let's say you win a battle by wounding everyone. Guess what, you now have thousands of prisoners that you need to care for
Kill an enemy soldier, you piss off his mates and they come for you. Wound an enemy soldier, two of his mates carry him off to get treatment. You've just reduced the enemy fighting force by far more than just killing someone. They're also now looking at their mate that's lost a leg, or an arm, or his testicles, and is screaming in agony, and they're thinking, "Shit, hope I get hit clean in the head and go quickly"
Not to mention that winning a battle tends to leave you with a lot of prisoners anyway, and if many of them are wounded it doesn't make that much difference.
Wounded enemy are still capable of being plenty lethal
At an individual level, absolutely. At the level of a battle? Nah. At the level of a campaign? Fuck no. Wound half the opposition and they'll have full trains heading back home for treatment and recuperation; really fucking dangerous to you, that.
5.56 was designed to put a number of high-velocity, low-recoils shots on target with decent accuracy and is plenty capable of killing you
Well, the SAS disagree with you - not least because the assumptions underpinning 'wound the enemy' were false with a specific enemy: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
I'll trust the SAS on military matters ahead of you, sorry.
law abiding citizens aren't allowed to have guns in the UK
Hmm. So I am proving you wrong by being a law abiding citizen that owns a firearm or am I proving you right be owning a firearm and thus being a bad guy?
The accident occurred on a well lit road though, so quite a long way from a 'perfect dark' condition.
In a real 'perfect dark' condition with cloud cover, no artificial lighting, no reflected city lights off the cloud, you wouldn't see 30m away. You're not an owl.
I was out at 4am this morning taking photographs. Full cloud cover, no moon, no light sources within a couple of miles and 8 minute exposures were coming out under-exposed. Despite this I could see because the city 20 miles away put out enough light pollution that enough bounced off the clouds to let me determine landscape and major features.
Take that city away, I'd have been in trouble. But yes, to your main point, looking at the camera screen killed my vision for a couple of minutes until my eyes readjusted.
almost all of the things you'd need to avoid hitting at night aren't flat black with no lights or reflectors
Neither was the woman with her bicycle.
Even if she had been, your eyes notice a moving blob of shadow.
This pedestrian cyclist was in solid black with zero reflective hardware on the bike and was practically begging to get hit by a car
Her skin wasn't black. Her hair wasn't black. Her bike was pink and had shiny silver wheels. She was wearing blue trousers/jeans. She had white trainers/shoes on. She had a white bag. Did you even see the fucking video?
She wasn't begging for fucking anything, she just had the misfortune to live in a country full of selfish cunts like you.
it's insanely foolish for ANYONE to be walking in a roadway at night in a solid black outfit
Luckily she wasn't. Even if she had been, it's reasonable to try and avoid killing her. Well, for most of us.
I will never swerve on a two lane road. That's a conscious decision I've already made.
You're a fucking shit driver then, get off the road.
People swerve safely a lot. A hell of a lot. Often at high speed. They know how their car handles and they maintain situational awareness that lets them know whether the other lane is clear.
As an example,
It can easily get you killed, through a roll, head on, or into a tree, building, fire hydrant
If you can't swerve without rolling your car, learn to drive. If you can't tell whether there's an oncoming vehicle that makes swerving dangerous then you don't know what's happening on the road. Learn to drive. If you can hit a tree, building or fire hydrant by swerving into the empty lane next to you, you've definitely done it wrong.
this was a death caused by pure negligence on the dead person's part
Negligence is the wrong term, and anyway, the death was caused by multiple factors including the inability of the automated car to detect and avoid the obstruction in the road.
Humans use visual sensors exclusively for driving,
Hmm, no. They use sound too, and you'd be amazed how much you use whatever the fuck the sense is that tells you whether you're moving or not - and not just in the direction of the car.
I sure as shit can't see that my rear tyres have no grip, I can, erm, sense it. I can't see that my brakes have locked, I sense it. I can't see that I just hit a woman with a bike, I was looking down at my phone and only sensed it.
humans would have had the exact same accident.
Possibly. The video footage shared is very inconclusive on that front. It doesn't sufficiently show reality, and I'm fairly sure a human would have seen her in time to respond to the danger.
It's also clearly not showing human levels of perception. She went from invisible to present, with nary a hint that she was there. Pedestrians don't do that, and people pushing a bike definitely don't do that. Your headlights reflect, and your brain is hardwired to spot movement.
You may not be able to determine what you've seen, but that's why you slow down until you're sure.
You're talking total shit. I'm getting old and I've slowed down a lot and my reactions are still half of that. I used to have sub-200ms reactions and trust me, I was no racing driver or fighter pilot. Those guys were fast.
