Re: Driverless car
>The Docklands Light Railway?
Is it the Victoria line that has drivers only because computers can't strike?
26111 publicly visible posts • joined 31 Dec 2009
And that's their big weakness - which they would have to disclose if this were an SEC filing rather than a private round.
Uber put these billions into buying politicians to make this legal and fight the cabbies and building awareness among non-geeks. Then a 100 other companies simply clone it and benefit from the law changes.
The drivers will simply have an app for each and pickup whichever customers are paying most. There will then be a series of startups with apps which do arbitrage and pick the best service for drivers and passengers.
>Since our brightest minds have yet to figure out how to make an arbitrary part of open space look solid
You can make a real holographic display with programmable diffraction gratings.
At the moment it can only do small volumes and it takes all day to calculate the rendering of a frame.
>With RenderMan selling for just $US495 it's hard to see why Pixar cares
> can you explain what's afoot here?
Pixar aren't in the software selling business, they are in the movie making business
Renderman operators are expensive.
If every highschool kid and every art college start using Renderman there will be a lot of potential recruits. A glut reduces prices
It's the same reason ATT made C free, they needed to hire programmers.
That GCHQ would bother spying on potential enemies in a part of the world that has more than its fair share of wars.
Rather than its proper job of making sure it has dirt on any potential opponents of the current government, local council or PTA.
Other then the Pixel there isn't a lot of difference in Chromebooks.
You can pickup the original Samsung ARM one for $200 ($150 returns on Amazon) so why should I pay more for a more powerful dual core Intel CPU with a fan and shorter battery life?
Because I need to do some protein folding or CFD on the bus?
>However, VG is a space *plane*: both modules take off and land from a runway, and land for re-use.
Plane yes, space almost, orbit - NO.
Getting to space is easy, just fly 60miles straight up
Staying in space involves then turning left and accelerating to 21,000mph - this is trickier
> If making a request solves the "crime" rather than getting a court order, it seems like a fine use of taxpayers money to me.
Like "requesting" that somebody doesn't send tweets ridiculing UKIP policies?
Or "requesting" that UK ISPs block terrorist propaganda, like Al-Jazeera or SinnFein or CND or Greenpeace or the SNP
>Corporations broke the law, employees sued them, corporations are paying up.
Shouldn't the state be responsible for enforcing the law?
If you rob a bank, can you wait until all the account holders get together to bring a class action lawsuit to get their money back and then pay them a fraction of the amount they lost ?
When Oz and SA were competing for the site there was a lot of thinly veiled statements about the need for "stability and reliable organisation and government" in the choice.
Generally the people drafting these treaties have been caught like this before and there will be a Concorde Clause - so Oz science will end up paying for it's end even if it doesn't build it.
Like car makers, GE and IBM, Boeing is now really a hedge fund that happens to make stuff.
When you can make more profit in a year from switching your corporate leasing contracts to the right tax treaty on the right day - than you do from making the things with your name on it, then it makes sense to not bother with the boring aircraft stuff
The statement was to reassure shareholders that there isn't going to be another planned disaster anytime soon. That probably doesn't matter, the shares are actually held by high frequency trading algorithms in hedge funds - who don't listen to calming CEO words.
It does mean that it will be impossible to hire any decent employees in Seattle. Come and work for Boeing - and you will do routine boring work for 30years, or go to a commercial space flight startup?
The outsourcing on the 7E7 seems to have been a disaster both financially and technically
Instead of the normal partnership model where BAe do the wings, Dassualt do the tail, etc they outsourced to outsourcers who outsourced to outscourcers.... until you literally had no idea which one man in a garage was building vital bits of your plane.
Come the downturn Boeing lawyers were flying around the country desperately buying up sub-sub-contractors who had gone bust before delivering some subsystem.
The other problem in aviation is the "when the document weighs more than the plane it is ready to fly" but Boeing subcontracted the design of the component to the maker bidding on it - for flexibility. Try writing an FAA FMEA for kit that you didn't design and have no idea how or why it was designed like that - assuming the maker is still in business and supplied you with any design documentation at all.
Paper recycling is about feeling like you are doing something and a little about landfill volume.
The trees you are saving are farmed pine forests, more trees are planted for every one that is harvested - "saving them" is like recycling flour to save the wheat.
It's horribly energy inefficient to collect and recycle paper and involves lots of nasty chemicals - but it is also expensive to bury large amounts of paper that never rots.
Exactly the same arguments were put forward against electronic engine management, ABS, etc
What will happen is that autonomous cars will have much fewer accidents, the insurance premiums for these will fall to the level that the manufacturers will self-insure as one of the benefits. Meanwhile the cost of all the drunk drivers, teenagers and general idiots will fall on the manually driven car owners - so their premiums will increase to the point that nobody could afford to drive a car manually