The best that can happen to,you if you run someone down is blah blah blah blah
What happens to the driver isn't relevant; we were talking about what rights the pedestrian has. Given that jaywalking is illegal in pretty much every jurisdiction in the western world (and probably most of the rest of the planet) only a moron would claim that pedestrians have a right to do it.
But, of course, you're not an idiot, so you know better.
You're the exception. For a few yeats I did part time driver training/assessment, working with people who had already been driving for many years. From observing their habits I can say fairly confidently that defensive driving skills are a rarity amongst the general public. It tends to be more common in those who drive professionally - bus/truck drivers and the like - but even amongst them it's not universal.
How would that have helped? The car detected her and didn't brake,
As he pointed out, they're talking about two different systems. It's hard to parse out, but I think what they're trying to say is that the built in factory system detected her but couldn't break because it was disabled, but Uber's own system didn't detect her.
If that's the case then yeah, maybe reflectors and such would have helped the Uber system detect her and stop. On the other hand if the factory system detected her and theirs didn't then it also means that their system is pretty shit.
Uber didn't have any time at all to stop the car. Uber wasn't driving.
The driver would have had some time if he had been paying attention. Likely less than 6 seconds, but probably enough to at least reduce speed prior to impact.
Kim and his advisers came to the conclusion that Trump and his advisers were looking for an occasion for a limited war - some bombing campaign - somewhere in the world. Ideally, the campaign would take place before the mid term elections. The US military was tasked to look into either bombing some nuclear facilities in NK or bombing some nuclear facilities in Iran.
I understand that the rhetoric coming out of NK often sounds insane, but I seriously doubt that any of the people in charge over there are insane enough to concoct this kind of scenario. It sounds like something dreamed up by Alex Jones.
legitimately pointing out that telling them Kim Jong Un would end up dead like Gaddaffi isn't a smart move.
It wouldn't have been a smart move, but nobody other than idiots like you has ever suggested it. Certainly nobody in the administration ever said it. Only people focused on intentionally misinterpreting every comment which comes out of the White House ever suggested such a thing.
The people who were brought involuntarily into the country as children who were shielded from inhumane deportation to a country they never knew by the prior administration.
I keep hearing from democrats about how the US is an oppressive shithole run by a madman. Yet in the same breath they'll complain that deporting illegal immigrants is somehow "inhumane". Seems to me like you're doing them a favour, no? Free airfare out of an oppressive shithole seems pretty humane to me.
And now we've come full circle to the ignorance of the general public. However, despite your excellent demonstration, I still hold that he media isn't much better.
Yes, and the "media" report it in exactly those simplistic terms, which leaves the majority of the public - including, apparently, yourself - with a mistaken belief about what's going on.
Now where's your list that supports you in any way?
The "wage gap". Racial profiling and disparity in police shootings. "Organic" food. Hell even things like UFO sightings, "psychics", and "hauntings" are regularly reported on credulously in the media with very little attempt by anyone to debunk the nonsense.
Don't get me wrong; I agree that the average person is shit at telling the difference between fact and fiction, I just don't see the media being that much better. It's like a wrestling match between a guy with no arms and his opponent with no legs.
Ok so a 4x difference in volume is important according to you. So hydrogen is > 4x better than batteries by volume. case closed.
If volume is as important as you suggest where do they put all those batteries.
That's a very good point, but there are a couple of key factors which significantly change the equation:
1. Efficiency of battery to motor is a lot better than hydrogen to fuel cell to motor. The efficiency of a good fuel cell is around 50%. That means roughly half of the volume of gas you're carrying around is wasted when compared to a battery.
2. The fuel cell itself adds volume above what would be required in a battery electric.
3. Fuel cell vehicles still require some batteries in order to take advantage of regenerative breaking.
4. Battery volume is different than hydrogen tank volume in that batteries can be made to roughly fit any shape and contour. Hydrogen tanks have to be roughly cylindrical. You can design the vehicle around the tanks so that they don't waste too much space, but it is much easier to fit batteries into a vehicle vs trying to fit a vehicle around hydrogen tanks.
All of this is nicely illustrated in the real world by the hydrogen vehicles on the market today, such as the Toyota Mirai. The two hydrogen tanks on it weigh more than a full gas tank does in my much larger ICE vehicle, and take up a significant amount of space, yet they deliver leas range than either my gas tank or a Tesla battery.
The lower overall system efficiency of hydrogen (including production, compression, and transportation losses) is also pretty bad compared to batteries, but we don't even have to go that far to see that batteries have a distint advantage.
