"No, we get to work on time because we leave with enough time to get there. Maybe if you have to speed and drive recklessly to make it to work, you should just leave five minutes earlier?"
Do you even drive? I'm glad to see you have absolute control of everything in your life and on the road. Just sanctimonious nonsense. Live in the real world, the autocars will have to.
"The irony here is that autonomous cars will be able to tell you fairly accurately how long it will take to get anywhere based on the possible routes and current traffic conditions. So, if your car says it'll take 27 minutes to get to work but you don't leave until you only have 15 minutes left because you're sure you can make it... that's your own fault."
Irony? And how many digits from a calculator do you use? Alexa tells me it will take 40 minutes to get to work. It never does. That is her best calculation at that instant. It takes me 20 minutes to get to the place that may have a traffic jam of some unpredictable intensity. She can't predict the future any better than I can.
At this point I'm not sure if you're trolling or not. That's what people currently do -- just stare out of the window in front of them for hours every day, trying not to run into another person. Can you not think of anything else you could do with that time if you didn't have to keep your eyes on the road? Maybe read a book, catch up on the news, or play a video game?
Trolling? More reflexive commenting from your internet bag of comment tricks (logic, irony, trolling)? If you are just staring out the window when you drive I hope never to see you on a road I'm driving on. And there is
a large difference between reading a book or playing a video game when you want to and when you have to. Am I supposed to do those things every single day whether I feel like it or not -- "for hours every day"?
You live in a theoretical techie world where everything is predictable, but people live in a much messier world, the real world. And your absolute trust in computer technology is sweet - innocent and naive, but sweet. Don't change.
Autonomous vehicles will have to scrupulously obey the law. But society and business depend on the mass NOT obeying the law. We get to work on time because we cheat. How long would it take you to do anything if you could not depend on the timing from route selection and speed? You would not be able to project the future. And huge chunks of your life would disappear into these prison-pod vehicles full of people desperately checking their watches. Also, how about the fact that actually driving the vehicle takes up the time. Do you really want to sit staring out the window for the entire trip? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
So far, emotionally overwrought. And according to the modern way, it humanizes Daredevil to the point that he is just a weird karate guy who just happens to stumble to a win in a fight. I'm waiting for the inevitable feminization of the storyline and the turning it from a male-centered story about a male superhero to a story about women. That seems to be "de rigueur" today. I hope they avoid the incredibly stupid mistake of the Ben Affleck version where the hero gets his ass kicked by a women (boot in the face scene.). The whole thing has a "Dexter" feel to it somehow. As for superheros, a bit of dark is good, but the trend is to make them psychopathic now. Not good. They should avoid that.
that a fully charged car battery is a bomb? Or will we have to have some nut job terrorist drive a truck full of these up to a building and short them to understand that? Energy is energy and high voltage, high current shorts are explosions capable of creating expanding plasmas at thousands of degrees. I roughly calculated once that the energy equivalent of the gasoline in my gas tank was 240 sticks of dynamite. Should we expect it to be any different for batteries? Tell me why not.
Watch the noise level in our communities go through the roof as these devices become commonly used by business, government, and police. When you see drones in videos you seldom have audio.
wind, rain, tornadoes, hurricanes, crazy drivers, mechanical breakdowns etc etc etc along with a few Black Swan events and then you are "only" killed, what, 20% of the time instead of 1%? They will promise you anything to make a buck, and they will kill as many as they have to to accomplish the goal of making a buck.
"People like to ride horses too but you don't see many of those around these days do you? For most people cars are an expensive tool and little more."
Childish and irrelevant.
"Not really following the logic of this. Yeah people like cars but there are plenty of ways to be social that do not involve cars."
Just another way of saying you don't understand the point.
" How about tens of thousands of auto fatalities per year"
You are either incapable of perspective with regard to numbers, or you are a hyperliberal who demands that all rights and freedoms of the mass recede before the needs of the individual. Are you one of those who believe that "if one life can be saved..." all rights have to be destroyed? Do you know that the national death rate of all americans is over 2 million per year? In ten years that is over twenty million dead - a real holocaust except it is not. It is life. The Fraction of motor vehicle deaths relative to total population is close to 0.0001. Miniscule.
See this for some adult perspective:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
"Quite a few planes are already highly automated. Big airliners aren't far from being able to handle the entire flight without a pilot actually being technically necessary for routine flights. Autopilot and navigation has been routine for a long time now and a lot of the technology for drones is easily transferable to manned flight. Heck the space shuttle and most space flight is essentially fully automated - the "pilot" is mostly just a backup system."
I'm well aware of this. We need to allow something that has been doable for decades.
People actually like to drive. And, I doubt the randomness of destination will be able to be replicated by an autonomous vehicle. That is to say, it won't be able to drive anywhere. There is also a tremendous social good to the population interacting with each other by driving. That positive will disappear if autonomous cars were to take over. But they never will. It is once again naive science fiction-ism perpetrated by those who desire to make money off a forced change for no good reason. Now, planes flying themselves, that would be good considering recent headlines.
Calling programmed machines "robots" is a childish mistake because it evokes almost a hundred years of sci-fi emotion. I suggest we stop calling programmed machines robots. And let's stop the over promising of what they can do. Besides, there is no such thing as "artificial intelligence." It is just clever programming. Why do we invent such nonsensical phrases and then feel we much stick slavishly to them generation after generation? Nature built the "robot" for this environment, and it is us. We are not going to replicate our ability to deal with our environment easily, or at all.
Get rid of human pilots. Planes have been able to fly and land themselves for decades now. Strangely, we change laws to allow testing and use of driverless cars that are fairly primitive but well-developed technology that flies planes and lands them is not trusted. Start with one plane on one route and give steep discounts on tickets.
A camera inside the cockpit and a camera outside at the door. There should be a remote door unlock capability that allows a locked out person to access the cockpit. They knew there was a problem before the crash. They could have monitored the door and cockpit and unlocked the door remotely.
I feel the task of creating a fusion bomb would have gone a lot faster if they had just given the job to engineers. They would not have spent years attempting to mathematically model the damned thing in excruciating detail. True engineers would have just built trial ideas until they got it. And, this radiation compression thing is a rather obvious try for an engineer in my opinion. I wonder how long mankind would have waited for the procedure to tie one's shoes if it had been given to physicists to determine. Also, for all we know, the idea came not to the physicists but from an invisible nobody, maybe even an engineer. But nobodies cannot invent the hydrogen bomb, now can they?
The most important thing that comes from the pdf reference that is pointed to in the slashdot entry is that no "sparkplug" of fissile material is mentioned. I always thought that the hydrogen bomb design shown to the public was bogus. It seems to me that gross phenomenon are straightforward and cannot be finessed. It seems to me that the public design is really just the combination of two things, a design to increase the yield of fission devices and the design of a fusion device. It always seemed to me that the fission sparkplug crapped up the process. You want pure fusion fuel for a gross phenomenon. Therefore you want extreme compression to raise the temperature of the fusion fuel, and a reduction of surface area to reduce the escape of energy due to radiation which is not explicitly mentioned, but which has its analog in fission core reduction by compression.
I have no expertise in this subject area and you should take that into account.
Making them small, not making them. Information about the Ulam-Teller design is all over the internet. Ford's book may help others make them small enough to put on missiles (in my untutored opinion). If you want info about the Ulam-Teller device you can get it in detail all over the internet.
With regard to "thermal equilibrium" we have from the above, Quote: "[Note: Many descriptions in the open literature exist dating back to the late seventies claiming that energetic X-rays from the primary are absorbed by the radiation casing (or plastic foam), and are re-emitted at a lower energy - implying that some sort of energy down-shifting mechanism (like X- ray fluorescence) is at work. This is a misconception. The lining of the casing is in local thermal equilibrium with the energy flux impinging on it, and re-radiates X-rays with the same spectrum. The X-ray spectrum softens simply because the photon gas cools as it expands to fill the entire radiation channel.]
In physics a closed container of radiation, like the radiation case, is called a "hohlraum". This German word for "cavity" (which has the obvious English cognates "hole" and "room") has been attached to the study of the thermodynamics of radiation since the last century in connection with blackbody radiation. German physicists early in this century used it as a theoretical model for deriving the blackbody radiation laws from quantum mechanics. Energy in a hohlraum necessarily comes into thermal equilibrium and assumes a blackbody spectrum. This is important for obtaining the necessary symmetry for an efficient implosion. Regardless of how uneven the initial energy distribution within the casing is, the radiation field will quickly establish thermal equilibrium throughout the casing - heating all parts to the same temperature."
Hans Bethe said they made complicated bombs in those days. Hmmmm...
We should all know these are left over from the attack by the Silver Surfer. The Fantastic Four, like all superhero groups, never cleans up after saving mankind.
