That's one of the reasons for the move away from wood to plastic pallets, I know of no bug that can live inside a plastic pallet. Plastic is also a lot more durable so you can use it a lot more times before it fails and needs to be disposed of.
Perhaps at a speed appropriate to the road, the weather, the time of day, the other traffic, the proximity of junctions for which you may need to stop.
You know, the same as most people that get safely through a day driving.
If you absolutely definitively want a single fixed speed at which we're safe while you're driving I can only suggest 0mph
Go back to the HP 150 from 1983.
That PC had a touch screen using the same tech, and it was a bad idea at that time, the idea of touch screens in some solutions haven't become better. It's OK to have a touch screen on a phone or small handheld device, but in a vehicle in motion it's a traffic hazard. On a PC with a mouse and keyboard it's just stupid.
I preferred Quake.
And too bad you don't know your Radioactive Man!!!
Bingo. You're absolutely correct.
"I've got three witnesses that put you there, DNA evidence, and some video with someone wearing jeans and a white hoodie, just like you wear, though the face isn't visable. You'll get the death penalty. If you give me a confession, we can get it down to manslaughter. First offense. You'll probably just get probation. Here's some paper."
You might like to look up the difference between coercion and deception. One of them is almost always a crime; the other, not so much.
Amen: You want controls you identify by touch to do common things so your eyes do NOT leave the road.
If THAT is "too expensive", maybe raise the price of the car by ten bucks or so?
No Net Neutrality for YOU! Pay EXTRA for Hulu!
Ok, who left the door open and let the union guy in?
You mean, like, when you're driving in a rainy night with the oncoming traffic's lights reflecting off the wet ground?
This is some Scandinavian country, not the US.
And DVD drives? CD drives?
Getting your hand on a powerful laser diode ain't so hard. Thought it would admittedly be easier to just replace that lens...
Yes there are good reasons for going to Mars. Greatest among them is to safeguard the species from any catestrophic impacts on Earth they would extinguish us.
No potential impact to Earth would render it less hospitable to life than Mars is. For speicies survival a set of fortified underground bunkers/mini-cities would be far more practical -- and unlike Mars, we do have the tech to do that.
The suggestion that we currently have the technology to colonize Mars is, in brief, ridiculous. No human has been move than 500 miles from Earth's surface in over four decades, and the farthest we've ever sent a human is under 250,000 miles; at its closest, Mars is 38,000,000 miles away. We do not know how to safely get a human being that distance through interplanetary space, and the first few people we try to send are quite likely to die.
That investment of blood and treasure might be worthwhile if there was something useful for humans to do when they got there, but there isn't. We'll get better scientific results by building and sending better robots.
There is no practical reason to send humans to Mars in the near-term -- say, next five centuries. Especially not when all of our resources are needed over the next century or so to put human civilization on a sustainable footing. We can probably do some useful stuff with humans in Earth orbit and maybe on Luna, but deep space is for robots.
The only justification to put humans on Mars is some vague hand-waving about "inspiration" -- i.e., it's a huge performance art project. Maybe someday humanity can afford that. But not now.
Yes, Sheldon. Now go play with your trains.
All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin
