The reaction time will become much smaller. We used to call it PIEV (Perception, Intellection, Emotion, Volition), but recently has been referred to as PRT (Perception-Reaction Time). Both terms are explained in this paper. In a nutshell, though, this process can take 1.5-2.5 seconds depending on the person, circumstances, et c. That doesn't count the stopping distance, which varies widely by person. Total PRT and Stopping distance from 65 mph will vary from 350-450 feet, depending on circumstances. As PRT approaches zero, the total distance traveled approaches the stopping distance, probably about 200 ft, depending on the vehicle.
Also, the post you were responding to assumes that the cars can communicate
Vehicles are definitely designed to last only through the warranty period, you can see it again and again.
I really must disagree with this particular point. My wife and I have three rigs right now. One has about 130,000 miles, another 180,000 miles and the pickup has 250,000 miles. These cars are a Subaru, an Acura and a Chevy, respectively. All of them have original motors, and the only one with primarily highway miles is the pickup. The only one that has had a problem directly related to the motor is the Acura, which had a cracked radiator at about 100,000 miles. All I can see is that cars are lasting much longer than they used to.
Every car that I've owned newer than about 1990 has been this way. Hell's bells, my dad just replaced a running 2000 Impala that had 310,000 miles.
I know that I've only shown a few examples, but I also read a Consumer Reports article a few years ago in which they discussed, with their own statistically large database, that cars have become much more reliable. There were also a few articles a month or two ago about improvements in quality and reliability over the last 5 years.
So, talk of committing an illegal act in order to convince another to initiate lethal violence upon a third party is at the same level as an offensive rant? No. Mind that while the US constitution does protect your right to speak, it doesn't shield you from consequences should your speech cause harm.
Why is refusing to provide such information not also a real solution? I would no more give access to my e-mail than I would provide the details of conversations between me and my wife.
I think you may be misunderstanding the choke reference. I'm pretty sure that slim wasn't talking about a manual choke. Almost every carbureted engine had a choke. They were bimetal jobs that adjusted automatically as the engine warmed. Even fuel-injected engines enrichen the fuel mixture while the engine is cold.
Still doesn't take care of bicyclists. As AvitarX points out below, you would need to have a long green phase to make this workable. The trouble is that this leaves pedestrians waiting a long time. If a driver or pedestrian waits too long, then they tend to take chances and cross against the light.
Bunk.
The first problem is the cost. It's already ridiculously expensive to build a road, and now you want us to make it even bigger to accommodate your childish need to drive at "Ludicrous Speed."
The second problem is design. Do you know how much effort goes into the design of roads? We start with "design designations," including design speed. All of the curves, both horizontal and vertical are designed with this design speed in mind. Raising the design speed will generally raise the cost.
The third and fourth problems are both related to safety:
What happens when you blow a tire at 180 MPH? Bad Things.
Still another problem is with the addition of a single lane. The slowest driver will necessarily define the speed of the lane. Therefore, there has to be an escape, which means adding a second, very expensive lane, or you have to allow this high speed traffic to mix with the adjacent slower-moving traffic.
I've seen this suggestion before, and it's as stupid now as it was then.
I'm a civil engineer specializing in transportation. I was at a training lecture a few fears ago in which the lecturer suggested that freeway capacities will double with fully automatic cars.
I also saw a simulation a few years ago that showed the mixing of cross-traffic as you describe. The major limiting factor for intersection capacity is the intersection controls. Replacing the controls with such a system would increase the vehicle capacity through the intersection phenomenally. The trouble, though, is such a system would leave no room for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Probably not, unless you live at a pretty high latitude. If it's not cloudy and doesn't cool off from the current balmy temperature of -35F, then I'll be out taking pictures on Sunday.
I'm pretty sure that snowfall in Anchorage is setting records. There was an unusual storm out west that left Nome, Kotzebue and a few other towns in a bad way. Whether using "normal" in the casual sense that I meant or the forecasting statistical method that you seem to prefer, this is not normal. I'm not trying to convey an underlying message. The weather here always has odd extremes. It's just part of life.
Los Anchorage. Since I've never been in southeast, and only briefly to the west, I wondered if this attitude was just in the interior; apparently not.:-)
mmm. Yup, it's normally cold and snowy, but it's more so than normal right now. The snow that southcentral Alaska is getting right now is much heavier than normal. In Fairbanks, we've had rain in November two years running. I can't remember getting rain any later than the middle of October. The weather is definitely unusual, but weather is dominated by La Niña this year. Sorry for the offtopic remark.
Given that Israel also funds their own military research, your point has its own multple. Double? Triple? Who knows? I suggested above that there is a return, but that return is difficult to quantify. While I don't support foreign aid, do you have some support that aid to Israel gives a return?
That's not quite true. Some of those funds go into research indiginous to Israel. As this article makes oblique mention of, Israel does its own research and modifies the weapons that it recieves. Some of these improvements may make their way into arms wielded by the USA.
