I know it's fun to make fun of the big bad corporation, but really. Gassy and ADD? If you are getting gassy from McDonald's food, it isn't because the food is bad. It is because your digestive system is broken. And ADD? That is just pulling things out of thin air.
Apparently you didn't. Here is a hint. The time it takes to get through a series of lights is cumulative. Each time you miss a green, you increase your chances of missing the next green. Driving faster makes that happen less often. The best you can hope for if you miss a light is to break even on the next light.
That sense of power and control is one of the major factors that makes drivers so dangerous. I'm not say cars are not worth it. The flexability of a car crushes all other forms of transportation, and once you have a requirement for owning a car at all, most of the cost of the car is already sunk, so you might as well use it the rest of the time if you are willing to take the risk of death. Me, I am willing to take that risk. I just admit it instead of taking the all too common path of pretending like my risk acceptance happens to be at just the right spot to be counted as "safe".
\
My cost analysis is similar to yours in what it would take to get me to switch, although I would put the % at a higher number. It seems to me that auto drive cars would likely end up cheaper than manually driven cars. I also factor in the idea that the 1 to 2 hour commute (that I thankfully don't have to do anymore) could be spent starting work when I got in the car, playing video games, reading, or sleeping.
I don't know how much you make, but for a very large portion of the population, they already spend well more than 10% of their annual income on transportation.
1) There is plenty enough empirical evidence that you are wrong concerning the design of traffic systems working to ensure that traffic flows correctly.
2) It is possible to implement "intelligence" into traffic systems (which you argue is already there). It is not possible to implement "intelligence" into all of the drivers. As much as people want to complain about other drivers being jerks, I have noticed that MOST drivers are pretty considerate. The problem is that roads are often under sized, and when that happens, it only take one in 50 drivers being a jerk to cause a problem for everyone else. It also leads to forcing normally considerate drivers to drive less considerately just to survive on the roads.
Around here it gets worse. Instead of just putting in a red light where it is needed, they make up new lighting systems that half the people follow, and the other half ignore. Or even worse, they painted the speed bumps on a nearby street with the exact same markings that have been used in video games for years to mean "Turbo boost!".
That is the kind of attitude that gets bad, and sometimes dangerous laws enacted. It sucks that your daughter died. I know I would be devastated if that happened to my child, but you have used that as an excuse to throw reason out the window. Driving is dangerous business. There are no safe drivers, there are only drivers that are more dangerous than others. If you drive, you are an unsafe driver too. The OP was correct that slowing traffic does not reduce congestion.
If you drive a motor vehicle, or ride in one driven for your benefit (a.k.a. Take the bus), you are a hypocrite that is using the death of your daughter as a tool to feel self righteous. If you walk everywhere, fine. If not, you are being despicable, and should really consider showing your daughter more respect than you are.
you are trying to recreate 1960s tech with wood sticks.
Now your getting it.
Really, is building 1960's tech with sticks, any more ridiculous than lighting a fire with sticks? Sure, I could just use a lighter or a match, but it is cool that I can do it with tech no more advanced than a length of rope.
True, the lack of 100% auto drive systems are a liability issue, not a technological one. Hopefully, the work that Google is doing will help change that. The other problem for auto drive is the number of people who think that zipping around populated areas in a multi-ton death machine is some kind of a game. They proudly declare how they would hate auto drive because they "like to drive" or that they don't need it because they "know how to drive". Just look at the number of people commenting on this story that are praising manual transmissions and talking down about those that don't use them. Those are just a small subset of the people who see their car as a toy instead of a tool.
While it not running may be a problem. Not having the title, likely means they don't have the piece of paper. Here in CA, they frequently don't even issue that any more, as it is a useless piece of paper.
For the most part, only the absolutely poorest of the poor in the US pick their driving based on fuel cost. Large fluctuations in the price per gallon can influence peoples driving, but that isn't the cost, but the difference in cost.
You seem to be completely out of touch as to what the tablet market segment consists of. Android and iOS both have keyboards. Heck, the very first Android device on the market had a keyboard. In fact, Android didn't even have an onscreen keyboard until version 1.5. All typing could ONLY be done on a physical keyboard. I don't know what version of iOS implemented support for keyboards, but I know it currently exists.
Given that this is explained repeatedly in just about every thread of this nature, I must assume you are a troll.
An interesting idea. However, that's in direct opposition to the reality of space colonisation: getting to the "self-sufficient colony" stage will require, first, two things: one, developing self-sufficient biospheres here on Earth (you could try to alpha-test them in space, but you'd have to be prepared to let lots of astronauts die messily when their life support malfunctions), and two, developing a regular transport network from Earth to space (because even with the best Earthside testing, your colonies are not actually going to be practically 100% self-sufficient for decades if not centuries).
