Ha, yeah, if that's that many servers, you might want to make it electronic hehe. But still it could be done as easily with a mere regular barcode and a database containing all the data, rather than the barcode containing all the data.
Yeeeeah.. I kind of already addressed those points in the rest of my post, if you could have been bothered to read and think it through in its entirety before replying..
What's with all this low energy bullshit? That's like it's a new cult or something. Anyways everybody knows that in the future everything is powered by refuse fusion.
Can't you do that with a regular bar code and an extensive database? I mean as for your server thing you might as well just have the name printed on it, and you can have written on a sheet of paper what it does. No wait scratch that, it's better to take your cell phone out, open the barcode program, make sure it has the correct lighting and focus to read the barcode and wait till it recognizes what is sees.
Yeah, those sort of reasonable and balanced statements are disturbing. Where am I going to find my daily dose of "OMG all these evil corporate/government bastards are out to take away all my privacy and sue me to bankrupcy and persecute me for doing innocent stuff what sort of dystopian future is this world coming toooooo" now?
Not really, although that's actively being worked on (see the DARPA prize for that), but the GP is right, and that's orders of magnitudes more trivial to get that working on a VTOL. In a car, you need to worry about obstacles, the road, people, other drivers, road rules.
With a flying car all the computer has to do would be take off vertically while avoiding any eventual obstacles (trees and what not, fairly trivial), get to a certain altitude, follow rules defined for the purpose to regulate the air traffic of cars while avoiding to rely on a central authority (you won't have air controllers for flying cars), then once above your destination, slowly land on it vertically while still avoiding any eventual trees. Also a bunch of stuff to palliate to eventual dysfunctions, maintenance, and so on... But overall, much simpler.
I said that my PC generates 0 grammes of CO2 per hour, on the initial basis that if plugged into what we can be assumed to be a coal power plant it would be 40-80 g/hour. Giving these figures a decimal precision of 0 is generous, so if the real figure in my case was 0.1 grammes, it'd still be 0 grammes. Now if you can come up with some maths to show that would be actually more than 0.5 g...;-)
Not really, it just pushes the limits. Think of it this way, a car is complicated to operate, but people manage to operate it. Alright, but what if you designed a car for rhesus monkeys? It's just an engineering problem, you have to automate and dumb everything down to what the user really has to do/can do. In the case of a car for rhesus monkeys, you'd make it an fully automated car with for only controls a bunch of buttons representing destinations.
So you see, it's really all an engineering challenge.
Two things. You're assuming that within the next 60 years, or however long we'll have to wait for "it", we'll still have nothing but 20th century propulsion engines. Who knows what will happen, maybe we'll have something involving supraconductors, magnetohydrodynamic propulsion, some stuff we haven't discovered, and so on. Besides, wrong comparison. The Harrier is a 10 ton jet aircraft. Its exhausts could start a forest fire. Obviously you wouldn't see that on a commercial flying car. So to sum up that point, don't focus so much on what we can do as of the 2000s, no one said the flying car was for tomorrow, and by no one I mean me.
The second thing. I said programmable and automated. Understand foolproof. If stupid people knows how to drive it cars more or less safely and take them to the station for a refill or maintenance, surely they could do the same with a full automated flying car. The "fully automated" thing is really the trivial part, it's much simpler to make an hypothetical VTOL take off from a point, fly on its own to another and land there than it is to drive a car from point A to point B in the traffic (and yet DARPA is showing it's getting there). The general public could be as potent as a retarded gorilla, engineers still could make it so that you just have to press on two buttons to get somewhere. Besides, if it's automated, the thing might as well fly itself in the middle of the night to the garage for an oil change.
Yes we will have flying cars. Only they'll be nothing like a tiny airplane, and fully automated. Fully programmed VTOL is the only thing that would happened. May be a long shot, but we won't get anything short of that no matter what.
Probably my fault for using plain old FTP to upload.. I'm a noob with web stuff, hopefully changing the password and sticking to SFTP now will do the trick. Thanks for warning me btw:)
Of course you can't now anything, but I indeed couldn't card less about some environmental FUD that's meant to arbitrarily target a specific company just for the fuck of it. Anyone knows that in the process of generating electricity you often emit CO2 and stuff like that, but who gives a shit about hearing some loser going "doing this and that emits 7 grammes of CO2 regardless of the fact that I may be a whole order of magnitude off and the fact that it doesn't tell you much anyways". It's just a piece of FUD, and its got its facts so poorly established at this point the guy's better off shutting the hell up, or at least acting like they're not so sure of their number. But good for you if you're feeling all "aware" and all that hippie feel-good bullshit.
Interesting. Does the government have any plans in the future to remedy to that issue? I suppose nuclear power would be overkill/too hard to start off, what about wind power/geothermal?
Oh shut the fuck up. For one thing there's already half a dozen people who already make that pedantic point, and then even if everything in the whole fucking world was green you'd still come up with "but construction workers do fart on the job". Who fucking cares that it has a carbon footprint if it's so small it's fucking irrelevant? Goddamnit, Slashdotters need to learn to stop being fucking pedantic gits and stop caring about irrelevant bullshit.
Dude, that's just drivel. What makes you think that you can't turn a nuclear generator down a bit anyways, or that you can't just over-produce? You've got some serious misconceptions there. By the way France sells its excess energy to its neighbours. The fact that 25% of it are not nuclear is completely irrelevant.
No seriously, I looked everywhere and I didn't find no picture? That's like saying "our paparazzis photographed Beyonce and Christina Aguilera having lesbian sex" and not releasing the damn pictures.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha, yeah, if that's that many servers, you might want to make it electronic hehe. But still it could be done as easily with a mere regular barcode and a database containing all the data, rather than the barcode containing all the data.
Yeeeeah.. I kind of already addressed those points in the rest of my post, if you could have been bothered to read and think it through in its entirety before replying..
What's with all this low energy bullshit? That's like it's a new cult or something. Anyways everybody knows that in the future everything is powered by refuse fusion.
Can't you do that with a regular bar code and an extensive database? I mean as for your server thing you might as well just have the name printed on it, and you can have written on a sheet of paper what it does. No wait scratch that, it's better to take your cell phone out, open the barcode program, make sure it has the correct lighting and focus to read the barcode and wait till it recognizes what is sees.
Yeah, those sort of reasonable and balanced statements are disturbing. Where am I going to find my daily dose of "OMG all these evil corporate/government bastards are out to take away all my privacy and sue me to bankrupcy and persecute me for doing innocent stuff what sort of dystopian future is this world coming toooooo" now?
Well INAP(I'm Not a Psychiatrist)
IANGDMFGNON (I Ain't No God Damn Muh' Fucking Grammar Nazi Or Nothin') but couldn't you just make it IANAP, you know, like anyone else?
Not really, although that's actively being worked on (see the DARPA prize for that), but the GP is right, and that's orders of magnitudes more trivial to get that working on a VTOL. In a car, you need to worry about obstacles, the road, people, other drivers, road rules.
With a flying car all the computer has to do would be take off vertically while avoiding any eventual obstacles (trees and what not, fairly trivial), get to a certain altitude, follow rules defined for the purpose to regulate the air traffic of cars while avoiding to rely on a central authority (you won't have air controllers for flying cars), then once above your destination, slowly land on it vertically while still avoiding any eventual trees. Also a bunch of stuff to palliate to eventual dysfunctions, maintenance, and so on... But overall, much simpler.
I didn't know that Captain Obvious and the Redundancy Fairy had a child in age of posting on Slashdot.
Oh noes, everything emits CO2 by that standard, even opening a tap or chewing bubblegum! And like 10 people said that already.
I said that my PC generates 0 grammes of CO2 per hour, on the initial basis that if plugged into what we can be assumed to be a coal power plant it would be 40-80 g/hour. Giving these figures a decimal precision of 0 is generous, so if the real figure in my case was 0.1 grammes, it'd still be 0 grammes. Now if you can come up with some maths to show that would be actually more than 0.5 g... ;-)
How would a fully automated vehicle be made in the first place so it could be hacked (I assume you mean maliciously/criminally hacked)?
Thanks, it's all sorted out, and Google recrawled it correctly :).
I'm emitting CO2 as I type this
Nice to know. I'm currently emitting CH4 as I type this.
*poof*
Not really, it just pushes the limits. Think of it this way, a car is complicated to operate, but people manage to operate it. Alright, but what if you designed a car for rhesus monkeys? It's just an engineering problem, you have to automate and dumb everything down to what the user really has to do/can do. In the case of a car for rhesus monkeys, you'd make it an fully automated car with for only controls a bunch of buttons representing destinations.
So you see, it's really all an engineering challenge.
Two things. You're assuming that within the next 60 years, or however long we'll have to wait for "it", we'll still have nothing but 20th century propulsion engines. Who knows what will happen, maybe we'll have something involving supraconductors, magnetohydrodynamic propulsion, some stuff we haven't discovered, and so on. Besides, wrong comparison. The Harrier is a 10 ton jet aircraft. Its exhausts could start a forest fire. Obviously you wouldn't see that on a commercial flying car. So to sum up that point, don't focus so much on what we can do as of the 2000s, no one said the flying car was for tomorrow, and by no one I mean me.
The second thing. I said programmable and automated. Understand foolproof. If stupid people knows how to drive it cars more or less safely and take them to the station for a refill or maintenance, surely they could do the same with a full automated flying car. The "fully automated" thing is really the trivial part, it's much simpler to make an hypothetical VTOL take off from a point, fly on its own to another and land there than it is to drive a car from point A to point B in the traffic (and yet DARPA is showing it's getting there). The general public could be as potent as a retarded gorilla, engineers still could make it so that you just have to press on two buttons to get somewhere. Besides, if it's automated, the thing might as well fly itself in the middle of the night to the garage for an oil change.
lol, wtf, nothing more important in his life? WTF are you on man.
Yes we will have flying cars. Only they'll be nothing like a tiny airplane, and fully automated. Fully programmed VTOL is the only thing that would happened. May be a long shot, but we won't get anything short of that no matter what.
Thank you! Environut-jobs just always get their priorities wrong...
Probably my fault for using plain old FTP to upload.. I'm a noob with web stuff, hopefully changing the password and sticking to SFTP now will do the trick. Thanks for warning me btw :)
Damnit, it keeps getting hacked, no idea what's wrong with nearlyfreespeech.net's hosting...
Of course you can't now anything, but I indeed couldn't card less about some environmental FUD that's meant to arbitrarily target a specific company just for the fuck of it. Anyone knows that in the process of generating electricity you often emit CO2 and stuff like that, but who gives a shit about hearing some loser going "doing this and that emits 7 grammes of CO2 regardless of the fact that I may be a whole order of magnitude off and the fact that it doesn't tell you much anyways". It's just a piece of FUD, and its got its facts so poorly established at this point the guy's better off shutting the hell up, or at least acting like they're not so sure of their number. But good for you if you're feeling all "aware" and all that hippie feel-good bullshit.
You're very kind. I accept your apology.
Interesting. Does the government have any plans in the future to remedy to that issue? I suppose nuclear power would be overkill/too hard to start off, what about wind power/geothermal?
Oh shut the fuck up. For one thing there's already half a dozen people who already make that pedantic point, and then even if everything in the whole fucking world was green you'd still come up with "but construction workers do fart on the job". Who fucking cares that it has a carbon footprint if it's so small it's fucking irrelevant? Goddamnit, Slashdotters need to learn to stop being fucking pedantic gits and stop caring about irrelevant bullshit.
Dude, that's just drivel. What makes you think that you can't turn a nuclear generator down a bit anyways, or that you can't just over-produce? You've got some serious misconceptions there. By the way France sells its excess energy to its neighbours. The fact that 25% of it are not nuclear is completely irrelevant.
No seriously, I looked everywhere and I didn't find no picture? That's like saying "our paparazzis photographed Beyonce and Christina Aguilera having lesbian sex" and not releasing the damn pictures.