Forgot your password?

Comment: Backward-thinking by the DMV (Score 5, Insightful) 503

by brunes69 (#47758229) Attached to: California DMV Told Google Cars Still Need Steering Wheels

Any car that allows the driver to take "immediate physical control" makes the roads unsafer for all. The safest roads will be when ALL cars are autonomous. Having humans in the mix will just ruin all the gains that autonomous cars provide. Can a human wirelessly communicate with a car 5 miles ahead to know of a road condition and adjust it's speed in tandem with all the other cars in between to mitigate any and all danger in advance? Can a human react in sub-millisecond time to avoid obstacles thrown in their way. No and no.

Comment: Mental Masturbation (Score 2) 239

This discussion is pointless mental masturbation because none of these things will be real problems with autonomous cars. The people dreaming up these scenarios do not understand the fundamental paradigm shift that comes with autonomous vehicles

- Firstly, any thoroughfare staffed with autonomous cars should never have pedestrian access, because the cars will all be travelling at maximum safe speed constantly, like 110K+ even on city streets. These streets should be fenced not allowing pedestrians.

- Secondly, In situations where pedestrians are involved, which are inherently unpredictable, the car will never drive faster than it would be able to stop and not hit ANY pedestrian... thus, this whole "choose 1 or 5" scenario is not possible.

- Finally, you won't be able to manually point the car at people and then later have the car "take over". You will not have any ability to drive the car manually, period. At least I bloody well hope not... once autonomous cars are standard, people should not be allowed to drive any more.


+ - Google protects undersea cables against potential shark attacks->

Submitted by brunes69
brunes69 (86786) writes "When you plan for the costs to span the entire Pacific Ocean with fibre optic communication cable, you need to account for a lot of different factors to ensure that cable will remain protected and intact. Google, for one, is apparently taking no chances with its cables, even going so far as to protect them against shark attack."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Tear It Down (Score 1) 98

by brunes69 (#47676335) Attached to: Correcting Killer Architecture

Other incidents have left a person with a torn liver and internal bleeding, and cuts requiring 11 stitches, as well as a buggy containing a three-month-old child being whisked out into the road by a sharp gust. Last year the council ruled that the surrounding roads must be closed when the wind reaches speeds of 45mph, but problems have continued.

The problem is that the government is not attaching enough cost to these kinds of mistakes, so they happen over and over again. If the building had to be torn down then the cost / loss would be so high that developers would never make mistakes like this again and start testing their designs better in advance. As it is right now, the only people paying the cost are the citizens while the developers laugh all the way to the bank.

Comment: SEARCHABILITY (Score 5, Interesting) 249

by brunes69 (#47673865) Attached to: Apple's App Store Needs a Radical Revamp; How Would You Go About It?

The biggest problem both the App Store and the Play Store have is searchability. There is no way to filter on anything other than high-level category and keyword, and whatever the result-based ranking algorithms on both stores uses, is horrible, always returning junk and crap instead of what you really want.

This makes finding the kinds of apps you want even when you KNOW what you are looking for EXTREMELY ANNOYING AND OVERLY DIFFICULT, way more so than it has to be.

It is very ironic that Google whose main business is search can not cobble together the resources to make a decent search for Android over the past 5 years.

Comment: Re:Politically Correct Science (Score 0) 541

by brunes69 (#47647935) Attached to: Geneticists Decry Book On Race and Evolution

Actually what you propose would be completely unethical.

Example - If science some day proves that people with blue eyes have faster reaction times than people with brown eyes, and we don't factor that into hiring decisions where reaction times can mean the difference between life and death simply because it would be politically incorrect to do so, then you are making all of society suffer an injustice just because you don't want to make people uncomfortable.

Comment: Re: No, school should not be year-round. (Score 1) 421

by brunes69 (#47640283) Attached to: Slashdot Asks: Should Schooling Be Year-Round?

As the husband of a teacher I can tell you I would VASTLY PREFER my wife having 2 weeks off a season instead of one bulk summer break. It would make family trips in the spring or winter so much simpler.

People often forget that while teachers do get the whole summer off, they get ZERO flexible vacation days. This can be painful when you want to take say a random long weekend away.

Comment: Re:The canonical best household router is (Score 1) 427

by brunes69 (#47639181) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Life Beyond the WRT54G Series?

The problem with having lots of devices that do less instead of smaller numbers of devices that do more is the power use. On average every little wall-wart product you plug into your house costs you between $5 - $15 a month to run. The more of them you run the more they cost you a year. If you have one little device that does multiple jobs, it saves you money.

COBOL is for morons. -- E.W. Dijkstra