Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:The problem... (Score 1) 111 111

by Anne Thwacks (#50017217) Attached to: Study Suggests That HUD Tech May Actually Reduce Driving Safety
you shouldn't show speed,

Different people obviously have very diffferent requirements. In the UK, you can be fined huge amounts of money for a small excess of speed, so speed is important. If you are an older driver, the time taken to refocus from the dashboard to infinity (or vice versa) can be very long. However, spotting moose or crazy drivers is probably automatic (not that there are many moose on the road in the UK).

The question is, is it better than people at spotting small children running out from behind stationary buses?

If not, then it should avoid attempting to spot any problem, as it will lead to drivers relying on it the way they rely on satnav instead of knowing how to get anywhere.

The driver should be able to decide what is critical information. Since it is possible for the driver to change frequently, this needs to be set every trip, and probably needs to default to no info at all, as some people wont be familar with it. In which case it will probably rarely be used and can be safely junked. Your Moose May Vary.

Comment: Re:take from the aircraft/drone world (Score 1) 111 111

by AJWM (#50016733) Attached to: Study Suggests That HUD Tech May Actually Reduce Driving Safety

Even if you're just changing focus rather than the direction your eyes are pointing, you're looking away. There's very little information while driving which is so essential you can't flick your gaze away for a fraction of a second (you'd better be doing that anyway to check your mirrors). If traffic is that tight, you don't need to be looking at your speed, just stay with the flow. Your fuel gauge isn't going to suddenly leap from half-full to empty (if it does, you have other problems).

That said, a blinky light on the side mirror as a blind spot warning can't hurt, and maybe an unobtrusive but visible "master caution and warning" light could light up at the bottom of the windshield if some other instrument needs attention.

That said, for a fighter (or other high-performance aircraft) pilot who has to track multiple things simultaneously (where's the enemy? which weapons are armed, do they have a lock? what's my attitude after all this dogfighting?), a HUD is invaluable -- and said pilots are carefully selected and undergo a hell of lot of flight training and then a hell of a lot of training in using the HUD (and there's also an auditory component to that).

Comment: Re:Reminds me of hands-free cell phones (Score 1) 111 111

by AJWM (#50016701) Attached to: Study Suggests That HUD Tech May Actually Reduce Driving Safety

I used to think that a hands-free phone should be fine when driving, since I was used to a fair bit of radio chatter while flying a plane.

But there are significant differences: radio chatter while flying is about the flying -- you're giving or getting info about your flight from ATC, if you're in formation you're discussing with the other aircraft where everyone is relative to each other and what your about to do, etc. You're not having a discussion about Junior's day in school or what John and Mary are up to or the latest server crash at work. One keeps your attention focussed on flying, the other distracts you from proper driving: where's your head at?

The other thing is that driving in typical traffic you should be paying as close attention to what the other vehicles are doing as if you're flying in close formation with a bunch of other planes. The latter is unlikely except for a very few pilots under special circumstances, most of the time in a plane you're at least many seconds (or minutes) away from other aircraft or obstacles (except landing or takeoff -- and you're generally not talking to anyone outside the cockpit at that point unless they're feeding you info about it.)

The latter is why we've had autopilots on aircraft for decades but nothing much better than cruise control (about equivalent to a wing leveller in terms of percentage control) on cars -- most of the time planes are in a much simpler environment.

Comment: Re:Look outside, not inside (Score 1) 111 111

by AJWM (#50016649) Attached to: Study Suggests That HUD Tech May Actually Reduce Driving Safety

If you're driving a car under IFR rules there's something seriously wrong with you.

Sure, every pilot with some instrument training knows to trust the instruments when he can't see anything out the windows -- he also knows he's got ATC tracking him, helping him navigate and warning of other traffic or potential trouble (like t-storms).

If you're driving a car when you can't see out the windows you're a fucking loony, and a danger to everyone else out there. If you're relying on looking at the instruments (and hey, a GPS will work just fine in thick fog) instead of out the window, well, I just hope you run off the road quickly (oops, map was out of date) before you hit somebody else.

Comment: Re:Look outside, not inside (Score 1) 111 111

by AJWM (#50016613) Attached to: Study Suggests That HUD Tech May Actually Reduce Driving Safety

Original poster wasn't talking about IFR -- obviously there's no point looking out the window in that case (if you're in cloud, you couldn't even see the wingtip).

But you're not going to get a new pilot flying IFR, because it takes a while to get the training and experience needed for that rating. Thing is, because a new pilot doesn't have the experience to know what attitudes look like (where's the horizon on the window? which way is it tilted? what sound is the engine making? etc), he's tempted to keep checking the instruments ... except that he hasn't figured out (at an intuitive level) all the interrelationships yet. He's looking at the attitude indicator to figure out if he's going up or down -- when he should be paying attention to the airspeed. He's focusing on "stepping on the ball" to coordinate his turns instead of looking out the window for that traffic he might be turning into and what the horizon is doing relative to the bug smear on the windshield.

Sure, you should be checking the panel periodically -- just like you should be checking the instrument panel periodically while driving -- but if you're VFR (and all driving is VFR, although with different minimums) you should be focussed on what the vehicle (and the others around it) is doing now (and about to do), not what the instruments are telling you it did a little while ago.

Comment: Re:Polls are essential due to plurality voting. (Score 1) 292 292

How is a third party vote "wasted"?

If you voted for the person who won, you wasted your vote -- they would have won without it, and you didn't send them any messages.

If you voted for the major party candidate who lost, you wasted your vote because he lost, and again you didn't send any message.

Voting third party is the only way not to waste your vote.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (4) How many times do we have to tell you, "No prior art!"