That makes no sense. Of course you would have to make self sufficient colonies. That in no way contradicts the fact that doing it would be an investment in humanities future. Second, distance has never been protection against disease. It really has always been travel time. A fatal disease with an 8 week incubation period is not nearly as likely to spread to a colony that is 8 months away than it is a country that is 8 hours away. For example, the incubation period for the Bubonic Plague is 2 to 6 days. This means that a similar disease could spread to half of the world before it is even noticed. It would be extremely unlikely to make it through an 8 month trip without anyone noticing the ship is carrying the disease.
If you want to survive Earthside disasters, prepare for them. That means spending on public healthcare, education, green technologies, all the non-sexy boring things which make life survivable and robust.
Now, who is being unrealistic. Unless by "green technologies" you mean bullets, bombs, or mass sterilization systems, you lose all credibility.
Every friend you have is amongst the stars. Ever adventure man has had or ever will have has been amongst the starts. Your responsibilities and your life's consequences are amongst the stars. I really am surprised you were not aware that the Sun was one of the stars.
That is a piece that people miss out on with both culture and genetics. Everyone talks about how great it is when we get a diversity of genetics, and culture, but then never consider that mingling these things leads to a single culture and genetic pool, as the fittest survive, and the least fit disappear. While bringing in diversity IS good, it requires segregation to create that diversity. Given how small the earth now is, getting people far enough away that regular travel is impractical, is an investment in humanities future.
I didn't know that they did that. That is actually pretty cool. It is one thing to fly into space, and return using the same equipment that you brought with you. It is a different thing to fly into space, and catch a different ride home. The fact that they do this means we have gotten a littler farther than I had thought. Not a lot farther, but a little.
A national daycare program seems kind of redundant given that every single state has a huge state daycare program. Maybe it was to fund the extra day when places like South Dakota reduce the daycare from 5 days a week to 4?
That isn't even close to true. Apple has been riding the wave of "coolness" that Steve Jobs personally created. There products, while perfectly fine, are not debatable the best, and certainly are not head and shoulders better than the competition. Even with Steve Jobs at the helm, Apple has lost half their iPhone market to Android. OSX is a minority OS, and Android tablets are just now showing up to the fight, so claims that they "own" the pad market are just boasts from a fighter who hasn't yet entered the ring against their adversary.
No, Apple is not in a secure position at all, and it is unrealistic to think that Cook couldn't sink the entire ship if he doesn't to a very good job.
Look. I can write and run an accounting application on a tablet. I can also carry it around and even write and run the code sitting in the back seat of a moving vehicle. This is mobile computing. As I said before. Your playing the "That's not a 'REAL' computer" line that the old mainframe guys used to used to talk down about PCs. Since a mainframe isn't mobile, either a tablet is mobile computing, or there is no such thing as mobile computing.
Sure. Only a moron would say that taking your laptop to a coffee shop to work isn't mobile computing. That is why so many people are comparing netbooks to tablets. Because for some people the use overlaps. Really, did you expect me to argue that laptops were NOT specifically designed for being mobile?
I always find comments like your funny. We know that conspiracies happen. We know that our government takes part in them. Enough of them have been uncovered to make that clear. We know that the government will use a lie about nuclear weapons as an excuse to go to war. How is your comment any less crazy than the the people you are referring to?
No, 'mobile computing' constitutes that computing gets done on a mobile device. The iProducts certainly do that. In fact, it takes huge leaps of logic to claim that the iProducts are not general purpose computing devices. Here is a link that proves my comment beyond a shadow of a doubt. http://www.calormen.com/applesoft/
The warts are things you can legitimately complain about iProducts for. Claims that using iProducts are not 'mobile computing' is NOT a legitimate complaint because it just isn't true. It isn't even vaguely similar to true. In shades of gray, it is #000000. It is comments like yours that reinforces Apple fanboys belief that there is an army of 'Apple Haters' out to harm their beloved product through lies.
I guess the part where you said that Netflix never worked. Since having silverlight in a browser is totally unnecessary to use Netflix on a mobile device. I mean, if we are going to complain about mobile browsers not doing things that you don't need a browser for, lets add that mobile browsers don't give me BJ's either.
Good point. Since we are already well into the realm of TMI, the problem exists from just having eaten the wrong thing for lunch as well. Hopefully not with as much regularity, but it is there for everyone. Toilet paper fails to be sanitary on it's own, once you get past a certain point.
So, I would agree that a handbasin in the cubical would be awesome. Honestly, I think that bathrooms are poorly designed from the get go. With more and more parents unwilling to let even older children go into bathrooms on their own, we are starting to see more cases of single user bathrooms. This is a start, but there is little forward movement in making the bathrooms themselves sanitary.
