While the drawings look interesting, it has nowhere near the amount of cargo space that the space shuttle has. There's no way the vehicle in the drawing could launch a satellite of any size. Perhaps they plan on a family of these things?
Yes, I too laughed for 10 solid minutes when I read the article title. Life truly IS stranger than fiction.
But let's regain our collective composure and think about the prospect of cars that can't crash. We're now talking about robotics with a degree of intelligence. And assuming this is indeed possible at the level needed to make cars uncrashable, will they conform to Asimov's laws?
Probably not entirely, but there WILL have to be some judgements made as to the lesser risk when there are no optimal solutions to some traffic scenarios. For example, sliding on ice and being unable to entirely avoid impact with objects or humans. Will the software choose to sacrifice the car's occupants in order to save more pedestrians? Vice-versa? (I suppose it depends on who's paying for the software license. Sorry, couldn't help myself) Will its "judgement" be good enough?
How long would it take to develop software to pilot cars in optimal scenarios, let alone crisis scenarios? This will be a monumental task at best.
Well, not actually. If it takes that long to make a decision to buy, you're not an impulse buyer.
The shipping of the product(s) often takes 3-6 days or more. In this case, a person may be an impulse buyer without a strong sense of instant gratification.
Anyone remember when ADA was going to replace a number of languages, and become the language of choice? I'm sure it's still used in some circles, but it never got the widespread use that it was originally expected to have. New languages show up, old languages rarely entirely die.
Besides, as the "Real Programmers" phrase goes: "Real Programmers can program FORTRAN in any language."
(I've always liked that; I prefer FORTRAN to other high level languages. But then, I am a dinosaur....)
For me, games have always been GAMES, not simulations of what some action hero's life or mission might be like. The few first-person shooter games I enjoy are the original Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein. I like them partly BECAUSE they aren't wholly realistic. Pinball games have probably survived this long because of the challenges and their light-hearted nature.
I can't be the only person out there who prefers the 80's arcade games / MAME games over the state-of-the-art "go fight as realistic a war as possible" selections. Call me old-fashioned, but I view games as a DIVERSION from the stuff I see on the news. They're meant to be relaxing, or at least take one's mind into challenging directions away from stress.
Directions future games will take? Once they get the simulations to 100% realistic, they may do the "Total Recall" type of thing (probably moving into sexual areas), but those aren't really games, are they? Maybe they'll move back to what a game, for many of us, should be.
I understand the value of paranoia in an IT environment. (I'm not sure I could use a 50-character password though.)
This isn't meant to be flamebait, but why is he using Microsoft software in the first place? Arguably they've gotten more secure over the years, but still, most viruses are written for MS systems. You can put up all the firewalls you want, but if you're getting email, you could be exposed to viruses. I'd wonder if he's using Outlook abd IE.
With his security concerns, I'd expect him to be using Mac OS X machines.
I never said anything about importing code- Just seeing it (and the comments and/or docs) would be sufficient to see the innovations contained therein.
There have been significant developments in many areas (example: memory management, now that there's actually plenty to manage), and thus make direct importing of code into a foreign O/S impractical. Particularly if we're looking at sections of assembler for long-passed on processors/instruction sets.
Still, the making available of legacy or antiquated O/S source would be a good thing.
I know there will be loads of legal wrangling involved, but I'd also like to see many defunct O/Ss go open source. A short list of the "would like to haves":
Any Data General O/S (DG/UX, AOS/VS II, RDOS, etc.)
PR1ME's Primos
CDC's NOS
DEC's RSTS-11 and RSX-11
Is AmigaDOS available somewhere?
These are all for machines no longer being produced, and not likely to even be supported in the field. I'd like to see the code not only for nostalgia's sake: Each had particularly engaging features, and it'd be nice to see some of that live again in contemporary operating systems.
I still say the MPAA (and RIAA) would do a LONG way towards reducing or even eliminating piracy if they sold the products for a fair price in the first place.