I want to stress that I don't support military or other financial support of any nation. I just want these facts to be straight.
You're forgetting that I was responding to a particular fact. As I suggested in another response, I don't support aid to Israel or any other nation. Where assertions are made, they ought to be supported by numbers. Dutchwizzman made an assertion that isn't supported by the apparent facts.
As my participation in Slashdot discussions increases, my opinion of contributions by ACs goes steadily down. Did you give any thought to your response?
Hereis both support and dissent for Slasho81's position on where US aid to Israel goes. After looking at the link, and searching a bit more, I'd like to point out that Isreael's military imports far exceed the USA's.foreign aid to Israel. I don't necessarily support foreign aid to Israel, but I would like the facts of the support to be clear.
The average Israeli gets more USA federal tax dollars spent on them than the average USA citizen.
Can you support this? I went looking, and it seems that Israel receives about $3,000,000,000 in aid. With a population of about 7.8 million people, this works out to less than $400/person.
This page, the 2011 federal budget was about $3.5E12. If you focus on the social programs, retirement benefits and highway spending, then these account for about 68% of the federal budget. Dividing this total by a population of about 310 million people, I arrive at a total spending figure of about $7,700 per US citizen.
I've double-checked everything and can't see where I've made a mistake, other than in the arbitrary decision to exclude all defense, research and interest payments.
Now I just wish that *my* salary would move back up to 2008 levels. To be fair, I was laid off in 2009 and needed to change specialties in order to find work. Fortunately, I have an immediate opportunity to move up, and may be able to get myself back where I was within a year.
We grow that food with fertilizers made from imported petroleum.
Close, but not quite. Inorganic fertilizer is generally made with natural gas. We'd probably be in the biggest trouble over the electronics that we make so little of today.
Slashdot Mirror
. . .drinking buddy about his transplants. Both corneas and a liver.
Was the liver transplant so that he could keep on going?
Not if it means that the average speed of transportation goes way down.
Current projections expect that overall capacity with full automation would double over current capacity, assuming that allowed speeds don't change.
The reaction time will become much smaller. We used to call it PIEV (Perception, Intellection, Emotion, Volition), but recently has been referred to as PRT (Perception-Reaction Time). Both terms are explained in this paper. In a nutshell, though, this process can take 1.5-2.5 seconds depending on the person, circumstances, et c. That doesn't count the stopping distance, which varies widely by person. Total PRT and Stopping distance from 65 mph will vary from 350-450 feet, depending on circumstances. As PRT approaches zero, the total distance traveled approaches the stopping distance, probably about 200 ft, depending on the vehicle.
Also, the post you were responding to assumes that the cars can communicate
Vehicles are definitely designed to last only through the warranty period, you can see it again and again.
I really must disagree with this particular point. My wife and I have three rigs right now. One has about 130,000 miles, another 180,000 miles and the pickup has 250,000 miles. These cars are a Subaru, an Acura and a Chevy, respectively. All of them have original motors, and the only one with primarily highway miles is the pickup. The only one that has had a problem directly related to the motor is the Acura, which had a cracked radiator at about 100,000 miles. All I can see is that cars are lasting much longer than they used to.
Every car that I've owned newer than about 1990 has been this way. Hell's bells, my dad just replaced a running 2000 Impala that had 310,000 miles.
I know that I've only shown a few examples, but I also read a Consumer Reports article a few years ago in which they discussed, with their own statistically large database, that cars have become much more reliable. There were also a few articles a month or two ago about improvements in quality and reliability over the last 5 years.
So, talk of committing an illegal act in order to convince another to initiate lethal violence upon a third party is at the same level as an offensive rant? No. Mind that while the US constitution does protect your right to speak, it doesn't shield you from consequences should your speech cause harm.
Why is refusing to provide such information not also a real solution? I would no more give access to my e-mail than I would provide the details of conversations between me and my wife.
http://newsminer.com/view/full_story/17259808/article-Classic-collection--Book-provides-detail---context-to-Fairbanks%E2%80%99-automobile-museum About halfway down the article is discussion of Robert Sheldon. He built a car, having only seen pictures. Not quite loading a horse with a straight six, but I was fairly impressed.
Sharon Cissna is a Democrat.
I think you may be misunderstanding the choke reference. I'm pretty sure that slim wasn't talking about a manual choke. Almost every carbureted engine had a choke. They were bimetal jobs that adjusted automatically as the engine warmed. Even fuel-injected engines enrichen the fuel mixture while the engine is cold.
Still doesn't take care of bicyclists. As AvitarX points out below, you would need to have a long green phase to make this workable. The trouble is that this leaves pedestrians waiting a long time. If a driver or pedestrian waits too long, then they tend to take chances and cross against the light.