No aggression, no Apple, no Microsoft, no civilization. And war is a group definition and expansion tool that comes from aggression and is absolutely necessary for expanding human civilization. Ever wonder why women do not invent powerful tech ideas and push them to dominance? Neither have they aggressively pushed any political idea. I don't mean participation. I mean none has taken the cutting edge. Ever wonder why women have to be pushed, forced, encouraged into aggressive tech environments? Why the urinals have to be taken out and the curtains put up? They don't have the aggression and they need the aggression removed in order to feel comfortable. Unfortunately, when you take out the aggression you take out the aggressive creativity. I don't doubt the doer-ship of women, but don't ever confuse it with aggressive creator-ship. Hawking, like many today, argues for the feminizing of mankind, and, therefore, its destruction. You don't need nuclear bombs to destroy it all. Just listen to and follow the naive rantings of people like Hawking.
But this applies to any means of comment, not just the internet, and always has. Letters to the editor did the same thing. It also depends on how well a thing is expressed and written.
is designed to lay the groundwork for another area of gynocentric bias against males. The idea that men and women are different in any way is, of course, against the current day narrative of sameness in all things.
that encourages a sociopathic focus on what one wants reqardless of a wider social good. And the right to commit suicide will inevitably become the obligation to do so.
It is mothers. Have you ever seen a man thundering about how he is not going to have his kids vaccinated come hell or high water? This is just more hidden feminist sociopathological empowerment of women. Now 20-year-old mothers are supposed to have the right to determine how dangerous their kids are to other children and the general community. And who can deny this? Nobody, they are WOMEN (and they need their vote). Expect more of this murderous political pandering to a demographic.
Rights and freedoms are defended not only on the battlefields of our nation's wars but in our daily lives. And when we can no longer accept the daily cost of rights and freedoms in our lives we cannot have them. The goal can never be to save the last life because we can give up all our freedom and rights and not save the last life. Taking a right or freedom, however justified it may seem, takes it from the hundreds of millions of Americans alive today and the billions to come. It is an extremely serious thing to do. Today it is being done thoughtlessly for our own good in secrecy by people who consider they have the right to do that. They do not.
Slashdot Mirror
"No, we get to work on time because we leave with enough time to get there. Maybe if you have to speed and drive recklessly to make it to work, you should just leave five minutes earlier?"
Do you even drive? I'm glad to see you have absolute control of everything in your life and on the road. Just sanctimonious nonsense. Live in the real world, the autocars will have to.
"The irony here is that autonomous cars will be able to tell you fairly accurately how long it will take to get anywhere based on the possible routes and current traffic conditions. So, if your car says it'll take 27 minutes to get to work but you don't leave until you only have 15 minutes left because you're sure you can make it... that's your own fault."
Irony? And how many digits from a calculator do you use? Alexa tells me it will take 40 minutes to get to work. It never does. That is her best calculation at that instant. It takes me 20 minutes to get to the place that may have a traffic jam of some unpredictable intensity. She can't predict the future any better than I can.
At this point I'm not sure if you're trolling or not. That's what people currently do -- just stare out of the window in front of them for hours every day, trying not to run into another person. Can you not think of anything else you could do with that time if you didn't have to keep your eyes on the road? Maybe read a book, catch up on the news, or play a video game?
Trolling? More reflexive commenting from your internet bag of comment tricks (logic, irony, trolling)? If you are just staring out the window when you drive I hope never to see you on a road I'm driving on. And there is a large difference between reading a book or playing a video game when you want to and when you have to. Am I supposed to do those things every single day whether I feel like it or not -- "for hours every day"?
You live in a theoretical techie world where everything is predictable, but people live in a much messier world, the real world. And your absolute trust in computer technology is sweet - innocent and naive, but sweet. Don't change.
Ever seen an arc flash explosion?
Autonomous vehicles will have to scrupulously obey the law. But society and business depend on the mass NOT obeying the law. We get to work on time because we cheat. How long would it take you to do anything if you could not depend on the timing from route selection and speed? You would not be able to project the future. And huge chunks of your life would disappear into these prison-pod vehicles full of people desperately checking their watches. Also, how about the fact that actually driving the vehicle takes up the time. Do you really want to sit staring out the window for the entire trip? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
So far, emotionally overwrought. And according to the modern way, it humanizes Daredevil to the point that he is just a weird karate guy who just happens to stumble to a win in a fight. I'm waiting for the inevitable feminization of the storyline and the turning it from a male-centered story about a male superhero to a story about women. That seems to be "de rigueur" today. I hope they avoid the incredibly stupid mistake of the Ben Affleck version where the hero gets his ass kicked by a women (boot in the face scene.). The whole thing has a "Dexter" feel to it somehow. As for superheros, a bit of dark is good, but the trend is to make them psychopathic now. Not good. They should avoid that.
