There's a lot of skill involved in making good orthotics, and I'd expect the same to hold true with prosthetics in general.
My wife has spina bifida, and needs custom-fitted braces. Most of the formerly-independent manufacturers in Austin (which we just moved from) have been bought out by a company that does consistently shoddy work, making one pair after another that was painful to use. Here in Chicago, she went to the place recommended by a research clinic in town that has a focus on adult spina bifida patients (one of seven in the country). I was expecting the orthoptist they recommended to be doing something cutting-edge -- 3D printing off of a scan, or such -- but the process was the traditional way, and matched what had been used to make her last good pair of braces over a decade ago -- traditional casting, a whole lot of experimentation and detailed questions about how things worked for her, and production with a plastic malleable enough to allow adjustments to be made after-the-fact.
If this ends up as a science, rather than an art, I could see it becoming a fully automated process that folks could do at home. As it is, though, there's a big difference between having orthotics made by someone who has a knack for it and someone who just learned the rote steps to go through... and, by their nature, anything a computer can do is going to be rote.
It really is simple. Safety IS top priority handling a ton of steel at 60 mph. So, you keep your hands at 10 and 2 at all times? You never adjust your radio or ventilation while moving, right? You've probably mastered using only your peripheral vision to check your instrument panel so you never look away from the road for even a split second. After all, it's a ton of steel at 60 mph.
You assume that the parent drives a car. That's not necessarily a safe assumption. (Myself, I live in downtown Chicago. Driving a car here would be bloody stupid -- I'd be paying $30k for a parking space, plus $90/mo in HOA fees on that parking space, and who-knows-how-much for parking where I'm trying to get to... when I can just walk to my destination or get on the L).
It's irrelevant to those components that do not use naked C API calls
Utterly untrue. This is about language ambiguity, not standard library ambiguity, so the C language API is moot.
My point was that this is mainly useful on programs that already have flaws
How many programs don't?
I strongly recommend reading (or at least doing a quick pass over) http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/papers/ub:apsys12.pdf to get an idea of the scope of the problem.
[T]he asshole is at least going to perform the job duties
Counterexample: Current House of Representatives.
The only thing stopping Google from abandoning Microsoft's patents is that the end result would be worse than all the cheap Chinese rip-off tablets and phones.
That's only potentially true when the patents are disclosed. It's fashionable to not disclose what the specific patents argued to be infringed actually are (or the mechanics of how they're infringed) when trying to license a portfolio.
Can't work around a patent when you don't know what it is.
My wife has spina bifida -- as one of the effects, she doesn't sweat. At all.
This has the effect that when living somewhere where outside temperatures go above mid-90s, she's under doctor's orders to never be away from air conditioning, ever.
A personal, portable climate control device would be great... if it were more than just illusion. I imagine something peltier-effect based with a backpack -- perhaps with the actual heat-transfer region on the other side of a heat pipe, and thus able to be located under clothing. Sure, they're energy-inefficient, so even a Li-Co battery of reasonable weight wouldn't last that long, but being able to be outside for 30 minutes instead of 2 without getting heat stroke would be a big improvement.
Not that the tech will be personally relevant for long -- we're moving to Chicago in the spring.
It's pretty simple: As a cyclist on a general road, make yourself as little nuisance as possible, so hug the right side of the road. If you need to overtake someone, see a pothole or need to take a left turn, look back, and if it's fairly clear, claim your place closer to the middle of the lane.
I suggest taking a class before you try riding in the US like that. The League of American Bicyclists -- formerly, the League of American Wheelmen -- has a great one; first day is nothing but classroom theory, talking accident statistics, lane positioning, etc.
Among the outcomes from those statistics? Hugging the shoulder is absolutely the wrong thing to do; it makes it look like you're safe to pass in the same lane even when you aren't. It doesn't kill as many people as riding on the wrong side of the road, riding at night without lights, or riding at speed on the sidewalk (which, yes, are the three biggest causes of cyclist-at-fault accidents; riding on the sidewalk means folks pulling in and out of driveways can't see you).
Much, much safer to actually take the lane. You're highly visible there; your location communicates to other road users that you're traveling straight ahead; and folks who need to pass you are encouraged to change to the next lane over rather than trying to pass too close within the existing lane.
Now, if you're on a one-lane road, things get hairy -- but even then, the best practice is to have a good rear-view mirror and yield to passing traffic whenever possible. If your default position is in the far right, you don't have anywhere to swerve if there's a hazard in your way; if your default position is middle-of-the-lane, you have options -- one of those being to pull over to the side when you've observed that it's safe to do so.
Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine