This would have been an OK thing to ask 10 years ago here. But these days, Slashdot is chock full of assholes, shills, right-wing extremists, and just trash in general. Very few worthwhile people are left here any more.
all the current refugees from there are bringing the stupid mindless liberal idiocy with them, trying to "Californicate" Nevada
Yes, because things like equal rights for black people is such a horrible concept. **rollseyes**
missile fights are still called dogfights and same manouvering rules apply.
So you're one of those losers who wrecks their plane with their relatives in it because you have no experience and no ability to fly by instrument and get killed because you think you can fly by the seat of your pants.
People shouldn't even be allowed to fly with only a private license. If you can't fly at the standard of a commercial pilot, you have no business piloting an airplane.
New pilots' are always glued to the instruments, mature pilots eyes are focused outside except for quick scans of the instruments.
I guess you'll never be an instrument-rated pilot.
Exactly: is it better to have pop-ups from your nav system telling you when and where to turn, or is it better to fumble with a paper map, or drive around endlessly in circles lost, or pulling over and stopping constantly to ask some codger for inaccurate directions (and then getting lost again because the directions were bad)?
I like HUD, but I think that GPS-enabled cruise control (with camera backup) is the best way to handle avoiding excessive speed with technology. The hardware for that is in most cars now.
You can't use cruise control (of any kind) on most non-highway roads. If you're driving through town on a road with stoplights, cruise control is obviously not safe to use there. However, that may be a place that's a favorite spot for cops.
On a highway, you have a good point, but cops do not only issue speeding tickets on limited-access highways.
Downside on the latest one is it will display some radio information (station freq. or CD track number) when you make a change to the radio settings - they don't "stick" for very long. I suppose the idea is to keep the driver's eyes up rather than looking at the center stack for radio settings, but I could live without that info on the screen.
That's exactly the idea. It's better for you to get a quick update (esp. if you're actively adjusting the radio) on your HUD, rather than divert your attention to a different device on the dashboard that requires you to refocus your attention. If you're used to the vehicle and don't need the information, it should be easy for you to mentally ignore it.
I don't know about the OP, but my new Mazda3 has this feature as well. There's a HUD (it projects onto a piece of clear plastic that sits in the driver's view right on top of the instrument panel), and it also has a FOW (forward object warning) system which changes the HUD display to "BRAKE" with an alarm sound if it senses an impending collision.
The HUD itself I find very useful, because it doesn't require me to refocus my eyes much to see it, and has useful information: the current speed, the set speed for cruise control, if the cruise control detects a car ahead, what the following distance is set to, if lane-departure warnings are enabled, and arrows from the nav system telling me when to turn.
I can see how some people might think it's distracting to constantly see your speed like that, but that's a product of our idiotic insistence on arbitrary and overly-low speed limits with harsh penalties for violations. Instead of watching the road for dangers and generally driving safely at a speed we're comfortable with, we need to constantly compare our driving speed to the allowed speed and make sure we aren't going more than, say, 5mph over. Of course, on the highway you can set the cruise control and not worry about it so much, but on surface streets CC isn't such a great idea for obvious reasons, and those are also the roads where you're more likely to need to swerve or brake to avoid a collision. So to anyone complaining about this stuff being distracting, go complain to the cops about it, they're the reason for it.
Drone pilots more removed from the action than infantry? Hell yes.
More removed then the rest of the Air Force? Hell no.
The way a drone strike works is a drone loiters on station for weeks on end. During this time the drone's pilots figure out who is in the house when, so they can avoid blowing it up when the local equivalent of the Girl Scouts are in the living room. Which means drone pilots know when their target takes the trash out, whether the teenage daughter has a boyfriend who sneaks in sometimes, etc. This makes for attacks that are much easier on the civilian population then normal bombing, because you can skip the night when the girl and her boyfriend are enjoying themselves, but it makes for very stressed out drone pilots.
OTOH, an F-16 would only be able to loiter on target for a half-hour at a time, and the pilot would be spending his time there focussing on the attack, so he has no fucking idea that the terrorist mastermind he's about to attack has a daughter up to hijinks. He'll drop the bomb, write on his paperwork that the building was totaly destroyed, and dance the Dance of Successful Combat Missions.
So why is it they keep blowing up weddings? And then blowing up everyone who comes to help?
Cowards. But thats become the American way.
I can't think of a greater coward in military service than a drone pilot. Except maybe an ICBM crew.
It's not as easy to sneak onto a military base (where, you know, base housing is located) as the TV/movies would have you believe. You do know that, right?
Grandparents included, I bet they don't all live on base. Aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews etc, you can't keep them all under armed guard all the time. Any relatives who live overseas get big giant targets painted on them. Oh and this info was all recently leaked. It shouldn't be too hard to find them.
Its ugly but thats how you have to fight against an opponent who acts like this. Its basic Sun Tzu; in response to an enemy who takes shelter in an impregnable position you attack something (outside of that position) they MUST defend.
Drone pilots are actually burning out due to extreme crisis of conscious issues. They work 9-5 killing people, then go home to their families; they're not living in a constructed fantasy of good versus evil fueled by the fact that other people are living in the same fantasy and mutually trying to kill you under the impression that you're the invader. They see themselves as terrible assassins, not righteous heroes fighting a murderous enemy.
Well good then because they are terrible assassins.
Drones with weapons aren't autonomous.
Drone pilots don't seem to have much of a conscience either. They are far removed from the action, the consequences, less involved.
If I were up against drones my first response would be infiltrators who would target the drone pilots families, the shops they go to, the people they owe money to, people who owe them money etc etc. Go Kaiser Sose on them. If they want to hide behind drones let them face the consequences.
The USA built a working molten-salt reactor, which Nixon ordered abandoned because it wasn't useful for plutonium production.
the temperatures, pressures and the levels of radiation that occur in those designs.
It sounds like you're not at all familiar with the design that Sorensen is talking about. It operates at one atmosphere.