Slashdot Mirror
I know it's fun to make fun of the big bad corporation, but really. Gassy and ADD? If you are getting gassy from McDonald's food, it isn't because the food is bad. It is because your digestive system is broken. And ADD? That is just pulling things out of thin air.
Apparently you didn't. Here is a hint. The time it takes to get through a series of lights is cumulative. Each time you miss a green, you increase your chances of missing the next green. Driving faster makes that happen less often. The best you can hope for if you miss a light is to break even on the next light.
That sense of power and control is one of the major factors that makes drivers so dangerous. I'm not say cars are not worth it. The flexability of a car crushes all other forms of transportation, and once you have a requirement for owning a car at all, most of the cost of the car is already sunk, so you might as well use it the rest of the time if you are willing to take the risk of death. Me, I am willing to take that risk. I just admit it instead of taking the all too common path of pretending like my risk acceptance happens to be at just the right spot to be counted as "safe".
\ My cost analysis is similar to yours in what it would take to get me to switch, although I would put the % at a higher number. It seems to me that auto drive cars would likely end up cheaper than manually driven cars. I also factor in the idea that the 1 to 2 hour commute (that I thankfully don't have to do anymore) could be spent starting work when I got in the car, playing video games, reading, or sleeping.
I don't know how much you make, but for a very large portion of the population, they already spend well more than 10% of their annual income on transportation.
Two points on that.
1) There is plenty enough empirical evidence that you are wrong concerning the design of traffic systems working to ensure that traffic flows correctly.
2) It is possible to implement "intelligence" into traffic systems (which you argue is already there). It is not possible to implement "intelligence" into all of the drivers. As much as people want to complain about other drivers being jerks, I have noticed that MOST drivers are pretty considerate. The problem is that roads are often under sized, and when that happens, it only take one in 50 drivers being a jerk to cause a problem for everyone else. It also leads to forcing normally considerate drivers to drive less considerately just to survive on the roads.
Around here it gets worse. Instead of just putting in a red light where it is needed, they make up new lighting systems that half the people follow, and the other half ignore. Or even worse, they painted the speed bumps on a nearby street with the exact same markings that have been used in video games for years to mean "Turbo boost!".
Math would agree with them.
That is the kind of attitude that gets bad, and sometimes dangerous laws enacted. It sucks that your daughter died. I know I would be devastated if that happened to my child, but you have used that as an excuse to throw reason out the window. Driving is dangerous business. There are no safe drivers, there are only drivers that are more dangerous than others. If you drive, you are an unsafe driver too. The OP was correct that slowing traffic does not reduce congestion.
If you drive a motor vehicle, or ride in one driven for your benefit (a.k.a. Take the bus), you are a hypocrite that is using the death of your daughter as a tool to feel self righteous. If you walk everywhere, fine. If not, you are being despicable, and should really consider showing your daughter more respect than you are.
you are trying to recreate 1960s tech with wood sticks.
Now your getting it.
Really, is building 1960's tech with sticks, any more ridiculous than lighting a fire with sticks? Sure, I could just use a lighter or a match, but it is cool that I can do it with tech no more advanced than a length of rope.
True, the lack of 100% auto drive systems are a liability issue, not a technological one. Hopefully, the work that Google is doing will help change that. The other problem for auto drive is the number of people who think that zipping around populated areas in a multi-ton death machine is some kind of a game. They proudly declare how they would hate auto drive because they "like to drive" or that they don't need it because they "know how to drive". Just look at the number of people commenting on this story that are praising manual transmissions and talking down about those that don't use them. Those are just a small subset of the people who see their car as a toy instead of a tool.
While it not running may be a problem. Not having the title, likely means they don't have the piece of paper. Here in CA, they frequently don't even issue that any more, as it is a useless piece of paper.
For the most part, only the absolutely poorest of the poor in the US pick their driving based on fuel cost. Large fluctuations in the price per gallon can influence peoples driving, but that isn't the cost, but the difference in cost.
You seem to be completely out of touch as to what the tablet market segment consists of. Android and iOS both have keyboards. Heck, the very first Android device on the market had a keyboard. In fact, Android didn't even have an onscreen keyboard until version 1.5. All typing could ONLY be done on a physical keyboard. I don't know what version of iOS implemented support for keyboards, but I know it currently exists.
Given that this is explained repeatedly in just about every thread of this nature, I must assume you are a troll.
An interesting idea. However, that's in direct opposition to the reality of space colonisation: getting to the "self-sufficient colony" stage will require, first, two things: one, developing self-sufficient biospheres here on Earth (you could try to alpha-test them in space, but you'd have to be prepared to let lots of astronauts die messily when their life support malfunctions), and two, developing a regular transport network from Earth to space (because even with the best Earthside testing, your colonies are not actually going to be practically 100% self-sufficient for decades if not centuries).
That makes no sense. Of course you would have to make self sufficient colonies. That in no way contradicts the fact that doing it would be an investment in humanities future. Second, distance has never been protection against disease. It really has always been travel time. A fatal disease with an 8 week incubation period is not nearly as likely to spread to a colony that is 8 months away than it is a country that is 8 hours away. For example, the incubation period for the Bubonic Plague is 2 to 6 days. This means that a similar disease could spread to half of the world before it is even noticed. It would be extremely unlikely to make it through an 8 month trip without anyone noticing the ship is carrying the disease.
If you want to survive Earthside disasters, prepare for them. That means spending on public healthcare, education, green technologies, all the non-sexy boring things which make life survivable and robust.
Now, who is being unrealistic. Unless by "green technologies" you mean bullets, bombs, or mass sterilization systems, you lose all credibility.
Every friend you have is amongst the stars. Ever adventure man has had or ever will have has been amongst the starts. Your responsibilities and your life's consequences are amongst the stars. I really am surprised you were not aware that the Sun was one of the stars.
That is a piece that people miss out on with both culture and genetics. Everyone talks about how great it is when we get a diversity of genetics, and culture, but then never consider that mingling these things leads to a single culture and genetic pool, as the fittest survive, and the least fit disappear. While bringing in diversity IS good, it requires segregation to create that diversity. Given how small the earth now is, getting people far enough away that regular travel is impractical, is an investment in humanities future.
I didn't know that they did that. That is actually pretty cool. It is one thing to fly into space, and return using the same equipment that you brought with you. It is a different thing to fly into space, and catch a different ride home. The fact that they do this means we have gotten a littler farther than I had thought. Not a lot farther, but a little.
A national daycare program seems kind of redundant given that every single state has a huge state daycare program. Maybe it was to fund the extra day when places like South Dakota reduce the daycare from 5 days a week to 4?
That isn't even close to true. Apple has been riding the wave of "coolness" that Steve Jobs personally created. There products, while perfectly fine, are not debatable the best, and certainly are not head and shoulders better than the competition. Even with Steve Jobs at the helm, Apple has lost half their iPhone market to Android. OSX is a minority OS, and Android tablets are just now showing up to the fight, so claims that they "own" the pad market are just boasts from a fighter who hasn't yet entered the ring against their adversary.
No, Apple is not in a secure position at all, and it is unrealistic to think that Cook couldn't sink the entire ship if he doesn't to a very good job.
Look. I can write and run an accounting application on a tablet. I can also carry it around and even write and run the code sitting in the back seat of a moving vehicle. This is mobile computing. As I said before. Your playing the "That's not a 'REAL' computer" line that the old mainframe guys used to used to talk down about PCs. Since a mainframe isn't mobile, either a tablet is mobile computing, or there is no such thing as mobile computing.
That was a total non sequitur.
Sure. Only a moron would say that taking your laptop to a coffee shop to work isn't mobile computing. That is why so many people are comparing netbooks to tablets. Because for some people the use overlaps. Really, did you expect me to argue that laptops were NOT specifically designed for being mobile?
I always find comments like your funny. We know that conspiracies happen. We know that our government takes part in them. Enough of them have been uncovered to make that clear. We know that the government will use a lie about nuclear weapons as an excuse to go to war. How is your comment any less crazy than the the people you are referring to?
No, 'mobile computing' constitutes that computing gets done on a mobile device. The iProducts certainly do that. In fact, it takes huge leaps of logic to claim that the iProducts are not general purpose computing devices. Here is a link that proves my comment beyond a shadow of a doubt. http://www.calormen.com/applesoft/
The warts are things you can legitimately complain about iProducts for. Claims that using iProducts are not 'mobile computing' is NOT a legitimate complaint because it just isn't true. It isn't even vaguely similar to true. In shades of gray, it is #000000. It is comments like yours that reinforces Apple fanboys belief that there is an army of 'Apple Haters' out to harm their beloved product through lies.
I guess the part where you said that Netflix never worked. Since having silverlight in a browser is totally unnecessary to use Netflix on a mobile device. I mean, if we are going to complain about mobile browsers not doing things that you don't need a browser for, lets add that mobile browsers don't give me BJ's either.
Good point. Since we are already well into the realm of TMI, the problem exists from just having eaten the wrong thing for lunch as well. Hopefully not with as much regularity, but it is there for everyone. Toilet paper fails to be sanitary on it's own, once you get past a certain point.
So, I would agree that a handbasin in the cubical would be awesome. Honestly, I think that bathrooms are poorly designed from the get go. With more and more parents unwilling to let even older children go into bathrooms on their own, we are starting to see more cases of single user bathrooms. This is a start, but there is little forward movement in making the bathrooms themselves sanitary.