Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:In a Self-Driving Future--- (Score 1) 332

by cduffy (#48446921) Attached to: In a Self-Driving Future, We May Not Even Want To Own Cars

Finding road edge boundaries in snow, at least, is actually a place where existing self-driving car systems do better than humans already. Keep in mind that they're not limited to the visual end of the EM spectrum.

For the rest, I'll defer to empirical studies on effectiveness under varying conditions. It's easy to think of corner cases -- but the real question, corner cases or no, is whether the average amount of liability incurred per hour of driving is greater or less than a human at the wheel.

Comment: Re: In a Self-Driving Future--- (Score 1) 332

by cduffy (#48446869) Attached to: In a Self-Driving Future, We May Not Even Want To Own Cars

I guess, if you like the state or insurance companies telling you when and where you may travel.

The power of the state is one thing. On the other hand, doing harm to others without means to provide recompense is legitimately immoral even under reasonable Libertarian frameworks.

Motor vehicle insurance allows the externalities which would otherwise be created by individuals defaulting rather than being able to pay off debts they incurred to be priced by the market -- quite transparently, given as the profit margins are known and available to customers as well as shareholders. If you can't pay for the harm you're doing to others by an action, even as aggregated and normalized by the insurance industry, can you truly morally justify that act?

Comment: LOL (Score 1) 62

Yeah, an ICBM, the R7, from the 60 probably did costs 1 million.
OTOH, the Soyuz (technically, a member of the R7 family, but with little in common), does NOT costs 1 million. The NK-33, alone, costs about $1.5 million, with Soyuz knowing that it costs 20 million for the core. The launch is around 50 million.

You are obviously a cowardly lying troll.

Comment: Re:TL;DR translation; pretty much (Score 1) 62

The current CEO is one of the GE-Welch clones. Just like Chrysler, Home Depot, GE, and IBM were destroyed by Welch other clones (Nardelli, Palmisano, Immelt ) , McNerney is following the same path and destroying Boeing.
Not only has McNerney parted out the 787, but he has sold off major divisions that allowed Boeing to have solid inexpensive equipment.
They outsourced their admin to Russia, which is about to backfire on them.
And a number of parts that were made in America to keep the costs of military equipment cheap, is now being sent to China, Europe, and Japan.

Comment: Re: Tony Stark's ilk... (Score 1) 62

Mostly a great post, but to be fair, Elon did NOT have the resources. He invested only about a 100 million into this. Basically, he started this with less money than Boeing, L-Mart and ULA spend on lobbying each year.
So no, it was not having massive resources. It was just smart investments and not thinking about this like an MBA.

Comment: That is not true (Score 1) 62

They do in fact design and build rockets. Far more than you are obviously aware of. Just like few ppl realize that the west has 3 space stations in orbit.
However, all of the rockets that NASA builds are prototypes and are not designed for production. Basically, it is trying to move art into science and then into engineering.

Comment: Sigh; (Score 1) 62

I should mod you down, but I have to speak up.
First off, Musk had this in mind back in 2002 when he started this. IOW, he has 12 years into it.
Secondly, Musk HAS SPENT BILLIONS on this. Some of his money. Some of others. Some of NASA. Some of future contracts. All in all, he has spent billions to get to this point.
Third, NASA builds prototypes, but all of the rest is done by private companies, otherwise known as PRIVATE SPACE.

Chad, what I find interesting is that ALL OF NEW PRIVATE SPACE will tell you that they NEED NASA. Why? Because NASA knows this stuff inside and out. Heck, Elon did F1 on his own all the way through to his first launch. Remember how that turned out? SPECTACULAR.
After that, he swallowed his pride and worked closely with NASA and their QA. And while F1 underwent a re-design, what really changed was that SpaceX learned how to do decent QA. They put into place repeatable processes.

So, while you can continue to knock SpaceX, bear in mind that Musk, top ppl from SpaceX, Bigelow, top ppl from BA, Bezos, top ppl from BO, Ozmen, top ppl of SNC, will all tell you that they cound heavily on NASA. And they will tell you that they count on NASA for experience and help far more, than on their money.

It is long past time to put aside your politics and focus on facts.

Comment: Re:Thats science for you .... (Score 1) 224

by angel'o'sphere (#48445931) Attached to: Doubling Saturated Fat In Diet Does Not Increase It In Blood

Ofc eating fat makes you fat ... if it is to much of it and especially in combination with the 'wrong' carbs.
Carbs again only make you fat again jf you eat to much of them.
If you need 2500 kcal per day and eat 2500 as carbs, there is no way ye get fat.
If you add 500 more as more carbs, you get a little fat, like the equivalent of perhaps 250 kcal (estimated), otoh if you add 500 kcal fat nearly all of it will get into your fat reservoirs!

Comment: Re:In a Self-Driving Future--- (Score 1) 332

by bzipitidoo (#48444269) Attached to: In a Self-Driving Future, We May Not Even Want To Own Cars
Want to be careful about criminalizing an action. Governments are all too likely to seize upon that as a revenue opportunity. If the rules are themselves bad or counterproductive, breaking them may be to everyone's benefit, and the only way to get the government to see that a particular change is necessary.

Comment: Re:Who cares (Score 1) 149

by ShieldW0lf (#48442543) Attached to: Mozilla's 2013 Report: Revenue Up 1% To $314M; 90% From Google

Of course I can.

Marriage is about subsidizing the creation of the next generation of mankind. Used to be, if you couldn't get pregnant together, you could get an annulment, and the marriage was considered dissolved.

My position, and, in a democratic society which runs on consensus, I don't actually need to defend it, is that if you get married, and enjoy the privileged status that that entails at my expense, you OWE me several well adjusted children to carry society forward when I retire, and if you get divorced, you OWE me for all the benefits you enjoyed at my expense. If you are infertile, you can't get married. If you are too old to have children, you can't get married. Live with who you want, fuck who you want, but marriage is about families, and if you're not interested in making and raising one, then leave it to others.

Religion really doesn't have anything to do with it. Homosexual marriage is an outrageously, ridiculously irrational thing all by itself.

Your own mileage may vary.