The only "proof" I can find of that in TFA is a post by one person claiming that the cop had to trail her for a while before issuing the speeding ticket. And that really doesn't prove she did not see the cop.
My proof is the way it says "65mph/PACE" on the ticket. You know what "PACE" is, right? It means the cop drives along behind you long enough to get a good, documented speed reading.
With that out of that way... what's your "proof" that she saw the cop and made a decision to keep on speeding?
PS: Most cops don't stop a moderately speeding car unless something else about it called their attention in the first place, eg. swerving / bad driving / possible DUI.
I'd be happy with a car OS that kills less than 30,000 people per year.
If a car manufacturing defect kills anybody at all, then there should be manufacturer's liability for it.
They don't get a free pass just because of the kind of manufacturing defect, there's no privilege against liability just because it's a software defect.
-wb-
What if the 'defective' car also dramatically reduces the overall number of road deaths?
Don't the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one? Even if you're a lawyer? Oh, wait, that requires a heart...
Simple: Because the fuel injection system has to adapt itself to match the throttle position, etc. If you try to do all that stuff mechanically by adjusting cables and tensioners you'll forever be tuning your engine (or guzzling gas, or wondering why you have no power...)
BUT, why does the computer need to take the input from my foot, convert it to an electronic input, feed that to a computer which then feeds that to a motor which then opens the throttle?
Give me a reasonably well tensioned cable and I'll just use my foot to more or less directly manipulate that throttle.
Yeah, cables can never ever break or stick in one place.
Memory of stuff like that is hazy at best, and it's been 20 years....
I remember trying a few systems back in the '90s and being distinctly underwhelmed(and that was back when just being near an SGI workstation was exciting)
I bought an Oculus VR dev-kit last month and I'm quite impressed. Yes, the screens are low-res, but I knew they would be (and I know it will be addressed). The overall impression is very good though.
While driving a big old early-90s metal Buick, I was in a fairly low speed rear-ender by a new late-2000's fiberglass and plastic Honda. The Honda was literally destroyed. I not only drove away in my Buick, I never needed repairs (the bumper was pushed in a little.. that was it.)
These modern cars are safer in high speed collisions, but at a large cost in value. I do not think that most people realize just how large the cost difference actually is.
Simple question: How much extra gas do you have to guzzle to move that huge piece of iron around? How much does that gas cost?
Maybe you're the one not realizing how large the cost difference actually is.
Yeah, that's by *design* - that's what saves people's lives in a real accident.
Try driving your truck into a solid object. The passengers will take 100% of the hit instead of the 30% that the person in the flimsy modern car will take.
Still, your descendents will be able to fix the inherited truck with a sledgehammer so that's OK.
These people are just jumping on the wave being created by Oculus Rift.
The current Oculus Rift is concentrating on latency, not resolution. Extra resolution is a given once all the other problems are finally sorted out. Delaying the high-res screens is a good move because it gives screen technology a bit of time to advance and keeps the dev kits dirt-cheap at the same time.
So...don't put too much emphasis on big headlines about screen resolution. The final Oculus Rift may well be lag-free and 1080p per eye when everybody else is still figuring out the latency issues on their high-res headsets.
Slashdot Mirror
The only "proof" I can find of that in TFA is a post by one person claiming that the cop had to trail her for a while before issuing the speeding ticket. And that really doesn't prove she did not see the cop.
My proof is the way it says "65mph/PACE" on the ticket. You know what "PACE" is, right? It means the cop drives along behind you long enough to get a good, documented speed reading.
With that out of that way ... what's your "proof" that she saw the cop and made a decision to keep on speeding?
PS: Most cops don't stop a moderately speeding car unless something else about it called their attention in the first place, eg. swerving / bad driving / possible DUI.
There's also the small detail that pilots are far better-trained than most drivers.
And they deliberately select people who are good at that sort of thing.
You know how many people want to be pilots? And how many actually make the grade...?
The last thing we need is a bunch of wanna-be pilots driving around with eyepieces thinking they're driving gods.
Maybe she uses it for GPS? How do you know she uses it for something that takes her attention away from driving?
How about the fact that a cop was tailing her for a while and she didn't even notice him?
I'm guessing the fact that the cop was tailing her and she didn't notice might have influenced his decision that something was distracting her.
One of her own comments is: "Glass was not on and I honestly don't use it much while driving..."
But you do use it, right?
You jest, but a roof that opens to direct a massive blast of hot air at the asteroid is probably as effective as anything else we've got.
Are you a chameleon?
I'm pretty sure we mostly turn our heads instead of rolling our eyes around to look at things.
Yes, we all instinctively rotate out eyeballs 45 degrees when we see things in the corner of our eyes.
Oh, wait... We don't. We're not chameleons, we turn our heads.
I'd be happy with a car OS that kills less than 30,000 people per year.
If a car manufacturing defect kills anybody at all, then there should be manufacturer's liability for it.
They don't get a free pass just because of the kind of manufacturing defect, there's no privilege against liability just because it's a software defect.
-wb-
What if the 'defective' car also dramatically reduces the overall number of road deaths?
Don't the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one? Even if you're a lawyer? Oh, wait, that requires a heart...
Only if there's enough money in it for the lawyers to retire afterwards.
Oh, you want to know WHY.
Simple: Because the fuel injection system has to adapt itself to match the throttle position, etc. If you try to do all that stuff mechanically by adjusting cables and tensioners you'll forever be tuning your engine (or guzzling gas, or wondering why you have no power...)
BUT, why does the computer need to take the input from my foot, convert it to an electronic input, feed that to a computer which then feeds that to a motor which then opens the throttle?
Give me a reasonably well tensioned cable and I'll just use my foot to more or less directly manipulate that throttle.
Yeah, cables can never ever break or stick in one place.
Oh, wait...
Memory of stuff like that is hazy at best, and it's been 20 years....
I remember trying a few systems back in the '90s and being distinctly underwhelmed(and that was back when just being near an SGI workstation was exciting)
I bought an Oculus VR dev-kit last month and I'm quite impressed. Yes, the screens are low-res, but I knew they would be (and I know it will be addressed). The overall impression is very good though.
The number of helicopters is quite limited in the UK.
I'm more interested in how Linus is going to respond to a bunch of C++ programmers finding 32 bugs in his kernel.
While driving a big old early-90s metal Buick, I was in a fairly low speed rear-ender by a new late-2000's fiberglass and plastic Honda. The Honda was literally destroyed. I not only drove away in my Buick, I never needed repairs (the bumper was pushed in a little.. that was it.)
These modern cars are safer in high speed collisions, but at a large cost in value. I do not think that most people realize just how large the cost difference actually is.
Simple question: How much extra gas do you have to guzzle to move that huge piece of iron around? How much does that gas cost?
Maybe you're the one not realizing how large the cost difference actually is.
You missed the most important point: Weight reduction.
Lighter cars will use less fuel and handle/accelerate better.
The car was totaled.
Yeah, that's by *design* - that's what saves people's lives in a real accident.
Try driving your truck into a solid object. The passengers will take 100% of the hit instead of the 30% that the person in the flimsy modern car will take.
Still, your descendents will be able to fix the inherited truck with a sledgehammer so that's OK.
There was a lot of hype about VR stuff in the 90s, and the whole thing did not get much traction.
Because they were rubbish. Back in the 90s you'd have to pay $100,000 for something that was worse than the $300 Oculus Rift devkit.
(plus another million for a computer powerful enough to drive it)
Are things significantly better now?
Yes.
If you have 2 monitors, it's hard to display 3 things side by side (Firefox , IE, and Chrome for instance).
Maybe these people can help you: http://www.digitaltigers.com/zenview-arenaelitexl.asp
??
You're not going to be able to read much source code on the current Oculus Rift.
Summary and article both state 210 degrees.
210 degrees is far more than the human field of view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye#Field_of_view
These people are just jumping on the wave being created by Oculus Rift.
The current Oculus Rift is concentrating on latency, not resolution. Extra resolution is a given once all the other problems are finally sorted out. Delaying the high-res screens is a good move because it gives screen technology a bit of time to advance and keeps the dev kits dirt-cheap at the same time.
So...don't put too much emphasis on big headlines about screen resolution. The final Oculus Rift may well be lag-free and 1080p per eye when everybody else is still figuring out the latency issues on their high-res headsets.
No need, the linked article says they're going to keep on supporting it.
(In a huge headline font...)
I'd pay to see him in court arguing that he owns the rights to Star Wars.