Incidentally whichever resource you quoted is as full of shit as you are. The Highway Code does not use 3 seconds for driver reaction time - see for yourself at https://assets.digital.cabinet...
Oh look. 0.67 seconds including thinking time. Or what you claim is 'as fast as it gets'. Not to mention the subsequent stopping distance assumes no ABS.
In this instance the car had substantially less time to react but my statement holds: If it takes you a whole fucking second to react then stop driving. Get off the road.
Who the fuck takes a full second to react to something? If your reaction time is a second when driving, do yourself a favour (let alone the rest of us) and sell your car. You're not safe to be on the road.
So if the pedestrian entered the road from 59 feet or less, a human wouldn't even react until the car had traveled 59 feet.
In the time it takes to travel 59 feet at 40mph I can react, change lanes, be past the person I didn't hit and be looking in the mirror wondering what sort of idiot they are.
I know this because it happened about 5 weeks ago, although it was a fox not a person and I was doing 60mph not 40.
Incidentally don't go quoting government driver education statistics at me because in the UK 'thinking time' is only half a second, not a full second, and when a person steps in front of your car you oddly enough don't fucking stop to think, you react.
Slashdot Mirror
Strange, you appear to think we should be scared of him or something.
It's not too late to close a golf course in Aberdeen.
The Brits are very aware of this, which is why many people (including his own defence team) are recommending he faces trial in the UK.
He will at least get a fair trial here.
let's say you win a battle by wounding everyone. Guess what, you now have thousands of prisoners that you need to care for
Kill an enemy soldier, you piss off his mates and they come for you.
Wound an enemy soldier, two of his mates carry him off to get treatment. You've just reduced the enemy fighting force by far more than just killing someone. They're also now looking at their mate that's lost a leg, or an arm, or his testicles, and is screaming in agony, and they're thinking, "Shit, hope I get hit clean in the head and go quickly"
Not to mention that winning a battle tends to leave you with a lot of prisoners anyway, and if many of them are wounded it doesn't make that much difference.
Wounded enemy are still capable of being plenty lethal
At an individual level, absolutely. At the level of a battle? Nah. At the level of a campaign? Fuck no. Wound half the opposition and they'll have full trains heading back home for treatment and recuperation; really fucking dangerous to you, that.
5.56 was designed to put a number of high-velocity, low-recoils shots on target with decent accuracy and is plenty capable of killing you
Well, the SAS disagree with you - not least because the assumptions underpinning 'wound the enemy' were false with a specific enemy:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
I'll trust the SAS on military matters ahead of you, sorry.
law abiding citizens aren't allowed to have guns in the UK
Hmm. So I am proving you wrong by being a law abiding citizen that owns a firearm or am I proving you right be owning a firearm and thus being a bad guy?
I'm confused.
Hmm. I play computer games, so by simple definition I must be a gamer. Why the fuck do you think that's my identity though?
Me, I judge people by their actions. Yours are scummy.
There's way too many factors for me to judge. I'll wait to see what the Uber tech's say.
Uber's techs will say whatever the fuck their lawyers tell them to say.
The NTSB report will be the useful and interesting reading.
The accident occurred on a well lit road though, so quite a long way from a 'perfect dark' condition.
In a real 'perfect dark' condition with cloud cover, no artificial lighting, no reflected city lights off the cloud, you wouldn't see 30m away. You're not an owl.
I was out at 4am this morning taking photographs. Full cloud cover, no moon, no light sources within a couple of miles and 8 minute exposures were coming out under-exposed. Despite this I could see because the city 20 miles away put out enough light pollution that enough bounced off the clouds to let me determine landscape and major features.
Take that city away, I'd have been in trouble. But yes, to your main point, looking at the camera screen killed my vision for a couple of minutes until my eyes readjusted.
Umm. Why?
Why the fuck do you care whether someone thinks they're a gamer or not? What makes them scum? Why are you advocating painful murder of them?
Sounds like a scummy attitude to me.
Yikes. That's interesting, and shows that visibility was likely superb - no human would've got close to hitting her.
Yeah, the 'driver' of the car had an impossible task. Let the car do all the driving, but stay fully alert at all times? Just not going to happen.
almost all of the things you'd need to avoid hitting at night aren't flat black with no lights or reflectors
Neither was the woman with her bicycle.
Even if she had been, your eyes notice a moving blob of shadow.
This pedestrian cyclist was in solid black with zero reflective hardware on the bike and was practically begging to get hit by a car
Her skin wasn't black. Her hair wasn't black. Her bike was pink and had shiny silver wheels. She was wearing blue trousers/jeans. She had white trainers/shoes on. She had a white bag. Did you even see the fucking video?
She wasn't begging for fucking anything, she just had the misfortune to live in a country full of selfish cunts like you.
it's insanely foolish for ANYONE to be walking in a roadway at night in a solid black outfit
Luckily she wasn't. Even if she had been, it's reasonable to try and avoid killing her. Well, for most of us.
