Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 1) 362

Why should death and serious injury be the deciding factor?

ewibble and Jane Q. Public make good points, but mine is a lot more prosiac.

It's simple enough: The statistics available for serious injury accidents in the USA is detailed enough to chart known BAC levels and get a good idea of how various levels really affect driver's tendencies to get into serious accidents.

That data is simply unavailable for minor and no injury accidents, and we're already making it such that 'busted for DUI' is the biggest 'cost' for low BAC drivers, and it can be a real moneymaker for police departments.

Comment Re:If "yes," then it's not self-driving (Score 1) 362

Flying car lanes would wind up being violated to shave off "precious" seconds.

You still have to consider that, unlike with ground traffic, you have a lot more 'lanes' in the air. Ergo, traffic jams are much less likely unless everybody wants to land at the same spot. Possible, but less likely.

Other than that, it appears that you didn't realize that I was talking about the collision-avoidance problem, not the 'requirements' for giving everybody a flying car. I wasn't disagreeing with the need for self-driving flying cars, I was disagreeing that the problem is harder in the air.

Comment Re:Not completely self-driving (Score 1) 362

Well, the first rule of a self-driving car should be 'don't hit anything'. The second should probably be 'don't impede traffic'.

So yeah, avoiding you should be one of their primary jobs.

The problem that I was pointing out, that the USAF is having with drones is that in some ways there's a 'valley' where you have too much automation for the operator to pay sufficient attention, yet not enough to handle all situations, such that you still need the operator.

Imagine a job where you stare at something. As long as the object does nothing, you do nothing. If the object does something, you have 5 seconds to hit a button. The object normally does something about once every other 8 hour shift.

Ideally you'd replace said human with automation ASAP, because the average human is going to suck at that job.

Comment Re:Containers.. (Score 1) 44

I'm using WebVirtMgr for KVMs (libvirt) but it doesn't do LXCs, though libvirt does. Proxmox does both, but I don't want to pay for it (at my scale, it doesn't make sense) ... what else is out there, something which can handle both KVMs and LXCs and hopefully LXDs even, although if I want that I'll probably just use a KVM

Comment Re:Given the depth of surveillance (Score 1) 54

My guess is the robo-call companies pay them big bucks to harass everyone, so the telcos have no motivation to do shit about the problem.

You can also pay for the privilege of not being harassed. You can block ten numbers, you can block numbers without caller ID, and you can get caller ID. And you can pay for each of these features.

Comment Re:Do pilots still need licenses? (Score 1) 362

What part of autonomy is missing?

It can't get you to your destination if your destination is off road, if there is significant construction in between, significant rain, snow or ice on the road, etc...

Right now it's equivalent to a very safe 'fair weather' driver. The type that stays home if conditions aren't optimal.

Comment Re:Responsibility belongs to the driver . . . (Score 1) 362

Nonsense, the insurance would never get shifted onto the manufacturer, because maintenance happens after that, and is part of the accident risk.

Over in England, the cost for insuring a young/new driver is apparently so out of whack that car companies are selling their cars with 3 years of full coverage insurance included. Now, yes, these are cheap cars of the type that aren't likely to do as much damage even if they hit something else, but the manufacturer is already including the maintenance and insurance for the first 3 years in the price.

At a big enough discount that there's apparently not much of a 2nd hand market for these cars.

Comment Re:Really? Come on now, you should know better. (Score 1) 362

What I wanted to show by bringing up this example is that in current airplane design, there are circumstances in which automation is known to fail (in this case, unreliable/defective sensors). In these circumstances, the systems are designed to give control back to the pilot. The rationale for this is quite clear.

Yes, like I said, it's to make the passengers feel good. Because as we have seen, the pilots depend on the same sensors that the autopilot does. Airliners aren't fighters, you don't fly by the seat of your pants. By the time your inner-ear-gyro tells you that there's a problem, you're already screwed. Which was precisely what happened.

How in the shit are pitot tubes still icing anyway? Why is heating the tube not a thing which works? Heating elements are not new technology. We should really be able to manage this by now.

Comment Re:I have said it before (Score 1) 384

you mean the basic engineering error where the project manager wouldn't sign off due to the mistake made in concrete formulation so he was fired and a more lenient approver installed in his place?

How about the basic engineering error of siting a reactor somewhere even ancient Japanese could have told you was a mistake? How about the basic engineering error of not protecting your on-site backup power, which is mandatory for maintenance? How about the basic engineering error of storing spent fuel rods on top of reactors? All of those are more significant than the formulation of the concrete.

Slashdot Top Deals

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Working...