Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Airbus is the one to do it. (Score 1) 140

No company has more experience with computer controlled flight than Airbus. The A380 is already capable of tarmac-to-tarmac autonomous flight, treating the human pilots more as a fail-safe than as real pilots. (For example, if the human pilot tries to do something stupid, like fly upside down or intentionally crash, the autopilot is designed to fight back).

Comment Re:Nothing new here (Score 1) 140

4. Self flying cars are even more ridiculous than self driving cars, given that self driving cars cannot handle streets that have not been mapped to millimeter precision, or road constructions, or bad weather, or any of a million other real life conditions. Flying is geometrically more complicated than driving, and there's no reason to believe anyone alive to day will live to see true self driving cars.

Airbus A380s can already fly the ENTIRE ROUTE completely by autopilot, including the takeoff and landing (auto-landing requires an airport with ILS, which most major airports already have, not sure of the requirements for auto-takeoff)

While flying is technically more difficult than driving, there are far less things to run into, and a lot of aircraft already have a system similar to v2v, so the computer already knows where all the other aircraft are in the sky. Radar detection/avoidance also works much better in the air, because there are less obstructions.

Just because flying is harder than driving for a human to do, doesn't mean it's also harder for a computer to do.

Comment Re:Not a crazy idea (Score 1) 140

That's just dumb, that's just dumb because you can't make a car smart enough to navigate daily traffic with all onboard sensors.

This is exactly how Tesla does it, and while it isn't perfect, it's mostly usable and still improving. It's silly to say something is impossible when we are already most of the way there.

Comment Re:But why? (Score 1) 336

So we should just take what little they deign to give us and be happy with it?

It's not about jealousy, it's about fairness. They don't work 200x harder, or 200x more hours, or have 200x more stress and risk, so why do they get 200x more money? (and that is for someone at median income, it's even worse for the minimum-wage workers)

Comment Re:But why? (Score 1) 336

The pie is the total revenue of Apple (specifically, $215.6 billion) so every penny that Tim Cook and the other executives get is a penny that didn't go to the people actually doing the work. Yes, I realize it would only be a difference of a few cents per employee, but it's still unfair for one person to make more in one day (day after day) than most people make in a year.

Comment Re:But why? (Score 1) 336

I wasn't referring to just Tim Cook, I was referring to every top-executive at every company who also receives non-salary compensation.

If all of Apple's suppliers dropped their prices (by cutting executive salaries) it would drop the cost more. And if the supermarket chains, utility companies, gas companies, etc did the same, you money would go further.

High executive salaries (and stock dividends, aka 'paying rich people simply for being rich') are the vampires sucking the money out of the economy, and increasing income inequality.

Slashdot Top Deals