Making driving safe comes in two parts: keeping the occupants safe in the occupants safe in the event of an emergency and training the driver how to avoid those emergency situations.
You can make the vehicles as safe as technology will allow, and that still won't protect the occupants from bad drivers, and I suspect that this new system where car's controls are similar to a video game won't either.
If you want to make driving safer, have your school system create tougher Drivers Ed standards.
From TFA Summary: The tests, which found that Windows performed as well as Linux on legacy hardware when installed and run out-of-the-box, were done in part to give Microsoft the data it needed to effectively 'put to rest the myth that Linux can run on anything.'
So what if Windows can run on legacy hardware?? That doesn't put to rest the myth that Linux can "run on anything." Last time I checked, Windows doesn't run on PowerPC machines.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Most people aren't technically competent enough to know what do with their machines. There is no way that they will ever become competent enough to know what to do with Linux.
Most people want something that "Just Works." Sure, Linux works. But if you want to upgrade a driver or install a new device, it takes a lot of technical know-how to do so. Until Linux can get to the level of Windows or MacOSX in terms of simplicity, it will remain a server and hobbist OS.
Everything aside from the possibility of hitting a living thing is easily solvable.
Agreed. It's implementing it that is the problem.
you'd always try to stop because that's what the drivers ed textbook says.
Now it may have been about 10 years since I took Drivers Ed, but my text book didn't always say the correct answer was to stop. It stated that you have to do what you thought was right to avoid an accident, which sometimes meant moving onto the shoulder or speeding up.
the first time it failed, the auto company would get sued into a smoking hole because the computer hit the gas and increased the energy of the situation.
The first time the computer fails, the company will be sued into a smoking hole regardless of the choice the computer makes.
The solution to the problem is always going to be the same with a computer in control. Slow down, and evade. There will never be a situation where the computer decides to floor it and weave through the obstacles, that will never be allowed in the programming.
I think that line of thought sells this type of system short. While I don't see a system like this being capable of weaving through traffic on an Interstate highway, it should be more than capable of picking a solution based on the current conditions. This type of system will, undoubtably, have so many inputs and sensors that it will know the traffic conditions in each lane around it, as well as how far away the nearest cars are in your lane.
I'm not sure I want my professional qualifications trumped by whether or not the interviewer agrees with my sense of humour.
Its not your professional qualifications that will be trumped - its whether you will fit into the company culture or not. Your professional qualifications aren't the only think hiring managers look at.
Do you think a company really wants to hire a person who is stiff, uptight, and has no sense of humor and bring them into an environment where everyone is fun-loving and jovial??
ID has scientific prove that it all started 6000 years ago.
You're confusing ID with Young Earth Creationism. ID accepts an old universe as defined by Cosmology but thinks that a supernatural intelligence guided evolution.
Brian: Mr. President, there been a hurricane in New Oreleans.
George W. Bush:In a treehouse Go away, I'm readin' Superfudge.
Brian: Mr. President, this is a national emergency, you got to come deal with this.
Geroge W. Bush: Don't make me do stuff.
"As a serious question though, who's going to be doing renders and such where dual cores really shine, on a laptop? Can anyone tell me applications of dual core for a on-the-go computer?"
As a photographer, this machine has me interested simply for the improvement in performance that I expect to see in Photoshop. I know photoshop is designed with multi-processor support, so this machine would definitely help me when I am on the go.
Theft is about both what one loses and another gains. Saying it is only about loss is just like looking at one half of an equation.
While the loss of a sale is not entirely a big deal (companies lose sales all the time...), losing the sale and having the customer come into possession of what you were selling is a big deal.
So to make this work, lets remove the middle man. It doesn't matter if Customer A goes to Walmart, Best Buy, or Ma and Pa's game shop to get the item. The game designer/publisher is still getting the sale.
Lets say I decide that I don't want to pay the going rate for the game, but I must absolutely have it. So I rent the game and burn myself a copy, or I download a disc image off of Bittorrent or Edonkey. What have I just done here?
I have taken an item that I had no rights to and deprived the publisher of compensation for their hard work. I have taken something and not compensated them for it. You say that the producer hasn't suffered a loss, but they have. They lose income that they can use to pay their programmers and produce more content.
Lets say you're an artist of some kind such as a photographer, and you depend on the income from the sale of your photographs to feed your family and survive. Say you take a spectacular image that everyone wants to have on their wall. You sell some prints of this image, but one of your customers takes that image, scans it, and places it on the Internet for anyone to freely download. Now what has that done to you? That has just undermined compensation for your work.
This is what you don't understand. You see companies and corporations as faceless, profit consuming entities that have no connection to you. But these same entities employ programmers and other people who want to survive and feed their families. If you copy their goods, they won't be able to do that.
Perhaps I have oversimplified, but if there is an error in my analogy, please point it out.
My minimum count for bridge personnel is based on the fact that on most normal ships, the captain and first officer would not normally be on the bridge at the same time, especially in combat conditions (the fact that the top 3 officers are always on the bridge during combat conditions is very difficult to believe). In fact, during most normal duty shifts that you see on the show, there is only one deck officer.
