Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I’ve had similar kudos from
I’ve had similar kudos from women, but haven’t bothered looking at their profiles. Maybe I should check them out?
Endura Luminite gloves: http:
Endura Luminite gloves: http://road.cc/content/review/138898-endura-luminite-glovesI’ve got a pair in hi-viz yellow and they’ve been brilliant over the winter. Waterproof and not too bulky.
Boatsie wrote:
Seen these pictures of clouds on Facebook. Please enjoy. Love cycling; allows us to enjoy nature.Looks like an advert for the Kenwood DDX-7025 to me.
Good old FarceBook.
I figured that “fresh air”
I figured that “fresh air” was relative.
Reducing pollution is as simple as going to nuclear power, all we need to then is figure out a way to recycle the spent uranium or simply shoot it off into space. Nuclear power is the most commercially available, safest and most cost effective source of power the world has come up with so far. If everyone on this planet would switch to Nuclear power we could bring down pollution by about 40%, and that will increase as more and more electric cars get on the road over the next 50 years. BUT the only way electric cars will be able to do that is if the power plant recharging the cars are nuclear and not coal, oil, or natural gas as they are today. I think they have figured out a way to recycle spent nuclear fuel down to the last 3% of it. Problem with uranium for fuel is that at it’s current production there is only about 250 years of it left, obviously if nuclear fuel went global that would probably drop down to around 100 years, but that may buy us time to discover another source of fuel, not to mention a major reduction in air pollution over that time.That’s all well and good, but nuclear isn’t cost effective as it requires subsidies.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16646405
On the plus side, nuclear power is a convenient way to keep around enough plutonium for making weapons – I wonder if that’s why we keep subsidising it?
The NYTimes as some info on
The NYTimes has some info on just how bad the Uber cars are: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/technology/uber-self-driving-cars-arizona.html
The cars were having trouble driving through construction zones and next to tall vehicles, like big rigs. And Uber’s human drivers had to intervene far more frequently than the drivers of competing autonomous car projects.Waymo, formerly the self-driving car project of Google, said that in tests on roads in California last year, its cars went an average of nearly 5,600 miles before the driver had to take control from the computer to steer out of trouble. As of March, Uber was struggling to meet its target of 13 miles per “intervention” in Arizona, according to 100 pages of company documents obtained by The New York Times and two people familiar with the company’s operations in the Phoenix area but not permitted to speak publicly about it.
Yet Uber’s test drivers were being asked to do more — going on solo runs when they had worked in pairs.
Half of it (!) is fishing
Half of it (!) is fishing nets, so maybe stop fishing as well.
This topic looks lonely
This topic looks lonely without a comment.
I’ve seen the video too.So corporate manslaughter for Uber for having a system that cannot detect pedestrians and potentially is speeding. Already banned in California as it was known that it didn’t detect pedestrians. Also death by dangerous driving, or US equivalent, for the so called driver.
That sounds a bit harsh on the poor scapegoat/driver. I’d class it as careless rather than dangerous as the speed although over the maximum limit was only 10% (38mph in a 35mph zone) over which is often taken as the rough accuracy of speedometers. Also the driver wasn’t doing a manoeuvre that is dangerous (e.g. being on the wrong side of the road – for the U.S. anyway) but was not paying attention which I’d class as careless (though it generally is dangerous too).
I don’t know what the equivalent U.S. laws are though, so it’ll be interesting to see how it’s dealt with.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
I read not long ago that in not so long they’ll have driverless cars capable of navigation in India; what road rules. Read was about throwing everything out the window with learning capable algorithms to copy cat the locals.Indian roads would be an easy environment to code for.
if vehicle.size() <= obstruction.size() :
avoid()
I wonder if cow comes before human in the choices of who to hit?
My neighbour went to India recently and said it really is a dire place as far as any sort of traffic law is concerned. Some guy got run over but he must have been of the wrong caste or something as nobody wanted to help in he was just left in the road! China seems a great places as well, where you go back to finish the job if you knock people down, as the fine for killing is less than the bill for care.
We may think we live in a dangerous place as regards cycling but there are plently of worse places in the world involving cars.
Cows would get priority – they’re bigger and more sacred.
Oh dear! Looks like the
Oh dear! Looks like the backup driver wasn’t watching the road:Tempe police also released internal dash cam footage showing the car’s driver, Rafaela Vasquez, in the seconds before the crash. Vasquez can be seen looking down toward her lap for almost five seconds before glancing up again. Almost immediately after looking up, she gets a look of horror on her face as she realizes the car is about to hit Herzberg.
Here’s an examination of the
Here’s an examination of the incident and the use (or not) of LIDAR:
http://ideas.4brad.com/it-certainly-looks-bad-uber
Boatsie wrote:
I read not long ago that in not so long they’ll have driverless cars capable of navigation in India; what road rules. Read was about throwing everything out the window with learning capable algorithms to copy cat the locals.Indian roads would be an easy environment to code for.
if vehicle.size() <= obstruction.size() :
avoid()
Just seen this article on
Just seen this article on this Uber incident from Charles Stross (author of The Laundry series amongst others):
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/03/test-case.html
Firstly, it’s apparent that the current legal framework privileges corporations over individuals with respect to moral hazard. So I’m going to stick my neck out and predict that there’s going to be a lot of lobbying money spent to ensure that this situation continues … and that in the radiant Randian libertarian future, all self-driving cars will be owned by limited liability shell companies. Their “owners” will merely lease their services, and thus evade liability for any crash when they’re not directly operating the controls. Indeed, the cars will probably sue any puny meatsack who has the temerity to vandalize their paint job with a gout of arterial blood, or traumatize their customers by screaming and crunching under their wheels.
Your link is missing a colon
Your link is missing a colon although the description isn’t