that a fully charged car battery is a bomb? Or will we have to have some nut job terrorist drive a truck full of these up to a building and short them to understand that? Energy is energy and high voltage, high current shorts are explosions capable of creating expanding plasmas at thousands of degrees. I roughly calculated once that the energy equivalent of the gasoline in my gas tank was 240 sticks of dynamite. Should we expect it to be any different for batteries? Tell me why not.
Watch the noise level in our communities go through the roof as these devices become commonly used by business, government, and police. When you see drones in videos you seldom have audio.
P.S. In the area of promises by techies with a need to make a buck: http://graphics.latimes.com/mi...
wind, rain, tornadoes, hurricanes, crazy drivers, mechanical breakdowns etc etc etc along with a few Black Swan events and then you are "only" killed, what, 20% of the time instead of 1%? They will promise you anything to make a buck, and they will kill as many as they have to to accomplish the goal of making a buck.
"People like to ride horses too but you don't see many of those around these days do you? For most people cars are an expensive tool and little more."
Childish and irrelevant.
"Not really following the logic of this. Yeah people like cars but there are plenty of ways to be social that do not involve cars."
Just another way of saying you don't understand the point.
" How about tens of thousands of auto fatalities per year"
You are either incapable of perspective with regard to numbers, or you are a hyperliberal who demands that all rights and freedoms of the mass recede before the needs of the individual. Are you one of those who believe that "if one life can be saved..." all rights have to be destroyed? Do you know that the national death rate of all americans is over 2 million per year? In ten years that is over twenty million dead - a real holocaust except it is not. It is life. The Fraction of motor vehicle deaths relative to total population is close to 0.0001. Miniscule. See this for some adult perspective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
"Quite a few planes are already highly automated. Big airliners aren't far from being able to handle the entire flight without a pilot actually being technically necessary for routine flights. Autopilot and navigation has been routine for a long time now and a lot of the technology for drones is easily transferable to manned flight. Heck the space shuttle and most space flight is essentially fully automated - the "pilot" is mostly just a backup system."
I'm well aware of this. We need to allow something that has been doable for decades.
People actually like to drive. And, I doubt the randomness of destination will be able to be replicated by an autonomous vehicle. That is to say, it won't be able to drive anywhere. There is also a tremendous social good to the population interacting with each other by driving. That positive will disappear if autonomous cars were to take over. But they never will. It is once again naive science fiction-ism perpetrated by those who desire to make money off a forced change for no good reason. Now, planes flying themselves, that would be good considering recent headlines.
Calling programmed machines "robots" is a childish mistake because it evokes almost a hundred years of sci-fi emotion. I suggest we stop calling programmed machines robots. And let's stop the over promising of what they can do. Besides, there is no such thing as "artificial intelligence." It is just clever programming. Why do we invent such nonsensical phrases and then feel we much stick slavishly to them generation after generation? Nature built the "robot" for this environment, and it is us. We are not going to replicate our ability to deal with our environment easily, or at all.
Get rid of human pilots. Planes have been able to fly and land themselves for decades now. Strangely, we change laws to allow testing and use of driverless cars that are fairly primitive but well-developed technology that flies planes and lands them is not trusted. Start with one plane on one route and give steep discounts on tickets.
A camera inside the cockpit and a camera outside at the door. There should be a remote door unlock capability that allows a locked out person to access the cockpit. They knew there was a problem before the crash. They could have monitored the door and cockpit and unlocked the door remotely.
I tried to order the "Critical Mass Summaries" in the 1980s and got my check returned. Now they are on the internet.