In the later Star Trek Series (including the one that Insurrection is based on), the pilot and navigator duties are handled by the same person. There is one flight station at the front of the bridge for that officer or crewman. Operations and tactical were the other two positions that I considered.
The "Science Officer" from TNG onwards almost always seems to be the Ship's Operations Officer. I realize that there are other science officers onboard the ship, but the one that always seems to be asked for their input on a science question is the Operations officer (except when the story calls for another science officer).
Let me also note that from the 2nd season of TNG onwards, the Chief Engineer was not a fixture on the bridge. While there was a duty station for an engineer, it wasn't always used during normal operations. O'brien was rarely acting as an engineer when he was on the bridge of the Defiant (I think he manned the Ops station).
So here is my count for normal ship operations, based on what I have seen on the show - a watch officer/officer of the deck, conn officer (pilot/navigator), operations officer, and tactical.
When I watched the first season of TNG, I assumed they had more than one chief engineer because they were either 1)head of the engineering team on duty or 2)covering for a production problem where a Chief Engineer was not cast.
Even thought I enjoy Star Trek as entertainment, I didn't see the wonderfully functioning crew that operated behind the scenes to get orders executed. Let me explain why. Things on Trek seemed to happen too fast, and there rarely seemed to be communication between people. Almost every time the ship took damage or an order to do something was given, all a crewmember did was type something into a console with an answer recieved almost instantly. Picard or Riker never got the opinion of the damage control officer on the scene or Data talking to the person down in the Sensor Control system while making a change to the system (you do hear Laforge talking to an engineer occasionally over the Comm system). That doesn't seem believable to me.
As I said, given that it is Star Trek, my standards are pretty low. I have to suspend a lot of disbelief to expect a starship like the Enterprise to be effectively run by 4 officers or crewpeople from the bridge. At that point, the Microsoft Sidewinder to pilot the ship just fits in.
Slashdot Mirror
What about gills? I've always wanted gills!
Making driving safe comes in two parts: keeping the occupants safe in the occupants safe in the event of an emergency and training the driver how to avoid those emergency situations. You can make the vehicles as safe as technology will allow, and that still won't protect the occupants from bad drivers, and I suspect that this new system where car's controls are similar to a video game won't either. If you want to make driving safer, have your school system create tougher Drivers Ed standards.
From TFA Summary:
The tests, which found that Windows performed as well as Linux on legacy hardware when installed and run out-of-the-box, were done in part to give Microsoft the data it needed to effectively 'put to rest the myth that Linux can run on anything.'
So what if Windows can run on legacy hardware?? That doesn't put to rest the myth that Linux can "run on anything." Last time I checked, Windows doesn't run on PowerPC machines.
I didn't know there was an E or A Minor programming language.
You have to give a show some time to develop.
I agree, but why should network execs give shows time to develop when they can throw in an instant success like American Idol??
I think I read this exact same post somewhere before. It looks very familiar.
t hreshold=-1&commentsort=0&tid=211&tid=137&mode=thr ead&pid=14387922#14387998
Oh yeah. It was here: http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=172884&
How is this a troll? Its hilarious.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Most people aren't technically competent enough to know what do with their machines. There is no way that they will ever become competent enough to know what to do with Linux.
Most people want something that "Just Works." Sure, Linux works. But if you want to upgrade a driver or install a new device, it takes a lot of technical know-how to do so. Until Linux can get to the level of Windows or MacOSX in terms of simplicity, it will remain a server and hobbist OS.
If anything, Microsoft needs Dell more than Dell needs Microsoft.
Everything aside from the possibility of hitting a living thing is easily solvable.
Agreed. It's implementing it that is the problem.
you'd always try to stop because that's what the drivers ed textbook says.
Now it may have been about 10 years since I took Drivers Ed, but my text book didn't always say the correct answer was to stop. It stated that you have to do what you thought was right to avoid an accident, which sometimes meant moving onto the shoulder or speeding up.
the first time it failed, the auto company would get sued into a smoking hole because the computer hit the gas and increased the energy of the situation.
The first time the computer fails, the company will be sued into a smoking hole regardless of the choice the computer makes.
The solution to the problem is always going to be the same with a computer in control. Slow down, and evade. There will never be a situation where the computer decides to floor it and weave through the obstacles, that will never be allowed in the programming.
I think that line of thought sells this type of system short. While I don't see a system like this being capable of weaving through traffic on an Interstate highway, it should be more than capable of picking a solution based on the current conditions. This type of system will, undoubtably, have so many inputs and sensors that it will know the traffic conditions in each lane around it, as well as how far away the nearest cars are in your lane.
I'm not sure I want my professional qualifications trumped by whether or not the interviewer agrees with my sense of humour.
Its not your professional qualifications that will be trumped - its whether you will fit into the company culture or not. Your professional qualifications aren't the only think hiring managers look at.
Do you think a company really wants to hire a person who is stiff, uptight, and has no sense of humor and bring them into an environment where everyone is fun-loving and jovial??
No Bison??
How do you know that we're causing a mass extinction?
ID has scientific prove that it all started 6000 years ago.
You're confusing ID with Young Earth Creationism. ID accepts an old universe as defined by Cosmology but thinks that a supernatural intelligence guided evolution.
Brian: Mr. President, there been a hurricane in New Oreleans.
i sode/553990/trivia.html
George W. Bush:In a treehouse Go away, I'm readin' Superfudge.
Brian: Mr. President, this is a national emergency, you got to come deal with this.
Geroge W. Bush: Don't make me do stuff.
http://www.tv.com/family-guy/fat-guy-strangler/ep
Will you work for Schlitz?
"As a serious question though, who's going to be doing renders and such where dual cores really shine, on a laptop? Can anyone tell me applications of dual core for a on-the-go computer?"
As a photographer, this machine has me interested simply for the improvement in performance that I expect to see in Photoshop. I know photoshop is designed with multi-processor support, so this machine would definitely help me when I am on the go.
I agree with the parent. My 1.5 ghz Centrino is a very solid computer, and I look forward to the Yonah offerings in Thinkpads.
So that Dazzle Analog-to-Digital converter that I used to use to get stuff from my video camera onto my computer would be illegal??
However, in order to gain the right to rent the item to another, they have to purchase the item.
Theft is about both what one loses and another gains. Saying it is only about loss is just like looking at one half of an equation.
While the loss of a sale is not entirely a big deal (companies lose sales all the time...), losing the sale and having the customer come into possession of what you were selling is a big deal.
So to make this work, lets remove the middle man. It doesn't matter if Customer A goes to Walmart, Best Buy, or Ma and Pa's game shop to get the item. The game designer/publisher is still getting the sale.
Lets say I decide that I don't want to pay the going rate for the game, but I must absolutely have it. So I rent the game and burn myself a copy, or I download a disc image off of Bittorrent or Edonkey. What have I just done here?
I have taken an item that I had no rights to and deprived the publisher of compensation for their hard work. I have taken something and not compensated them for it. You say that the producer hasn't suffered a loss, but they have. They lose income that they can use to pay their programmers and produce more content.
Lets say you're an artist of some kind such as a photographer, and you depend on the income from the sale of your photographs to feed your family and survive. Say you take a spectacular image that everyone wants to have on their wall. You sell some prints of this image, but one of your customers takes that image, scans it, and places it on the Internet for anyone to freely download. Now what has that done to you? That has just undermined compensation for your work.
This is what you don't understand. You see companies and corporations as faceless, profit consuming entities that have no connection to you. But these same entities employ programmers and other people who want to survive and feed their families. If you copy their goods, they won't be able to do that.
Perhaps I have oversimplified, but if there is an error in my analogy, please point it out.
Fine, lets list everything and break it down.
My minimum count for bridge personnel is based on the fact that on most normal ships, the captain and first officer would not normally be on the bridge at the same time, especially in combat conditions (the fact that the top 3 officers are always on the bridge during combat conditions is very difficult to believe). In fact, during most normal duty shifts that you see on the show, there is only one deck officer.
In the later Star Trek Series (including the one that Insurrection is based on), the pilot and navigator duties are handled by the same person. There is one flight station at the front of the bridge for that officer or crewman. Operations and tactical were the other two positions that I considered.
The "Science Officer" from TNG onwards almost always seems to be the Ship's Operations Officer. I realize that there are other science officers onboard the ship, but the one that always seems to be asked for their input on a science question is the Operations officer (except when the story calls for another science officer).
Let me also note that from the 2nd season of TNG onwards, the Chief Engineer was not a fixture on the bridge. While there was a duty station for an engineer, it wasn't always used during normal operations. O'brien was rarely acting as an engineer when he was on the bridge of the Defiant (I think he manned the Ops station).
So here is my count for normal ship operations, based on what I have seen on the show - a watch officer/officer of the deck, conn officer (pilot/navigator), operations officer, and tactical.
When I watched the first season of TNG, I assumed they had more than one chief engineer because they were either 1)head of the engineering team on duty or 2)covering for a production problem where a Chief Engineer was not cast.
Even thought I enjoy Star Trek as entertainment, I didn't see the wonderfully functioning crew that operated behind the scenes to get orders executed. Let me explain why. Things on Trek seemed to happen too fast, and there rarely seemed to be communication between people. Almost every time the ship took damage or an order to do something was given, all a crewmember did was type something into a console with an answer recieved almost instantly. Picard or Riker never got the opinion of the damage control officer on the scene or Data talking to the person down in the Sensor Control system while making a change to the system (you do hear Laforge talking to an engineer occasionally over the Comm system). That doesn't seem believable to me.
As I said, given that it is Star Trek, my standards are pretty low. I have to suspend a lot of disbelief to expect a starship like the Enterprise to be effectively run by 4 officers or crewpeople from the bridge. At that point, the Microsoft Sidewinder to pilot the ship just fits in.
I don't know if I should thank you or continue to look confused. Damn these abstract concepts. :o)
Come on. Its Star Trek and Thunderbirds. If I wanted realistic, I would have joined the local fire deparment and become an NASA astronaut.