The huge profits that are made on movies and music are way out of line. True, there are many execs, producers, direcetors, actors and musicians who don't get wildly rich, but there are loads who do. Rich beyond all comprehension. Why? These people are simply doing a job, one that has tremndous volume. If they cut prices in half or even lower, they'd still make a spectacular living, and they'd sell a lot more. It might even keep their total revenue the same. But I for one would be a lot happier buying a DVD for $5. I suspect many would, and wouldn't resort to buying cheesy bootlegs.
I do wish they'd lose that "penny-wise, pound-foolish" attitude.
Serious gamers with a LOT of spending cash might enjoy it, but those typing papers or doing taxes will be just fine with the garden-variety Athlon, Sempron, or even an old Duron (or smaller).
Seriously, at $2650 a chip, you're going to have to have a SERIOUS need for it. The home user won't be able to justify that, even when the price drops to $999.
The gap between episode 6 & 1 was so great, and all evidence is that episodes 1 & 2 were so bad that they weren't worth seeing (which is why I haven't bothered) that the Star Whores saga has lost all appeal.
Lucas's money-grubbing attitude has spoiled the whole series. Boycott episode 3, and let Lucas pay for it out of his pocket.
At what point does an "underdog" product get enough traction to become mainstream? Mozilla's finally done it, Linux has, will Opera?
Make no mistake, I'm not bashing Opera. I like alternative products to keep monopolies from forming, but has it really seen much groundswell?
I'll be 70 then, and I'm sure I'll have LONG since forgotten. I wonder if my Pilot will last that long?
Of course, when the time comes the hype for it will no doubt be bigger than the hype for Kohoutek, Y2K, Star Wars episode I, and every version of Windows.
No, not really- If you can build a better mousetrap (or even an interesting one), it can be a worthwhile endeavor. True, you won't unseat any of the big players, but being acquired by one of them is a very valid exit strategy.
This is one way a LOT of new technology comes to market. Sometimes the innovators stay with the acquiring company, sometimes they leave and start a new endeavor. This constant churn of innovators and innovation is what keeps new products and technology marching forward.
Considering how widely samba has been implemented, I'd have to suspect that even if longhorn WERE to come out on time, adoption wouldn't be as fast as Microsoft would expect (and prefer) if it broke functionality.
An interesting dilemma for Microsoft- Do they continue their typical practice of changing technology to keep people upgrading, or do they recognize that this one might actually delay (or even reduce) revenues and not change current compatibilities?
Slashdot Mirror
While the drawings look interesting, it has nowhere near the amount of cargo space that the space shuttle has. There's no way the vehicle in the drawing could launch a satellite of any size. Perhaps they plan on a family of these things?
But let's regain our collective composure and think about the prospect of cars that can't crash. We're now talking about robotics with a degree of intelligence. And assuming this is indeed possible at the level needed to make cars uncrashable, will they conform to Asimov's laws?
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Asim ov.html
Probably not entirely, but there WILL have to be some judgements made as to the lesser risk when there are no optimal solutions to some traffic scenarios. For example, sliding on ice and being unable to entirely avoid impact with objects or humans. Will the software choose to sacrifice the car's occupants in order to save more pedestrians? Vice-versa? (I suppose it depends on who's paying for the software license. Sorry, couldn't help myself)
Will its "judgement" be good enough? How long would it take to develop software to pilot cars in optimal scenarios, let alone crisis scenarios? This will be a monumental task at best.
The shipping of the product(s) often takes 3-6 days or more.
In this case, a person may be an impulse buyer without a strong sense of instant gratification.
Besides, as the "Real Programmers" phrase goes: "Real Programmers can program FORTRAN in any language."
(I've always liked that; I prefer FORTRAN to other high level languages. But then, I am a dinosaur....)