I feel the task of creating a fusion bomb would have gone a lot faster if they had just given the job to engineers. They would not have spent years attempting to mathematically model the damned thing in excruciating detail. True engineers would have just built trial ideas until they got it. And, this radiation compression thing is a rather obvious try for an engineer in my opinion. I wonder how long mankind would have waited for the procedure to tie one's shoes if it had been given to physicists to determine. Also, for all we know, the idea came not to the physicists but from an invisible nobody, maybe even an engineer. But nobodies cannot invent the hydrogen bomb, now can they? The most important thing that comes from the pdf reference that is pointed to in the slashdot entry is that no "sparkplug" of fissile material is mentioned. I always thought that the hydrogen bomb design shown to the public was bogus. It seems to me that gross phenomenon are straightforward and cannot be finessed. It seems to me that the public design is really just the combination of two things, a design to increase the yield of fission devices and the design of a fusion device. It always seemed to me that the fission sparkplug crapped up the process. You want pure fusion fuel for a gross phenomenon. Therefore you want extreme compression to raise the temperature of the fusion fuel, and a reduction of surface area to reduce the escape of energy due to radiation which is not explicitly mentioned, but which has its analog in fission core reduction by compression. I have no expertise in this subject area and you should take that into account.
For example: http://nuclearweaponarchive.or...
With regard to "thermal equilibrium" we have from the above, Quote: "[Note: Many descriptions in the open literature exist dating back to the late seventies claiming that energetic X-rays from the primary are absorbed by the radiation casing (or plastic foam), and are re-emitted at a lower energy - implying that some sort of energy down-shifting mechanism (like X- ray fluorescence) is at work. This is a misconception. The lining of the casing is in local thermal equilibrium with the energy flux impinging on it, and re-radiates X-rays with the same spectrum. The X-ray spectrum softens simply because the photon gas cools as it expands to fill the entire radiation channel.] In physics a closed container of radiation, like the radiation case, is called a "hohlraum". This German word for "cavity" (which has the obvious English cognates "hole" and "room") has been attached to the study of the thermodynamics of radiation since the last century in connection with blackbody radiation. German physicists early in this century used it as a theoretical model for deriving the blackbody radiation laws from quantum mechanics. Energy in a hohlraum necessarily comes into thermal equilibrium and assumes a blackbody spectrum. This is important for obtaining the necessary symmetry for an efficient implosion. Regardless of how uneven the initial energy distribution within the casing is, the radiation field will quickly establish thermal equilibrium throughout the casing - heating all parts to the same temperature."
Hans Bethe said they made complicated bombs in those days. Hmmmm...
We should all know these are left over from the attack by the Silver Surfer. The Fantastic Four, like all superhero groups, never cleans up after saving mankind.
No aggression, no Apple, no Microsoft, no civilization. And war is a group definition and expansion tool that comes from aggression and is absolutely necessary for expanding human civilization. Ever wonder why women do not invent powerful tech ideas and push them to dominance? Neither have they aggressively pushed any political idea. I don't mean participation. I mean none has taken the cutting edge. Ever wonder why women have to be pushed, forced, encouraged into aggressive tech environments? Why the urinals have to be taken out and the curtains put up? They don't have the aggression and they need the aggression removed in order to feel comfortable. Unfortunately, when you take out the aggression you take out the aggressive creativity. I don't doubt the doer-ship of women, but don't ever confuse it with aggressive creator-ship. Hawking, like many today, argues for the feminizing of mankind, and, therefore, its destruction. You don't need nuclear bombs to destroy it all. Just listen to and follow the naive rantings of people like Hawking.
But this applies to any means of comment, not just the internet, and always has. Letters to the editor did the same thing. It also depends on how well a thing is expressed and written.
is designed to lay the groundwork for another area of gynocentric bias against males. The idea that men and women are different in any way is, of course, against the current day narrative of sameness in all things.
that encourages a sociopathic focus on what one wants reqardless of a wider social good. And the right to commit suicide will inevitably become the obligation to do so.
Clever programming and mechanics do not make "AI" and human "robots." Interesting machines, but nothing more. Nature is not an idiot.
with actually being the thing. Verisimilitude is not truth.
It is mothers. Have you ever seen a man thundering about how he is not going to have his kids vaccinated come hell or high water? This is just more hidden feminist sociopathological empowerment of women. Now 20-year-old mothers are supposed to have the right to determine how dangerous their kids are to other children and the general community. And who can deny this? Nobody, they are WOMEN (and they need their vote). Expect more of this murderous political pandering to a demographic.
Rights and freedoms are defended not only on the battlefields of our nation's wars but in our daily lives. And when we can no longer accept the daily cost of rights and freedoms in our lives we cannot have them. The goal can never be to save the last life because we can give up all our freedom and rights and not save the last life. Taking a right or freedom, however justified it may seem, takes it from the hundreds of millions of Americans alive today and the billions to come. It is an extremely serious thing to do. Today it is being done thoughtlessly for our own good in secrecy by people who consider they have the right to do that. They do not.