Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #376534 > unrolled thread
| Started by | ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-17 17:04 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-11-01 09:44 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 71 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
No Apple Cars afterall ... ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 17:04 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-17 17:33 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-17 17:56 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-17 18:46 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... fr314159@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 10:43 -0700
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-10-17 21:17 +0100
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-17 20:32 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-17 17:22 -0600
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-10-18 09:53 +0100
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-18 12:58 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-10-18 15:29 +0100
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-18 14:54 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-10-18 16:02 +0100
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-18 15:10 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-10-18 16:20 +0100
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-18 15:34 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-10-18 16:40 +0100
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-18 15:54 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 11:41 -0700
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-10-19 15:52 +0100
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 11:39 -0700
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-18 14:08 -0600
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-10-19 15:53 +0100
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-19 14:04 -0600
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-20 11:58 -0400
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-20 17:32 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-20 12:30 -0600
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2016-10-21 02:31 -0700
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-21 12:49 -0600
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-28 09:58 -0400
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-28 15:24 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-29 09:19 -0400
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-29 16:04 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-29 16:40 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Godzilla <godzilla@lizardboss.invalid> - 2016-10-29 16:57 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-30 09:44 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-10-29 17:09 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-29 13:27 -0400
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-30 09:45 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-30 07:08 -0400
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-30 14:18 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-30 12:49 -0400
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-30 18:47 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-31 09:16 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-31 05:38 -0400
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-31 10:41 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-31 12:30 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:42 -0700
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-31 21:49 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-31 08:51 -0500
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 11:56 -0700
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-29 16:27 -0400
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-30 09:48 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-30 09:51 -0400
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-30 14:22 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-30 10:28 -0400
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-31 09:14 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-10-29 22:15 +0100
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-10-30 09:49 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-28 15:37 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-18 14:07 -0600
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-10-18 14:12 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-18 09:16 -0500
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-10-18 15:30 +0100
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-18 16:49 +0200
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-18 06:59 -0500
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-10-18 08:00 -0400
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-19 13:00 -0400
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-19 20:30 +0200
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 18:45 +0000
Re: No Apple Cars afterall ... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-11-01 09:44 -0700
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 17:04 +0000 |
| Subject | No Apple Cars afterall ... |
| Message-ID | <nu30al$qef$1@dont-email.me> |
Apparently Apple has given up on their "iCar" -- according to numerous news reports. Another attempt at "leading from behind" and "innovating by copying" aborted. I guess they'll claim Android stole the "concept of self-driving cars" when and if Google ever actually releases one of these. -- Zero tolerance for iCultists and WinDrones
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 17:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <afheu03.agea3p@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #376534 |
ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: > Apparently Apple has given up on their "iCar" -- according to numerous > news reports. Another attempt at "leading from behind" and "innovating by > copying" aborted. I guess they'll claim Android stole the "concept of > self-driving cars" when and if Google ever actually releases one of > these. > The whole self-driving car thing is an insanely stupid idea.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 17:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e6khmlFu7alU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #376535 |
On 2016-10-17, deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: >> Apparently Apple has given up on their "iCar" -- according to numerous >> news reports. Another attempt at "leading from behind" and "innovating by >> copying" aborted. I guess they'll claim Android stole the "concept of >> self-driving cars" when and if Google ever actually releases one of >> these. >> > > The whole self-driving car thing is an insanely stupid idea. Agree. I wonder what ronb had to say when the self driving Tesla car crashed and killed the driver.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 18:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <alsjdg.ajgi883@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #376537 |
Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> wrote: > On 2016-10-17, deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Apparently Apple has given up on their "iCar" -- according to numerous >>> news reports. Another attempt at "leading from behind" and "innovating by >>> copying" aborted. I guess they'll claim Android stole the "concept of >>> self-driving cars" when and if Google ever actually releases one of >>> these. >>> >> >> The whole self-driving car thing is an insanely stupid idea. > > Agree. > I wonder what ronb had to say when the self driving Tesla car crashed > and killed the driver. I was going to say that the guy was probably in his killfile anyway, but I don't remember that from any of the daily announcements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fr314159@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 10:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5ce15e6-c1ab-40ce-932e-fc90b235d533@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376534 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-4, ronb wrote: > "concept of > self-driving cars" > The self-driving car is one of the most idiotic ideas to emerge anywhere. There is no way that I would ever allow myself to be transported by such a self-driving vehicle. My approach to driving is simple. I never allow my car, and with it my body, to move into an area where my eyes haven't already been 10 seconds previously. This is known as "anticipatory" or "defensive" driving, and a self-driving vehicle could not ever accomplish the same. Especially in moderate to heavy traffic, a self-driving car could not scan the road thousands or even hundreds of feet ahead. As a result a self-driving vehicle would be limited to impulsive accelerations and very quick braking. The short reaction times, in addition to causing excessive wear and tear, could be fatally dangerous. But self-driving cars are another great techno-gimmick and that's all that matters to the marketdroids that run most corporations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 21:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nu3bj9$7an$1@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> |
| In reply to | #376536 |
On 17/10/2016 18:43, fr314159@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-4, ronb wrote: > >> "concept of >> self-driving cars" >> > > The self-driving car is one of the most idiotic ideas to emerge > anywhere. > > There is no way that I would ever allow myself to be transported > by such a self-driving vehicle. > > My approach to driving is simple. I never allow my car, and with > it my body, to move into an area where my eyes haven't already been > 10 seconds previously. This is known as "anticipatory" or "defensive" > driving, and a self-driving vehicle could not ever accomplish the same. All round radar, distance sensors have a far better idea of what's going on than your feeble brain could take in. Have you never driven an E Class Mercedes with DISTRONIC? Oh silly me, you are a Linux user, you can probably only afford a bike. > > Especially in moderate to heavy traffic, a self-driving car could > not scan the road thousands or even hundreds of feet ahead. As a > result a self-driving vehicle would be limited to impulsive accelerations > and very quick braking. The short reaction times, in addition to > causing excessive wear and tear, could be fatally dangerous. Except of course if there were more than one car in which case they could communicate and share traffic data. > > But self-driving cars are another great techno-gimmick and that's > all that matters to the marketdroids that run most corporations. > Translation: They are rubbish because I'll never be able to afford to own one. Self driving cars are the future. They are already being trialled in a city near me, I'm looking forward to trying one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 20:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ahjfeu983.3ii@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #376543 |
Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: > On 17/10/2016 18:43, fr314159@gmail.com wrote: >> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-4, ronb wrote: >> >>> "concept of >>> self-driving cars" >>> >> >> The self-driving car is one of the most idiotic ideas to emerge >> anywhere. >> >> There is no way that I would ever allow myself to be transported >> by such a self-driving vehicle. >> >> My approach to driving is simple. I never allow my car, and with >> it my body, to move into an area where my eyes haven't already been >> 10 seconds previously. This is known as "anticipatory" or "defensive" >> driving, and a self-driving vehicle could not ever accomplish the same. > > All round radar, distance sensors have a far better idea of what's going > on than your feeble brain could take in. Have you never driven an E > Class Mercedes with DISTRONIC? Oh silly me, you are a Linux user, you > can probably only afford a bike. > >> >> Especially in moderate to heavy traffic, a self-driving car could >> not scan the road thousands or even hundreds of feet ahead. As a >> result a self-driving vehicle would be limited to impulsive accelerations >> and very quick braking. The short reaction times, in addition to >> causing excessive wear and tear, could be fatally dangerous. > > Except of course if there were more than one car in which case they > could communicate and share traffic data. > >> >> But self-driving cars are another great techno-gimmick and that's >> all that matters to the marketdroids that run most corporations. >> > Translation: They are rubbish because I'll never be able to afford to > own one. > > Self driving cars are the future. They are already being trialled in a > city near me, I'm looking forward to trying one. > It is not the future in the US, because the people will not allow it. It will be child's play for any politician to campaign against such lunacy, and the end result will be that no state in the US will permit driverless cars. Now the military will of course have this tech, because it makes sense to have supply vehicles that don't expose humans to IED dangers, as well as drone tanks, robot soldiers, etc. And that is the whole point of this type of research.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 17:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nu3meh$91p$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #376547 |
deplorable owl wrote: > Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >> On 17/10/2016 18:43, fr314159@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-4, ronb wrote: >>> >>>> "concept of >>>> self-driving cars" >>>> >>> >>> The self-driving car is one of the most idiotic ideas to emerge >>> anywhere. >>> >>> There is no way that I would ever allow myself to be transported >>> by such a self-driving vehicle. >>> >>> My approach to driving is simple. I never allow my car, and with >>> it my body, to move into an area where my eyes haven't already been >>> 10 seconds previously. This is known as "anticipatory" or "defensive" >>> driving, and a self-driving vehicle could not ever accomplish the same. >> >> All round radar, distance sensors have a far better idea of what's going >> on than your feeble brain could take in. Have you never driven an E >> Class Mercedes with DISTRONIC? Oh silly me, you are a Linux user, you >> can probably only afford a bike. >> >>> >>> Especially in moderate to heavy traffic, a self-driving car could >>> not scan the road thousands or even hundreds of feet ahead. As a >>> result a self-driving vehicle would be limited to impulsive accelerations >>> and very quick braking. The short reaction times, in addition to >>> causing excessive wear and tear, could be fatally dangerous. >> >> Except of course if there were more than one car in which case they >> could communicate and share traffic data. >> >>> >>> But self-driving cars are another great techno-gimmick and that's >>> all that matters to the marketdroids that run most corporations. >>> >> Translation: They are rubbish because I'll never be able to afford to >> own one. >> >> Self driving cars are the future. They are already being trialled in a >> city near me, I'm looking forward to trying one. >> > > It is not the future in the US, because the people will not allow it. > It will be child's play for any politician to campaign against such > lunacy, and the end result will be that no state in the US will permit > driverless cars. > > Now the military will of course have this tech, because it makes sense > to have supply vehicles that don't expose humans to IED dangers, as well > as drone tanks, robot soldiers, etc. And that is the whole point of > this type of research. Pretty much the point in a nutshell. The military only have one more hurdle to cross and that is with AI in robots. I hope it never gets there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 09:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nu4nu0$jrb$3@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> |
| In reply to | #376547 |
On 17/10/2016 21:32, deplorable owl wrote: > Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >> On 17/10/2016 18:43, fr314159@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-4, ronb wrote: >>> >>>> "concept of >>>> self-driving cars" >>>> >>> >>> The self-driving car is one of the most idiotic ideas to emerge >>> anywhere. >>> >>> There is no way that I would ever allow myself to be transported >>> by such a self-driving vehicle. >>> >>> My approach to driving is simple. I never allow my car, and with >>> it my body, to move into an area where my eyes haven't already been >>> 10 seconds previously. This is known as "anticipatory" or "defensive" >>> driving, and a self-driving vehicle could not ever accomplish the same. >> >> All round radar, distance sensors have a far better idea of what's going >> on than your feeble brain could take in. Have you never driven an E >> Class Mercedes with DISTRONIC? Oh silly me, you are a Linux user, you >> can probably only afford a bike. >> >>> >>> Especially in moderate to heavy traffic, a self-driving car could >>> not scan the road thousands or even hundreds of feet ahead. As a >>> result a self-driving vehicle would be limited to impulsive accelerations >>> and very quick braking. The short reaction times, in addition to >>> causing excessive wear and tear, could be fatally dangerous. >> >> Except of course if there were more than one car in which case they >> could communicate and share traffic data. >> >>> >>> But self-driving cars are another great techno-gimmick and that's >>> all that matters to the marketdroids that run most corporations. >>> >> Translation: They are rubbish because I'll never be able to afford to >> own one. >> >> Self driving cars are the future. They are already being trialled in a >> city near me, I'm looking forward to trying one. >> > > It is not the future in the US, because the people will not allow it. > It will be child's play for any politician to campaign against such > lunacy, and the end result will be that no state in the US will permit > driverless cars. The US is already turning into a backward, bigoted and insular country. If Trump gets in (God forbid), it will just get worse. > Now the military will of course have this tech, because it makes sense > to have supply vehicles that don't expose humans to IED dangers, as well > as drone tanks, robot soldiers, etc. And that is the whole point of > this type of research. They already have much of this tech fool. The battlefield and the highway are entirely different.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 12:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hjgaud093.gau44@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #376585 |
Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: > On 17/10/2016 21:32, deplorable owl wrote: >> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>> On 17/10/2016 18:43, fr314159@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-4, ronb wrote: >>>> >>>>> "concept of >>>>> self-driving cars" >>>>> >>>> >>>> The self-driving car is one of the most idiotic ideas to emerge >>>> anywhere. >>>> >>>> There is no way that I would ever allow myself to be transported >>>> by such a self-driving vehicle. >>>> >>>> My approach to driving is simple. I never allow my car, and with >>>> it my body, to move into an area where my eyes haven't already been >>>> 10 seconds previously. This is known as "anticipatory" or "defensive" >>>> driving, and a self-driving vehicle could not ever accomplish the same. >>> >>> All round radar, distance sensors have a far better idea of what's going >>> on than your feeble brain could take in. Have you never driven an E >>> Class Mercedes with DISTRONIC? Oh silly me, you are a Linux user, you >>> can probably only afford a bike. >>> >>>> >>>> Especially in moderate to heavy traffic, a self-driving car could >>>> not scan the road thousands or even hundreds of feet ahead. As a >>>> result a self-driving vehicle would be limited to impulsive accelerations >>>> and very quick braking. The short reaction times, in addition to >>>> causing excessive wear and tear, could be fatally dangerous. >>> >>> Except of course if there were more than one car in which case they >>> could communicate and share traffic data. >>> >>>> >>>> But self-driving cars are another great techno-gimmick and that's >>>> all that matters to the marketdroids that run most corporations. >>>> >>> Translation: They are rubbish because I'll never be able to afford to >>> own one. >>> >>> Self driving cars are the future. They are already being trialled in a >>> city near me, I'm looking forward to trying one. >>> >> >> It is not the future in the US, because the people will not allow it. >> It will be child's play for any politician to campaign against such >> lunacy, and the end result will be that no state in the US will permit >> driverless cars. > > The US is already turning into a backward, bigoted and insular country. What does that fantasy have to do with driverless cars? > If Trump gets in (God forbid), it will just get worse. > When Trump gets in. > >> Now the military will of course have this tech, because it makes sense >> to have supply vehicles that don't expose humans to IED dangers, as well >> as drone tanks, robot soldiers, etc. And that is the whole point of >> this type of research. > > They already have much of this tech fool. The battlefield and the > highway are entirely different. > Battlefields make use of highways, moron. War takes place in the real world, not some fold-out game board. There will never be driverless cars on American highways. Maybe over there on Loon Island you tards will have them. You already drive on the wrong side of the road after all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 15:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nu5biv$qi7$1@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> |
| In reply to | #376603 |
On 18/10/2016 13:58, deplorable owl wrote: > Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >> On 17/10/2016 21:32, deplorable owl wrote: >>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>> On 17/10/2016 18:43, fr314159@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-4, ronb wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "concept of >>>>>> self-driving cars" >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The self-driving car is one of the most idiotic ideas to emerge >>>>> anywhere. >>>>> >>>>> There is no way that I would ever allow myself to be transported >>>>> by such a self-driving vehicle. >>>>> >>>>> My approach to driving is simple. I never allow my car, and with >>>>> it my body, to move into an area where my eyes haven't already been >>>>> 10 seconds previously. This is known as "anticipatory" or "defensive" >>>>> driving, and a self-driving vehicle could not ever accomplish the same. >>>> >>>> All round radar, distance sensors have a far better idea of what's going >>>> on than your feeble brain could take in. Have you never driven an E >>>> Class Mercedes with DISTRONIC? Oh silly me, you are a Linux user, you >>>> can probably only afford a bike. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Especially in moderate to heavy traffic, a self-driving car could >>>>> not scan the road thousands or even hundreds of feet ahead. As a >>>>> result a self-driving vehicle would be limited to impulsive accelerations >>>>> and very quick braking. The short reaction times, in addition to >>>>> causing excessive wear and tear, could be fatally dangerous. >>>> >>>> Except of course if there were more than one car in which case they >>>> could communicate and share traffic data. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> But self-driving cars are another great techno-gimmick and that's >>>>> all that matters to the marketdroids that run most corporations. >>>>> >>>> Translation: They are rubbish because I'll never be able to afford to >>>> own one. >>>> >>>> Self driving cars are the future. They are already being trialled in a >>>> city near me, I'm looking forward to trying one. >>>> >>> >>> It is not the future in the US, because the people will not allow it. >>> It will be child's play for any politician to campaign against such >>> lunacy, and the end result will be that no state in the US will permit >>> driverless cars. >> >> The US is already turning into a backward, bigoted and insular country. > > > What does that fantasy have to do with driverless cars? > > >> If Trump gets in (God forbid), it will just get worse. >> > > When Trump gets in. > >> >>> Now the military will of course have this tech, because it makes sense >>> to have supply vehicles that don't expose humans to IED dangers, as well >>> as drone tanks, robot soldiers, etc. And that is the whole point of >>> this type of research. >> >> They already have much of this tech fool. The battlefield and the >> highway are entirely different. >> > > Battlefields make use of highways, moron. War takes place in the real > world, not some fold-out game board. There will never be driverless > cars on American highways. Maybe over there on Loon Island you tards > will have them. You already drive on the wrong side of the road after > all. > ROFL! Clearly you have never seen a war zone outside of the cinema.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 14:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hjague93.g8ai3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #376617 |
Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: > On 18/10/2016 13:58, deplorable owl wrote: >> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>> On 17/10/2016 21:32, deplorable owl wrote: >>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>>> On 17/10/2016 18:43, fr314159@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-4, ronb wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "concept of >>>>>>> self-driving cars" >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The self-driving car is one of the most idiotic ideas to emerge >>>>>> anywhere. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no way that I would ever allow myself to be transported >>>>>> by such a self-driving vehicle. >>>>>> >>>>>> My approach to driving is simple. I never allow my car, and with >>>>>> it my body, to move into an area where my eyes haven't already been >>>>>> 10 seconds previously. This is known as "anticipatory" or "defensive" >>>>>> driving, and a self-driving vehicle could not ever accomplish the same. >>>>> >>>>> All round radar, distance sensors have a far better idea of what's going >>>>> on than your feeble brain could take in. Have you never driven an E >>>>> Class Mercedes with DISTRONIC? Oh silly me, you are a Linux user, you >>>>> can probably only afford a bike. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Especially in moderate to heavy traffic, a self-driving car could >>>>>> not scan the road thousands or even hundreds of feet ahead. As a >>>>>> result a self-driving vehicle would be limited to impulsive accelerations >>>>>> and very quick braking. The short reaction times, in addition to >>>>>> causing excessive wear and tear, could be fatally dangerous. >>>>> >>>>> Except of course if there were more than one car in which case they >>>>> could communicate and share traffic data. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But self-driving cars are another great techno-gimmick and that's >>>>>> all that matters to the marketdroids that run most corporations. >>>>>> >>>>> Translation: They are rubbish because I'll never be able to afford to >>>>> own one. >>>>> >>>>> Self driving cars are the future. They are already being trialled in a >>>>> city near me, I'm looking forward to trying one. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is not the future in the US, because the people will not allow it. >>>> It will be child's play for any politician to campaign against such >>>> lunacy, and the end result will be that no state in the US will permit >>>> driverless cars. >>> >>> The US is already turning into a backward, bigoted and insular country. >> >> >> What does that fantasy have to do with driverless cars? >> >> >>> If Trump gets in (God forbid), it will just get worse. >>> >> >> When Trump gets in. >> >>> >>>> Now the military will of course have this tech, because it makes sense >>>> to have supply vehicles that don't expose humans to IED dangers, as well >>>> as drone tanks, robot soldiers, etc. And that is the whole point of >>>> this type of research. >>> >>> They already have much of this tech fool. The battlefield and the >>> highway are entirely different. >>> >> >> Battlefields make use of highways, moron. War takes place in the real >> world, not some fold-out game board. There will never be driverless >> cars on American highways. Maybe over there on Loon Island you tards >> will have them. You already drive on the wrong side of the road after >> all. >> > > ROFL! Clearly you have never seen a war zone outside of the cinema. Moron. Armies and their supply lines have always used existing roadways and rail lines where possible. You really are clueless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 16:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nu5dhf$35s$1@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> |
| In reply to | #376622 |
On 18/10/2016 15:54, deplorable owl wrote: > Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >> On 18/10/2016 13:58, deplorable owl wrote: >>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>> On 17/10/2016 21:32, deplorable owl wrote: >>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 17/10/2016 18:43, fr314159@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-4, ronb wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "concept of >>>>>>>> self-driving cars" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The self-driving car is one of the most idiotic ideas to emerge >>>>>>> anywhere. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is no way that I would ever allow myself to be transported >>>>>>> by such a self-driving vehicle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My approach to driving is simple. I never allow my car, and with >>>>>>> it my body, to move into an area where my eyes haven't already been >>>>>>> 10 seconds previously. This is known as "anticipatory" or "defensive" >>>>>>> driving, and a self-driving vehicle could not ever accomplish the same. >>>>>> >>>>>> All round radar, distance sensors have a far better idea of what's going >>>>>> on than your feeble brain could take in. Have you never driven an E >>>>>> Class Mercedes with DISTRONIC? Oh silly me, you are a Linux user, you >>>>>> can probably only afford a bike. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Especially in moderate to heavy traffic, a self-driving car could >>>>>>> not scan the road thousands or even hundreds of feet ahead. As a >>>>>>> result a self-driving vehicle would be limited to impulsive accelerations >>>>>>> and very quick braking. The short reaction times, in addition to >>>>>>> causing excessive wear and tear, could be fatally dangerous. >>>>>> >>>>>> Except of course if there were more than one car in which case they >>>>>> could communicate and share traffic data. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But self-driving cars are another great techno-gimmick and that's >>>>>>> all that matters to the marketdroids that run most corporations. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Translation: They are rubbish because I'll never be able to afford to >>>>>> own one. >>>>>> >>>>>> Self driving cars are the future. They are already being trialled in a >>>>>> city near me, I'm looking forward to trying one. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is not the future in the US, because the people will not allow it. >>>>> It will be child's play for any politician to campaign against such >>>>> lunacy, and the end result will be that no state in the US will permit >>>>> driverless cars. >>>> >>>> The US is already turning into a backward, bigoted and insular country. >>> >>> >>> What does that fantasy have to do with driverless cars? >>> >>> >>>> If Trump gets in (God forbid), it will just get worse. >>>> >>> >>> When Trump gets in. >>> >>>> >>>>> Now the military will of course have this tech, because it makes sense >>>>> to have supply vehicles that don't expose humans to IED dangers, as well >>>>> as drone tanks, robot soldiers, etc. And that is the whole point of >>>>> this type of research. >>>> >>>> They already have much of this tech fool. The battlefield and the >>>> highway are entirely different. >>>> >>> >>> Battlefields make use of highways, moron. War takes place in the real >>> world, not some fold-out game board. There will never be driverless >>> cars on American highways. Maybe over there on Loon Island you tards >>> will have them. You already drive on the wrong side of the road after >>> all. >>> >> >> ROFL! Clearly you have never seen a war zone outside of the cinema. > > Moron. Armies and their supply lines have always used existing > roadways and rail lines where possible. You really are clueless. > Yup, they are cleared and level, patrolled so no IEDs. At the front, transport lines are the first to go to impede the advancing army. Not much point having your drone tanks and "Robot Soldiers" at the back!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 15:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hjague993.ha9@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #376625 |
Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: > On 18/10/2016 15:54, deplorable owl wrote: >> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>> On 18/10/2016 13:58, deplorable owl wrote: >>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>>> On 17/10/2016 21:32, deplorable owl wrote: >>>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 17/10/2016 18:43, fr314159@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-4, ronb wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "concept of >>>>>>>>> self-driving cars" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The self-driving car is one of the most idiotic ideas to emerge >>>>>>>> anywhere. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is no way that I would ever allow myself to be transported >>>>>>>> by such a self-driving vehicle. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My approach to driving is simple. I never allow my car, and with >>>>>>>> it my body, to move into an area where my eyes haven't already been >>>>>>>> 10 seconds previously. This is known as "anticipatory" or "defensive" >>>>>>>> driving, and a self-driving vehicle could not ever accomplish the same. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All round radar, distance sensors have a far better idea of what's going >>>>>>> on than your feeble brain could take in. Have you never driven an E >>>>>>> Class Mercedes with DISTRONIC? Oh silly me, you are a Linux user, you >>>>>>> can probably only afford a bike. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Especially in moderate to heavy traffic, a self-driving car could >>>>>>>> not scan the road thousands or even hundreds of feet ahead. As a >>>>>>>> result a self-driving vehicle would be limited to impulsive accelerations >>>>>>>> and very quick braking. The short reaction times, in addition to >>>>>>>> causing excessive wear and tear, could be fatally dangerous. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Except of course if there were more than one car in which case they >>>>>>> could communicate and share traffic data. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But self-driving cars are another great techno-gimmick and that's >>>>>>>> all that matters to the marketdroids that run most corporations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translation: They are rubbish because I'll never be able to afford to >>>>>>> own one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Self driving cars are the future. They are already being trialled in a >>>>>>> city near me, I'm looking forward to trying one. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It is not the future in the US, because the people will not allow it. >>>>>> It will be child's play for any politician to campaign against such >>>>>> lunacy, and the end result will be that no state in the US will permit >>>>>> driverless cars. >>>>> >>>>> The US is already turning into a backward, bigoted and insular country. >>>> >>>> >>>> What does that fantasy have to do with driverless cars? >>>> >>>> >>>>> If Trump gets in (God forbid), it will just get worse. >>>>> >>>> >>>> When Trump gets in. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Now the military will of course have this tech, because it makes sense >>>>>> to have supply vehicles that don't expose humans to IED dangers, as well >>>>>> as drone tanks, robot soldiers, etc. And that is the whole point of >>>>>> this type of research. >>>>> >>>>> They already have much of this tech fool. The battlefield and the >>>>> highway are entirely different. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Battlefields make use of highways, moron. War takes place in the real >>>> world, not some fold-out game board. There will never be driverless >>>> cars on American highways. Maybe over there on Loon Island you tards >>>> will have them. You already drive on the wrong side of the road after >>>> all. >>>> >>> >>> ROFL! Clearly you have never seen a war zone outside of the cinema. >> >> Moron. Armies and their supply lines have always used existing >> roadways and rail lines where possible. You really are clueless. >> > > Yup, they are cleared and level, patrolled so no IEDs. At the front, > transport lines are the first to go to impede the advancing army. Not > much point having your drone tanks and "Robot Soldiers" at the back! Are you trying to morph into Snit? You used to take your beatings like a man. This new you is unbecoming.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 16:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nu5ej2$6o5$1@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> |
| In reply to | #376626 |
On 18/10/2016 16:10, deplorable owl wrote: > Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >> On 18/10/2016 15:54, deplorable owl wrote: >>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>> On 18/10/2016 13:58, deplorable owl wrote: >>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 17/10/2016 21:32, deplorable owl wrote: >>>>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 17/10/2016 18:43, fr314159@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-4, ronb wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "concept of >>>>>>>>>> self-driving cars" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The self-driving car is one of the most idiotic ideas to emerge >>>>>>>>> anywhere. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is no way that I would ever allow myself to be transported >>>>>>>>> by such a self-driving vehicle. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My approach to driving is simple. I never allow my car, and with >>>>>>>>> it my body, to move into an area where my eyes haven't already been >>>>>>>>> 10 seconds previously. This is known as "anticipatory" or "defensive" >>>>>>>>> driving, and a self-driving vehicle could not ever accomplish the same. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All round radar, distance sensors have a far better idea of what's going >>>>>>>> on than your feeble brain could take in. Have you never driven an E >>>>>>>> Class Mercedes with DISTRONIC? Oh silly me, you are a Linux user, you >>>>>>>> can probably only afford a bike. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Especially in moderate to heavy traffic, a self-driving car could >>>>>>>>> not scan the road thousands or even hundreds of feet ahead. As a >>>>>>>>> result a self-driving vehicle would be limited to impulsive accelerations >>>>>>>>> and very quick braking. The short reaction times, in addition to >>>>>>>>> causing excessive wear and tear, could be fatally dangerous. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Except of course if there were more than one car in which case they >>>>>>>> could communicate and share traffic data. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But self-driving cars are another great techno-gimmick and that's >>>>>>>>> all that matters to the marketdroids that run most corporations. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Translation: They are rubbish because I'll never be able to afford to >>>>>>>> own one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Self driving cars are the future. They are already being trialled in a >>>>>>>> city near me, I'm looking forward to trying one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is not the future in the US, because the people will not allow it. >>>>>>> It will be child's play for any politician to campaign against such >>>>>>> lunacy, and the end result will be that no state in the US will permit >>>>>>> driverless cars. >>>>>> >>>>>> The US is already turning into a backward, bigoted and insular country. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What does that fantasy have to do with driverless cars? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> If Trump gets in (God forbid), it will just get worse. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When Trump gets in. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Now the military will of course have this tech, because it makes sense >>>>>>> to have supply vehicles that don't expose humans to IED dangers, as well >>>>>>> as drone tanks, robot soldiers, etc. And that is the whole point of >>>>>>> this type of research. >>>>>> >>>>>> They already have much of this tech fool. The battlefield and the >>>>>> highway are entirely different. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Battlefields make use of highways, moron. War takes place in the real >>>>> world, not some fold-out game board. There will never be driverless >>>>> cars on American highways. Maybe over there on Loon Island you tards >>>>> will have them. You already drive on the wrong side of the road after >>>>> all. >>>>> >>>> >>>> ROFL! Clearly you have never seen a war zone outside of the cinema. >>> >>> Moron. Armies and their supply lines have always used existing >>> roadways and rail lines where possible. You really are clueless. >>> >> >> Yup, they are cleared and level, patrolled so no IEDs. At the front, >> transport lines are the first to go to impede the advancing army. Not >> much point having your drone tanks and "Robot Soldiers" at the back! > > Are you trying to morph into Snit? You used to take your beatings like > a man. This new you is unbecoming. Clearly you have lost the argument because instead of debating the subject, you turn to attacking the author.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 15:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <asdjhguv903.ae8@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #376627 |
Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: > On 18/10/2016 16:10, deplorable owl wrote: >> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>> On 18/10/2016 15:54, deplorable owl wrote: >>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>>> On 18/10/2016 13:58, deplorable owl wrote: >>>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 17/10/2016 21:32, deplorable owl wrote: >>>>>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 17/10/2016 18:43, fr314159@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-4, ronb wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "concept of >>>>>>>>>>> self-driving cars" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The self-driving car is one of the most idiotic ideas to emerge >>>>>>>>>> anywhere. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There is no way that I would ever allow myself to be transported >>>>>>>>>> by such a self-driving vehicle. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My approach to driving is simple. I never allow my car, and with >>>>>>>>>> it my body, to move into an area where my eyes haven't already been >>>>>>>>>> 10 seconds previously. This is known as "anticipatory" or "defensive" >>>>>>>>>> driving, and a self-driving vehicle could not ever accomplish the same. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All round radar, distance sensors have a far better idea of what's going >>>>>>>>> on than your feeble brain could take in. Have you never driven an E >>>>>>>>> Class Mercedes with DISTRONIC? Oh silly me, you are a Linux user, you >>>>>>>>> can probably only afford a bike. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Especially in moderate to heavy traffic, a self-driving car could >>>>>>>>>> not scan the road thousands or even hundreds of feet ahead. As a >>>>>>>>>> result a self-driving vehicle would be limited to impulsive accelerations >>>>>>>>>> and very quick braking. The short reaction times, in addition to >>>>>>>>>> causing excessive wear and tear, could be fatally dangerous. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Except of course if there were more than one car in which case they >>>>>>>>> could communicate and share traffic data. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But self-driving cars are another great techno-gimmick and that's >>>>>>>>>> all that matters to the marketdroids that run most corporations. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Translation: They are rubbish because I'll never be able to afford to >>>>>>>>> own one. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Self driving cars are the future. They are already being trialled in a >>>>>>>>> city near me, I'm looking forward to trying one. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is not the future in the US, because the people will not allow it. >>>>>>>> It will be child's play for any politician to campaign against such >>>>>>>> lunacy, and the end result will be that no state in the US will permit >>>>>>>> driverless cars. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The US is already turning into a backward, bigoted and insular country. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What does that fantasy have to do with driverless cars? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> If Trump gets in (God forbid), it will just get worse. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When Trump gets in. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now the military will of course have this tech, because it makes sense >>>>>>>> to have supply vehicles that don't expose humans to IED dangers, as well >>>>>>>> as drone tanks, robot soldiers, etc. And that is the whole point of >>>>>>>> this type of research. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They already have much of this tech fool. The battlefield and the >>>>>>> highway are entirely different. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Battlefields make use of highways, moron. War takes place in the real >>>>>> world, not some fold-out game board. There will never be driverless >>>>>> cars on American highways. Maybe over there on Loon Island you tards >>>>>> will have them. You already drive on the wrong side of the road after >>>>>> all. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ROFL! Clearly you have never seen a war zone outside of the cinema. >>>> >>>> Moron. Armies and their supply lines have always used existing >>>> roadways and rail lines where possible. You really are clueless. >>>> >>> >>> Yup, they are cleared and level, patrolled so no IEDs. At the front, >>> transport lines are the first to go to impede the advancing army. Not >>> much point having your drone tanks and "Robot Soldiers" at the back! >> >> Are you trying to morph into Snit? You used to take your beatings like >> a man. This new you is unbecoming. > > Clearly you have lost the argument because instead of debating the > subject, you turn to attacking the author. > My objecting to your strawman of supply lines out front and armies at the rear is not "attacking the author." What happened to your implied claim that highways and battlefields only meet in the "cinema"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 16:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nu5fnt$bjh$1@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> |
| In reply to | #376629 |
On 18/10/2016 16:34, deplorable owl wrote: > Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >> On 18/10/2016 16:10, deplorable owl wrote: >>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>> On 18/10/2016 15:54, deplorable owl wrote: >>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 18/10/2016 13:58, deplorable owl wrote: >>>>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 17/10/2016 21:32, deplorable owl wrote: >>>>>>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 17/10/2016 18:43, fr314159@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-4, ronb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "concept of >>>>>>>>>>>> self-driving cars" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The self-driving car is one of the most idiotic ideas to emerge >>>>>>>>>>> anywhere. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There is no way that I would ever allow myself to be transported >>>>>>>>>>> by such a self-driving vehicle. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> My approach to driving is simple. I never allow my car, and with >>>>>>>>>>> it my body, to move into an area where my eyes haven't already been >>>>>>>>>>> 10 seconds previously. This is known as "anticipatory" or "defensive" >>>>>>>>>>> driving, and a self-driving vehicle could not ever accomplish the same. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All round radar, distance sensors have a far better idea of what's going >>>>>>>>>> on than your feeble brain could take in. Have you never driven an E >>>>>>>>>> Class Mercedes with DISTRONIC? Oh silly me, you are a Linux user, you >>>>>>>>>> can probably only afford a bike. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Especially in moderate to heavy traffic, a self-driving car could >>>>>>>>>>> not scan the road thousands or even hundreds of feet ahead. As a >>>>>>>>>>> result a self-driving vehicle would be limited to impulsive accelerations >>>>>>>>>>> and very quick braking. The short reaction times, in addition to >>>>>>>>>>> causing excessive wear and tear, could be fatally dangerous. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Except of course if there were more than one car in which case they >>>>>>>>>> could communicate and share traffic data. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But self-driving cars are another great techno-gimmick and that's >>>>>>>>>>> all that matters to the marketdroids that run most corporations. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Translation: They are rubbish because I'll never be able to afford to >>>>>>>>>> own one. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Self driving cars are the future. They are already being trialled in a >>>>>>>>>> city near me, I'm looking forward to trying one. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is not the future in the US, because the people will not allow it. >>>>>>>>> It will be child's play for any politician to campaign against such >>>>>>>>> lunacy, and the end result will be that no state in the US will permit >>>>>>>>> driverless cars. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The US is already turning into a backward, bigoted and insular country. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What does that fantasy have to do with driverless cars? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If Trump gets in (God forbid), it will just get worse. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When Trump gets in. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now the military will of course have this tech, because it makes sense >>>>>>>>> to have supply vehicles that don't expose humans to IED dangers, as well >>>>>>>>> as drone tanks, robot soldiers, etc. And that is the whole point of >>>>>>>>> this type of research. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They already have much of this tech fool. The battlefield and the >>>>>>>> highway are entirely different. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Battlefields make use of highways, moron. War takes place in the real >>>>>>> world, not some fold-out game board. There will never be driverless >>>>>>> cars on American highways. Maybe over there on Loon Island you tards >>>>>>> will have them. You already drive on the wrong side of the road after >>>>>>> all. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ROFL! Clearly you have never seen a war zone outside of the cinema. >>>>> >>>>> Moron. Armies and their supply lines have always used existing >>>>> roadways and rail lines where possible. You really are clueless. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yup, they are cleared and level, patrolled so no IEDs. At the front, >>>> transport lines are the first to go to impede the advancing army. Not >>>> much point having your drone tanks and "Robot Soldiers" at the back! >>> >>> Are you trying to morph into Snit? You used to take your beatings like >>> a man. This new you is unbecoming. >> >> Clearly you have lost the argument because instead of debating the >> subject, you turn to attacking the author. >> > > My objecting to your strawman of supply lines out front and armies at > the rear is not "attacking the author." What happened to your implied > claim that highways and battlefields only meet in the "cinema"? > You seem to have lost the plot. Have a re-read of the thread and have another try.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deplorable owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 15:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hjagud03.ga3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #376631 |
Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: > On 18/10/2016 16:34, deplorable owl wrote: >> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>> On 18/10/2016 16:10, deplorable owl wrote: >>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>>> On 18/10/2016 15:54, deplorable owl wrote: >>>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 18/10/2016 13:58, deplorable owl wrote: >>>>>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 17/10/2016 21:32, deplorable owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 17/10/2016 18:43, fr314159@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-4, ronb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "concept of >>>>>>>>>>>>> self-driving cars" >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The self-driving car is one of the most idiotic ideas to emerge >>>>>>>>>>>> anywhere. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There is no way that I would ever allow myself to be transported >>>>>>>>>>>> by such a self-driving vehicle. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> My approach to driving is simple. I never allow my car, and with >>>>>>>>>>>> it my body, to move into an area where my eyes haven't already been >>>>>>>>>>>> 10 seconds previously. This is known as "anticipatory" or "defensive" >>>>>>>>>>>> driving, and a self-driving vehicle could not ever accomplish the same. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> All round radar, distance sensors have a far better idea of what's going >>>>>>>>>>> on than your feeble brain could take in. Have you never driven an E >>>>>>>>>>> Class Mercedes with DISTRONIC? Oh silly me, you are a Linux user, you >>>>>>>>>>> can probably only afford a bike. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Especially in moderate to heavy traffic, a self-driving car could >>>>>>>>>>>> not scan the road thousands or even hundreds of feet ahead. As a >>>>>>>>>>>> result a self-driving vehicle would be limited to impulsive accelerations >>>>>>>>>>>> and very quick braking. The short reaction times, in addition to >>>>>>>>>>>> causing excessive wear and tear, could be fatally dangerous. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Except of course if there were more than one car in which case they >>>>>>>>>>> could communicate and share traffic data. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But self-driving cars are another great techno-gimmick and that's >>>>>>>>>>>> all that matters to the marketdroids that run most corporations. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Translation: They are rubbish because I'll never be able to afford to >>>>>>>>>>> own one. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Self driving cars are the future. They are already being trialled in a >>>>>>>>>>> city near me, I'm looking forward to trying one. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is not the future in the US, because the people will not allow it. >>>>>>>>>> It will be child's play for any politician to campaign against such >>>>>>>>>> lunacy, and the end result will be that no state in the US will permit >>>>>>>>>> driverless cars. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The US is already turning into a backward, bigoted and insular country. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What does that fantasy have to do with driverless cars? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If Trump gets in (God forbid), it will just get worse. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When Trump gets in. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now the military will of course have this tech, because it makes sense >>>>>>>>>> to have supply vehicles that don't expose humans to IED dangers, as well >>>>>>>>>> as drone tanks, robot soldiers, etc. And that is the whole point of >>>>>>>>>> this type of research. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> They already have much of this tech fool. The battlefield and the >>>>>>>>> highway are entirely different. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Battlefields make use of highways, moron. War takes place in the real >>>>>>>> world, not some fold-out game board. There will never be driverless >>>>>>>> cars on American highways. Maybe over there on Loon Island you tards >>>>>>>> will have them. You already drive on the wrong side of the road after >>>>>>>> all. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ROFL! Clearly you have never seen a war zone outside of the cinema. >>>>>> >>>>>> Moron. Armies and their supply lines have always used existing >>>>>> roadways and rail lines where possible. You really are clueless. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yup, they are cleared and level, patrolled so no IEDs. At the front, >>>>> transport lines are the first to go to impede the advancing army. Not >>>>> much point having your drone tanks and "Robot Soldiers" at the back! >>>> >>>> Are you trying to morph into Snit? You used to take your beatings like >>>> a man. This new you is unbecoming. >>> >>> Clearly you have lost the argument because instead of debating the >>> subject, you turn to attacking the author. >>> >> >> My objecting to your strawman of supply lines out front and armies at >> the rear is not "attacking the author." What happened to your implied >> claim that highways and battlefields only meet in the "cinema"? >> > > You seem to have lost the plot. Have a re-read of the thread and have > another try. I'll get right on it, Snit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 11:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0975c3b6-b197-4599-87a7-ed74d5532c47@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #376631 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 9:40:03 AM UTC-6, Desk Rabbit wrote: > On 18/10/2016 16:34, deplorable owl wrote: > > Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: > >> On 18/10/2016 16:10, deplorable owl wrote: > >>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: > >>>> On 18/10/2016 15:54, deplorable owl wrote: > >>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On 18/10/2016 13:58, deplorable owl wrote: > >>>>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 17/10/2016 21:32, deplorable owl wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 17/10/2016 18:43, fr314159@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-4, ronb wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> "concept of > >>>>>>>>>>>> self-driving cars" > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The self-driving car is one of the most idiotic ideas to emerge > >>>>>>>>>>> anywhere. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> There is no way that I would ever allow myself to be transported > >>>>>>>>>>> by such a self-driving vehicle. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> My approach to driving is simple. I never allow my car, and with > >>>>>>>>>>> it my body, to move into an area where my eyes haven't already been > >>>>>>>>>>> 10 seconds previously. This is known as "anticipatory" or "defensive" > >>>>>>>>>>> driving, and a self-driving vehicle could not ever accomplish the same. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> All round radar, distance sensors have a far better idea of what's going > >>>>>>>>>> on than your feeble brain could take in. Have you never driven an E > >>>>>>>>>> Class Mercedes with DISTRONIC? Oh silly me, you are a Linux user, you > >>>>>>>>>> can probably only afford a bike. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Especially in moderate to heavy traffic, a self-driving car could > >>>>>>>>>>> not scan the road thousands or even hundreds of feet ahead. As a > >>>>>>>>>>> result a self-driving vehicle would be limited to impulsive accelerations > >>>>>>>>>>> and very quick braking. The short reaction times, in addition to > >>>>>>>>>>> causing excessive wear and tear, could be fatally dangerous. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Except of course if there were more than one car in which case they > >>>>>>>>>> could communicate and share traffic data. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> But self-driving cars are another great techno-gimmick and that's > >>>>>>>>>>> all that matters to the marketdroids that run most corporations. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Translation: They are rubbish because I'll never be able to afford to > >>>>>>>>>> own one. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Self driving cars are the future. They are already being trialled in a > >>>>>>>>>> city near me, I'm looking forward to trying one. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> It is not the future in the US, because the people will not allow it. > >>>>>>>>> It will be child's play for any politician to campaign against such > >>>>>>>>> lunacy, and the end result will be that no state in the US will permit > >>>>>>>>> driverless cars. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The US is already turning into a backward, bigoted and insular country. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> What does that fantasy have to do with driverless cars? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If Trump gets in (God forbid), it will just get worse. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> When Trump gets in. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Now the military will of course have this tech, because it makes sense > >>>>>>>>> to have supply vehicles that don't expose humans to IED dangers, as well > >>>>>>>>> as drone tanks, robot soldiers, etc. And that is the whole point of > >>>>>>>>> this type of research. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> They already have much of this tech fool. The battlefield and the > >>>>>>>> highway are entirely different. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Battlefields make use of highways, moron. War takes place in the real > >>>>>>> world, not some fold-out game board. There will never be driverless > >>>>>>> cars on American highways. Maybe over there on Loon Island you tards > >>>>>>> will have them. You already drive on the wrong side of the road after > >>>>>>> all. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ROFL! Clearly you have never seen a war zone outside of the cinema. > >>>>> > >>>>> Moron. Armies and their supply lines have always used existing > >>>>> roadways and rail lines where possible. You really are clueless. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Yup, they are cleared and level, patrolled so no IEDs. At the front, > >>>> transport lines are the first to go to impede the advancing army. Not > >>>> much point having your drone tanks and "Robot Soldiers" at the back! > >>> > >>> Are you trying to morph into Snit? You used to take your beatings like > >>> a man. This new you is unbecoming. > >> > >> Clearly you have lost the argument because instead of debating the > >> subject, you turn to attacking the author. > >> > > > > My objecting to your strawman of supply lines out front and armies at > > the rear is not "attacking the author." What happened to your implied > > claim that highways and battlefields only meet in the "cinema"? > > > > You seem to have lost the plot. Have a re-read of the thread and have > another try. I just read it... you made an ill conceived statement and now you're trying to pretend you didn't by shining the light elsewhere. We've seen enough of that from crackhead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 15:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nu81be$2a2$1@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> |
| In reply to | #376655 |
On 18/10/2016 19:41, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 9:40:03 AM UTC-6, Desk Rabbit wrote: >> On 18/10/2016 16:34, deplorable owl wrote: >>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>> On 18/10/2016 16:10, deplorable owl wrote: >>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 18/10/2016 15:54, deplorable owl wrote: >>>>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 18/10/2016 13:58, deplorable owl wrote: >>>>>>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 17/10/2016 21:32, deplorable owl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/10/2016 18:43, fr314159@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:04:46 PM UTC-4, ronb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "concept of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-driving cars" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The self-driving car is one of the most idiotic ideas to emerge >>>>>>>>>>>>> anywhere. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no way that I would ever allow myself to be transported >>>>>>>>>>>>> by such a self-driving vehicle. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My approach to driving is simple. I never allow my car, and with >>>>>>>>>>>>> it my body, to move into an area where my eyes haven't already been >>>>>>>>>>>>> 10 seconds previously. This is known as "anticipatory" or "defensive" >>>>>>>>>>>>> driving, and a self-driving vehicle could not ever accomplish the same. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> All round radar, distance sensors have a far better idea of what's going >>>>>>>>>>>> on than your feeble brain could take in. Have you never driven an E >>>>>>>>>>>> Class Mercedes with DISTRONIC? Oh silly me, you are a Linux user, you >>>>>>>>>>>> can probably only afford a bike. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Especially in moderate to heavy traffic, a self-driving car could >>>>>>>>>>>>> not scan the road thousands or even hundreds of feet ahead. As a >>>>>>>>>>>>> result a self-driving vehicle would be limited to impulsive accelerations >>>>>>>>>>>>> and very quick braking. The short reaction times, in addition to >>>>>>>>>>>>> causing excessive wear and tear, could be fatally dangerous. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Except of course if there were more than one car in which case they >>>>>>>>>>>> could communicate and share traffic data. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But self-driving cars are another great techno-gimmick and that's >>>>>>>>>>>>> all that matters to the marketdroids that run most corporations. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Translation: They are rubbish because I'll never be able to afford to >>>>>>>>>>>> own one. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Self driving cars are the future. They are already being trialled in a >>>>>>>>>>>> city near me, I'm looking forward to trying one. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is not the future in the US, because the people will not allow it. >>>>>>>>>>> It will be child's play for any politician to campaign against such >>>>>>>>>>> lunacy, and the end result will be that no state in the US will permit >>>>>>>>>>> driverless cars. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The US is already turning into a backward, bigoted and insular country. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What does that fantasy have to do with driverless cars? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If Trump gets in (God forbid), it will just get worse. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When Trump gets in. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now the military will of course have this tech, because it makes sense >>>>>>>>>>> to have supply vehicles that don't expose humans to IED dangers, as well >>>>>>>>>>> as drone tanks, robot soldiers, etc. And that is the whole point of >>>>>>>>>>> this type of research. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> They already have much of this tech fool. The battlefield and the >>>>>>>>>> highway are entirely different. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Battlefields make use of highways, moron. War takes place in the real >>>>>>>>> world, not some fold-out game board. There will never be driverless >>>>>>>>> cars on American highways. Maybe over there on Loon Island you tards >>>>>>>>> will have them. You already drive on the wrong side of the road after >>>>>>>>> all. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ROFL! Clearly you have never seen a war zone outside of the cinema. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron. Armies and their supply lines have always used existing >>>>>>> roadways and rail lines where possible. You really are clueless. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yup, they are cleared and level, patrolled so no IEDs. At the front, >>>>>> transport lines are the first to go to impede the advancing army. Not >>>>>> much point having your drone tanks and "Robot Soldiers" at the back! >>>>> >>>>> Are you trying to morph into Snit? You used to take your beatings like >>>>> a man. This new you is unbecoming. >>>> >>>> Clearly you have lost the argument because instead of debating the >>>> subject, you turn to attacking the author. >>>> >>> >>> My objecting to your strawman of supply lines out front and armies at >>> the rear is not "attacking the author." What happened to your implied >>> claim that highways and battlefields only meet in the "cinema"? >>> >> >> You seem to have lost the plot. Have a re-read of the thread and have >> another try. > > I just read it... you made an ill conceived statement and now you're trying to pretend you didn't by shining the light elsewhere. We've seen enough of that from crackhead. > Where? What did I say that you think was wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web