catastrophic happens to Earth, you want mankind's existence in the universe to end. I think of space colonization as insurance against catastrophe. Keep in mind that the knowledge gained may help humans do things like divert asteroids as well.
But, I'll keep my fingers crossed in hopes that it stays that way. I'm not quite ready to give up booze and smoke just yet;-)
By that point, I'll have my own consulting engineer firm - taking my P.E. exams in 3 years. And I'll hire whomever I damn well please as long as they can do a good job at design. Whatever they do outside of work (as long as they're not serial killers or something) isn't anyone's business but their own.
And why, exactly, should we - the willing inhabitants of the Earth - spend billions of dollars on a summer camp for suicidal Buck Rogers fans?
Because the long-term survival of humanity is only made certain by its spreading off of the planet Earth. Maybe you endorse suicide as a species, but some of us think further ahead than that.
In the meantime, the necessary research and testing of robotic probes is not happening.
Nothing is happening. A great many things, both manned and unmanned, are being planned and talked about. As they have been since the 1970s. BTW - what about not planning on too many unmanned missions and focusing on the design of closed biological systems (and/or metabolic alterations) to support humans going to Mars. At this stage, a human is still many times more versatile as a troubleshooter than any machine. We can't seem to build machines yet that react to the unforeseen, whereas intelligent humans can.
Al Gore has always been inwardly focused and the rest of politics and the old media has followed along. Al's only use for the space program was to put a camera up that did nothing but look at Earth.
Has Gore really expressed a view one way or another on the space program? And are the Republicans really much better? Sure, Bush gives lip service to the idea of a manned expedition to Mars or the Moon, but he's almost directly responsible for wasting tens of billions of dollars in Iraq which could have easily gone to space exploration instead. Combine this with the Christian side of the Repub. party that seems to be somewhat anti-technology, and you have a great recipe for exploration. Yeah.
just to spend enough money on infrastructure for places like Africa so people aren't actually dying of starvation so often.
This may seem really callous, but if we elevate everyone to a Western standard of living (or anything close to it) with _today's_ technology, the planet will rapidly cough, roll over, and die. Not to mention that every child that dies in Africa is one that's not draining the Earth's resources. I'm not advocating the preservation of poverty, I'm just saying that saving the environment and elimination of poverty can be at cross-purposes. Let's fix our energy problems first, either through space-based solar solutions or through renewables/fission/fusion, and poverty may rapidly decrease once energy is cheap, abundant, and non-polluting.
Interesting idea. Especially the pragmatist idea of waiting until "next model year."
Right, but there was a whole series of cars between the Model T and a 2006 Mustang. If those cars hadn't been built, the innovation/experimentation process wouldn't have happened, because there wouldn't have been data as to what improvements were needed. Right now, we're at the Model T stage of space exploration, but we seem to have little interest in moving to 1930s-era V8 Fords. Innovation won't happen magically -- it has to be allowed to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Well said, except that I like rear wheel drive (drive one and you'll see what I mean - it doesn't push like a pig around corners). So cloning the low- and mid-range Japanese models sold in the US isn't a great idea in my book. But no one has mentioned Ford's Australian division that produces (reputedly) good-quality rear-wheel drive midsize sedans. Import those and you'll be competing with the Euro car makers at 2/3 of their prices. Make sure to offer manual and hybrid drivetrains as well.
-b.
I'd have remembered his plate #, pulled over and called the state police on my cell telling them that the guy is driving like he's drunk. I'm not normally a fan of aggressive traffic enforcement, but it's asshats like him that actually *deserve* to be fined for reckless driving.
-b.
But if a thief smashes the window, he can get into the car anyway, so wtf is the point? If they're worried about someone sticking a coat hanger in between the window frame and the glass and using it to pull up the locking knob, why can't they just put the lock knob in a position to make that impossible?
-b.
Does this really share code and features with desktop Windows, or has "Windows" simply become a generic brand name for an MS OS - in this case, basically an embedded OS?
-b.
Ok, I haven't owned anything newer than 10 years recently, but don't all cars still have a lock button or slider that directly (mechanically) unblocks the locking mechanism? I know my car does, as do all taxis that I've ridden in. If the interior unlocking mechanism is electrically operated with no backup, what happens if you get into an accident and the battery gets damaged or whatever? Do you need to kick out the windows to get out?
This is the kind of thing that should be covered by basic auto safety laws.
-b.
But integrated audio systems as used by a lot of companies require you to go through several steps whilst looking at an LCD to even change the radio station (as opposed to just turning a given knob). These seem to add distraction, not reduce it.
-b.