I can't be the only person out there who prefers the 80's arcade games / MAME games over the state-of-the-art "go fight as realistic a war as possible" selections. Call me old-fashioned, but I view games as a DIVERSION from the stuff I see on the news. They're meant to be relaxing, or at least take one's mind into challenging directions away from stress.
Directions future games will take? Once they get the simulations to 100% realistic, they may do the "Total Recall" type of thing (probably moving into sexual areas), but those aren't really games, are they? Maybe they'll move back to what a game, for many of us, should be.
This isn't meant to be flamebait, but why is he using Microsoft software in the first place? Arguably they've gotten more secure over the years, but still, most viruses are written for MS systems. You can put up all the firewalls you want, but if you're getting email, you could be exposed to viruses. I'd wonder if he's using Outlook abd IE.
With his security concerns, I'd expect him to be using Mac OS X machines.
There have been significant developments in many areas (example: memory management, now that there's actually plenty to manage), and thus make direct importing of code into a foreign O/S impractical. Particularly if we're looking at sections of assembler for long-passed on processors/instruction sets.
Still, the making available of legacy or antiquated O/S source would be a good thing.
These are all for machines no longer being produced, and not likely to even be supported in the field. I'd like to see the code not only for nostalgia's sake: Each had particularly engaging features, and it'd be nice to see some of that live again in contemporary operating systems.
The huge profits that are made on movies and music are way out of line. True, there are many execs, producers, direcetors, actors and musicians who don't get wildly rich, but there are loads who do. Rich beyond all comprehension. Why? These people are simply doing a job, one that has tremndous volume. If they cut prices in half or even lower, they'd still make a spectacular living, and they'd sell a lot more. It might even keep their total revenue the same. But I for one would be a lot happier buying a DVD for $5. I suspect many would, and wouldn't resort to buying cheesy bootlegs.
I do wish they'd lose that "penny-wise, pound-foolish" attitude.
Without standards, there's no volume.
Seriously, at $2650 a chip, you're going to have to have a SERIOUS need for it. The home user won't be able to justify that, even when the price drops to $999.
More opportunities to wreck another environment!
The gap between episode 6 & 1 was so great, and all evidence is that episodes 1 & 2 were so bad that they weren't worth seeing (which is why I haven't bothered) that the Star Whores saga has lost all appeal.
Lucas's money-grubbing attitude has spoiled the whole series. Boycott episode 3, and let Lucas pay for it out of his pocket.
You post on an internet tech site, yet you haven't got access to a VCR?
*puzzled look*
At what point does an "underdog" product get enough traction to become mainstream? Mozilla's finally done it, Linux has, will Opera? Make no mistake, I'm not bashing Opera. I like alternative products to keep monopolies from forming, but has it really seen much groundswell?
I must say it's always gratifying when technology becomes possible that had only been considered "science fiction."
Of course, when the time comes the hype for it will no doubt be bigger than the hype for Kohoutek, Y2K, Star Wars episode I, and every version of Windows.
This is one way a LOT of new technology comes to market. Sometimes the innovators stay with the acquiring company, sometimes they leave and start a new endeavor. This constant churn of innovators and innovation is what keeps new products and technology marching forward.
A plane's contrail and sunset.
I suspect the contrail dispersed after the shot was taken, before the next NASA shot was snapped.
As for the sunset- Surely people have seen mountain peaks and clouds which are still in full sunlight, while the surface is in shadow?
As much as I'd like there to be a more interesting resolution to this, I just don't see it.
Better that than "Oh great- I have to change planes in Uranus."
All this is well and good, but when they come out with a lubricant that's anti-viral and flavored, they'll REALLY have something.
(but then, there's something oddly poetic about them naming their products after cheese...)
An interesting dilemma for Microsoft- Do they continue their typical practice of changing technology to keep people upgrading, or do they recognize that this one might actually delay (or even reduce) revenues and not change current compatibilities?
40 petabytes? Are we sure they didn't accidentally raid the Library of Congress?
(can you imagine how long it'd take to burn a disk on a 1x drive?)