I will never swerve on a two lane road. That's a conscious decision I've already made.
You're a fucking shit driver then, get off the road.
People swerve safely a lot. A hell of a lot. Often at high speed. They know how their car handles and they maintain situational awareness that lets them know whether the other lane is clear.
As an example,
It can easily get you killed, through a roll, head on, or into a tree, building, fire hydrant
If you can't swerve without rolling your car, learn to drive.
If you can't tell whether there's an oncoming vehicle that makes swerving dangerous then you don't know what's happening on the road. Learn to drive.
If you can hit a tree, building or fire hydrant by swerving into the empty lane next to you, you've definitely done it wrong.
In short, you need to learn to drive.
Maybe you should buy a car that can do more than go in a straight fucking line.
this was a death caused by pure negligence on the dead person's part
Negligence is the wrong term, and anyway, the death was caused by multiple factors including the inability of the automated car to detect and avoid the obstruction in the road.
Get a fucking grip, kid
Wait? You're 15?
Humans use visual sensors exclusively for driving,
Hmm, no. They use sound too, and you'd be amazed how much you use whatever the fuck the sense is that tells you whether you're moving or not - and not just in the direction of the car.
I sure as shit can't see that my rear tyres have no grip, I can, erm, sense it. I can't see that my brakes have locked, I sense it. I can't see that I just hit a woman with a bike, I was looking down at my phone and only sensed it.
humans would have had the exact same accident.
Possibly. The video footage shared is very inconclusive on that front. It doesn't sufficiently show reality, and I'm fairly sure a human would have seen her in time to respond to the danger.
Since people found out that they can't run that fast.
It's fast enough to kill someone, that makes it quite high enough.
Not just me that thought this then. Interesting.
It's also clearly not showing human levels of perception. She went from invisible to present, with nary a hint that she was there. Pedestrians don't do that, and people pushing a bike definitely don't do that. Your headlights reflect, and your brain is hardwired to spot movement.
You may not be able to determine what you've seen, but that's why you slow down until you're sure.
let alone how to strip and assemble one
No, for that you need http://store.steampowered.com/...
One day I'm going to work out how to put that Flak 88 back together again.
Maybe she doesn't understand what the hell a 'crosswalk' is. Sounds like something John Cleese would incorporate into a comedy sketch.
Is it walking when miffed? A curious form of ambulation involving placing your feet perpendicular to each other as you progress?
Sounds harsh on the knees.
Since I don't own a donkey I think we can at last agree on something.
I didn't link to a shitty study that can't get basic facts right, I linked to the primary source. Oops.
0.7 sec -- about as fast as it gets
You're talking total shit. I'm getting old and I've slowed down a lot and my reactions are still half of that. I used to have sub-200ms reactions and trust me, I was no racing driver or fighter pilot. Those guys were fast.
Incidentally whichever resource you quoted is as full of shit as you are. The Highway Code does not use 3 seconds for driver reaction time - see for yourself at https://assets.digital.cabinet...
Oh look. 0.67 seconds including thinking time. Or what you claim is 'as fast as it gets'. Not to mention the subsequent stopping distance assumes no ABS.
In this instance the car had substantially less time to react but my statement holds: If it takes you a whole fucking second to react then stop driving. Get off the road.
the safe driving speed is the posted speed limit
The safe driving speed is only ever coincidentally the posted speed limit.
You don't appear to be safe to allow on the roads.
The wording you quoted says nothing about ownership, it says you can't transact in a currency that was issued after 9th January.
Isn't 9th January when Venezuela announced and issued the digital currency? You can't own it before then because it didn't exist.
If you bought some last week then according to the sentence you quoted you're in the clear, but I haven't read the actual executive order.
The car has another option available to it: Drive fucking slower when there may be pedestrians.
a legal system that has coddled pedestrians for too long
Well aren't you a selfish cunt, demanding your right to fling a couple of tons of metal around without care for the safety of others.
Who the fuck takes a full second to react to something? If your reaction time is a second when driving, do yourself a favour (let alone the rest of us) and sell your car. You're not safe to be on the road.
So if the pedestrian entered the road from 59 feet or less, a human wouldn't even react until the car had traveled 59 feet.
In the time it takes to travel 59 feet at 40mph I can react, change lanes, be past the person I didn't hit and be looking in the mirror wondering what sort of idiot they are.
I know this because it happened about 5 weeks ago, although it was a fox not a person and I was doing 60mph not 40.
Incidentally don't go quoting government driver education statistics at me because in the UK 'thinking time' is only half a second, not a full second, and when a person steps in front of your car you oddly enough don't fucking stop to think, you react.