Bunk. The first problem is the cost. It's already ridiculously expensive to build a road, and now you want us to make it even bigger to accommodate your childish need to drive at "Ludicrous Speed."
The second problem is design. Do you know how much effort goes into the design of roads? We start with "design designations," including design speed. All of the curves, both horizontal and vertical are designed with this design speed in mind. Raising the design speed will generally raise the cost.
The third and fourth problems are both related to safety:
What happens when you blow a tire at 180 MPH? Bad Things.
Still another problem is with the addition of a single lane. The slowest driver will necessarily define the speed of the lane. Therefore, there has to be an escape, which means adding a second, very expensive lane, or you have to allow this high speed traffic to mix with the adjacent slower-moving traffic.
I've seen this suggestion before, and it's as stupid now as it was then.
I'm a civil engineer specializing in transportation. I was at a training lecture a few fears ago in which the lecturer suggested that freeway capacities will double with fully automatic cars.
I also saw a simulation a few years ago that showed the mixing of cross-traffic as you describe. The major limiting factor for intersection capacity is the intersection controls. Replacing the controls with such a system would increase the vehicle capacity through the intersection phenomenally. The trouble, though, is such a system would leave no room for pedestrians and bicyclists.
. . .or abused.
Probably not, unless you live at a pretty high latitude. If it's not cloudy and doesn't cool off from the current balmy temperature of -35F, then I'll be out taking pictures on Sunday.
nope:
http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/10519399/article-Weather-records-fell-like-rain-in-November
http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/16641072/article-2011-Novemburrrrr-in-Fairbanks-one-to-remember
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/11/145020767/alaska-town-endures-record-snow-fall
I'm pretty sure that snowfall in Anchorage is setting records. There was an unusual storm out west that left Nome, Kotzebue and a few other towns in a bad way. Whether using "normal" in the casual sense that I meant or the forecasting statistical method that you seem to prefer, this is not normal. I'm not trying to convey an underlying message. The weather here always has odd extremes. It's just part of life.
but since Anchorage isn't really part of Alaska
Los Anchorage. Since I've never been in southeast, and only briefly to the west, I wondered if this attitude was just in the interior; apparently not. :-)
mmm. Yup, it's normally cold and snowy, but it's more so than normal right now. The snow that southcentral Alaska is getting right now is much heavier than normal. In Fairbanks, we've had rain in November two years running. I can't remember getting rain any later than the middle of October. The weather is definitely unusual, but weather is dominated by La Niña this year. Sorry for the offtopic remark.
Given that Israel also funds their own military research, your point has its own multple. Double? Triple? Who knows? I suggested above that there is a return, but that return is difficult to quantify. While I don't support foreign aid, do you have some support that aid to Israel gives a return?
I like your response better than mine above.
Protip: Don't post bullshit pseudo-statistics to Slashdot - we guys love our calculators.
I keep a calculator right next to my laptop. I'll leave you to guess which I use more often. :-)
funding 100% American arms production
That's not quite true. Some of those funds go into research indiginous to Israel. As this article makes oblique mention of, Israel does its own research and modifies the weapons that it recieves. Some of these improvements may make their way into arms wielded by the USA.
I want to stress that I don't support military or other financial support of any nation. I just want these facts to be straight.
You're forgetting that I was responding to a particular fact. As I suggested in another response, I don't support aid to Israel or any other nation. Where assertions are made, they ought to be supported by numbers. Dutchwizzman made an assertion that isn't supported by the apparent facts.
As my participation in Slashdot discussions increases, my opinion of contributions by ACs goes steadily down. Did you give any thought to your response?
Hereis both support and dissent for Slasho81's position on where US aid to Israel goes. After looking at the link, and searching a bit more, I'd like to point out that Isreael's military imports far exceed the USA's .foreign aid to Israel. I don't necessarily support foreign aid to Israel, but I would like the facts of the support to be clear.
The average Israeli gets more USA federal tax dollars spent on them than the average USA citizen.
Can you support this? I went looking, and it seems that Israel receives about $3,000,000,000 in aid. With a population of about 7.8 million people, this works out to less than $400/person.
This page, the 2011 federal budget was about $3.5E12. If you focus on the social programs, retirement benefits and highway spending, then these account for about 68% of the federal budget. Dividing this total by a population of about 310 million people, I arrive at a total spending figure of about $7,700 per US citizen.
I've double-checked everything and can't see where I've made a mistake, other than in the arbitrary decision to exclude all defense, research and interest payments.
Now I just wish that *my* salary would move back up to 2008 levels. To be fair, I was laid off in 2009 and needed to change specialties in order to find work. Fortunately, I have an immediate opportunity to move up, and may be able to get myself back where I was within a year.
We grow that food with fertilizers made from imported petroleum.
Close, but not quite. Inorganic fertilizer is generally made with natural gas. We'd probably be in the biggest trouble over the electronics that we make so little of today.