There are certainly cases where hydrogen may hold an advantage; such as home energy storage and perhaps powering large vehicles like trucks, buses, boats, etc. The larger the vehicle, the less of a factor volume tends to be. But we were talking about cars and, at least in that scope, the energy density of hydrogen is a distinct disadvantage.
He wasn't in a rural area; he was in a heavily populated city. From his house I could pick up more than 20 other APs.
There are numerous known weaknesses in WPA, but it's nowhere near as insecure as WEP. I've never seen a WEP AP which couldn't be broken into in a matter of minutes. The amount of time it would take with WPA can vary wildly depending on numerous factors but will typically be much longer.
No, you're just badly misinformed. Volume is the limiting factor, not weight. Even as a liquid, hydrogen contains only 1/4 the energy of gasoline by volume. So my 70 litre fuel tank would have to baloon to 280 litres in order to accommodate the same amount of energy. But if we're using liquid hydrogen I can't have a simple relatively thin walled tank like I can with gasoline; I need an insulated tank which also adds volume and weight. Additionally I need added plumbing in order to convert the liquid hydrogen to a gassesous state prior to use, plus I need a safety system for venting pressure when it heats up despite the added insulation.
Gaseous hydrogen avoids all the complexities and added weight of a liquid hydrogen system, but increases the required volume even more.
Either way, the energy density of hydrogen is a huge problem. Only a fool would claim that hydrogen is better because it's "energy dense".
Slashdot Mirror
Look at the way hamburger 'meat' in America contains on average 5 to 7% beef ONLY nowadays, depending on brand.
Nonsense. Unless you're buying your meat from the rebels living in the sewers of San Angeles, this isn't even remotely true.
"Many other countries" being, like, 5.
Jaywalking is illegal and risky, so if you die because you were jaywalking, you earn a Darwin award.
FTFY.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Wow, so funny!
Thanks!
The best that can happen to,you if you run someone down is blah blah blah blah
What happens to the driver isn't relevant; we were talking about what rights the pedestrian has. Given that jaywalking is illegal in pretty much every jurisdiction in the western world (and probably most of the rest of the planet) only a moron would claim that pedestrians have a right to do it.
But, of course, you're not an idiot, so you know better.
FTFY.
You're the exception. For a few yeats I did part time driver training/assessment, working with people who had already been driving for many years. From observing their habits I can say fairly confidently that defensive driving skills are a rarity amongst the general public. It tends to be more common in those who drive professionally - bus/truck drivers and the like - but even amongst them it's not universal.
If Volvo has a tried and true, doesn't false positive,
It does false positive. And apparently does it often enough that they felt the need to disable it.
How would that have helped? The car detected her and didn't brake,
As he pointed out, they're talking about two different systems. It's hard to parse out, but I think what they're trying to say is that the built in factory system detected her but couldn't break because it was disabled, but Uber's own system didn't detect her.
If that's the case then yeah, maybe reflectors and such would have helped the Uber system detect her and stop. On the other hand if the factory system detected her and theirs didn't then it also means that their system is pretty shit.
Uber didn't have any time at all to stop the car. Uber wasn't driving.
The driver would have had some time if he had been paying attention. Likely less than 6 seconds, but probably enough to at least reduce speed prior to impact.
So we are agreed that she was neither a hero nor a martyr, but rather a random nobody high on weed and meth, randomly walking into traffic?
She has the legal right to walk anywhere, against any light, under any conditions, and even leap out in front of a car in traffic.
ItÃ(TM)s the law.
Kellogg's called and they want you to return your law degree. It was a mixup; you were supposed to receive a decoder ring.
Ah, so it's one of those "my country is the worst country except for all the other countries!" kind of arguments.
In that case, I don't even know what to say about people who speak that way. Seems like they're just overly emotional drama queens.
The US doesn't have to get everything it wants, but that doesn't mean that there aren't some demands which are nonnegotiable.
Kim and his advisers came to the conclusion that Trump and his advisers were looking for an occasion for a limited war - some bombing campaign - somewhere in the world. Ideally, the campaign would take place before the mid term elections. The US military was tasked to look into either bombing some nuclear facilities in NK or bombing some nuclear facilities in Iran.
I understand that the rhetoric coming out of NK often sounds insane, but I seriously doubt that any of the people in charge over there are insane enough to concoct this kind of scenario. It sounds like something dreamed up by Alex Jones.
legitimately pointing out that telling them Kim Jong Un would end up dead like Gaddaffi isn't a smart move.