Don't laugh. Triumph Motorcycles has actually had to release software patches for its engine control units because the motors were bucking at a certain RPM.
-b.
Because buttons and levers are actually expensive to make as opposed to an LCD with a few cheap microswitches near it. For an example of *good* dashboard design, you have to go back to the euro. cars of the 80s - Volvos, BMWs, and SAABs seemed to have everything controlled by nice, big controls that could be used with gloves hands and found without actually looking at the dash panel. Apart from a radio, why do a lot of dash controls need to be computerized anyway? My Volvo does fine with the heater control directly working a valve that lets hot water into the heater radiator, for example. The other controls are just simple rotary switches - no central computer involved. And everything still works perfectly after 210,000 rather hard miles.
-b.
The OBD-II standard actually only allows you to access a very limited set of data mandated by Federal law. To get the really interesting/useful stuff (especially with systems other than the engine and auto gearbox) you usually need a proprietary scan tool. Personally, I think this situation should be changed and the law should mandate a USB port on every dashboard and a full diagnostic CD provided to every car buyer.
-b.
I'd much rather see a double or triple height DIN slot in the dashboards of cars with wiring for speed sensor, speakers, antennas, power, etc, so that you can install and replace nav systems and radios with whatever you want to put in. Technology marches on, and some people want to keep their cars for a decade or two but keep the electronics somewhat up to date.
-b.
Doesn't BMW already have that patent. iDrive even sounds Applesque. Unfortunately, the BMW system is in fact powered by WinCE.
-b.
-b.
Hillbillies are the only people who reproduce? Are you just jealous because you can't find any &%$$! ?
-b.
Maybe it's just a primitive instinct, but *I* care about the future of the human race even if I'm not alive. Every species seems to have the built-in desire to perpetuate itself. Why not embrace that biological programming rather than denying it? I'm sick of "environmentalists" who blabber on that humanity == evil or humanity == a cancer on the Earth, etc. Technology will solve our problems and allow us to expand beyond our home planet.
-b.
Not initially, but in one or two hundred years, who's to say how autonomous the colony will be.
-b.
So if something catastrophic happens to Earth, you want mankind's existence in the universe to end. I think of space colonization as insurance against catastrophe. Keep in mind that the knowledge gained may help humans do things like divert asteroids as well.
-b.
By that point, I'll have my own consulting engineer firm - taking my P.E. exams in 3 years. And I'll hire whomever I damn well please as long as they can do a good job at design. Whatever they do outside of work (as long as they're not serial killers or something) isn't anyone's business but their own.
-b.
Because the long-term survival of humanity is only made certain by its spreading off of the planet Earth. Maybe you endorse suicide as a species, but some of us think further ahead than that.
-b.
Except the goal is to colonize Mars and spread beyond planet Earth, which will ultimately require humans.
-b.
Nothing is happening. A great many things, both manned and unmanned, are being planned and talked about. As they have been since the 1970s. BTW - what about not planning on too many unmanned missions and focusing on the design of closed biological systems (and/or metabolic alterations) to support humans going to Mars. At this stage, a human is still many times more versatile as a troubleshooter than any machine. We can't seem to build machines yet that react to the unforeseen, whereas intelligent humans can.
-b.
Has Gore really expressed a view one way or another on the space program? And are the Republicans really much better? Sure, Bush gives lip service to the idea of a manned expedition to Mars or the Moon, but he's almost directly responsible for wasting tens of billions of dollars in Iraq which could have easily gone to space exploration instead. Combine this with the Christian side of the Repub. party that seems to be somewhat anti-technology, and you have a great recipe for exploration. Yeah.
-b.
This may seem really callous, but if we elevate everyone to a Western standard of living (or anything close to it) with _today's_ technology, the planet will rapidly cough, roll over, and die. Not to mention that every child that dies in Africa is one that's not draining the Earth's resources. I'm not advocating the preservation of poverty, I'm just saying that saving the environment and elimination of poverty can be at cross-purposes. Let's fix our energy problems first, either through space-based solar solutions or through renewables/fission/fusion, and poverty may rapidly decrease once energy is cheap, abundant, and non-polluting.
-b.
*Fission* rockets operating in space away from Earth will work fine for today.
-b.
Right, but there was a whole series of cars between the Model T and a 2006 Mustang. If those cars hadn't been built, the innovation/experimentation process wouldn't have happened, because there wouldn't have been data as to what improvements were needed. Right now, we're at the Model T stage of space exploration, but we seem to have little interest in moving to 1930s-era V8 Fords. Innovation won't happen magically -- it has to be allowed to happen.
-b.
OK. *spikes A.C.'s orange juice with LSD and then tokes up again.*
-b.