Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:A-10 for the Win (Score 1) 162

Patted a SR-71 on the nose at Castle Air Museum and was amazed how small it seemed.

Answer to why it was retired is straight-forward, cost. The fuel alone was ridiculously expensive; a quote that sums it up- "It would have been cheaper to use single malt scotch". Assuming that any country that could shoot down a U2 could also shoot down a SR-71, having them do 2 000 mph is not needed. Also, satellites are a little better these days https://vimeo.com/130889259

I realise that this video is far, far below the spatial resolution of even a 50 year old spy satellite, it's still indicative of new directions that are now possible.

Comment Re:A simple solution (Score 2) 179

Going back to the main point: that changes everything.

No, it doesn't. There are people willing to blow themselves up for their cause, and there are plenty of ways for people to blow things up without killing themselves.

As far as furthering terrorist aims goes, autonomous vehicles are a solution in search of a problem.

Comment Re:BULLSH!Tq (Score 1) 179

I absolutely guarantee you that unlicensed vehicles will NOT be allowed to drive around with no people and load of cargo

What do you mean by "allowed"? Do you imagine it being illegal, or actually impossible?

No, these sensors will not be easy to counter.

That's easy to say when you've only defined them as "these sensors." Will the vehicle refuse to move by itself if I leave a newspaper on the front seat? Or if it gets caked in mud after I drive it through a field, adding to the vehicle's weight? This will mean the end of stick-on Garfields as well!

Comment Ooh, no, don't want to get caught (Score 1) 179

Imagine if they could have dispatched their bombs in the trunk of a car that they were never in themselves? Catching them might have been an order of magnitude more difficult than it was.

Or imagine if they could have found a vulnerable person, someone so suggestable as to be bordering on mentally ill, instilled him with their ideology and persuaded him to go out and get himself blown up.

Or imagine if they hadn't actually given two shits about being caught or not.

According to Rubalcava the reaction to the first car bombing using an AV is going to be massive, and it's going to be stupid.

Why are the terrorists waiting for autonomous vehicles? They've got plenty of other options if they want to make a massive kaboom. Find a willing suicide bomber. Hire someone to do it unwittingly. Deliver the bomb by drone. Break into the house of someone who takes the subway every day and line their briefcase with plastic explosives while they sleep.

It's not like we'll all be dead tomorrow if every anti-terrorist agent took the day off.

Comment Re:A simple solution (Score 4, Insightful) 179

And the simple solution to that, from the terrorist point of view, is just to use either a willing suicide bomber (there seem to be plenty of those) or an unknowing patsy.

This is a load of fuss about nothing, firstly because the terrorist threat is not as remotely terrible as everyone seems to think it is, and secondly because autonomous vehicles really don't change anything at all.

Comment Re:Are you trying to imply that systemd is faster? (Score 1) 692

That's not what I am suggesting.
Maybe the analogy was imperfect.

Systemd is like cars compared to horse carriages in early 1900s. They were a not-so-good alternative to the established method.
Horse-based transportation was a mature solution which reached its limits, and cars at the time were a worse alternative in most ways.

I say, give it time. See if it would grow into something better. Flinging poo at systemd is like yelling "get a horse!" when seeing a car, back in the 1900s. True at the moment, but in time proven to be shortsighted.

Comment Is ANYONE editing this mess? (Score 4, Informative) 692

Did an editor even glance at this piece of crap before it was posted?

a su command functional

a) "an su." Write it like you'd say it.
b) what's a "command functional"?
c) you've got all the right words... just not necessarily in the right order

a lot concepts

I think you accidentally a word.

It will given you kind of a shell

Can it has cheezeburger too?

Basic is a high level languish. APL is a high level anguish.

Working...