It wouldn't have been a smart move, but nobody other than idiots like you has ever suggested it. Certainly nobody in the administration ever said it. Only people focused on intentionally misinterpreting every comment which comes out of the White House ever suggested such a thing.
The people who were brought involuntarily into the country as children who were shielded from inhumane deportation to a country they never knew by the prior administration.
I keep hearing from democrats about how the US is an oppressive shithole run by a madman. Yet in the same breath they'll complain that deporting illegal immigrants is somehow "inhumane". Seems to me like you're doing them a favour, no? Free airfare out of an oppressive shithole seems pretty humane to me.
Can you guys at least try to be consistent?
Americans get stereotyped as stupid and fat, the French as rude and cowardly. You can't fight jokes with facts.
"The US is lawless except for all the laws I don't like"
Cool story bro.
And now we've come full circle to the ignorance of the general public. However, despite your excellent demonstration, I still hold that he media isn't much better.
Yes, and the "media" report it in exactly those simplistic terms, which leaves the majority of the public - including, apparently, yourself - with a mistaken belief about what's going on.
The US is a lawless oligarchy.
And with that one short sentence you've done an excellent job of demonstrating that there are Slashdot users who aren't critical thinkers. Well done!
Now where's your list that supports you in any way?
The "wage gap". Racial profiling and disparity in police shootings. "Organic" food. Hell even things like UFO sightings, "psychics", and "hauntings" are regularly reported on credulously in the media with very little attempt by anyone to debunk the nonsense.
Don't get me wrong; I agree that the average person is shit at telling the difference between fact and fiction, I just don't see the media being that much better. It's like a wrestling match between a guy with no arms and his opponent with no legs.
Ok so a 4x difference in volume is important according to you. So hydrogen is > 4x better than batteries by volume. case closed.
If volume is as important as you suggest where do they put all those batteries.
That's a very good point, but there are a couple of key factors which significantly change the equation:
1. Efficiency of battery to motor is a lot better than hydrogen to fuel cell to motor. The efficiency of a good fuel cell is around 50%. That means roughly half of the volume of gas you're carrying around is wasted when compared to a battery.
2. The fuel cell itself adds volume above what would be required in a battery electric.
3. Fuel cell vehicles still require some batteries in order to take advantage of regenerative breaking.
4. Battery volume is different than hydrogen tank volume in that batteries can be made to roughly fit any shape and contour. Hydrogen tanks have to be roughly cylindrical. You can design the vehicle around the tanks so that they don't waste too much space, but it is much easier to fit batteries into a vehicle vs trying to fit a vehicle around hydrogen tanks.
All of this is nicely illustrated in the real world by the hydrogen vehicles on the market today, such as the Toyota Mirai. The two hydrogen tanks on it weigh more than a full gas tank does in my much larger ICE vehicle, and take up a significant amount of space, yet they deliver leas range than either my gas tank or a Tesla battery.
The lower overall system efficiency of hydrogen (including production, compression, and transportation losses) is also pretty bad compared to batteries, but we don't even have to go that far to see that batteries have a distint advantage.
There are certainly cases where hydrogen may hold an advantage; such as home energy storage and perhaps powering large vehicles like trucks, buses, boats, etc. The larger the vehicle, the less of a factor volume tends to be. But we were talking about cars and, at least in that scope, the energy density of hydrogen is a distinct disadvantage.
He wasn't in a rural area; he was in a heavily populated city. From his house I could pick up more than 20 other APs.
There are numerous known weaknesses in WPA, but it's nowhere near as insecure as WEP. I've never seen a WEP AP which couldn't be broken into in a matter of minutes. The amount of time it would take with WPA can vary wildly depending on numerous factors but will typically be much longer.
No, you're just badly misinformed. Volume is the limiting factor, not weight. Even as a liquid, hydrogen contains only 1/4 the energy of gasoline by volume. So my 70 litre fuel tank would have to baloon to 280 litres in order to accommodate the same amount of energy. But if we're using liquid hydrogen I can't have a simple relatively thin walled tank like I can with gasoline; I need an insulated tank which also adds volume and weight. Additionally I need added plumbing in order to convert the liquid hydrogen to a gassesous state prior to use, plus I need a safety system for venting pressure when it heats up despite the added insulation.
Gaseous hydrogen avoids all the complexities and added weight of a liquid hydrogen system, but increases the required volume even more.
Either way, the energy density of hydrogen is a huge problem. Only a fool would claim that hydrogen is better because it's "energy dense".